The Bush League Of Nations: The Coalition Of The Unwilling, The Bullied And The Bribed: The Gop's War On Iraq And America

The Bush League of Nations Also by James A. Swanson Engineering Your Start-Up: A Guide for the High-Tech Entrepreneur...

Author: James A. Swanson

46 downloads 653 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Bush League of Nations

Also by James A. Swanson Engineering Your Start-Up: A Guide for the High-Tech Entrepreneur (second edition—Michael L. Baird, co-author)

The Bush League of Nations The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed— The GOP’s War on Iraq and America

James A. Swanson

Copyright © James A. Swanson, 2008. All rights reserved. Published by CreateSpace Publishing Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-438211-95-3 ISBN: 978-1-4382-1195-4 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book. The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and punishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted materials. Your support of the author’s rights is appreciated.

Dedication and Dead–ication Dedication This book is dedicated to the Dixie Chicks: Natalie Maines, Martie Maguire and Emily Robison. “Six Strong Hands on the Steering Wheel”

Dead-ication This book is dead–icated to the Dixie Chickens: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. “Six Wrong Hands on the Steering Wheel” RIP: January 20, 2009—or earlier, God and the U.S. Congress willing.

Contents Introduction

i

PART I The Road to American Imperialism

1

1.

Asleep at the Wheel An Historic Opportunity Squandered

3

2.

A Just War vs. Just War Hard Power, Soft Power and Stupid Power

27

3.

Afghanistan Losing the Just War

41

4.

The Unjust War in Iraq Christianity is Bombing in Iraq

51

PART II The Bush League of Nations

89

5.

The Bush League of Nations A Web of Deceit for the Gullible

91

6.

Members of the Bush League of Nations Lost in the Wilderness—A Leader Without Followers

123

7.

Private Military Contractors Making a Killing in Iraq

153

PART III Bush, the GOP and Bush League Religion

165

8.

The Religious Wrong Creating the Neo-Jesus—Pro-Rich and Pro-War

167

9.

Eschatology and The Book of Revelation Weapons of Mass Deception on the Road to Armageddon

195

10.

A Call to Christians and Other People of Faith Don’t Give Up—Embrace Your Faith and Continue Your Faith Journey

211

PART IV The GOP’s War on America 11.

12.

The GOP’s War on America’s Workers, the Poor and Disadvantaged Of the Rich, By the Rich, For the Rich The GOP’s Bankruptcy of America Living from Grandchild’s Paycheck to Grandchild’s Paycheck

PART V Tools of the Trade 13.

An Outlaw Presidency—From Crimes Against Humanity to the Rape of the U.S. Constitution The George Orwell Party (GOP) at Work

223 225 265

295 297

14.

Fear Mongering Chickenhawk Lies, Lies and More Lies

311

15.

Puppetry in the White House A Blind Man in a Roomful of Deaf People

321

16.

Control and Bullying of the Media America’s Corporate Media—Right, But Not Correct

333

17.

Treason, Electoral Fraud—Anything to Maintain Power The Most Insidious of Traitors

351

18.

Corruption in America and Iraq—GOP Style Profiles in Corruption

365

PART VI Out of the Wilderness

389

19.

Out of the Wilderness—Three Plans Blessed Are the Peacemakers

391

I. Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan II. Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan III. A 6-Point Plan to Support America’s Troops

393 397 399

Appendix A: A Doubleheader—Impeach Bush and Cheney

401

Index

407

Introduction SIDEBAR: San Jose Mercury News, Letter to the Editor, March 25, 2003— “Replacing the U.N.” “Charles Krauthammer (Opinion, March 21, 2003) recommends that the United States turn its back on the United Nations. He asserts, ‘The Security Council is nothing more than the victory coalition of 1945. That was six decades ago. Let a new structure be born out of the Iraq coalition. Maybe it will acquire a name, maybe it won’t.’ Well, let me suggest a name. Let’s call it the Bush League of Nations.” —Jim Swanson, Los Altos George W. Bush is surprisingly articulate and engaging when he discusses baseball. He loves the game, and he speaks about it with passion, confidence and even some knowledge. This is in sharp contrast to the way he thinks and talks about virtually any other topic—to which the label bush league applies perfectly. SIDEBAR: Definitions bush league (noun)—a league of teams (especially baseball teams) that are not part of a major league. bush-league, or bush (adjective)—amateur, unprofessional, not of the highest sophistication or quality. bush, also “bush league”—“an amateur play or behavior.” (From a list of common baseball terms at MLB.com, the official website of Major League Baseball) Bush League of Nations—The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed in Iraq. Noah Webster slams George W. Bush and the Bush League of Nations: “Never have an American president and his policies been so aptly named.”1 Note: The Oxford English Dictionary cites bush league’s first use in baseball as 1906, and its first non-baseball use as 1914. On August 26, 2001—less than three weeks before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (9/11)—Bush attended the Little League Baseball World Series, the first sitting president to do so. Earlier in the year he also spent some vacation time at the NCAA Division I College World Series in Omaha, Nebraska. In retrospect, it would have been better if Bush had spent more time—even a few minutes between innings—trying to protect America from terrorist attacks such as 9/11, and less time: 1

Just kidding. Noah Webster, the author of America’s first dictionary, died in 1843.

THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS

ii • • • •

watching baseball, vacationing,2 pushing massive tax cuts for the Super Rich, turning the White House into a parsonage and pulpit exclusively for rightwing Christians,3 • scheming about ways to milk the U.S. government (versus thinking about how to improve its performance), and • scheming how best to get the United States to invade and occupy Iraq. Following 9/11 Bush greatly reduced the amount of time he spent at baseball games. Appearances do count. SIDEBAR: The Real League of Nations The League of Nations (1920-46), formed in the aftermath of World War I, was intended to promote international security and peace throughout the world. President Woodrow Wilson was the most prominent supporter of the League, and he passionately pushed for the United States to join and support it. However, after many months of intense public debate and lobbying by groups with widely varying views, congressional approval was lacking, and the United States never joined. This failure of the United States to join the League of Nations was a key reason the League ultimately failed in its central mission of resolving disputes peacefully and avoiding another world war. Within one generation after World War I the world again was inflamed in another world war, this one even more deadly than the first. Other reasons for the League of Nation’s failure included: • the desire of each major power to go its own unfettered way; • difficulty in achieving consensus among the member states, especially when the interests of the major powers were involved; • reluctance of member nations to embrace collective security versus pursuing their own individual interests; • the lack of any military capability on the part of the League; • a weakening caused by the GOP Great Depression; • a disrespect for international law; and • the fact that the nations defeated in World War I were not consulted about the League’s structure and powers.

2

From his inauguration to 9/11, Bush spent more than 40% of his time on vacation. Average American workers—Joe and Sally Lunchpail—typically get only two weeks of vacation per year, and frequently they can’t take any vacation during the first year of employment. “W” does not stand for “worker” or “work” or “workaholic.” 3 Regarding White House activities, constitutional scholars agree that Bush’s “presidential pandering in the pulpit and parsonage” is 666 times greater a threat to America’s constitutional protections—including freedom of religion, and separation of church and state—than Monica Lewinsky’s “presidential pants pulling and peter pumping.”

INTRODUCTION

iii

In short, the League suffered from an incomplete roster of members and lacked the necessary ingredients—mutual trust, shared objectives, political courage and military power—to achieve its purposes. Upon the creation of the United Nations at the end of World War II, the League of Nations was officially disbanded. In the run-up to World War II the world community, including the League of Nations, was unable to prevent major imperial powers from invading and occupying weak nations—exactly the vulnerable position of Iraq in 2003—that had done nothing to justify invasion and occupation, other than having something an imperial power wanted. Specifically, Japan under Emperor Hirohito invaded Manchuria in 1931, Italy under Benito Mussolini attacked Ethiopia in 1935, and Germany under Adolph Hitler annexed Austria in 1938 and invaded Poland in 1939. The vast majority of the rest of the world opposed these military actions, but their opinions and “votes” did not count. In each case the big bully did what it wanted—supported by the “patriotic” cheering of its domestic propaganda media—and the rest is history. Unfortunately, history repeats itself. Welcome to Bush World. The Bush League of Nations was doomed to failure, just as the League of Nations was in the run-up to World War II, and in both cases the United States is the central cause of the failure, but for different reasons. The Bush League of Nations is the polar opposite of the League of Nations. The League of Nations was a noble international effort to promote peace and prosperity for the entire world. The Bush League of Nations is a charade run by the United States, the world’s one remaining superpower—of, by, and for itself—to remold the world into a structure that’s the dream of its delusional, rightwing, unilateralist, antidemocratic, militaristic neoconservatives, sometimes called neocons, the term we use in this book. Perhaps you prefer loonies or conservatives or wackos. Yes, “W” stands for many things, including “wacko.” The League of Nations failed as an organization largely because the United States was not a member. The Bush League of Nations is a failure because the United States—led by that international pariah, George W. Bush—is the organization. As was the case with the great powers during the time of the League of Nations, a great power—the United States—is now making its own way, by waging war in Iraq, without any pretense that it is a just war necessary for self-defense or the defense of any other nation. In waging this unnecessary war—a war at the top of the neocon agenda many years before 9/11—Bush greatly damaged America’s credibility, values and influence, and he undercut America’s moral right to object when other rogue nations misbehave. America lost far more than what the neocons had hoped to gain in their wildest faith-based fantasies. The Bush League of Nations is a charade created for tens of millions of gullible American voters. In this Machiavellian sense, it was hugely successful. The charade helped the neocons successfully accomplish their initial goal—control of Iraq and its

iv


resources—by illegally using the American military to invade and occupy that nation, and the war hysteria helped Bush win reelection in 2004. The Republican Party (GOP) that controlled Congress enthusiastically supported the charade every step of the way, and in doing so, it put the GOP stamp of approval on it. Bush’s war on Iraq is the GOP’s war on Iraq. It is the worst foreign policy disaster in America’s history, and Bush and the GOP must be held accountable for it. After the horrendous 9/11 attacks on America, Bush had the opportunity to lead the world and become one of the most successful American statesmen of all time. Unfortunately, he chose poorly and executed poorly, and became the most hated person on Earth. September 11 was a severe body blow to all Americans. However, Bush— through ideological, faith-based, no-critical-thinking-allowed policies and decisions—delivered America an even more severe blow, a low blow that will cause America and the world many more deaths and much more damage over the years than bin Laden and all the bin Laden wannabes could have imagined possible. As the most effective recruiter for terrorists and other enemies of America, Bush has made the job of future American presidents incredibly more difficult, and although some of the enormous havoc he wrought can be reversed with years of effort, much of the damage is permanent. The immediate impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney from office is the best first step America can take to heal itself. Protection of America’s Constitution and democracy demands it. During the Cold War, when America made a mistake—and every nation makes mistakes—America nevertheless looked good in comparison to the dictatorial empire of the Soviet Union. However, as the only remaining superpower, America is now rightly viewed more closely and skeptically, and it should and must hold itself to higher standards. Unfortunately, Bush dropped America’s standards into a Bush League sewer, and it will take a long time and much work by others to clean up the toxic and lethal mess. Invading a country simply because we want to and can is arrogance run amok and is not going to cut it as a viable American strategy in the 21st century. Unfortunately for America, Bush and the GOP became the new standard for arrogance.4 Although it belatedly became obvious to most of America what was long ago obvious to the world—namely that America’s King George III is wearing no clothes— Bush’s arrogance and self-delusion continued unabated. Prior to the invasion of Iraq—which the GOP and the neocons predicted would be a cakewalk, a glorious quick victory for which they alone would reap the glory and the booty—Bush and his neocons gleefully heaped disrespect and scorn on the United Nations and NATO. Bush’s message to the United Nations, NATO and the rest of the world was the same words that Dick “Shooter” Cheney spat at a U.S. senator on the floor of the U.S. Senate: “Go fuck yourself.” With their testosterone levels thus cranked up, the Bush neocons then proceeded to Iraq and did exactly that to themselves. Such bi4

During the campaign before the 2000 presidential election, the main feature of Bush’s almost nonexistent foreign policy was his statement that if America were “humble,” other nations would respect us. Well, he said it right then, and his words are still apt today. Bush correctly recognized that to be humble is not to be weak. Unfortunately, he forgot his own words, and he and America lost their way.

INTRODUCTION

v

zarre self-indulgent group activity by Bush’s cocooned circle of jerks might have been acceptable if confined to its individual deviant participants, but it wasn’t, and they gave their biggest screwing not to themselves, but to America, Iraq and the world. Since everyone makes mistakes, including rightwing Christians, one might have expected many sincere Christian apologies from Bush regarding his Iraq lies, distortions and blunders. In Christian theology, repentance is not simply saying, “I’m sorry,” but rather it requires a sincere turning around of one’s life, which is necessary before one can receive forgiveness. But, no, Bush never repents for anything. Far short of true repentance, he never even says he’s sorry, and he never truly admits making a mistake. These are not characteristics of a true Christian. Repentance and personal responsibility were never part of Bush’s education. When Bush did one of his 180-degree turns and went hat in hand back to the international community—with that bewildered “How did I get here?” look on his face, much like that of a hooked, flip-flopping, wiggling walleyed5 pike finding itself in the bottom of a fishing boat—Bush’s incredible condescending message to the United Nations and NATO was that they now had the responsibility to clean up his mess. It was a message right out of “Alice in Wonderland.” “Bush League of Nations,” as used in this book, refers specifically to that socalled Coalition of the Willing created by George W. Bush in 2003 to invade and occupy Iraq. During the initial phases of the 2003 Iraq invasion, while the U.S. military was doing a superb job in the rush to Baghdad, Bush’s easy-chair, never-served-in-themilitary neocons were busy pumping out their chests and making “You’re next!” threats against other nations in the region, especially Syria and Iran. Fortunately, additional sham coalitions by Bush beyond the Iraq disaster appear unlikely for many reasons. First, we are now involved in two unfinished wars that are part of Bush’s and the GOP’s legacy of “Mission Not Accomplished.” Rather than properly fighting and winning one just war and one just peace—the war and peace in Afghanistan—the civilian bomb-and-go Bushies mis-seized the moment and jumped into Iraq, their primary target after all. Carpe diem became “crapa diem.” This catastrophic blunder made it much more difficult for America and its allies to prosecute and win the war in Afghanistan, let alone to seriously attempt the huge long-term job of helping Afghanis build a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan, a nation-building function for which the Bush bombers and their GOP enablers have neither heart nor aptitude. Second, although it is doubtful Bush and his cloistered neocons learned any useful lessons from their unfortunate encounters with reality in Iraq, America’s citizenry and perhaps even America’s Big Media will be less likely to cheerlead such folly the next time around. Third, America has run out of troops for additional battlegrounds, and Bush and the GOP do not have the backbone to implement a military draft. This effectively precludes Bush from also invading and occupying Iran—a nation three times the size 5

Yes, “W” also means “wiggling walleyed.”

vi


of Iraq, with four times the population, and much more united against any U.S. intervention—although it does not rule out other Bush folly such as a catastrophic air campaign against Iran, which is something he might do in a heartbeat—without a plan and without concern about the consequences—if he thought it would somehow miraculously give himself even a one percent chance of having a positive “legacy” when he finally slithers out of the White House. Curiously, when Bush threatens this or that nation, he seems to enjoy saying that all military options remain on the table. However, his folly in Iraq has handcuffed America’s military and reduced America’s military options should another war break out, whether just or not. In the meantime, the so-called “war on terrorism”—a misleading fear-mongering slogan used to justify anything and everything—gives Bush several political advantages, including the stifling of dissent and the creation of a false façade of a “tough president.” More important, the “war on terrorism” provides distraction and cover for the Bush administration as it relentlessly pushes its domestic political agenda of doing everything possible for the Super Rich, while it panders to the extreme Christian right. On behalf of the neo-GOP, Bush proudly carries two banners: • Banner No. 1: “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich” • Banner No. 2: “The Prince of War—Pandering Warmonger for the Religious Right” It is precisely these two banners that make Bush and the GOP unfit to lead a global war on terrorism. These two banners represent their War on America and their War on the World.6 Regarding international coalitions, for example, why would any nation or people trust Bush enough to support his Bush League of Nations in a major league way? Why would poor oppressed people living under dictators rally behind a man who represents the Super Rich and whose extended family is Exhibit A for crony capitalism? Why would oppressed Muslims anywhere in the world trust this rightwing Christian crusader who knows you are going to Hell unless you convert to his particular flavor of rightwing political Christianity, and who enjoys sleepovers at his Texas ranch with Super Rich princes of Saudi Arabia, the most vile and dangerous dictatorship in the Middle East? Why would workers and the unemployed in Iraq expect anything good from this two-Americas man who joyfully stiffs America’s working class and America’s poor so that he can give unprecedented tax breaks and advantages, even during war, to the Super Rich, large corporations and his donating cronies? A natural divider, Bush has done more than any other president to divide the world and to divide America. His two banners gained him millions of votes at home and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, but they cost America billions of “votes” internationally. Thanks to Bush, America lost the moral high ground and lost its way. 6

“W” also stands for both “War on America” and “War on the World.”

INTRODUCTION

vii

Bush’s two banners have also cost lower-and middle-income Americans dearly. It is class warfare in Bush’s America, and the Super Rich and the powerful have won. While giving massive tax cuts to the Super Rich and greatly expanding corporate welfare, Bush and the GOP—the Cons—have: • presided over the largest job destruction program since the GOP Great Depression; • cut and under funded dozens of programs that benefit low- and middleincome working Americans; • turned the largest budget surplus in history into the largest deficit ever; • put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid at risk; • greatly increased spending and bloated the size of the federal government to record levels; • increased pork-barrel spending and earmarks for crony contributors to record levels; • pursued a two-Americas strategy while greatly widening the chasm between the Super Rich and everyone else; • exploded the national debt to catastrophically dangerous levels; and • sent America on the road to bankruptcy and financial Armageddon. No president and no party have done more to damage generations of America’s unborn. Under the GOP’s reckless mismanagement, the United States lives not from paycheck to paycheck, but from grandchild’s paycheck to grandchild’s paycheck. Bush eschews critical thinking, fact-based analysis, inclusion of people with varying perspectives, and respectful debate. Living in an ideological cocoon, he is a weak puppet for Dick Cheney and a small circle of neocons and faith-based advisors who have taken groupthink and ideology to new lows. Regarding his plan to wage war on Iraq, Bush talked to God for direction rather than to his earthly father, the former American president who actually successfully created and led a legitimate coalition against Iraq in 1991. Bush’s weak leadership and childlike naiveté resulted in the sham Bush League of Nations invading Iraq in 2003—and the subsequent loss of that unjust war. Bush leads an unprecedented assault on religious freedom and separation of church and state in America. His elitist, warmongering, exclusionary approach to religion must get warm nods of approval from bin Laden, the Taliban and Iran’s dictatorial ayatollahs, except, of course, that they all disagree with his chosen brand of rightwing religion. Militant rightwing religions are like different brands of cigarettes—they all kill, and it matters little what particular brand you select as your cancer vehicle. America’s Religious Right abandoned the most essential principles of Christianity, especially: (1) Christ’s compassion for the poor and the outcast, and (2) Christ’s role as Prince of Peace. It turned Christianity upside down, to America’s and the world’s great loss. Mainstream Christians—including millions of evangelicals—are ashamed, as are people of other faiths in America and throughout the world. The world yearns for America to come to its senses. But America’s Prince of War, George W. Bush, like a Don Quixote at the head of a Bush League of Nations in nowhere land—except for the nuclear weapons, of course—blindly trudges on.

viii


SIDEBAR: Bush League Sportsmanship—Texas Style On Sunday, June 27, 2004, the University of Texas Longhorns college baseball team lost 3-2 to Cal State Fullerton, which gave the Titans a two-game sweep in the championship series of the 2004 NCAA Division I College World Series. The longfaced Longhorns—ranked number one for part of the season and heavily favored to win the championship series—were obviously disappointed. Texas coach Augie Garrido took the high road in talking about the game and his pride in the team. “I’m proud of them for the efforts they’ve made to do what’s right, in all environments…. I’m proud of them, and I think the university should be proud of them as well. They’ve represented the university, the State of Texas, the athletic department and themselves like champions.” Well, not exactly. Notwithstanding two requests from NCAA officials, the Longhorns and their coach refused to be part of the post-game trophy presentation, thus becoming the first team in 17 years to refuse to accept its second-place trophy and congratulate the winners. They also refused to give the media access to their locker room after the game, a violation of NCAA rules. These post-game antics created more controversy than the loss, and many fans questioned the team’s sportsmanship. There’s a nasty rumor—which I’m now starting—as to why the Longhorns couldn’t attend the awards ceremony: They had just received a congratulatory call from the White House regarding their win in the upcoming recount, with Bush explaining how votes—well, runs—scored by black Titans wouldn’t be counted. Bush said the Republican judges controlling the U.S. Supreme Court were standing by, just in case. Fortunately, the many liberal and progressive stars on the Longhorn team told Bush to take a hike. “We play by the rules—you should try that sometime.” The story has a happy ending. One year later, in 2005, the Longhorns once again won the NCAA title, fair and square, by the rules, between the lines. Definitely not Bush League. Of course, this book is not about a baseball game or the sport of baseball. Rather it is about war and peace, life and death, the decline of America’s democracy, and the decline of America on the world stage. We end this introduction with a call to action to America’s youth. One day your children and grandchildren may ask you what you did during this time of national crisis to help end the war on Iraq and restore America’s democracy and Constitution. We hope you’ll be able to say you tried your best. Make no mistake about it. The world and America are under attack by the worst presidency in America’s history, and every action by America’s citizenry, however large or small, truly counts. The occupation of Iraq must end immediately, and Bush and Cheney must be impeached and removed from office.

PART I The Road to American Imperialism

CHAPTER 1

Asleep at the Wheel An Historic Opportunity Squandered Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 On the morning of 9/11 (September 11, 2001), George W. Bush was reading a children’s book with a group of preschoolers at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Well, he wasn’t actually reading it—he was holding it. Bush’s thoughts were understandably elsewhere, as he was basking in the glow of the upcoming release of My Pet Goat—written by Dick Cheney in 2001—a thrilling biography of America’s 43rd president that focused on 43’s many heroic accomplishments during his upcoming administration. The official story of Bush’s meeting with the preschoolers was that he quickly left the room when informed of the 9/11 attacks and acted decisively throughout in fighting the war against terror, which was natural behavior for such a great leader of the free world. The official story changed later. Before entering the school Bush had been informed of a plane hitting the World Trade Center (WTC). He decided nevertheless to go ahead with the photo opportunity. Later informed of a second plane hitting the WTC, Bush incredibly sat bewildered with the children for another seven minutes, until someone suggested he leave. The press chose not to cover this incident—or, more accurately, they chose to cover it up. In the days and months ahead they were going to get countless opportunities to practice such cowardly, docile behavior. After all, America was “at war,” and it would be unpatriotic for journalists to think critically and independently, to ask the obvious tough questions that had to be asked, and to tell the truth. The Bush Family Pass system was operating efficiently at top speed. America’s rightwing corporate media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, were competing for the coveted Pravda Prize. On the other hand, Fahrenheit 9/11, released in 2004 and strongly pointed, allowed viewers to see video of the incident and draw their own conclusions. “The

4


look on Bush’s face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting,” reported Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, in a review of the movie. In June 2004—almost three years after the 9/11 attacks—a partial report of the 9/11 Commission provided some additional information (but certainly not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.) Bush told the commission in closed-door testimony that he sat there in the school because “he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening.” What a peculiar statement. The most disturbing aspect is not really what Bush did or didn’t do in the first minutes. After all, most of the world knows Bush is an incompetent leader who is managed by a small circle of handlers who shield him from reality and critical thinking. No, what is most disturbing is the fawning willingness of America’s Big Media to filter and censor the news, bending over backwards and doing mental gymnastics—as good cheerleaders—to show Bush in a positive light, accepting uncritically whatever information the Bush administration shovels out of the corral, thereby abrogating the media’s essential independent role in America’s democracy.

An Historic Opportunity Squandered Virtually the entire world was horrified by the slaughter on September 11, 2001. The world was with us and behind us, ready to follow American’s lead in making the world a better and safer place for all the peoples of the world. Unfortunately, George W. Bush was at the helm, more or less, and he and his neocon team squandered this unprecedented historic opportunity. Theirs is the greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy. SIDEBAR: Bush’s Crusade In the days after 9/11, millions of people were astounded to hear the Bush administration describe its planned war against terrorism as a “crusade.” Also astounded, your author thought: “This is incredible. They’ve decided to make it a religious war against Islam. This is outrageously stupid, dangerous, and very much against American moral values and strategic interests. They must know something I don’t.” But the problem was that the Bush team knew and understood less. It never occurred to your author that the administration’s use of the word “crusade” was other that premeditated and intentional. Even later, with the benefit of hindsight, your author wanted to believe the administration spoke intentionally, because to believe otherwise would be to admit that the Bush team was far more ignorant about the world than generally thought. In a flip-flop, better known in Great Britain as a U-turn, the Bush administration correctly backed away from the “crusade” characterization.

CHAPTER 1 — ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL

5

But significant damage had already been done. The blunder added to Bush’s growing reputation in the world as a not-too-bright cowboy crusader against Islam, a reputation especially prevalent among the more than one billion Muslims in the world. In contrast, any British schoolchild would have known that Bush talking “crusade” after 9/11 was definitely stupid. Bush supporters argued that the use of the word “crusade” was merely a slip of the tongue, an innocent mistake that anyone could make. Unfortunately, the word “crusade” was used repeatedly, thus demonstrating an incredible lack of understanding by the Bush neocons as to the Islamic world and the tangled history of Christianity and Islam. It was one of countless gaffes that showcased the narrow groupthink of the Bush team. Yes, everyone makes slips of the tongue and minor mistakes. But suppose your auto mechanic tells you that your spare tire should be mounted on the steering wheel, or that transmission fluid goes in the radiator. These basic mistakes would not just be innocent slips of the tongue, but instead—like the “crusade mistake”—evidence of utter ignorance and gross incompetence. Other observers thought Bush was just throwing some raw red meat to millions of his supporters on the Religious Right who believe that a reduction in tension in the Holy Land—worst case, God forbid, that peace break out between Israel and the Palestinians—would interfere with God’s Plan for the end of the world by delaying the rapture, the Battle of Armageddon and the rest of their fantastic End Times schedule of biblical prophecy. In any case, from the first day, Bush got off on the wrong foot, and his false steps only worsened as time marched on, eventually causing much of the Muslim world to conclude that his regime in fact was engaged in a crusade against Islam. It did not have to be that way. On 9/11 virtually the entire world united behind America not only in sympathy but also in a sincere desire to find and punish the responsible criminals. The September 13, 2001, headline in France’s Le Monde read: “Nous sommes tous Americains” (“We are all Americans”). We had the sympathy and support of virtually every country, and poll after poll showed extremely positive attitudes towards the United States and Americans. Muslims throughout the world were appalled that members of the Islamic faith were the criminals behind 9/11. Bush had a golden opportunity to help end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, improve relations with Arab and Islamic nations throughout the world, and help spread democracy and social justice. He didn’t even try. NATO immediately met and on September 12, 2001, invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, calling on all NATO nations to treat the 9/11 attacks as attacks on each and every NATO nation. The United Nations quickly voted to support military action by the United States against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There was deep worldwide support for the use of overwhelming military force against al Qaeda and its ally, the Taliban, in Afghanistan, notwithstanding doubts about Bush’s appreciation of the critical strategic issues involved, as well as doubts

6


about his willingness to walk the entire difficult road ahead and make the majorleague commitment necessary to help build a new Afghanistan. History would show that the doubts about Bush were well placed. During the 2000 presidential campaign Bush indicated no appetite for nation building, and the years following 9/11—years of lost opportunity—demonstrated that he had neither the appetite nor the ability to nation build, whether in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or in America. The years of Bush’s presidency will be known as “the years that the locust hath eaten.” (Joel 2:25) SIDEBAR: President Nixon and New York City Additional secret Watergate tapes from the administration of GOP President Richard Nixon were made available to the public in December 2003. Nixon’s hateful statements in 1972 about New York City were among the most gut wrenching of the new revelations. “Goddamn New York,” he complains, noting that New York is filled with “Jews and Catholics and blacks and Puerto Ricans.” In chilling words, Nixon then says there is “a law of the jungle where some things don’t survive. Maybe New York shouldn’t survive. Maybe it should go through a cycle of destruction.” Among modern American leaders, Nixon and his vice president, Spiro Agnew, were the most divisive, corrupt and mean-spirited, that is, until Bush and Cheney galloped in from Texas. To Nixon’s credit, he inherited—versus created, although he greatly worsened—a war and divisive times, but poke-em-in-the-eye Bush intentionally created division at a time—following 9/11—when there was tremendous national and international unity, and, more important, a compelling need for cooperative action. Nixon’s lies and misdeeds leading to his threatened impeachment and resignation are miniscule compared to those of Bush. As for the large cash bribes taken by Agnew—which led to his resignation in disgrace—they are small beans compared to the “perfectly legal” loot gathered in by Cheney and his Halliburton cronies. Although Nixon’s Vietnam War policies ultimately failed, he does deserve credit for visiting and improving relations with the People’s Republic of China. In that effort, he was a statesman, something absent from Bush’s DNA. Before we take a closer look at how Bush and the GOP botched things so horribly first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, let’s pause briefly to reflect upon the Bush administration’s actions and inactions before 9/11 and its posture regarding truth and open government in the days following 9/11.

Asleep at the Wheel Several months before 9/11, at a terror conference in late February 2001, Ambassador Paul Bremer noted: “The new administration seems to be paying no attention to


7

the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident, and then suddenly say, ‘Oh, my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?’” These are not the words of a Bush hater. To the contrary, Bremer was later sent to Iraq by Bush, in May 2003, as Bush’s U.S. Presidential Envoy to Iraq, and one month later Bush appointed him to lead (as the Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance) the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that ran Iraq. The general threat of terrorism simply wasn’t on Bush’s agenda. Nor were specific threats from bin Laden and al Qaeda. The Clinton team, including its transition team, tried to get Bush to focus on bin Laden and other terrorist threats, but it was like talking to a man asleep at the wheel. In the eight months from Bush’s inauguration to 9/11, the Bush White House received dozens of warnings about bin Laden and al Qaeda, but the White House continued to snooze in its self-imposed “bubble.” On July 10, 2001, Condoleezza Rice received an urgent visit from then CIA chief George Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator, J. Cofer Black, who called the extraordinary “out of cycle” meeting to warn that a major terrorist attack was impending. (See Bob Woodward’s 2006 No. 1 best-selling book, State of Denial.) Recent mounting intelligence about an al Qaeda attack greatly worried Tenet. “It’s my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one.” Woodward reports that Rice gave them “the brush-off.” He quotes Black: “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.” Tenet gives a similar account of the extraordinary meeting in his 2007 book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. The former CIA chief writes that he had received intelligence that very day (July 10, two months before 9/11) about al Qaeda that “literally made my hair stand on end,” and that, after calling Rice’s office to demand an immediate meeting, he rushed to the White House with Black and a third person (an agent he did not identify.) Rice was advised that Bush should give the CIA new action authorities to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda. She was told there would be “a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months,” that it would be “spectacular,” and that, “[t]his country needs to go on a war footing now.” Even the alarming Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) of August 26, 2001, was ignored. Entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,” this daily summary given to the president, only 16 days before 9/11, specifically focused on the threat of al Qaeda hijacking airplanes and attacking the United States. More details about the handoff from Clinton to Bush came to light in July 2004. Clinton told the 9/11 Commission that he warned Bush, during a two-hour meeting before Bush took office, “by far your biggest threat is bin Laden and the al Qaeda.” Bush told the Commission he couldn’t recall this warning but that Clinton had emphasized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and North Korea. Let’s take a big leap of faith here and assume for the sake of argument that Bush, contrary to his character, was telling the truth—that he was warned about the IsraeliPalestinian conflict and Korea, but perhaps not about bin Laden and al Qaeda. The sad truth is that Bush demonstrated incompetence in handling all of these foreign policy problems.

8


As for the various feeble and incomplete 9/11 investigations, let’s return for a moment to Bob Woodward, who writes in State of Denial: The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.

Following 9/11 the Bush administration adopted a “Don’t Ask—Don’t Tell” defense regarding all 9/11 truth inquiries. It firmly opposed all proposed investigations into intelligence and policy failures that led up to 9/11, asserting that such investigations would be a distraction in the war on terrorism, and the GOP-controlled Congress actively conspired in the ongoing cover-up to keep the truth from the American people. As the various feeble investigations nevertheless went ahead, the Bush administration obstructed and stonewalled. Cheney and Bush refused to testify because they were “too busy,” but they flip-flopped later and agreed to appear provided they could do their Edgar Bergen and Charley McCarthy act, which they did. In another flipflop motivated by public indignation, the Bush administration finally agreed—after much stonewalling—that Condoleezza Rice would testify before the 9/11 Commission. One of the low points of Rice’s career was her testifying—in response to questions about specific threats from bin Laden and al Qaeda (including the “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” PDB warning just two weeks before 9/11)—that if someone had told her what to do, she would have done it! What a nice ducking of responsibility by the president’s National Security Advisor, whose role was to help set security policy and take action, not to be a grunt waiting passively for orders to follow. One rule in the Bush White House is that truth tellers get fired, while liars and sycophants get promoted. Accordingly, Bush promoted Rice to Secretary of State in 2005, a good example of the Peter Principle at work. SIDEBAR: 9/11—the Luckiest Day in Bush’s Life? Before September 11 most of the world viewed Bush as a not-so-bright, lazy Texas cowboy wannabe who hopefully would not cause too much damage. In his own faux words, he was “misunderestimated.” The enormous tide of sympathy and goodwill towards the United States caused by 9/11 handed Bush the opportunity to transform himself and his administration and lead the United States and the world in a sane, safer direction. September 11 became his defining moment and opportunity.


9

It could prove to be the luckiest day in his life: (1) if he could receive one more Bush Family Pass, one that would allow him to avoid personal responsibility for failing to recognize and address the al Qaeda threat and possibly prevent September 11; and (2) if he could somehow courageously and effectively lead the world in battling terrorism and building a safer world for all. On the first point, America’s media and most Americans gave the president the Bush Family Pass that he desired and had received so many times during his profligate life. Let bygones be bygones. Why look backward and learn lessons for the future? Why assess responsibility? Rather, let’s all be fearful together, forget the past, and go fight “evil.” The stonewalling and prevarication campaign of the Bush White House and the Republican-led Congress, coupled with America’s docile corporate media, buried the truth and bought Bush time to dodge responsibility. By comparison, it took the Bush administration only a few hours after 9/11 to: (1) conclude that bin Laden’s Saudi relatives then living in the United States had no information that might be helpful in identifying and finding the murderers of more than 3,000 people; and (2) whisk them out of the country and thus outside the reach of an American investigation. Regarding the second point—that Bush would courageously and effectively lead the world—Bush unfortunately earned only failing and incomplete grades. He massively bungled the job, squandered a unique historic opportunity to lead a sympathetic world on the high road, and instead left America and the world exposed to greater dangers and much more divided. Ironically, if the Bush administration had done a competent job before 9/11 focusing on bin Laden and al Qaeda and had actually prevented 9/11, then the principal excuse for the Iraq invasion would not have existed. More broadly stated, the incompetence of the Bush team in not adequately addressing the terrorist threats before 9/11 enabled them to show even greater incompetence in the war in Afghanistan, in the war on Iraq, and in the broader so-called war on terrorism.

The Neocons Let’s take a closer look at “the bad and the ugly.” We refer here of course to the neocons—the never-served-in-the-military, rightwing swashbucklers who, long before 9/11, dreamed up detailed plans to invade and occupy Iraq, with the broader goal of making the United States the dominant power in the region. Spreading freedom had nothing to do with it, at least not freedom for the Iraqi people. Of course, there would be freedom for an imperial America to control Iraq’s oil resources and run Iraq through a client government, and freedom of the Super Rich and crony capitalists to make a killing. The neocons, also called the Vulcans, believe that power is meant to be used. If you have power, you use it to grab whatever you want for yourself and your cronies, not to arrive at the greatest good for America or for the greatest number of people, not to protect individual rights and freedoms from the tyranny of the majority or a

10


powerful and privileged minority. Saddam was a charter member of this school of thought and could have co-authored the bloody neocon cookbook. The neocons should dedicate the new edition to him. Compromise is not on the agenda. Open honest debate of diverse perspectives is not permitted. Nor is the use of facts and expertise to arrive at the best decisions. The neocons’ ideology and groupthink is all that is needed. It is certain, and it sustains them, much like the prospect of enjoying unlimited sex with 72 virgins in Heaven sustains some extremist Islamic martyrs. Although the focus of this chapter is international, we note here that the Cheneydirected Bush administration also applied the same arrogant style domestically as it did internationally, by eschewing broad policy debates and compromise, by dividing to gain more power, by engaging in class warfare, and by transforming America to benefit the Super Rich. The following was written in the DNA of the neocons and the new GOP: “We control the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, we will take what we want. It is our due.” This Machiavellian style, because it has so little outside influence to check it, gives heightened meaning to the axiom that, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is arrogance rooted in ungrateful entitlement, and it ignores individual guarantees reflected in America’s Bill of Rights. Bush’s background—an aristocratic arrogant life of entitlement, devoid of responsibility and consequences—was a match made in Heaven for Cheney and the neocons. The Shiites in Iraq—with about 60% of the population—are natural supporters of this neocon philosophy of abusing power and taking “their due.” Civil war anyone? On the international side, the neocons themselves have openly used various revealing terms to refer to the worldwide American empire they want to create. One favorite is “Pax Americana,” which derives from “Pax Romana,” which refers to the Roman peace that was imposed on all the subjects and states in the Roman Empire. “Pax Britannia” is used in a similar fashion to describe the British colonial empire during its heyday. “Beneficent hegemony” and “benign dictatorship” are also close to the mark in describing the neocons’ lunatic vision. So is “Pox Americana.” So is the “Bush League of Nations.” At the core of the neocons’ imperial agenda is the rejection of cornerstone alliances and policies that had been supported for more than 65 years by all American presidents since the end of World War II: Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush’s father, and Clinton—but not Bush the Son. These alliances and policies, based on shared values and shared decisionmaking, ultimately prevailed over the Soviet Union, which finally collapsed of its own weight and decay, greatly helped by courageous Russian patriots like Mikhail Gorbachev, who charted a new direction for his country, and courageous liberal patriots like the Polish dockworkers. It didn’t hurt that Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” which it was. Forget NATO, even though the United States is its most important pillar and wields the most influence. Forget the United Nations, even though the United States has much more influence over it than any other nation, in addition to its veto power as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.


11

Act unilaterally and insult important allies and friends such as France and Germany. Behave like a spoiled bully and politicize everything. Lie, cheat, commit treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Claim to be Christian but act in a most unchristian manner whenever convenient. Know that might makes right. Know that the rules that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to the United States. At the center of neocon history is The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a rightwing, nonprofit, “think” tank that was formally created in 1997 when about 30 influential rightwing individuals signed its mission statement. It has operated as a magnet and garbage can for incestuous, wild-eyed influential individuals specializing in extreme rightwing political and military groupthink. Their greatest success was seizing control of the Bush White House. It was PNAC neocons who long before 9/11 wrote the delusional playbook for the invasion of Iraq. One would have little objection to any of these men or their fine fraternal order if they were engaged merely in Fantasy Baseball or drunken private parties that didn’t hurt anyone other than themselves. The problem is that they run the United States government and have been busy screwing America and the world. Their power was guaranteed when Dick Cheney—who in 2000 was tasked by Bush to choose Bush’s vice presidential running mate—picked himself to be the power behind the throne. The fox was in charge of the henhouse. Bush’s puppeteer had arrived. The name itself—The Project for the New American Century—says a mouthful and hints at its imperial nature. Is it possible that other nations and other peoples of the world might be a tad skeptical about this organization? Upon assuming the presidency in 2001, Bush quickly appointed more than a dozen PNAC members to key senior positions in his administration. This ensured a quixotic rightwing echo chamber in the White House, and, as they say, the rest is history. In addition to Cheney—a PNAC founder—the senior appointees from PNAC included Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense), Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Peter Rodman (Assistant Secretary of Defense), Zalmay Khalilzad (a special envoy for Afghanistan, and later U.S. Ambassador to Iraq), Richard Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State, who was one of several Bush underlings who leaked Valerie Plame’s CIA identity in the Plamegate scandal), John Bolton (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations), I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby (Cheney’s Chief of Staff, who resigned in October 2005 after being indicted by a grand jury, and who was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four of five counts—two counts for perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal investigators), and Robert Zoellick (Deputy Secretary of State.) If Bush had appointed a team of Iranian ayatollahs to his administration, rather than these PNAC ayatollahs, he would have inflicted much less damage on America. Several other influential rightwing politicians, editors and so-called defense experts also signed the PNAC’s mission statement, including Jeb Bush (later Governor of Florida), Steve Forbes (Forbes magazine), and William Kristol (editor of the extreme right propaganda magazine The Weekly Standard and regular political contributor to Fox News Channel.)

12


George W. Bush himself was not a member of the PNAC, nor was he a good candidate for membership, since he had no knowledge, interest or aptitude regarding defense matters or world affairs. However, when he later staggered into the presidency, his fine resume, including 25 years of college living, did make him clueless and malleable, the perfect soft clay for the “neo-con job.” When the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States was in the unique position of being the only superpower. The neocons saw this as a “unipolar” moment in history, i.e., the best and perhaps only chance for America to achieve permanent domination of the world through a Pax Americana, an analogue to the GOP’s domestic strategy of achieving permanent GOP control of America’s government. Paul Wolfowitz, who was then serving in the Defense Department in the administration of Bush’s father, wrote “Defense Planning Guidance,” a classified 1992 Pentagon document that was leaked to newspapers early that year. At its core, the paper outlined the opportunity and need for a new world order, something that could be realized through military force. Perhaps you are thinking this is a nightmare. Yes, it is, but you are not dreaming.

The Propaganda War Both before and after 9/11, the neocons running the Bush White House had three primary audiences to consider in their stubborn campaign to craft a case for an invasion and occupation of Iraq: • President Bush himself • The U.S. Congress and the American people • The rest of the world, including the United Nations and NATO The neocons had an incredibly easy job selling an Iraq war to Bush, due to his predisposition to this war and his many personal shortcomings, a few of which are discussed later in this book. Bush was, and remains, a weak pushover—a blank slate who became president without an independent foreign policy framework regarding Iraq, the Middle East, or the rest of the world—and his intellect and personality matched well those of the gullible, lazy, all-trusting puppet desired by his neocon handlers. All accounts indicate that Bush eagerly drank the neocon Kool-Aid. The yearsold plan to invade Iraq was much more grandiose than merely catching bin Laden, and it thus appealed to Bush’s dormant megalomania tendencies. Bush willingly entered the groupthink echo chamber—a rehabilitation center of sorts—where dissenting views and critical thinking are not allowed. As for the second audience to be swayed, it was harder, but still not very difficult, for the neocons to sell their bogus bill of goods to Congress and the American people. Lies and distortion, not facts and debate, were the weapons of choice in this campaign, coupled with the careful cultivation of fear following 9/11. America’s obsequious press, both wittingly and unwittingly, played an important supporting role by fanning the winds of war, not asking the hard questions, and acting as stenographers as they simply passed along to the world whatever propaganda the Bush administration was shoveling out of the corral. The New York Times is the most prominent member of America’s media that later apologized for their journalistic shortcomings. A cheerleading attitude ran through the rubber-stamping Congress, both


13

branches of which were controlled by the partisan, do-nothing-good, ask-noquestions, criminal-infested Republican Party (GOP). As for selling the Iraq war to the third audience, the rest of the world, the neocons had an impossible job, or, more accurately, they would have had an impossible job if they had really wanted to try, but they didn’t. As unilateralists, the neocons did not care what the rest of the world thought, and they relished letting the world know this. The neocons alone knew what was best, and by acting unilaterally the United States would reap for itself all the easy glory and the lion’s share of the oily spoils. Eventually, the neocon fantasy predictably collided with reality. By late 2004, after eighteen months of war in Iraq, the neocons were reeling from the mess they had created and were busy trying to figure out how to duck responsibility for the cleanup while somehow still grabbing the imperial benefits that drove them to Iraq in the first place. It was another “mission unaccomplished,” but the neocons—ideologues to the core—never admit to mistakes in policy or execution. Rather than apologizing for mistakes made and insults given, the Bush administration demanded that the United Nations and NATO clean up the Bush League mess in Iraq, asserting it was “their responsibility.” Thanks to unprecedented arrogance and incompetence, the vast majority of the world now despises Bush and his policies. Thanks to Bush, respect for America and trust in America are at all-time lows. The impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney from office is the single most important action Congress can take in the war on terrorism and in restoring America’s influence, credibility, power and values in the world. Likewise, voting out of office the senators and representatives who shielded Bush and Cheney is the single most important direct action American voters can take—second only to demanding the impeachment of America’s worst president and worst vice president ever. In the several months from Bush’s inauguration to 9/11 the Cheney-led neocons were busy stoking the fires for a war on Iraq. Iraq was their principal obsession, and it remains an open unanswerable question whether they could have successfully sold their Iraq war if the attacks of 9/11 had not occurred. But the question is moot, because 9/11 gave the giddy neocons just enough to hang their lies and deceit upon. To be clear, the enormous crimes committed on 9/11 did not diminish America’s strategic position one iota or alter in the slightest any balance of power in the world. To the contrary, 9/11 gave America the opportunity to enhance its position, reputation and influence in the world and emerge enormously stronger. America’s strategic position following 9/11 could only have been weakened by America’s missteps, and that’s where Bush came in. Bush ultimately has no one but himself to blame for the disasters during his watch. Yes, Bush received huge assists from the neocons and the GOP-controlled Congress, but even with only a rudimentary grounding in foreign affairs, he might have been able to understand some of the implications of the advice he was getting, to ask a few of the right questions, and to seek expert advice from others. He might have been able to hold his ground if he had had some firm ground to stand upon. But he didn’t. He simply did not know enough to be an effective leader, and he had no interest in learning. The world has known this cold reality for some time, but it has

14


been a longer painful journey for a majority of Americans to finally arrive at the same obvious conclusion. If Bush had served even a couple of years in some worthwhile public or private building effort overseas, he would have been much better prepared to do his job as president. But he chose to know virtually nothing about other nations and world affairs. He learned virtually nothing about the diverse, wonderful world outside America’s front door because during his spoiled indulgent life he simply had zero interest in going through that door and seeing the world for himself. Clueless as to the rich but challenging multi-dimensional reality of the world’s nations and peoples, he still believes the world is black and white—and flat. Yes, “W” also stands for “witless.” Bush thus brought to the White House a virtually blank foreign policy slate—a slate on which someone was going to write. Unfortunately, the neocons did the writing, notwithstanding the feeble efforts of a minority in Bush’s inner circle, principally Colin Powell, to stop them. SIDEBAR: Bush the Decider Bush prides himself on not reading newspapers. He summed it up nicely on September 21, 2003: “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.” In addition to inventing facts, Bush also invents words, such as decider. On April 18, 2006, while Bush was defending embattled Rumsfeld against the growing number of calls by retired American generals for Rumsfeld’s resignation, Bush was able to squeeze multiple Bushisms into two short sentences when he told reporters, “I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.” Truly weird. But wait a second. According to Wikipedia, there is one obscure definition of “decider,” as follows: “In computability theory, a machine that always halts—also called a decider (Sipser, 1996)—is any abstract machine or model of computation that, contrary to the most general Turing machines, is guaranteed to halt for any particular description and input (see halting problem).” Perhaps Bush intended to extend this “machine” definition of decider to himself, thus creating a second definition for decider, namely: “a dimwitted political leader who always halts and stops thinking when reaching a point where serious analysis is required.” The Bush clan long realized Bush was a cipher when it came to basic geography, let alone international relations and diplomacy. Therefore, in the late 1990s Condoleezza Rice visited Kennebunkport to tutor Bush in subjects best described as “Geography 101 For Dummies” and “Foreign Affairs 101 For Dummies.” By the way, if you aspire to be president of the United States, but don’t know or care much about


15

the world and foreign affairs, just email Condoleezza Rice and ask her to stay at your home and “school” you. An increasing number of Bush’s own supporters in Congress criticize him and his Iraq policies. These include Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a critic of Bush’s Iraq war, who said in May 2004 that Bush “must reach out. He must understand a bigger view, wider-lens view of the world. To essentially hold himself hostage to two or three key advisers and never reach beyond that is very dangerous for a president.” Hagel accused Bush of developing and running Iraq policy “in a vacuum.” It’s unclear whether Hagel was referring to that space in Bush’s cranium between his ears, but “vacuum” is certainly an apt metaphor. That would sum it up “in a nutshell.”

Reagan and Clinton Rejected the Neocons—Bush Follows Them Bush neocons liked to draw flattering comparisons between themselves and President Reagan. They hoped that some of Reagan’s undeserved luster would rub off on Bush, cover Bush’s numerous defects, and turn him into something he is not. However, the comparisons miss the mark by a mile. The battered and rusted Bush jalopy has flat tires and is off the road skidding wildly in the wrong direction. Bush is more or less “at the wheel,” but he ignores the GPS navigation system because he doesn’t understand it, and he is instead fearfully driving by the faith-based seat of his pants, which he has badly soiled. Both car and driver are last in the world NASCAR standings. Regrettably, none of America’s long-term friends are willing to jump on board and try to help—at least not while Bush is in the driver’s seat. Several of the Bush neocons—including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz—also served under Reagan. Fortunately, Reagan had enough personal strength and common sense to ultimately reject their advice, and to set his own reality-based course for America. In sharp contrast, Bush after 9/11 docilely acquiesced to his neocons, rarely asking tough questions and never seeking expert opinion. Yes, God works in mysterious ways. But so does the Devil. The Bush neocons mucked and stirred the “war-is-best” pot during the entire period from Reagan’s presidency through that of Clinton and into that of Bush. The neocons desperately wanted a hot war in Iraq and were fearful that a peaceful solution might emerge before they—or more accurately, America’s soldiers—started shooting. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and it would be a sin not to use it, especially if the fools and cowards calling the shots are not in harm’s way. Reagan wisely believed in hard power—and certainly a key goal of any American president is to ensure that U.S. military power remains head and shoulders above that of any potential adversary—but Reagan used it very infrequently and never once in a major way. Notwithstanding his image, Reagan’s actions were grounded in Harry Truman’s wisdom, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” Reagan believed in diplomacy. Reagan learned through experience that one of the easiest ways for a nation to reduce its power is to use it unnecessarily, unwisely or ineffectively. The Big Stick that is used rarely or not at all, but is visible to all and within easy reach, can project an enormous amount of power—typically more power that it exerts through actual use—but its power dissipates when it is used drunkenly. Unfortunately, Bush has

16


used America’s military power unnecessarily, unwisely and ineffectively—and drunkenly—especially in Iraq, and the world now looks at America’s Big Stick with much less awe and respect than it did following 9/11. America’s enemies, including terrorists and potential terrorists, now see inherent limitations and weaknesses in how America uses its Big Stick and have developed coping strategies, such as suicide bombings, roadside bombs, and guerilla warfare. They are rapidly evolving and improving their skills in the crucible known as Bush’s Iraq Civil War. This is bad enough in itself, of course, but things are much worse than that. Of much greater damage to America is the fact that Bush’s blunders effectively transferred much of the moral high ground from America to Islamic extremists and terrorists. Bush himself is the main character in their “See, we told you so!” propaganda campaign portraying America as the evil Satan. Thanks to Bush, countless tens of millions of peaceful Muslims who respected and liked America both before and after 9/11 have learned to hate America. SIDEBAR: October 23, 1983—Ronald Reagan’s 9/11 From a marketing perspective, bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists viewed Sunday, October 23, 1983, as the most significant date in their campaign against Western powers—that is, until the 9/11 attacks. October 23, 1983, was the day a Mercedes truck packed with high explosives drove into the four-story U.S. marine barracks in the marines’ compound at Beirut International airport and exploded, killing 220 marines and 21 other service personnel. For years terrorists hailed that attack as the best example of what could be accomplished against the world’s number one military power. That October 23 during Reagan’s watch was the deadliest day for the Marine Corps since the battle of Iwo Jima in February 1945. The U.S. marines were in Beirut in 1983 with good intentions as part of an international peacekeeping force, albeit without a clear mission, rules of engagement, or exit strategy. In another suicide truck bombing on the same date, approximately 60 French soldiers died when a 9-story building housing their paratroopers was destroyed. By the way, Lebanon is just one of many examples of France and America working together for peace. So don’t believe all the spiteful rightwing lies you hear about France. Vive la France! About six months earlier, on April 18, 1983, another attack by a suicide bomber in a van destroyed a portion of the American embassy in Beirut, killing more than 60 people, including 17 Americans. The disaster of October 23, 1983, taught Reagan a hard lesson about the haphazard use of military force, and it was one of the lowest points of his administration. Although he vowed that the terrible attack on the marine barracks “would not stand,” his main worry was to control the political fallout in his upcoming reelection campaign.


17

Accordingly, Reagan ordered a U.S. battleship to shell some random hills near Beirut, which was totally ineffective from a military perspective, although the U.S. media lapped it up, which really was the objective. A few months later, Reagan quietly ordered the marines to pull out of Lebanon, and thus the attacks on America’s marines in fact “did stand.” Reagan “cut and ran.” The timing of the U.S. invasion of hapless and defenseless Grenada on October 25, 1983—only two days after the killing of the 241 marines in Beirut—was, of course, merely a serendipitous coincidence that distracted attention from the Beirut disaster and demonstrated “Reagan’s strength.” At the beginning of his presidency in 1981, Reagan initially took a hard line with the Soviet Union. He accurately called it an “evil empire,” increased U.S. military spending, and temporarily broke off arms control talks with the Soviets. But it was Reagan’s use of soft power, not hard power, that reaped the biggest rewards. Later, near the end of his first term, Reagan, with urging from Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and other trusted non-neocon confidants, reopened arms control negotiations with the Soviet leaders and began building a relationship based on trust. In short, Reagan adopted a realist position, assuring Soviet leaders that the United States had no intention of starting a war with the Soviet Union and proposing that the two nations work together to reduce their nuclear arsenals and the risk of war. Reagan even proposed to Gorbachev in 1986 that all offensive nuclear ballistic missiles be eliminated within a decade—a proposal that drove the neocons “ballistic.” Reagan empowered realists like George Shultz to promote America’s interests through peace initiatives. Contrary to rightwing folklore, Reagan was not an aggressive “shoot-first” warrior when it came to dealing with the Soviet Union. Although he believed in a strong military, not one American soldier lost his or her life in combat with the Soviet Union during Reagan’s eight years as president. Not one. This greatly offended the warmongering neocons, dozens of whom later wedged their way into the Bush regime. Reagan—like Bush, Cheney and the neocons—never served in the active military. However—in sharp contrast to that neocon gang of artful dodgers—Reagan was not a warrior wannabe with a deep demented need to use America’s soldiers as pawns in a devil’s game of unjust illegal war. Reagan pursued peace through strength. Bush and the neo-GOP pursue weakness through war.7 Reagan helped nudge Gorbachev and the Soviet Union in the right direction— away from a rightwing totalitarian empire and toward an open, capitalistic, democratic state. He did this not by military action, but by speaking clearly and building personal rapport with his Soviet counterparts, and by pursuing a trust-based policy of

7

Yes, “W” also stands for “Weakness through War.”

18


rapprochement. Reagan the realist triumphed over the neocons who tried to pull his strings and wage war. The neocons in the Reagan administration—the same dangerous and incompetent fools who later manipulated Bush to create the mess in Iraq—opposed Reagan’s efforts to build trust and dialogue with the Soviet Union. Several of these neocons had served on the so-called “Team B” that, prior to Reagan’s presidency, had been appointed by Bush’s father when he was CIA director to assess and prepare a strategy different from that of the CIA. Team B opposed Reagan’s rapprochement policies and drew very black, erroneous conclusions about the Soviet Union and its intentions. Team B wrongly believed that the totalitarian Soviet regime would not change, that it was pursuing world domination through a massive military buildup, and that it was preparing to engage in a preemptive nuclear war against the West. The CIA later concluded that almost all of Team B’s assessments were wrong. Although Team B didn’t get what it wanted, it did get valuable practice in cooking the books and manufacturing faulty intelligence—skills that proved invaluable years later, during the run-up to Bush’s catastrophic invasion of Iraq, when neocon Paul Wolfowitz set up the novel Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to cherry pick and brew faux intelligence. Over time Reagan distanced himself from the neocons. He grew to distrust their advice and doomsday jargon about nuclear warheads and kill ratios. Reagan understood that war was not just a game of Bush League baseball. In pursuing peace, Reagan knew he had to win the confidence of the Soviet leaders, and he thus rejected the neocons and their dangerous nonsense. The neocons were wrong then—thank God Reagan knew it—and they were wrong again later when they manipulated Bush to order the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Even many years later, the neocons remained upset that there had been a cold end to the Cold War, and specifically that the United States and its allies had won it without firing a single shot or losing a single soldier in direct combat with the Soviet Union. The strong alliance led by the United States did this by continuing the containment policies followed by all American presidents since Harry Truman, waiting until the Soviet Union collapsed due to its internal weaknesses and rot. Fortunately, neither Reagan nor any other American president approved the neocons’ favored strategy of using military force to “roll back” the Soviet Union. The neocons continued to criticize Reagan after he left office, unhappy that the communist system was still in place. They preferred a hot war. Dick “Shooter” Cheney, who served as Secretary of Defense to Bush’ father, erroneously believed that Gorbachev would be replaced with a militaristic leader, leading to a resumption of the Cold War, and that Gorbachev’s liberal policy of glasnost (“an opening”) was just a trick. History repeated itself years later when Vice President Dick Shooter took command of the Bush White House and once again made wrong strategic judgments, spawned faulty intelligence, and cast his warmongering spell over the White House and the spineless GOP-controlled Congress. In addition to conning the American public, the Bush neocons also conned themselves. They began to believe their own propaganda that the Iraqi invasion and aftermath would be a cakewalk. A swift and decisive military victory, coupled with


19

cheering friendly crowds throughout Iraq, would cause the American public to forgive all the lies and crimes on the road to war. Bewildered and dazed by reality, however, the Bush neocons staggered and flip-flopped as they desperately tried to undo the horrendous damage they spawned in Iraq. Bush is no Reagan. He is no Truman, no Kennedy, and no Clinton. When Bush tries to play the Reagan part, he comes across as a bumbling inarticulate pretender, a caricature, an inept actor. Bush’s phrase “axis of evil” was intended to hark back to Reagan’s “evil empire,” but it was a silly nonsensical attempt to make Bush sound like Reagan. Imagine that—a foreign policy plan based on trying to make Bush sound like a Hollywood actor. Regarding Iraq, the neocons’ shoot-first DNA—coupled with their ideologicallydriven groupthink—prevented them from drawing any useful lessons from either America’s defeat in the hot war in Vietnam or America’s victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, clueless blank-slate Bush sat in the White House, and the Cheney-led neocons held all the chalk and were writing all the plans, in a bubble, without analysis or direction from America’s commander in chief or anyone else. The world hoped Bush would be equal to the challenges and opportunities presented by 9/11. He was not. Neither was the GOP that controlled all branches of the U.S. government. The world hoped Bush would discard his growing reputation as a not-too-bright, disengaged oilman and pretend-cowboy from Texas. He could not. The world hoped Bush would decisively take the high road and—based on a foundation of shared values and mutual respect—lead the world to a place of greater security, peace and prosperity. He did not. Instead Bush chose a low imperial road leading to the mirage of The Project for the New American Century, in which America would impose its will and have its way. Well, that was the general idea, but things didn’t quite work out right. The Bush neocons are sometimes called hawks or super-hawks, but many commentators prefer chickenhawks, which is more accurate. It is easy for a weakling8 to be a bully when the armed forces of the United States stand behind him or, well, in front of him. America needs a leader with backbone and values equal to that of its soldiers, but Bush falls miles short of that mark. The vast majority of America’s soldiers are patriotic working-class men and women. They are not of America’s favored Super Rich class, for whom Bush has them working. It is encouraging that there is a growing list of extremely wealthy people who not only oppose the Bush administration’s economic policies that favor the Super Rich, but also are extremely upset with its unilateral militaristic policies. One of the more prominent opponents is billionaire George Soros, author of The Bubble of American Supremacy, who writes: We have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000, President Bush promised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated. The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mistakes. At present the country is in the process of committing such mistakes because

8

Yes, “W” also stands for “weakling.”

20

THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude. This distorted view postulates that because we are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side. That is where religious fundamentalism comes together with market fundamentalism to form the ideology of American supremacy.

The neocons’ efforts to make America the one imperial superpower are not only doomed to failure, they also are making the world more unstable. We see this playing out in every nation in the Middle East, and the biggest loser—except for America and Iraq—is Israel. At the core of the imperial agenda is the belief that the United States may—and should—use its unrivaled military power in any way it unilaterally chooses to pursue American interests. America has the military power, and therefore the right, to create a world that is more exploitable by huge corporations and the Super Rich. Is it possible that other peoples and nations of the world might look at this differently? Is it possible they might have a large measure of distrust and fear? Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States—generally for the common good but sometimes not—made the biggest footprints in the world regarding so many aspects of human life: technology, language, business, environment, use of limited natural resources, culture, products, religion, military, geopolitics, science, travel, trade, education, medicine, human rights, and the list goes on. Given this American influence and domination, which is felt in virtually every part of every nation, it is remarkable that so many Americans are rabidly critical and fearful of foreigners and any real or imagined foreign influence in the United States. These fearful complainers—America’s bedwetting conservatives—consist by and large of the cocooned and fearful on America’s political extreme right. They want the world to be a one-way street on which only Americans can drive. Perhaps you’ve even heard some of them gripe about the way foreigners talk. “Why can’t they speak English like Jesus did?”

The War on Terrorism—the Slogan that Means Nothing and Justifies Anything The Bush neocons use the “war on terrorism” slogan to gain several advantages, all politically motivated. • First, by calling it a war, the Bush neocons spread fear and receive a freer hand in using military force, their tool of first choice for any real or imagined international problem. • Second, the “fact” that we’re at war is used to stifle dissent, whether from the media, American citizens, or America’s elected representatives. Dissenters, even war heroes, are venomously labeled unpatriotic. Striving to avoid debate of its unilateralist policies, the Bush administration and its lackeys attack those who exercise their first amendment rights. The principal victim of Bush’s war on terrorism is America’s democracy. • Third, rightwing Orwellian propagandists use the “at war” label to repaint Bush as a strong leader, a real commander in chief.

CHAPTER 1 — ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL •

21

Fourth—and most important—the war on terrorism provides both distraction and cover for the Bush regime as it pursues its domestic agenda of doing everything possible for the Super Rich and favored corporate interests. In addition to increasing the likelihood of actual war by promoting a war climate, the term itself—war on terrorism—undoubtedly further biases the Bush neocons themselves in the wrong direction with respect to the policies they set and the decisions they make. Already harboring a misguided bloodlust for military action, they hardly need further encouragement. Since terror is simply a tactic, not an enemy or foe, numerous military experts have pointed out the inherent absurdity of the “war on terrorism” slogan. Declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on bombs or boomerangs. Jon Stewart summed it up nicely in his 2004 commencement address at The College of William and Mary: “We declared war on terror—it’s not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I’m sure we’ll take on that bastard ennui.” (OK, so “terror” is in fact a noun, but nevertheless we understand exactly what Comedy News Central’s Resident Expert on Grammar meant.) The slogan “war on terrorism” (sometimes expanded to the “global war on terrorism”) is not a policy, but rather a misleading substitute for thinking and hard work. It is a fear-evoking bromide by cocooned warmongers who declare that the outside world is evil, dangerous and dark, when in fact it is their own behavior that causes the world to see them that way. Never looking in the mirror, and misguided by their own ignorance and incompetence, the Bush neocons turned America’s foreign policy into a splattering of deadly unguided missiles that promote the evil world of their fantasies. In short, they create evil self-fulfilling prophecies because they don’t know Shiite from shinola. The world is appalled at Bush’s simplistic binary “us vs. them” and “good vs. evil” formulations that do not address underlying complexities and always make things worse. Consider the perspective of Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN envoy to Iraq, who criticized the Bush administration for its militaristic policies in Iraq and diplomatically referred to Bremer as “the dictator of Iraq.” In June 2004, Brahimi said: “I think it’s a little bit too easy to call everybody a terrorist. And I think if you find out that there are people who are not terrorists who are respectable, genuine Iraqi patriots, you must find a way of talking to them.” Bombs alone, or bombs as a first choice, will not win the so-called war on terrorism. In sharp contrast to the Bush neocons, the nations of the world understand that the war on terrorism is really much different from a “war” and that there must be a dedicated long-term multilateral strategy focused on underlying problems and solutions. However, the Bush regime prefers bombing to building. After all, bombing is easy, whereas helping to build human lives and nations is difficult, in addition to being incompatible with neocon DNA. America cannot on its own win the so-called war on terrorism. Bush League efforts will not win it. America needs the cooperation of the world, which takes moral leadership. A central problem is that Bush and his GOP policies are highly radioactive, especially in the Islamic world and among our allies. As the least respected and most hated leader in the world, Bush would handily win the “Biggest Liar” and “Most Dangerous World Leader” awards in virtually every nation in our small world.

22


SIDEBAR: A National Day of Mourning for Bush League Incompetence May 19, 2005, was a milestone in Bush League incompetence, but no one noticed. Three years, 8 months and 8 days: This is the time span from December 7, 1941—the date of Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor, marking America’s entrance into World War II—to August 15, 1945, which was Victory over Japan Day, or V-J Day, marking the end of WWII.9 From 9/11 to May 19, 2005, is the same length of time—3 years, 8 months, and 8 days. The contrast between the America led by President Roosevelt in World War II against the world-class military powers of Germany and Japan, and the America misled by President Bush after 9/11 is astonishing. America and its many allies had much to celebrate on August 15, 1945. As for May 19, 2005, it passed silently without commemoration or note—other than the death of three more American soldiers in Iraq, which is roughly the daily average during Bush’s and the GOP’s war on Iraq. May 19 deserves to be a National Day of Mourning for America, a sad day of commemoration marking opportunities lost, an America gone astray. Let’s be clear. In working to promote peace and eliminate terrorism in the world, the United States and its allies from time to time may be required to declare and fight conventional wars against specific nations or other foes, or to intervene in particular countries or regions of the world. Arguably, the war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban was one such justified case, although the bomb-and-go Bush administration waged it with disheartening incompetence and lack of sustained will. This war should be renamed Osama bin Forgotten. America would be better served if the “war” label were reserved for real wars— military campaigns waged against specific nations for justifiable reasons—that follow a declaration of war, have the advice and consent of Congress, and are supported by a clear majority of the American people. One obvious problem with the so-called war on terrorism is its perpetual nature. Given the domestic political advantages of being at war, do the Bush neocons really want it to end? Perhaps they have grown too fond of the mistaken notion that they can keep the domestic fear index higher if bin Laden remains on the loose. On March 13, 2002, at a rare press conference, Bush admitted, “I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him ... I truly am not that concerned about him.” With such a weak warrior in charge, it has taken the Bush regime much longer to find bin Laden than it did for America to win World War II. One day your grandchildren may ask how such an incompetent fool managed to become America’s president, and why Americans kept him in office so long. What9

Three months earlier, on May 7, 1945—Victory in Europe Day, or V-E Day—Germany capitulated to the Allied powers, marking the end of WWII in Europe.


23

ever your answer, may it include the fact that you tried your best to support Bush’s impeachment and removal from office. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a leader. George W. Bush is a fool, a disgrace to America and the men and women who wear its uniform. A conventional war—at least one with a likelihood of being followed by true peace—has a clear end-date milestone, which typically consists of the surrender by one side and the signing of a peace treaty by both sides. In any case, there’s a clear end date. On the other hand, Bush’s war on terrorism, in addition to suffering from the fundamental flaw that it has never been defined, will never end because there will always be criminals and terrorists in the world, whether or not we have leaders like Bush creating and inspiring so many of them. It is noteworthy that America’s enemy in Afghanistan did not surrender or sign a peace treaty, which is a huge red flag indicating that lots of unfinished work remained. Bush, however, foolishly claimed victory and moved on Iraq. Likewise, Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq did not surrender or sign a peace treaty, an obvious but overlooked fact that underlies Bush’s foolish “Mission Accomplished” declaration. The Bush neocons have never leveled with the American people regarding how long they think their so-called war on terrorism will last. The Bush neocons—living in their groupthink echo chambers—refuse to be candid. Why bother? The tough “war on terrorism” slogan helps enable their militant antidemocratic policies, both abroad and at home. Even regarding specific shooting wars claimed to be within the scope of their socalled war on terrorism—Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran next, and counting—the Bush administration never levels with the American people, or themselves, as to how long they believe each war will last. The term “war on terrorism” is reminiscent of many other open-ended “wars” that aren’t wars: the “War on Drugs,” the “War on Poverty,” and so forth. However, everyone understands in these other cases that the word “war” does not refer to actual military warfare. In sharp contrast, the Bush neocons use their so-called war on terrorism as a broad, all encompassing, ill-defined umbrella that empowers them to wage actual warfare whenever and wherever they choose, while psychologically conditioning the American populace to be fearful and compliant. The so-called war on terrorism is simply not a war in any traditional or correct sense of the word. It is not a World War I, or a World War II, or a Vietnam War, or any other war. As misused by the Bush neocons it is pure propaganda and thus should be dropped. That won’t happen. The “war on terrorism” slogan is tailor-made doublespeak for Fox News and other rightwing propaganda pushers, who work diligently to promote Bush and the GOP’s extreme rightwing agenda. America’s corporate media love the slogan. We note in passing that, in marketing its war agenda, the Bush regime and its propaganda pushers in America’s media tried other variations of the “war on terrorism” slogan, including “The Long War” and even “World War IV,” but these adventuresome slogans attained little traction.

24


SIDEBAR: America the Weakened There are three principal sources of America’s strength and positive influence in the world: (1) progressive moral values, (2) economic strength, and (3) military strength. Bush severely damaged all three during his GOP reign of error. 1) Progressive Moral Values. Thanks to Bush and the GOP, America is no longer the world’s bright beacon of hope, freedom and peace. They replaced the torch on the Statue of Liberty with a huge middle finger. Distrust of America has never been higher. Foreigners, both friend and foe, increasingly question America’s morals and motivations. They see the rotten fruit resulting from America’s turn to the Dark Right: the massive corruption and cronyism within the Bush administration and the GOP; the spiteful divisiveness; the attack on Americans’ constitutional rights and liberties while corporate power is expanded; the crusade that favors one Right Religion while attacking religious freedom and the separation of church and state; the rightwing warmongering in violation of just war principles; the squandering of the universal support for America following 9/11; the growing chasm in America between the Super Rich and the poor; the culture of lies and deceit; and the unwillingness to address America’s own moral problems of poverty and discrimination. Bush and his Confederate Party no longer represent—and cannot be trusted to protect—America’s true moral values. 2) Economic strength. By every significant financial measure, Bush and the GOP have put America on the Road to Economic Armageddon. Unless there is a huge change of course, the coming GOP Great Depression II will make the GOP Great Depression of the 1930s look like a Sunday picnic. Bush’s and the GOP’s financial “accomplishments” are truly staggering: record federal spending; record reduction in federal income; record tax cuts for the Super Rich; record federal budget deficits; record loss of manufacturing jobs for middle-class Americans; record increases in illegal aliens; record trade deficits; record national debt; record interest payments on the national debt; record borrowing from foreign powers; record number of Americans who lost health insurance coverage; record number of children living in poverty; record deficit in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; record corporate welfare; record corruption and cronyism in government; and the list goes on. Bin Laden in the White House instead of Bush—and the Taliban running Congress in place of the GOP—could not have inflicted more economic damage on America. Bush and his Confederate Party are incompetent to run the U.S. government and cannot be trusted with America’s economic future.


25

3) Military strength. By immorally invading Iraq and incompetently waging that war, Bush foolishly exposed inherent weaknesses and limitations regarding America’s military strength, in addition to absolutely weakening it. He failed to adequately equip and support America’s troops. He also greatly diminished the perception of America’s military strength. His failures emboldened and united America’s enemies, and discouraged and divided America’s allies. Bush is the world’s number one breeder of terrorists. He favored guns to the exclusion of diplomacy. He replaced the strength of alliances with the weakness of unilateralism. Like the Vietnam Syndrome, the Iraq Syndrome will have an enduring negative impact on America’s military and foreign policy. An America with only one-fifth of its current military strength under an American president with just average morals and competency would be much stronger that the current “full-strength” America under Bush. He and his Confederate Party cannot be trusted with America’s security. They are a disgrace to America’s finest. In pursuing its imperial agenda in Iraq, the Bush regime gave no meaningful consideration to the fundamental concept of a just war, and it had no desire to build a strong coalition before pushing forward. America and the world will pay dearly for decades for this catastrophic failure of leadership. Blithely ignoring history and the best military and diplomatic advice, the Bush neocons maliciously and foolishly did what they had wanted to do for many years. In the next chapter we will do what the Bush neocons never did, which is to pay some attention to the important related concepts of a just war and a strong coalition.

CHAPTER 2

A Just War Versus Just War Hard Power, Soft Power and Stupid Power Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. —Winston Churchill (1874-1965). The concept of a just war is intended to place moral restraints on warfare. Developed in the West over many centuries it sets criteria for whether and how warfare should be conducted. It is based in religion, politics, and the experience of countless human conflicts. There are certainly many situations in which a war is both justified and moral. Whether a proposed war is a just war depends upon whether it meets all of the just war principles set forth in international law regarding armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions.10 These general principles include: • legitimate authority, • just cause, • right intention, • last resort, • reasonable chance for success, and • proportionality. In addition to determining whether a proposed war is a just war, the general principles also determine how a just war must be waged. These additional principles include noncombatant immunity and proportionate means. Reasonable people may disagree in a particular case how the above principles should be applied. However, even the most casual observer would conclude that Bush’s war in Iraq failed the test in not only one way—which would be enough to flunk it—but in multiple ways, namely it failed to meet any of the five following 10

If the United States is contemplating warfare, the proposed war must also meet principles set forth in American military doctrine. Bush also ignored this.

28


general principles: legitimate authority; just cause; right intention; last resort; and proportionality. Assuming for the sake of argument that Bush even considered the principles of a just war before attacking Iraq, which appears unlikely, it is possible that his brain simply misunderstood them—thinking that the goal was “just war,” not “a just war.” That would explain a lot.

The Five Pillars of a Strong Coalition Under the general principles (set forth above) for determining whether a proposed war is a just war, there is no requirement that a nation assemble a coalition, although even cavemen understood the benefits of united effort. A nation may act unilaterally if all the general principles are met. Of course, common sense and other considerations come into play. These include treaty obligations, organizations such as NATO and the United Nations, other commitments and obligations under international law, and an astute sense of military conflict and geopolitics. In most major conflicts—especially culturally complex conflicts such as the Iraq war—a strong diverse coalition is a common sense necessity. However, the Bush neocons had no desire or need—or so they thought—for a coalition of any kind. As imperialists who knew what they wanted, the Bush neocons saw an effective coalition for Iraq as a distraction that would only complicate unilateral action and lead to unnecessary sharing of glory and plunder. So why did the Bush regime assemble the Bush League of Nations? It did so because it needed propaganda to sell the Iraq war to America. Assuming that a coalition is appropriate in the particular case, proposed here are five essential pillars of a strong coalition: 1. A Just War—The proposed war must meet all just war principles set forth in international law regarding armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions. As set forth in the previous section, these include: legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, reasonable chance for success, and proportionality. Each and every member of the coalition should independently determine on the merits that the proposed conflict is a just war, without reference to unrelated matters, such as threats, or payments or other benefits received or promised, from other coalition members. 2. Clear Goals—Clear goals are the raison d’être of the coalition and must be precisely stated with sufficient detail: (1) to permit meaningful analysis, discussion, and agreement among the coalition members, (2) to permit the development of detailed plans to achieve the goals, and (3) to allow the coalition members to later determine unequivocally whether or not the goals have been met. The goals must not be so general—say, for example, “to promote peace”—that they provide little basis for meaningful guidance, planning and agreement. 3. Trustworthy Leadership—The chosen leaders of the coalition must be trustworthy and widely viewed as such. It is especially problematic if coalition leaders or coalition member nations have, or are believed to have, an agenda different from the stated goals of the coalition.

CHAPTER 2 — A JUST WAR VERSUS JUST WAR

29

4. A Sensible Plan—A detailed plan must be developed and agreed upon, based on the best available information and analysis, including respect for divergent views. It must include sufficient resources to ensure winning the war, as well as winning the peace that follows the war, and it must include a clear exit or endpoint, together with a timeline. The informed consent of the citizens of each coalition nation should be obtained in some meaningful direct or indirect fashion. 5. Excellent Execution—The sensible plan must be properly executed, with a clear chain of command, and with a process for making necessary adjustments along the way. The requirement of a just war is included as the first of these five essential pillars because it is the starting point and the most important point. If the Bush administration had allowed—or better yet, led—a national discussion of the application of just war principles to the proposed Iraq war, the war would not have occurred, and America and its allies and friends would have been miles ahead in the so-called war on terrorism. Regarding a possible war in Iraq, a strong coalition would have developed a plan of action to accomplish desired goals through strong peaceful steps, with the possibility of war only as a last resort, and only if all of the just war general principles were first met, which they never were. Incredibly, even after more than four years of war in Iraq, the Bush regime and its GOP enablers had not established a single one of the five essential pillars of a strong successful coalition. The mere process of considering the five pillars of a strong coalition would have led to better decisions and better plans regarding Iraq. However, Bush and Cheney were driven by the neocon groupthink. Already knowing the “answer,” they had no need for the hard work of analysis and critical thinking. They saw no need for a plan to win the peace. They did not earn their pay. They were guilty of dereliction of duty. They were guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Their hardcore true believers described them as strong, but the right word is stupid, which brings us to the next section.

Hard Power and Soft Power—plus Smart Power and Stupid Power Joseph Nye, the dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, wrote a book that should be required reading for Bush and the neocons: Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Hard power is using military power and economic power to achieve desired results. Soft power is using various measures short of military power—such as economic assistance, diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and other forms of international persuasion—to achieve desired ends. Nye describes soft power as the “ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion.” Nye believes that, ideally, neither hard power nor soft power should be used exclusively. Rather, it is usually best to combine the two—what Nye calls smart power. During the several decades of the Cold War, the United States led by several presidents, both Democratic and Republican, used a mixture of hard power and soft power—primarily the hard power of military deterrence (vs. its actual use) combined

30


with the soft power of broad international cooperation and pressure—to help speed the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although Nye doesn’t use this term or have an additional category, it is apparent that Bush and the GOP have created a fourth category—stupid power—which we define here as “using either hard power or soft power in an incompetent, ideological, faith-based, non-analytical fashion, especially where military decisions are made by civilian bureaucrats without active military experience who intentionally ignore professional military advice.” Bush and his neocons use hard power in a knee-jerk fashion, without understanding its limits. They do not understand, and choose to ignore, the benefits of soft power, thereby undercutting America’s hard power and gutting America’s capacity to lead a cooperative international effort against terrorism. Nye believes the United States must not proceed unilaterally but must return to the hard and soft power blend that was the foundation of the U.S.-led Western alliance that prevailed in the Cold War. If fewer than 50 criminals carried out a 9/11-type slaughter, what would be the sense of America declaring war on Islam? If Canada attacked America, what would be the sense of the United States bombing Argentina or Venezuela? Well, perhaps we shouldn’t use Venezuela in this example—since Bush might just take that opportunity to invade Venezuela, given that America’s rightwing neocons and oil companies hated the results of Venezuela’s presidential recall referendum in August 2004, overwhelmingly won by Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s democratically elected president whom the Bush neocons had previously tried to depose.11 SIDEBAR: A Key Question Why do bystanders in Iraq—average Mohammeds—cheer the attacks on American forces and the killing of American soldiers? That is a question Bush doesn’t like to think about. In Bush’s simple black-and-white fantasy world, we got rid of Saddam, and therefore all Iraqis should love us. Bush cannot grasp a simple reality—that Iraqis who are grateful that American troops deposed Saddam are entitled to be violently opposed to the occupation of Iraq by American forces. The Bush regime and its GOP supporters apparently believe that self-appointed vigilantes who catch the murderous thug in your neighborhood are justified in moving in with your family, eating the best food off your table, and joining your wife and daughters in bed. Then, of course, there’s Iraq’s oil, which virtually all Iraqis believe, for some crazy reason, had something to do with Bush’s decision to invade.

11

Chavez’s subsequent reelection as Venezuela’s president was fueled in part by the Bush administration’s clumsy anti-democratic posturing regarding Chavez and Venezuela.


31

If the situation were reversed, and foreign soldiers—say, Islamic troops who didn’t speak English—occupied North Dakota or Massachusetts, the good patriotic citizens of those great states would take up arms and fight to kick them out. On the other hand, pseudo-cowboy rightwing Texans like Bush and Cheney would recognize the quisling, crony-capitalism opportunities in collaborating with the enemy— and cozily do business with them, just as they already do with the princely Saudis and a host of other rightwing dictators. Bush and Cheney certainly wouldn’t sign up for any combat duty, nor would any of their offspring. The Bush neocons are virtually clueless in determining whether we are winning or losing the war on terrorism, perhaps in part because they spend most of their time trying to put the right political spin on their accomplishments or, more accurately, lack thereof. One of the numerous Bush fantasy spinners is former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who resigned on November 9, 2004. In his resignation letter to Bush, Ashcroft stated, “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.” In April 2004 the U.S. State Department issued its annual counter-terrorism report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” which stated that terrorist attacks in 2003 had declined to 190, the lowest level reported in 34 years, and a 45% reduction from Bush’s first year as president (2001). The Bush administration triumphantly claimed the report showed their policies were working. Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage said, “Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.” Another State Department official predicted that the trend would continue. But, oops! The 2003 report was very wrong. On June 10, 2004—after outsiders had questioned the data—the State Department acknowledged it had made a mistake in reporting a drop in terrorism and that, in fact, both the number of terrorist attacks and the number of victims had increased sharply in 2003. However, don’t hold your breath waiting for the Bush administration to correct its prior statement and say, “You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are not prevailing in the fight.” The Bush administration believes that bombing is the first and only medicine in addressing terrorism or fabricated terrorism, so long as we are doing the bombing. This faith-based belief is similar to their belief that America can simply drill its way out of its energy problems, which we will discuss later. There is a role for smart bombs, but smart bombs become dumb bombs when dropped by dumb leaders who make dumb decisions. Al Qaeda and other evolving terrorist groups have changed their tactics and are now less susceptible to attack and eradication by military power alone. More effective are the cooperative proactive efforts by intelligence agencies and police around the world, coupled with the cooperation of the vast majority of the citizens of the world. Unilateral military efforts by an isolated, go-it-alone America have failed, and they will continue to fail. The willing cooperation of as many people as possible in our joint anti-terror efforts will help us understand the whats, whys and hows of terrorism. Many plots are uncovered and foiled thanks to an unexpected tip from someone who has stumbled

32


upon relevant information, disagrees with the terrorist agenda, and believes that America and its allies are on a higher moral ground. Therefore a key priority is for America to act in such a way that it truly deserves the willing support of the world. In this regard, Bush has utterly failed America and its soldiers. SIDEBAR: San Jose Mercury News, Letter to the Editor, September 10, 2003, “Millions for peace, billions on Iraq” “Seventy-five billion dollars is a conservative estimate of our projected 2004 military expenditures for Iraq. This is based on current spending levels as well as the figures presented by President Bush in his address to the nation, and it excludes additional tens of billions for reconstruction, support of coalition partners, and other costs. “On the other hand, the U.S. Peace Corps’ annual budget for 2003 is only $295 million, notwithstanding bipartisan congressional support and increased funding. “In other words, we spend more for 35 hours of our military occupation of Iraq than we do for the worldwide operations of the Peace Corps for an entire year. “Although I want to believe that all of our military efforts are intended to promote peace, we do sometimes err in pulling the war lever, with tragic unintended consequences. “The people of the world, especially Americans, reap huge peace dividends from the work of the Peace Corps. The peace dividends from our military campaign in Iraq are dubious at best.” —Jim Swanson The Bush neocons have been staggered by reality in Iraq. Their struggle to even find words to explain the resulting mess is palpable. Rumsfeld, for example, in discussing the so-called war on terrorism at a security conference in June 2004, said, “It’s quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this.” He acknowledged that America might not be winning the war on terror. He didn’t know if terrorists were being trained at a faster rate than we can kill or capture them, and noted: “How many more of those folks are being trained and developed and organized and deployed and sent out to work the seams and the shadows and the caves?” Sadly, the Bush regime has aggravated and complicated the threat by midwifing countless terrorist snakes, each like Hydra, the nine-headed snake in Greek mythology, and there is no one snake—say bin Laden or a bin Laden wannabe—who controls all heads of all Hydras. Yes, it will be a great joy to see bin Laden dead—an important job that must be done, a job that Bush botched—but at this sad point in history it won’t make much difference. The United States and the world are paying dearly for the real-world education of the amateur Bush neocons. Never have Diplomacy 101 and War Strategy and Tactics 101 courses been so expensive, and never have the students been so ill prepared and resistant to learning. How do you teach “Diplomacy 101 for Dummies” and “War


33

Strategy and Tactics 101 for Dummies” to blockhead students who already have their faith-based answers before they even understand the questions? Over a period of several months in 2006 Jeff Stein, National Security Editor for the Congressional Quarterly and frequent contributor to The New York Times, conducted lengthy interviews with counterterrorism experts in Washington, as well as with several U.S. Congressmen having oversight responsibilities regarding terrorism and America’s spy agencies. The fundamental question he raised was, “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” The appalling results were that many of America’s experts and oversight congressmen don’t even know the basics, such as, for example, whether Iran is predominantly Sunni or Shiite. Stein sums it up in his October 17, 2006, piece in The New York Times: “But so far, most American officials I’ve interviewed don’t have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?” SIDEBAR: Just a Deck of Cards Do you remember all the fun the Bush chickenhawks had with that famous deck of 52 playing cards, with Saddam as the ace of spades, and so forth? It was exhilarating! America just had to capture or kill the 52 thugs, and the job would be done— mission accomplished. We just had to shred that deck. It was a tidy and simple solution for the gullible. This all made perfect sense to the armchair civilian Bush neocons, who ignored professional military and diplomatic advice in pursuing their warmongering fantasies. But they neo-conned themselves and the American people. They lied, and countless hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children died. By misplaying the hand—by cheating—Bush continues to create countless new decks of militants, who—unlike those in the Saddam Deck—are a real and present danger to America and the world. The new decks should be called Bush Terrorist Decks. They were created because Bush dealt from the bottom of the deck. What card is Bush? He’s the joker, of course, the deadly joker. When an American soldier dies in Iraq, one might ask: Did the killer come from a brand-new Bush Terrorist Deck that did not even exist before Bush started dealing from the bottom of the deck? The answer in each case is almost certain to be “yes.” It is not surprising that the Bush neocons and America’s rightwing media no longer talk about the original Saddam Deck of Cards, given that Bush’s Iraq plans collapsed like a house of cards. When adversaries stand up and go head to head with the United States military in conventional open field combat, they die. The kill ratios favor America by a large margin, as they should, and most of the enemy die without knowing what hit them. Without sensing the immediate threat, they are breathing one second and dead the next.

34


Like British King George III’s experience during the American Revolutionary War, the enemy’s evolving military tactics in Iraq surprised America’s King George III and his cocooned advisors. Britain’s King George III expected America’s progressive revolutionary patriots from Massachusetts to “fight like men” in open-field battle in fixed formations, while wearing brightly colored uniforms with a big “X” on each. That was the conventional warfare style of that era. Likewise, the unconventional tactics used by insurgents in Iraq shocked our King George III and his neocons. Ignoring America’s best military minds and a host of other dissenting voices, the Bush neocons instead put on their own special fantasy eye glasses, which caused them to conclude wrongly that the Iraq war would be a short war won by the massive use of shock-and-awe power. Because such explosive action is the type of warfare that dominates television coverage—and bearing in mind that television coverage was the closest any of the Bush neocons had ever come to actual warfare—perhaps America should forgive them for their myopic views. Or not. Definitely not. High crimes and misdemeanors by warmongers must not be forgotten or forgiven. Sadly, in addition to eschewing soft power, the Bush neocons had a limited and warped view of how the use of hard power would play out. They chose to ignore the realities of other forms of hard power such as guerilla warfare, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and other roadside bombs, kidnappings, assassinations, improved IEDs, beheadings, booby traps, sabotage, even more improved IEDs, and so forth. They chose to ignore the tremendous uncertainties and unintended consequences that are inherently part of the “fog of war.” Unfortunately, the unprecedented damage caused by the Bush regime’s addiction to “stupid power” is not limited to Afghanistan and Iraq. A fool on Monday is a fool on Friday. A fool with head lice carries the lice wherever he meanders. In the next section we consider the Bush regime’s failed nuclear weapons policies.

Bush League Nuclear Weapons Policies: An Exercise in Stupid Power Unlike the risk of Saddam’s WMDs, which existed only in the propaganda used to sell Bush’s war on Iraq, the risk of nuclear weapons being used against America and its friends is real, and America’s allies are rightly dismayed by Bush’s failure of leadership in this arena. A single nuclear explosion in an American city would be catastrophic in terms of lives lost and lives shattered, and it would change America forever. It would also severely impact America’s civil liberties, likely causing even more damage to the Constitution than that inflicted by the Bush regime during its GOP Reign of Error. Bush’s efforts have been a combination of insufficient—in failing to safeguard and reduce the stockpiles of existing nuclear weapons and materials—and counterproductive—in implementing Bush League policies that encourage, rather than prevent, the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons.


35

One necessary first step is for America to aggressively support and fully fund the joint Russian/American program to reduce Russia’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons and to prevent them from getting into terrorist hands. SIDEBAR: Safeguarding Nuclear Materials The Iraq war diverted attention from a hugely important national and world security concern, namely the identification and safeguarding of dangerous nuclear materials at hundreds of sites around the world. Researchers at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government reported that less potential nuclear bomb material was safeguarded during the two years after September 11 than in the two years before. They note that the safeguarding would be progressing much more quickly if only one-tenth of the cost of just the first year of the Iraq war were devoted to securing nuclear material around the world. The 2001 Baker-Cutler Commission estimated that a total of $30 billion spent over ten years would pay for the destruction of most of the loose lethal nuclear materials, as well as the secure containment of the rest. Effective programs exist to accomplish this, but they must be funded. Thirty billion dollars is an enormous sum of money, but it is less than 3% of the projected direct cost of Bush’s war on Iraq. Thanks to a Bush administration that is widely seen as imperialistic and hostile to Islam, the risk of a nuclear bomb exploding in a western city has greatly increased. In advance, let’s name it the “Bush Bomb.” It is at least one thousand times more likely that a nuclear bomb will be delivered via a container ship or truck into an American city than by a long-range missile. Yet, Bush and the GOP continue to push the fantasy of a Star Wars nuclear shield for ideological reasons, while hundreds of ships arrive each week in America without inspection, and while Bush drags his feet on the program to safeguard nuclear materials. In the so-called war on terrorism, which side are Bush and the GOP really on? America’s allies and friends want America to stop developing “better” nuclear weapons, as there is no such thing. Proliferator Bush rants against the evils of WMDs, while he pushes dangerous programs to create new ones. America must immediately abandon the expensive rightwing boondoggle and fantasy know as Star Wars, which, in addition to not working, encourages America’s potential enemies to respond by developing and deploying more nuclear weapons. Many current and potential rogue nations want nuclear weapons and other WMDs precisely because they have seen Bush in action and heard his threats.

36


SIDEBAR: What Was He Thinking? “See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” —George W. Bush When Bush uttered these words in Milwaukee on October 3, 2003, what was he really thinking? Perhaps he was thinking his statements did not apply to America because America was no longer a “free nation.” Or was he thinking that America is the exceptional nation—just like himself, above the law, a rogue, and an outlaw. Or is it possible he had consumed one too many Milwaukee brews that morning and wasn’t thinking at all? Bush is America’s problem in a nutshell. America needs to devote more resources to building and sustaining nuclear families throughout the world, and less on nuclear bombs. America needs a better balance between guns and butter. But anyone who advocates even a modest shift away from GWB—“guns, warmongering and bombs”—gets a bullet in the heart from America’s rightwing propaganda machine. Recommendations regarding America’s nuclear policies are set forth in Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan in Chapter 19 of this book.

Guns Versus Butter: First in Guns … There is an enormous guns-versus-butter imbalance in America’s foreign policy, one consequence of which is a simple rightwing recipe for war that might be called “Wrong Wicked Warmongering.” Here’s that simple recipe for war: Start with 400 parts guns and 1 part butter12 … stir in GOP foreign policy incompetence … cook and sugarcoat … serve hot … and surprise! … you get WAR. America’s total military spending is more than the combined total of the next 14 most militarized nations, at least 10 of which are either NATO allies or close friends of America. America’s military spending is more than 45% of the world’s total. It is more than six times the military spending of either Russia or China. America is by far the world’s No. 1 arms dealer, providing almost half of the weapons sold to militaries and militias in the developing world. There is probably more public debate about America’s international sale of cigarettes—another deadly market in which America is number one—than about America’s arms sales. The vast majority of these arms sales is handled routinely by large corporations with virtually

12 Joseph Nye, author of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, noted that America spends only about one billion dollars annually on public diplomacy, meaning that we spend about 400 times as much delivering bombs through the Department of Defense budget than we spend delivering ideas through diplomacy.


37

no fanfare or pubic debate, much like other commercial transactions. After all, business is business. So-called capitalism is America’s God and is not to be questioned. Principal beneficiaries of America’s 400-to-1 imbalance in guns-versus-butter include numerous corrupt governments and ruthless dictators. The principal losers are the least, the last, and the lost of the world. All Americans should be ashamed, especially the leadership of the Southern Baptists in America. In many civil wars and other bloody conflicts, both sides use American weaponry. This includes even Iraq, where Iraqis trained by Americans are using American weapons to kill Americans, as well as countless thousands of Iraqi civilians. SIDEBAR: Bloody Irony: Telling Questions Never Asked How many American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq have been inflicted by bullets, explosives and other weaponry manufactured in the United States by American workers or elsewhere under the direction of America’s defense industry? How many such casualties have been inflicted by armaments manufactured by America’s allies? GOP leaders do not even want to think about—or you to think about—the answers to these embarrassing moral questions. Although no American leader plans for Americans to be killed by American weaponry, the law of unintended consequences does apply, and this law extracts an especially enormous cost when American foreign policy is myopic, faith-based, unilateral and militaristic. “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” Or perhaps more accurately in these Bush League times, “Those nations that live by the sword cause lots of innocent people to die by the sword, including their own finest.” According to a U.S. Defense Department report for fiscal year 2003, America has over 700 military bases outside the United States in 130 countries. This does not include secret torture facilities run by foreign governments and contractors for the Bush regime’s gulag. In comparison, America’s emerging principal rival, the communist People’s Republic of China, has no bases outside its borders. Even the three evil nations included in Bush’s nonsensical moniker, the Axis of Evil—North Korea, Iran and Iraq—have zero military bases outside their own borders. America’s huge military footprint in the Islamic world was not established with the intent of jeopardizing America’s strategic interests, but that has sadly occurred because of weak leadership in the Bush White House and GOP Congress. Now is the time to greatly reduce America’s military presence in the Middle East. Iraq especially needs more butter and fewer guns. A better balance between guns and butter would help America fight more effectively the fewer wars it would need to fight.

… and Last in Butter According to a 2005 report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 852 million people are chronically hungry, an increase of 10 million

38


from the previous year. These people cannot find adequate nutritious food for their families and themselves and are undernourished. Their hand-to-mouth struggle to find enough food is a daily one, and many starve to death. More than 16,000 children die each day from hunger-related causes. More than one billion of God’s 6.5 billion people earn less than $1 per day, the international poverty line, and more than 3 billion people, about half of the Earth’s population, earn less than $2 per day. America must return to leading international efforts to focus on the least, the last, and the lost throughout the world. The industrialized nations—except for the United States—eagerly seek a united effort to reduce world poverty and starvation by half within two decades, but the Bush administration became obstructionist and went AWOL. By invading Iraq, Bush greatly reduced America’s capability and desire to address more urgent problems afflicting Christ’s people—“the least, the last, and the lost”—around the world. These problems include starvation, rampant disease, wars, genocide, the growing gap between first and third world nations, and the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in third world nations. Bush’s efforts on behalf of the world’s poor are dwarfed by his efforts to help America’s Super Rich. He delivers far more sound bites than commitments to the world’s poor, and he later substantially shortchanges his meager commitments to them. On the other hand, Bush “religiously” gives record pork, record tax cuts, and record corporate welfare to America’s Milking Class, which he affectionately refers to as his “base.” Jesus weeps. Massive government subsidies for agriculture in America and Europe greatly damage subsistence farmers in the third world, causing many to fall below the “survival line.” America’s agricultural subsidies are not designed for America’s working farmers, but are designed as corporate welfare for huge agribusiness companies and wealthy people who often do not even live on their land. Even using hyped White House figures intended to buff Bush’s “compassion,” the total worldwide cost of all his efforts to help Christ’s most needy is only a tiny fraction of what he wastes on his war on Iraq. Christ’s forgotten people need bread, but Bush delivers bombs. Tragically, America is the leader—without followers—in the Bush League War on Iraq, when America could have been the leader—with a world of followers—in efforts to save the helpless and forgotten. America must engage the world community in nation building, with justice and freedom for all the citizens of each nation, not just the freedom of ruling elites and international corporations to have their way. America can and should use its soldiers to wage peace. When called on to participate in humanitarian efforts, America’s soldiers perform heroically and magnificently. In this role, America’s “soldiers for peace” are America’s best ambassadors and truly America’s finest. Few doubt their intentions and cost effectiveness, in sharp contrast to the performance of public trough companies like Halliburton. America’s troops bring credibility and accountability, not cronyism and corruption. Deploying thousands more specially-trained National Guard and active-duty troops after the December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, and in Pakistan and Kashmir


39

after the devastating October 2005 earthquakes, would have advanced world peace, in addition to promoting America’s own self interests. The United States must use consistent verifiable metrics to measure the amount of non-military humanitarian assistance it provides to the rest of the world. It must track its effectiveness, make process improvements, and publish the results—the good along with the bad. The assistance should not be provided unless the host nation allows the United States to implement accounting and anti-fraud systems at least as rigorous as the United States uses at home. One central pillar of the Bush administration’s “success” is misinformation. According to one poll, Americans think the United States spends 24% of its national budget on assistance for poor countries! This is almost 100 times the meager onefourth of one percent that the United States actually spends, which is the lowest percentage among major industrialized nations. Furthermore, the effectiveness of America’s assistance is typically reduced by misguided political considerations, inadequate oversight and corruption. Too often the assistance comes with strings attached that effectively funnel money back to favored rightwing corporations in the United States. The same public-trough principle holds true in a war setting. If American assistance to Iraq is viewed as a gold mining operation, then Halliburton gets the gold, and the Iraqi people get the shaft. In the next chapter, we turn our attention to the “almost forgotten war” in Afghanistan, that center stage in the war on terrorism that Bush and his GOP “Mission Accomplices” catastrophically turned into another “Mission Not Accomplished.”

CHAPTER 3

Afghanistan Losing the Just War As a result of the American military the Taliban is no longer in existence. —George W. Bush, September 2004 (before the U.S. elections) Across Afghanistan last year, the number of roadside bomb attacks almost doubled, direct fire attacks on international forces almost tripled, and suicide bombings grew nearly fivefold. —George W. Bush, February 15, 2007 The Afghanistan war launched in 2001 arguably met all six principles of a just war, which, as discussed in the previous chapter, are: legitimate authority; just cause; right intention; last resort; reasonable chance for success; and proportionality (with the weakest link being the argument supporting the reasonable chance for success principle.) The Taliban government had harbored and supported bin Laden and al Qaeda, and following 9/11 it refused to cooperate in broad international efforts to bring bin Laden and al Qaeda to justice. The United Nations approved the subsequent invasion, and it had worldwide support, in sharp contrast to Bush’s later voluntary invasion of Iraq. Although the six principles of a just war were present in Afghanistan, Bush utterly failed as a leader in its planning and execution. Regarding the “reasonable chance for success” principle, Bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Regarding the five pillars of a strong coalition also discussed in Chapter 2, Bush failed on the last four: clear goals; trustworthy leadership; a sensible plan; and excellent execution. But no one should have been surprised. After all, Bush—neither a builder of nations nor a builder of coalitions—didn’t want a coalition in the first place, and he did not insist on expert planning. International political efforts to create a provisional Afghani government proceeded in parallel with the military campaign. In accordance with the Bonn Agreement of December 5, 2001, a Loya Jirga—meaning “grand council” in the Pashto language—attended by 1,500 delegates was held in June 2002, and a transitional government headed by Hamid Karzai was established. A special commission created under the Bonn Agreement had established procedures and rules governing this Loya Jirga, including a process to select delegates and ensure the fair representation of

42


women and other groups in Afghan society. Loya Jirgas, which are quasidemocratic, have been used for centuries in Afghanistan to choose new leaders and decide other important matters. Tribal leaders and influential elders from the various tribes and ethnic and religious groups traditionally attend the Loya Jirgas. The American-led military operation—at least, initially—proved to be a showcase for American military might. The strategy relied principally on sophisticated modern high-tech weaponry and the use of special operations forces. America’s smart bombs and other weaponry had advanced considerably from those used in Gulf War I in 1991, a point highlighted by Bush’s father while discussing the much greater military strength available to his son in 2001 than that available to him during Gulf War I in 1991. In short, the power of America’s military increased substantially during the eight years of the Clinton administration, as it did during prior administrations. Notwithstanding the initial military successes in Afghanistan, and notwithstanding the fact that the conflict there arguably met all requirements of a just war, the overall operation in Afghanistan under Bush deserves a grade of “F,” or at best an “I” for incomplete. The conflict drags on with no end in sight, and Bush certainly has no plans to end it during his presidency. Corruption and crime are rampant. Osama bin Laden is still at large directing terrorist activities in various parts of the world, and many of his followers were neither killed nor captured. Al Qaeda has expanded its membership, and new leaders have stepped in to replace those killed. More ominously, many new terrorist organizations have been formed throughout the world, independent of al Qaeda but generally sympathetic to its goals. Local warlords effectively control most of Afghanistan. The drug trade is booming. The Taliban has made a strong comeback in various parts of the country. The Taliban and al Qaeda have not said uncle. The criminals responsible for 9/11 have not met their maker. Bush did not do his job. SIDEBAR: Opium Production Although Afghanistan has no oil to feed America’s addiction for petroleum products, it does supply opium to help feed America’s addiction for heroin, which is derived from opium. During its several years in power the Taliban outlawed opium poppy growing in Afghanistan and enforced strict anti-drug policies with draconian measures that were quite effective. Unfortunately, opium production in Afghanistan skyrocketed after the fall of the Taliban, hitting an all-time high in 2003 (double the previous year), followed by additional records the next few years. By 2007 Afghanistan supplied more than 90% of the world’s opium and had virtually no other exports. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) estimates that Afghanistan’s opium production is worth about $2.5 billion a year to Afghanistan—with a street value many times that—greatly dwarfing the $40 million in official exports to neighboring Pakistan.

CHAPTER 3 — AFGHANISTAN

43

It is estimated that the drug business accounts for 60% of Afghanistan’s gross national product, employing more than 2 million people. Only a small percentage of the drug’s value goes to Afghanistan’s poor farmers. The criminals controlling the distribution channels, including mid-level and senior officials in Karzai’s U.S.supported government, take the lion’s share. Even Karzai’s brother has been accused of having a significant role. The White House’s own Office of Drug Control Policy acknowledges that the war on terrorism conflicts with the war on drugs in Afghanistan, with much of the cash from opium sales being funneled to terrorist groups. The U.S.-backed Afghani government officially banned opium cultivation but lacks the power and desire to prevent it, especially in several provinces outside its control. Virtually no one would suggest that the hallucinatory Bush neocons wanted Afghanistan’s opium production to skyrocket in order to reduce the price of their recreational drugs. However, the sad story of record opium production in Afghanistan is another example of unintended consequences, and it does illustrate the Bush administration’s incompetence in planning the war and prosecuting it to completion, as well as its wobbly13 halfhearted efforts to win the peace. Bush and his team of amateurs botched the historic opportunity to turn a just war in Afghanistan into a just peace. The military shortcomings in Afghanistan were—and still are—strategic, not tactical. The blame rests entirely at the highest levels of the United States government, with Bush and the neocon civilian leaders who unilaterally chose to conduct the war on the cheap, on the slow, on the dumb. In a major defeat for the United States, bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora in the mountains along Afghanistan’s eastern border with Pakistan in early December 2001. By the following April U.S. intelligence and military personnel in the Bush administration had concluded and admitted that the failure to commit American ground troops at Tora Bora—and relying instead on local Afghani militias—was the gravest error in the war against bin Laden and al Qaeda. At the tactical level, American and allied soldiers performed superbly in Afghanistan, and they would have eagerly done much more if called upon to do so. If ordered, they would have done everything possible to seal the border with Pakistan, block escape routes, and kill as many of the enemy as possible, including bin Laden. However, our neocon leaders wanted a high-tech media-friendly war without American casualties, thus protecting bin Laden from a well-deserved lethal blow. The Taliban and al Qaeda criminals who escaped into Pakistan emerged from the experience recharged and invigorated. Fighting American occupiers and escaping over the mountains into Pakistan gave them strength, confidence and prestige. In the eyes of their followers, they emerged from the great hardship as heroes, much like George Washington and his hardened troops during the early dark days of America’s Revolutionary War. The Taliban and al Qaeda survivors became effective recruiters 13

Yes, “W” also stands for “wobbly.”

44


for their misguided cause. Likewise, Muslim prisoners returning from America’s prison camps in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere are often treated as heroes. Michael Scheuer, a central CIA figure in the hunt for Osama bin Laden—and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror—asserts that the Bush administration acted much too slowly following 9/11. Its response was a “complete disaster,” he says. By waiting more than three weeks to attack al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the United States missed an opportunity to kill bin Laden and other key leaders, who were thus able to escape. The Bush administration should have had a lethal quick response plan in place, given the prior attacks by al Qaeda against the USS Cole and two American embassies in Africa. The Bush administration had little use for the most skilled fighters in Afghanistan—the mujahideen—who are seen as war heroes by their people because they drove the Soviet occupiers out of Afghanistan. The Bush neocons chose to alienate them—neither killing nor courting them—and they will remain a major threat to the central Afghani government for a long time. Later, in Iraq, the Bush neocons made similar but even more catastrophic mistakes as they broke their prewar promises to Iraqis by firing both the Iraqi army and Iraqi police forces, sending them home alienated, angry, without jobs and pay, but with their weapons and access to hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions. The Bush administration failed to win the war and peace in Afghanistan because it failed to devote sufficient military forces to complete the job, and because it failed to develop and implement comprehensive plans to win the peace. Its central obsession was always Iraq, and the significant American military forces it later diverted to Iraq helped create a power vacuum in Afghanistan. Incredibly, even Arabic-speaking Special Forces fighting bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan were pulled out and sent to Iraq, to be replaced in part by Spanishspeaking Special Forces that in turn had been fighting the war on drugs in Latin America. Afghanistan is not very important to the neocons because it does not have oil. Iraq was always their coveted prize. The neocons incorrectly concluded that Afghanistan was of little strategic importance. But consider Afghanistan’s neighbors, all of which are global hot spots or potential hot spots: nuclear-armed Pakistan on the south and east; nuclear-armed wannabe and Axis of Evil member Iran on the west; nuclear-armed China to the east; and the “stans” on the north (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.) Most important, Afghanistan was the number one battleground in the broader war on terrorism. Regrettably, Bush badly fumbled the ball by not finishing the job in Afghanistan, and by gratuitously invading Iraq, a country that had nothing— absolutely zero—to do with 9/11. Only one war was on the calendar of just wars, but Bush chose to play a doubleheader, and he lost both “games.” As a result, America’s moral standing, power and influence took a nosedive. Bush painted himself and America into a corner, with virtually no viable options available, and America’s position in the so-called war on terror was greatly compromised.


45

Coalition Deaths in Afghanistan by Year 200 Other Nations

Deaths

150

U.S.

93 31

100 20

50

0

6

9

48

48

2002

2003

99

98

2005

2006

52

12

2001

2004 Year

Like a marriage, a coalition without mutual trust usually results in a train wreck. Both on the international stage and in America, Bush earned his status as the most distrusted American president ever, and America and the world will pay the price for decades. Bush’s unilateral and insulting foreign policy divided NATO and prevented it from doing what was necessary, which was to make a strong early commitment to help build a secure and functional Afghanistan. The departure of Bush and Cheney from Washington will improve relations with NATO, but the putrid odor left behind by these two-legged skunks from Texas will last a long time. On December 20, 2001, the United Nations Security Council authorized the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan, and by late 2002 about 20 nations had contributed a measly total of 4,650 troops to the cause. The ISAF would have been much larger but for the omniscient and omnipotent Bush regime, which called the shots in Afghanistan and exhibited little desire or respect for allied assistance. Why share the glory of victory? The emperor knew best. Thanks to bush league policies, NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan were half-hearted and much less than what the situation demanded, and NATO’s summit meetings were more ceremonial than productive. When NATO finally assumed command of the international peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan in August 2003, the ISAF’s peacekeeping mandate was limited to Kabul. In late 2003 the Security Council expanded the mandate to cover all of Afghanistan, including security for the upcoming national elections. But by mid-2004 NATO-ISAF still had only 6,500 troops in Afghanistan, only a small fraction of what was required, and most of these troops remained in the Kabul area because of security concerns. Due to deteriorating security, NATO-ISAF increased its troop levels from 8,000 in early 2005 to 20,000 by September 2006. The following month 12,000 American troops in Afghanistan were transferred to NATO-ISAF, bringing its total forces to 32,000.

46


NATO and the United States simply do not have sufficient forces in place to accomplish the mission. The border with Pakistan remains porous; warlords run much of the country and protect the drug trade Columbia-style; the Taliban has rebounded strongly; and the corrupt Karzai government does not have the military and political support it needs. Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq coupled with the diversion of American forces profoundly compromised NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Given the small size of America’s presence in Afghanistan, NATO reluctantly committed only token additional resources. Unfortunately, the United States has insufficient uncommitted military forces to commit to Afghanistan, unless it diverts forces from Iraq, which it must do immediately. America’s armed forces are stretched too thin, and the desperate stopgap actions by the Bush administration will not make a big enough difference. W’s premature evacuation in Afghanistan and diversion of forces to Iraq reduced America’s already insufficient troop levels in Afghanistan to a low of 10,000. A subsequent flip-flop by Bush increased the total to about 20,000 by the third anniversary of the Taliban’s fall, and to 27,000 by February 2007 (15,000 of which were in NATO-ISAF), but once again Bush and the rubber-stamping GOP Congress were “too little, too late.” Thanks to America’s corporate media, Afghanistan is off the radar, which is where Bush wants it, as he runs out the clock on his disastrous presidency. Along the way, Bush feebly claimed—lied—from time to time that the war in Afghanistan had been won and the people of Afghanistan were free, although after 2006 he reduced the frequency of such bogus claims. The road ahead in Afghanistan is orders of magnitude more difficult, uncertain, and costly than it should have been. The central government has little authority outside Kabul, causing Afghanis to refer derisively to President Karzai as the “Mayor of Kabul.” Vast stretches of Afghanistan are under the control of competing warlords. Karzai views many of these warlords, who cooperated with American forces in the war against the Taliban, as a bigger threat than the Taliban. Many of these warlords rose to power in the 1980s when the United States helped them drive Soviet forces out of Afghanistan. In 2001 the Bush administration greatly increased their power by relying on them to battle the Taliban in Kabul, and he further increased their power and anger by attacking Iraq. The forces of these warlords are now much greater than those of the central government, which is inadequately supported by NATO and the United States. One of the most dangerous, virulently anti-American, anti-west warlords is Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, a Wahhabi Pashtun supported by Saudi Arabia who was elected a representative at the Loya Jirga in 2003. His militants are responsible for many war crimes over the years, including the massacre of civilians. Sayyaf, a Wahhabi fundamentalist, opposes the expansion of rights for women and wants the new government to follow strict fundamentalist Islamic law. Karzai needs international help in disarming him, a very difficult chore at best. Sayyaf was a member of the Afghanistan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and had a close relationship with bin Laden during the jihad against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. According to the 9/11 Com-


47

mission Report, Sayyaf was a mentor to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed the quadruple plane hijackings on 9/11. In July 2004 Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) announced that it was leaving Afghanistan, after 24 years of service, because the Karzai government failed to act regarding evidence that local warlords were responsible for the killing of five members of its staff the previous month. The organization, which had 1,400 Afghani staff and 80 international volunteers in Afghanistan, also denounced the U.S. military’s new requirement that aid recipients provide information on insurgents, because the policy put all aid workers at greater risk. The Nobel Peace Prizewinning organization relies on neutrality to protect its medical staff in war zones. As for winning the peace and helping build Afghanistan into a viable nation, the Bush regime in 2002 quickly went AWOL. At subsequent Afghanistan reconstruction conferences the United States did increase its pledges, but the total of about $10 billion through 2006, which includes security assistance, is still much less than needed. It is a pittance compared to the potential long-term costs if Afghanistan does not emerge as a viable nation, and is less than 1% of the cost of Bush’s and the GOP’s mad adventure in Iraq. A large majority of the people of Afghanistan rejoiced at the overthrow of the Taliban. They desperately needed and wanted assistance, and expectations of America were running high. It was a golden opportunity for America to help transform Afghanistan, but the Bush neocons failed to recognize that the window of opportunity was short. Bush blissfully sat on his hands—basking in the glow of the corporate media spin machine—and turned victory into defeat. The United Nations was ready, willing and able to assist in nation building in Afghanistan, but Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld foolishly told the United Nations to confine itself to Kabul. Having virtually no interest in nation building, the Bush neocons refused to step aside and let the United Nations do its work. Following 9/11, Bush also fumbled a long-awaited historic opportunity for the United States to improve relations with Iran and thus possibly even restore diplomatic relations with the strategically most important nation in the greater Middle East. Notwithstanding three decades of broken diplomatic relations due to the Iranian takeover of the American embassy in Tehran, Iran was a good candidate to be a friend and strategic ally of the United States. The Iranian people had great affection for Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iranians have immigrated to America. With the exception of Israel, Iran could be America’s number one partner and ally in the greater Middle East. Following the 9/11 attacks, Iran offered to fight side by side with American forces in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. Iran despised the Taliban for many reasons, including the Taliban’s slaughter of 10 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif in 1999, and almost went to war against the Taliban in the 1990s. Negotiations regarding military cooperation in Afghanistan and a possible rapprochement between Iran and the United States were making progress until Bush included Iran in his bizarre Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address in January 2002. “Tough cowboy” Bush preferred militant confrontation with Iran over rapprochement and a possible historic alliance. The rest is history. Bush’s saber rattling empowered Islamic hardliners, weakened the growing pro-modernity democratic movement in Iran, and


48

caused Iran to look to China as a better strategic partner than the United States. Iran later emerged as the biggest winner in Bush’s disastrous war on Iraq, and the vast majority of Iranians reasonably concluded that with Bush on the loose Iran needed nuclear weapons to ensure respect and security. Thanks to Bush’s illegal and poorly managed war on Iraq, Iran’s influence in the region is ascendant, and America’s is declining. In half-hearted, helter-skelter response, the Bush regime tried to counter the growing power of Shiite Persian Iran by cobbling together an alliance of regional Sunni Arab nations, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. However, these nations preferred to work independently of the Bush regime and its taint. The Bush administration characterized the nations in this new “Sunni Axis” as moderate, but all three are dictatorships, with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ranking near the bottom of all nations in respecting human rights. Thanks to Bush’s bungling of “democracy” in Iraq, democratic reform in these nations is now off the table. Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the people of Afghanistan had great expectations that America would rise to the occasion and help transform Afghanistan and improve the lives of its long-suffering citizens. But Bush was AWOL. SIDEBAR: Too Little, Too Late A 2003 study by the Rand Corporation compared America’s nation building efforts in several countries. Here are some of the findings: Country Bosnia Kosovo Afghanistan

External Assistance for First Two Years (per capita)

Peacekeepers per 1,000 People 18.6 20.0 0.18

$1,390 $814 $52

The above data highlight Bush’s foolish decision to do Afghanistan on the cheap. Incredibly, on a per capita basis, Bush’s peacekeeping commitment was less than 1% of that in Bosnia.14 Neither Bush’s father nor Bill Clinton would have made this tragic mistake in Afghanistan. Bush’s bomb-em-and-leave-em strategy was especially foolish because: (1) The reality of 9/11 required that America not fail in Afghanistan; (2) Afghanistan presents an enormously more difficult challenge than either Bosnia or Kosovo, and thus requires more resources, not less; and (3) Afghanistan is strategically more critical, given its key crossroads location and its center-stage role in the war on terrorism.

14

If America’s combat troops in Afghanistan are added to the peacekeeper total for Afghanistan, the result is still well under one peacekeeper per 1,000 Afghans.


49

Compounding the problem, Bush’s Iraq war drained U.S. military resources from Afghanistan at a time when they were still desperately needed there to fight the Taliban. There are more sworn police officers in the New York City Police Department (NYPD)—about 35,000—than there are U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and only a small percentage of the residents of New York City shoot at law enforcement. For the sake of Afghanistan, and in America’s own self interest, America must take a lead role in helping to build Afghanistan into a viable nation. But neither Bush nor the Republican Party has the backbone and steadfastness to do it right and see it though. Unfortunately, thanks to Bush’s mishandling of both Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no groundswell in America for helping Afghanistan in other than bush league fashion. Afghanistan—center stage in the war on terrorism—is the forgotten war. It is another “Mission Not Accomplished.” Michael Scheuer is right—America is losing the war on terror, and we don’t even know it. Bin Laden is now seen as a heroic defender of his faith both against Western powers that have intruded into the Muslim world and also against the many corrupt Muslim dictatorships that rule that world. Thanks to the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush neocons in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, bin Laden is now much more loved and respected in the Muslim world than George Bush. The Muslim world was appalled and shamed by 9/11. But, thanks to Bush, the ruthless murderer of more than 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 now has a better reputation than the so-called “leader” of the world’s leading democracy. In the next chapter we turn our attention to Iraq, which, unlike Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 9/11 or the war on terror.

CHAPTER 4

The Unjust War in Iraq Christianity is Bombing in Iraq There is something almost comical about the prospect of George W. Bush waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international law. Since Bush came to office, the U.S. government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more United Nations’ conventions than the rest of the world has in 20 years. It has scuppered the biological weapons convention while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons of its own. It has refused to grant chemical-weapons inspectors full access to its laboratories. It has ripped up the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear test-ban treaty. —The Guardian, London, August 2002 As discussed in the preceding chapter, Bush deserves a grade of “F,” or at best an “I” for “incomplete,” regarding the war in Afghanistan. However, in every aspect of his war on Iraq, Bush deserves a grade much worse than an “F.” He deserves a grade of “W,” which is a new grade created out of necessity to reflect previously unimaginable levels of presidential failure, incompetence and wickedness. The Lancet survey estimated, through July 2006, that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a consequence of the Iraq war.15 The estimate range was 943,000 at the high end and 393,000 at the low end. The peer-reviewed survey, which was conducted by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and published in The Lancet medical journal in October 2006, concluded that 601,000 of the 655,000 deaths (91%) “were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.” The study compared Iraqi mortality rates before and after the March 2003 invasion in 47 randomly chosen areas across Iraq, and it is the most thorough scientific survey to date. Surveyed family members produced death certificates in more than 90% of the cases. • The 655,000 Iraqi deaths is an average of 16,375 deaths per month during the 40-month post-invasion study period (March 2003 to July 2006). 15 The 655,000 estimate is much higher than most other estimates, but it results from the most rigorous study to date. The Bush administration, which has said it doesn’t do “body counts,” would argue the total is only about one-tenth of the 655,000 figure. Other studies conclude more than 1 million died because of the Iraq war. We use the lower 655,000 number above.


52 • • • •

This means that Iraq suffered about 218 9/11 equivalents during the first 40 months of war—an average of more than five 9/11 equivalents each month. On a per capita basis, Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 65 9/11s per month—or one 9/11 every 11 hours, around the clock, 24 hours a day. Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 496 Virginia Tech massacres per month—or one Virginia Tech massacre every 90 minutes. On a per capita basis, Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 5,952 Virginia Tech massacres per month—or one Virginia Tech massacre every 7 minutes and 30 seconds, around the clock, 24 hours a day.

The 100 Imperial Orders When Paul Bremer departed Iraq in haste on June 28, 2004, he left behind his infamous “100 Orders,” a host of imperial decrees and policies intended to remake Iraq into a rightwing economic paradise open for plundering by corporations and individuals well connected to the Bush regime and the GOP. The 100 Orders fulfilled the wildest wet dreams and most extreme economic “wish list” of the neocons—reflected in their Project for the New American Century—and the rightwing of the GOP, including a U.S. Constitution-shredding America president—the GOP’s “unitary executive” wannabe—who wanted to free himself and his criminal regime from the constitutional checks and balances of America’s legislative and judicial branches of government. The orders included many laws that these dangerous gluttons could never have achieved lawfully in any western democracy, not even the United States. Although many Iraqis were initially hopeful and trusting regarding the occupation, they soon realized they had been royally screwed by an imperial power that pursued its own fantasies and cared not for them. The 100 Orders were unilaterally imposed on Iraq and its citizens by the United States, acting through the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The will of the Iraqi people was irrelevant to the rightwing planners of what would become the Iraq Fiasco. Well, almost irrelevant. Iraqis did retain the power to vote with bullets and bombs, which they increasingly did. Perhaps you would too if you were in their shoes. GOP crimes and incompetence do have consequences, including the Iraq civil war, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Whether Bush and his key supporters are sincere when they talk about “freedom” for Iraq (and perhaps some are sincere), they intentionally use language that is misleading. When they talk about “freedom,” what they really mean is “corporate freedom,” or, more precisely, “freedom for huge, well-connected, at-the-public-trough corporations.” Capitalism is not freedom. Democracy is freedom. Although dunces at planning, the rightwingers in the Bush regime did in fact have a plan of sorts for Iraq, not a viable plan based on reality and what was best for the people of Iraq, but rather a simple, grandiose, magically self-executing, “free enterprise” plan that was based on what was best for the “Big Milkers”—an array of huge well-connected corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel—and the “Little Milkers”—a host of smaller well-connected businesses and individuals parasitically

CHAPTER 4 THE UNJUST WAR IN IRAQ

53

attached to the teats of the Big Milkers. Their plan is better known as the “Plunderers’ Plan.” “Free enterprise” is a wonderful, almost sacred, term, consisting as is does of two wonderful words, “free” and “enterprise,” which each has almost universal appeal. When one thinks of “free enterprise,” one thinks of thriving nimble enterprises competing fairly in an environment that exists outside of government regulation and funding. But such free enterprise is the exact opposite of the landscape in which the imperial rightwing GOPers and Bushies thrive. It is the exact opposite of the publictrough world so familiar to the designers and implementers of the “free enterprise” Plunderers’ Plan for Iraq, who live off government funds of the United States and, to a lesser extent, the public funds of Iraq, especially oil revenues. The imperial GOPers and Bushies are public trough experts who know how to game the system and milk taxpayers. Their real vocabulary and tools of trade include: K Street and Wall Street (not Main Street); no-compete government contracts; bribes and influence peddling (whether illegal or perfectly legal); crony favoritism; government/contractor revolving door; cost-plus guaranteed-profit government contracts; of-by-and-for-the-rich legislation and regulation; elections by auction; plus America’s friendly corporate media. The GOPers and Bushies are virtually clueless as to how to create valuable companies in any private competitive environment that exists outside of government largess and influence. They are like self-righteous individuals who rail against the evils of prostitution, but live and prosper in whorehouses. Under Bremer and the 100 Orders, Iraq ironically remained a state-controlled economy, except that it is now run by the state primarily for the benefit of huge, crony-connected, multinational corporations, and not for the benefit of the majority of Iraqis—and Iraqis know this. The occupation and the 100 Orders gave the Big Milkers and the Little Milkers the freedom to pillage Iraqi resources (oil revenues, existing Iraqi industrial infrastructure, arms industry, and the like) as well as countless billions of dollars in American taxpayers’ money that most Americans incorrectly assumed would be used to benefit Iraq and Iraqis. Many of the orders were absolutely mind boggling and staggeringly stupid. In total, they ultimately helped ensure the catastrophic destruction of Iraq and the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Bremer’s first imperial order was to purge several hundred thousand Iraqi workers from the Iraqi government. He established a de-Baathification commission headed by Ahmed Chalabi, a Shiite and lackey for the Bush regime who carried out the purge with passion. The Bush regime, acting through Bremer, also disbanded the Iraqi army. These incredibly naïve actions put the insurgency on steroids, and efforts over the next several years to undo some of the cuts were ineffective in stopping the Iraq Civil War. Did Bush and Bremer really believe that a supernatural power—say the “free enterprise” system—would magically intervene and offer jobs to these newly unemployed? Order No. 39 was intended to immediately transition Iraq from a planned economy to a “free enterprise” economy, all in the stroke of a magical pen. Among its provisions are the following:


54 a)

100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses (a provision that is rarely accomplished in balanced negotiations); b) the privatization (i.e., “pirate-ization”) of Iraq’s state-owned businesses (about 200); c) the “national treatment” of foreign firms; and d) the tax-free, unrestricted, remittance of all profits and other funds out of Iraq. Each of the provisions was a Christmas present for huge foreign corporations. The “national treatment” provision of Order 37 meant that Iraqi workers and Iraqi companies could not be given preference in the reconstruction of their own country. This simply takes one’s breath away. The reality, however, was even worse, as the rightwing American incompetents running the CPA did give enormous preference to American Big Milkers like Halliburton. One might suppose that rightwing Christianist bureaucrats could hardly be expected to award contracts to Iraqi Muslims whom they didn’t understand or trust, or want to understand or trust. Iraqis received only about 2% of the reconstruction contracts awarded by the CPA in 2003. Under Order No. 37, foreign firms could buy Iraqi businesses, refuse to hire Iraqis, and transfer from Iraq their invested money and profits any time they wished, all tax-free. There was no requirement that any portion of the funds generated in Iraq stay in Iraq to help rebuild the nation. Dozens and dozens of enterprises owned by Iraq’s government were immediately shut down, with most remaining that way. Order No. 12 suspended all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, thereby greatly reducing the new Iraqi government’s potential revenue stream. Order No. 49 drastically cut to 15% the corporate tax rate, which previously had been as high as 40%. The personal income tax was reduced to a high of 15%. Iraq had denominated its oil transactions in euros, and Bremer changed that back to dollars. The 100 Orders covered more than economic matters. For example, a new rightwing constitution was imposed, and secular family law was replaced with religious law. The proper use of auto horns was even covered. The occupation was supposed to end on June 28, 2004, with the handover of power from the U.S.-run CPA to the new Iraqi government, but the occupation continued, both militarily and economically. The 100 Orders also continued in effect, which surprised many observers, as they were handed over to Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, an exiled Iraqi closely tied to the CIA and the first in a succession of weak Iraqi figureheads. As for the advertised “handover” to Iraq, what transpired in reality was a handover and big handout to the foreign Big Milkers and Little Milkers. Orders No. 57 and No. 77 operated to give the United States ongoing control in every ministry of the Iraqi government through the placement by the United States of inspector generals (with five-year terms) and a host of other appointees with broad powers, all to ensure that the 100 Orders would be carried out. The intended thrust of these orders (Nos. 57 and 77) was not all bad. God knows there was a need for comprehensive accounting and auditing to ensure that contracts


55

were properly awarded and implemented, and that funds were properly disbursed. The orders rightly required this, as did commitments made by the United States to the United Nations. However, Bremer and the Bush administration failed to hire qualified internal auditors and put adequate financial controls in place, thus violating America’s commitment to the United Nations and the Iraqi people. As discussed later in this book, billions of dollars of actual cash were not accounted for. Order No. 17 (which we will discuss in Chapter 7, “Private Military Contractors”) gave full immunity from Iraqi law to foreign contractors, including out-ofcontrol mercenaries like Blackwater. Iraqis have no recourse in their own country for damages suffered, or even death, due to foreign contractors. Welcome to Bush World. Welcome to GOP World. Welcome to the Iraq Civil War and the Iraq War of Liberation. No book can do justice to the horrible suffering in Iraq. The bloody descent into Hell on Earth triggered by Bush’s GOP administration continues, and—pray as one might—it just continues to get worse. Similarly, there appears to be no bottom to the immoral cesspool known as the GOP. Just when we think GOP corruption and moral hypocrisy in Congress cannot get worse, it does. The hits just keep on coming, even though the GOP leadership, in Mafia fashion, did everything possible to protect its Culture of Corruption in Congress and to protect its party members from investigation and justice.

The One-Percent Solution for Iraq As for the chaos in Iraq, they are no good viable options for America. Bush and his GOP War Party have endangered and bloodied America by pushing it into a position where all viable options are terrible. America finds itself in the GOP Restaurant of Puke, where all menu items are expensive and toxic. Bush’s and the GOP’s war on Iraq is a lost and immoral cause. Bush never had a plan for Iraq, and even after five years of chaos in Iraq, he refused to develop a viable plan. The GOP-controlled Congress abdicated its constitutional oversight role, never pushed for a viable plan, and shamefully provided cover for Bush and all his deeds and misdeeds. When Bush trumpeted his new surge campaign for Baghdad in early 2007, it was simply more of the same old militarism, and far too little, far too late, in addition to being beyond the capability of a proud U.S. military that he misused, abused, and, in the words of some military experts, put in a “death spiral.” In March 2007 retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey—after visits to Iraq and meetings with General David Petraeus, more than a dozen U.S. commanders in Iraq, and several Iraqi commanders—reported that the U.S. military was in “strategic peril.” Bush’s only viable plan was his personal cut and run plan, which called for him to dump the bloody chaos into the lap of his successor, as he slithered out of the White House to pursue lucrative opportunities in his crony GOP network. We propose here in passing, at the beginning of this chapter on Iraq, a plan that could possibly work if implemented, but which has zero chance of acceptance and implementation. We call it the One-Percent Solution for Iraq.

56


The One-Percent in the plan’s name refers to the military enlistment rate America needs in order to field an occupation force for Iraq that is large enough to have a reasonable shot at simply maintaining the peace. Specifically, it refers to the percentage of Americans who voted for Bush in 2004 who need to enlist in order to provide an American occupation force large enough to do the job. “Supporting our troops” should mean more to Republicans than displaying a bumper sticker, bashing gays and lesbians, and voting for humongous tax breaks and government largess for huge corporations and America’s Super Rich. “Supporting our troops” should mean more than applauding Bush’s incredibly stupid, troop-endangering “bring them on” challenge to Iraqi militants.16 Here’s a request to all such weak-kneed Bush supporters: Why not enlist now? America needs you to fight terrorists in Iraq. Fight “them” there (whoever “them” is) so you won’t have to fight “them” in Kansas. More than 62 million Americans voted for Bush in 2004. If just one percent of these patriotic Americans enlisted, America could field enough troops in Iraq to properly fight Bush’s and the GOP’s war. Before the Iraq invasion, America’s best military minds argued for a force of several hundred thousand troops on the ground in Iraq. This requirement was consistent with professional military methodology applied by America’s military war colleges. In an odd coincidence, neither Bush nor Cheney—nor any of their top dozen neocon advisors who advocated war—had ever served in the military.17 In any case, you get the idea. Among the supporters of Bush and his GOP War on Iraq, it would be nice to find more backbone and fewer bumper stickers, more courage and less hiding behind the flag. We call upon 620,000 Americans—just one percent of the 62,040,610 Americans who voted for Bush in 2004—to sign up now. We call upon bedwetting Cons to put themselves where their votes are. We call upon bedwetting Cons to support their commander in chief and all of his “never-served,” bedwetting chickenhawk neocons who got America into the Iraq mess. Just for fun, here are a couple of riddles answered by America’s Chickenhawk in Chief: • “Why did the chicken cross the road?” To get to the Texas Air National Guard. • “What’s the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?” Bush had an exit strategy for Vietnam. By the way, regarding Vietnam, the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in 2007 calculated that the cost of the Iraq war in inflation-adjusted dollars was expected to surpass the cost of the Vietnam War by the end of 2008.

16

Uttered July 3, 2003. Admittedly, the Bush-triggered Iraq Civil War does complicate matters and increase the current requirements, versus the force levels that would have been required if Bush had properly planned in the first place for the aftermath of the invasion. The need for force rotations would also further increase the total requirements. 17


57

As we said, the One-Percent Solution for Iraq won’t happen. In Appendix B we do set forth a plan for Iraq, which is the best of rotten alternatives. It calls for the immediate withdrawal of America’s forces from Iraq.

OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation)—a Slippery Slope Afghanistan was an inconvenient side trip along the neocon superhighway to American imperialism and its New American Century. The central focus of the neocons’ lust was Iraq—the blushing bride who would soon be theirs, theirs alone. They would bring Iraq into the 21st century and show the world how a Middle East country should be run. After all, “Iraq has oil,” which the neocons admiringly pointed out, and they predicted that Iraqi oil revenues would be more than enough to cover all the costs of reconstruction and nation building. America’s invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, was initially called Operation Iraqi Liberation by some Bush administration officials and supporters. But oops! Perhaps realizing that the acronym “OIL” was too close to the truth, the name for the invasion was changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The rest is history—America got “OIF,” not “OIL.” Oil—peak oil—is the real casus belli for the GOP’s War on Iraq.

Number of Foreign Military Bases – By Nation Nation United States of America America’s Rivals and “Enemies” (including communist nations): People’s Republic of China (communist) Russia Axis of Evil Nations Iraq Iran North Korea (communist) Cuba (communist) Vietnam (communist) France

18

Foreign Military Bases 735

018 0 0 0 0 0 0 (just kidding)

The People’s Republic of China occupies Tibet. For all practical purposes, the world has given up hope that Tibet will ever be a free independent nation. It is now permanently part of China.

58


According to The New York Times, long before the start of war the Bush administration had selected four sites in Iraq for several permanent American military bases. The invasion of Iraq was carved in stone, and 200,000 American troops were assembled in the region long before Bush made the so-called “final” decision to invade, and long before Bush gave Saddam a final 48-hour warning. The Bush neocons wanted the United Nations and NATO to have no role in Iraq, since this would diminish American glory and control. They believe the United States, unlike all other nations, must never be subjected to the slightest hint of foreign control or influence. This is one of the great ironies of neocon policy, in view of the pervasive influence—both legitimate and illegitimate—that the United States exerts around the world, and considering the more than 700 foreign military bases it maintains in more than 125 nations around the globe, and considering the numerous times it has unilaterally invaded other nations. But for the fact that the United States is a democracy that conducts elections, the Bush neocons would have had no need for the Bush League of Nations, also known by its misleading name, the Coalition of the Willing. The coalition was marketing fluff intended to mislead the American people. The Bush neocons faced a major roadblock on their path to Baghdad—the truth. They could not get American and international support for their war on Iraq without a campaign of deception and lies. If they had told the truth, namely that: • Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, or bin Laden, or al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or the war on terrorism; • Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, or bin Laden, or al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or the war on terrorism; • bin Laden viewed Saddam as his mortal enemy because Saddam ran a secular government and rejected radical Islamic goals and policies; • there was no compelling evidence of WMDs, and that Bush neocons “fixed,” i.e., made up, intelligence regarding nonexistent WMDs; • Saddam was already boxed in by UN sanctions and America’s military presence in no-fly zones in both northern and southern Iraq; • Saddam’s military strength was a fraction of what it had been before the first Gulf War I in 1991; • Saddam and Iraq were not a threat to the United States or any other nation; • years before 9/11 the neocons planned to invade Iraq; • Bush and the neocons wanted to invade and occupy Iraq unilaterally with no coalition other than the sham Bush League of Nations; • the faith-based Bush regime failed to adequately plan for the invasion and its aftermath; and • the invasion was not a just war; then there would have been almost no support for the war on Iraq. In short, they needed lies to create their casus belli for this illegal war. So they lied, expecting to get away with their war crimes, counting on the fog of war and their glorious victory to cause all sins to be forgiven. They counted on might to make right. The ends would justify the means. After all, even if all the stated justifications for war were lies, Saddam was an evil leader who had murdered tens of thousands of his own people, including members of his own family. Above all, the


59

liberated Iraqi people would all cheer Bush and cover him with flowers in countless victory parades throughout Iraq. Monuments to Bush would be built in Baghdad. This happy ending—the only scenario permitted by White House groupthink— would trump any truth inquiry. The neocons believed a victory in Iraq would trump everything and make it a just war. They thus rejected centuries of Christian theology. They counted on enough Americans to be gullible, or too busy trying to make ends meet to pay attention. But the Iraq war was not a just war, no matter what the outcome, any more than an invasion of Canada following 9/11 would have been, or an invasion of Sweden or Iraq would have been following the Oklahoma City bombing19 by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols (who murdered 168 innocents, including 19 children, on April 19, 1995.) The Bush administration intentionally made war on the wrong nation. But few dare call this treason. Diplomacy is as foreign as French to the Bush regime, which looks to diplomacy only after all violent means have been exhausted. Ironically, the world’s only superpower should be capable of imposing its military will anytime on any country—and especially on a third-rate, crippled, neutered military power like Iraq—no matter how flawed and unjust the mission. The Mess in Messopotamia painfully proves and exemplifies Bush’s incompetence as president and commander in chief, as well as the incompetence of the do-nothing-good GOP Congress that rubber stamped his actions. The UN Security Council correctly refused Bush’s request to go to war against Iraq. Its inspectors had searched throughout Iraq without finding any weapons of mass destruction, and effective inspections were continuing. Its senior inspectors, including Hans Blix, determined before the 2003 invasion that Saddam was not a significant threat, and so informed the world. Additional arms inspectors handpicked by the Bush administration confirmed this. A 400-member U.S. weapons inspection team sent to Iraq after the invasion withdrew quietly without any publicity in early 2004 after finding absolutely no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or even an active “weapons program.” A Carnegie Endowment study concluded, “administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat.” As Jim Hightower puts it, “This is no matter of innocent little lies. Their lies are stained with blood.” There has been much discussion, but far less meaningful investigation, regarding shortcomings in U.S. intelligence activities before the Iraq invasion, and the manipulation thereof. Since much has been written about this, we won’t revisit the issues in detail here. However, one central truth that has emerged is that the intelligence did not matter, because Bush and the neocons were going to invade Iraq regardless. In this sense, the issue of Iraqi intelligence is a red herring. Another certainty is that the administration lied, cherry picked, distorted, and carefully crafted messages that were intended to mislead and misinform.20 19

The Oklahoma City bombing, which is the second worst terrorist attack perpetrated on American soil (the worst at the time), was fueled by poisonous Christian fundamentalism. 20 Bush’s lying and flip-flopping as to the reasons for invading Iraq bring to mind this humorous exchange from Casablanca (the best movie ever), with Bush playing Rick Blaine in this scene, and Baghdad replacing Casablanca, of course:

60


Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are the Book of Revelation’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—the Looter, the Shooter, the Booter and the Hooter—and are especially adept at this black art of lying. They frequently sprinkle disconnected hotbutton words—such as “war on terrorism,” “Saddam,” “9/11,” “Iraq,” and “WMDs”—into one sentence to give the listener the impression they are all linked. In Massachusetts and North Dakota, this is called lying. In red areas of Texas and at GOP headquarters, it is called talking. On September 6, 2006, Bush famously noted, “You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” If you are not outraged, you have not been paying attention. The midterm congressional elections in November 2006 sent a shock wave of fresh air through America’s corrupt GOP-controlled government, triggering the resignation or firing of Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense on November 8, just one day after the elections, even though Bush just seven days earlier had given Rumsfeld job protection through the end of Bush’s presidency. Referring at that time to Cheney and Rumsfeld, Bush oddly noted: “Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them.” “Fantastic?” One does wonder what words Bush would use to describe excellent job performance. True to form, the Bush neocons and their supporters play the blame game, driven by two sacrosanct rules: 1) Bush and his GOP administration never make mistakes. 2) When something terrible happens, someone else is responsible. The sign on Bush’s desk says, “The Buck Does Not Stop Here.” Of course, when it comes to real bucks—millions of dollars in crony capitalism and influence peddling—Bush family bank accounts throughout the world are always open for deposits. Even accepting as 100% true all of the lies, distortions and hype (as well as the few legitimate claims) of the Bush administration, it is truly amazing how miniscule the pile of so-called evidence is regarding alleged connections between Saddam’s regime and Iraq, on one hand, and bin Laden, the Taliban and Afghanistan, on the other. Consider that Iraq and Afghanistan had numerous legitimate reasons to be in frequent contact with each other. Yet when you examine the “evidence” offered by the Bush regime, there is nothing there, other than a Bush League pile of bovine excrement. The rightwing “analysis” of the Iraq “evidence” was nonsensical. Facts and tough questions were avoided. The GOP-controlled Congress and America’s cheerleading press went along with the charade. One meaningful analysis would have been to compare Iraq’s alleged connections and culpability with that of other possible targets of the administration’s wrath. In this regard, numerous other countries, including Saudi Arabia, had more contacts with bin Laden and the Taliban than did Iraq. As a matter of fact, so did Texas.

Captain Louis Renault: What in heaven’s name brought you to Baghdad? Rick Blaine [Bush]: My health. I came to Baghdad for the waters. Captain Louis Renault: The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert. Rick Blaine [Bush]: I was misinformed.


61

One reasonable approach would have been to assess a potential target’s “suspicious connections” to bin Laden/Taliban/Afghanistan and then place the resulting score on a “Culpability Scale” of zero to 10, with “0” being “no connection, no culpability,” and “10” being a “slam-dunk bomb-em.”21 Accordingly, Saddam and Iraq would have rated either a “0” or a “1.” But let’s be generous and give Saddam and Iraq a “1,” since “0” should be reserved for Antarctica. Saudi Arabia would have fallen somewhere between “4” and “7,” although it is difficult to make an accurate assessment since Saudi Arabia has not cooperated with any 9/11 investigation, and the Bush administration has fully supported Saudi Arabia’s stonewalling and cover up. Even the state of Texas—or more accurately, that rotten rightwing red part of Texas known as “Bush Family&Cronies/Halliburton/Enron/Public-TroughCompanies/Two-Legged Skunks/Tom DeLay/Crooked Cons Club”—would get a higher score than Iraq, say a “3” or “4” on the Culpability Scale.22 The Taliban itself sent official representatives to Texas to meet UNOCAL and Texas oil barons in the late 1990s to discuss how they could work together on oil deals, including building a pipeline across Afghanistan to carry oil from the Caspian Sea region. The nice Taliban folk received five-star, red carpet treatment from their salivating Texan croniesin-waiting. Can you imagine the neocon war cries if the Taliban—rather than sending its delegation to Texas—had sent it to Baghdad (which it never did)? Can you imagine the blood lust if Saddam had had even one-tenth the sleazy “perfectly legal” and “not so perfectly legal” business deals with bin Laden’s family that the extended Bush Family has had? But Bush bombed Baghdad, not Midland, Texas. Go figure. No matter how trivial, preposterous or deceitful the Bush regime’s justification du jour for war on Iraq, America’s corporate media always gave it gravity and respect. If Bush had said, “Saddam has two trucks that drive around suspiciously,” Big Media would gladly have accepted this statement as another God-given reason for war. Unlike the media, the patriots of Massachusetts and the many progressives of Texas know that some things are just plain cow poop and should be treated accordingly. In this “six degrees of separation” world, everyone is connected to everyone, every nation is connected to every nation, and everything is connected to everything. This reality makes the intelligence function very difficult, and its manipulation by wicked wrongdoers23 very easy. The Bush administration’s intentional abuse of intelligence regarding Iraq— lying, distorting and hyping in order to sell predestined illegal military action against Iraq—is much more culpable and destructive to America’s democracy in the long run than anything Saddam ever did to America, or could have done.

21

Without any analysis, the neocons obviously gave Iraq a “10.” We should be careful not to disparage all Texans. There are millions of Texans—a growing number, including lots of Dixie Chicks fans—who are ashamed of Bush, his policies, and the fact he is from Texas. 23 “W” also stands for “wicked wrongdoer.” 22

62


Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the Security Council, dramatically hyped bogus information about Iraqi bio-warfare vehicles. He told the Security Council and the world that they were “one of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq.” He said there were eyewitness accounts: “We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.” Powell presented diagrams showing how the vehicles were configured, misleadingly calling them “highly detailed and extremely accurate.” He then said the trucks could spray enough toxins (anthrax or botulinus) “in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people.” Most of this bogus “intelligence” was based on highly suspicious information from a discredited Iraqi defector with the codename “Curveball.”24 The U.S. government earlier had instructed and paid Chalabi to look for evidence supporting a theory that Saddam, in order to evade UN weapons inspectors, had built mobile germ factories. It turned out that Curveball—whom American officials had never met or talked with, and whose real name they never knew—was related to a key aide to Chalabi. International and American inspectors who later searched the site specified by Powell, as well as countless other sites, found no evidence of what Powell was hyping, and it is believed that the vehicles in question were just everyday trucks and fire engines. David Kay, the former head of the U.S. group looking for WMDs in Iraq, politely referred to Powell’s testimony as “disingenuous.” This is a polite diplomatic way of saying Powell lied. Kay noted, “If Powell had said to the Security Council: ‘It’s one source, we never actually talked to him, and we don’t know his name,’ as he’s describing this, I think people would have laughed us out of court.” Powell himself as well as other State Department officials had objected to many of the allegations appearing in drafts of Powell’s UN speech regarding Iraq. According to US News and World Report, the first draft of Powell’s speech was prepared for him in late January 2003 by Cheney’s then chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby (who in March 2007 was found guilty on four counts in a federal criminal case in connection with the Plame affair, which we discuss in Chapter 17, “Treason, Electoral Fraud—Anything to Maintain Power.”) Many of the unsupported allegations originated with the Office of Special Plans (OSP)—an extraordinary special unit set up by Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon to cherry pick and manufacture “intelligence.” Intelligence analysts objected that Powell was being asked to give the most sinister of interpretations regarding intelligence information when other more plausible benign explanations existed. According to US News and World Report, when Powell read a draft of his speech given to him by Cheney’s office, he threw the draft in the air and yelled, “I’m not reading this. This is bullshit!” Nevertheless, many of the allegations survived and were in Powell’s final speech. Powell, playing the good soldier, carried water for the neocons who ran the White House, and truth was the victim. Friends of Powell around the world felt sorry for him and how far he had fallen. Powell also regrets this low point in an otherwise 24

The term “Curveball” is suggestive of the deception pitched by the Bush Cons. “Curveball” could also be used to describe Bush himself, although “Screwball” is better.


63

stellar career. Eventually perhaps, he will straighten his spine, step forward and tell the truth about what really happened as America lost its way during Bush’s watch. SIDEBAR: General Petraeus or General Betray Us? In this sidebar we jump forward for a moment more than four years to the week of September 10, 2007, when another respected American military man, General David Petraeus, delivered a report on Iraq to Congress. Once again, an American general in uniform cooked the books for Bush and supported his failed warmongering policies. At Petraeus’ high level in the military chain of command, he necessarily wears two hats, one military and one political, but he pretended to be wearing only his military hat in September 2007 when he and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress. In full military uniform, Petraeus obsequiously supported Bush’s plans for Iraq, as Bush knew he would. Petraeus has a long history of painting a rosy picture of Iraq, perhaps because he is the architect of several military blunders in that nation. In late September 2004—conveniently just weeks before Bush’s reelection— Petraeus wrote a rosy article for the Washington Post that gushed with praise of progress in Iraq and gave the impression that victory was just around the corner. Three years later and once again serving as Bush’s political advocate, Petraeus distorted events and cherry picked facts to paint a rosy picture of the so-called troop surge. Ignoring independent reports regarding the failure of the surge, he was anything but independent and balanced. Knowing his own testimony would not be credible, Bush counted on Petraeus to make the pitch for more of the same—no deadlines, no new strategy to end America’s military involvement in Iraq, just stay the course and run out the clock, leaving the mess to Bush’s successor. Petraeus delivered—again. Two further comments regarding Petraeus should be made. First—and most unfortunately—Congress and Big Media went along with the charade that because Petraeus wore the uniform he would present his own independent views on Iraq, as if he operated in a truth bubble independent of policy, politics and Bush. This charade allowed Bush—who hid behind Petraeus’ uniform—to decisively win that round. Second, there is a limit, a line, as to how far a senior military leader can go in playing politics, in making decisions inappropriate for the military to make, and in distorting reality—a line that should not be crossed—and history will judge whether General Petraeus is General Betray Us. The better view is that he did in fact cross that line. Even counting the lies and distortions rampant in Powell’s watershed UN speech in February 2003, it is truly amazing how little “evidence” was presented. “Is that all you have?” was a common reaction of professional intelligence officers. Senior officials in the Bush regime pitched the Iraq war much like American tobacco companies hyped cigarettes. Here is a small sample of their lies and propaganda during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq:


64 •

Cheney: “Stated simply, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.” • Rumsfeld: “We know where they are.” • Bush and Rice spoke frequently of “mushroom clouds” rising over the United States. • Bush: “We have sources that tell us that Saddam recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons—the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” • Richard Perle: “There will be dancing in the streets throughout Iraq if we liberate that country. The idea that it’s going to damage us in the Arab world is nonsense. We will be seen not as invaders but as liberators.” • Sticking to GOP sound bites, Cheney: “We will be greeted as liberators ... the people of Iraq will welcome us as liberators.” • Cheney: “[M]y belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators … I think it will go relatively quickly, … (in) weeks rather than months.” • Bush: “Intelligence … leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” • Powell: “Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option.” • Wolfowitz: According to Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz predicted the war would last seven days and be relatively easy. • Rumsfeld, when speaking to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy, on February 7, 2003, said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” Later, at a congressional hearing in early 2004, Wolfowitz was unable to say how many American troops had already died in Iraq. Several months before the invasion, British leaders were aware of the Bush administration’s deceitful campaign to sell its war on Iraq. Consider for example the infamous “Downing Street Memo,” a classified British report (marked “SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY”) dated July 23, 2002, regarding a senior British intelligence meeting in the White House. The secret report, which was published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, makes it clear that Bush dragged America into war with “fixed” evidence and bogus claims concerning Saddam’s nonexistent WMDs. As for planning, the British report states there “was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.” In an October 13, 2006, interview with The Daily Mail, the head of the British Army in Iraq, Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt, effectively dropped a political bomb on Tony Blair’s foreign policy when he stated that the presence of British troops in Iraq “exacerbates the security problems” in Iraq and worldwide for Britain, and that British troops should “get out some time soon.” His comments favoring withdrawal were widely supported by retired British generals and throughout the British Army, and they contrasted sharply with the “stay-the-course,” “everything-is-wonderful” talking points coming from the White House and Downing Street.


65

The comments from Britain’s top commander in Iraq were especially shocking because British military leaders generally keep their mouths shut about political matters. Gen. Dannatt, an evangelical Christian, also questioned the political goals and planning regarding the Iraq war. “I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.” Some of the sharpest criticism of the Bush neocons comes from traditional American conservatives who feel betrayed. SIDEBAR: Pat Buchanan: The War Party and Anti-Semitism Ultraconservative Pat Buchanan, a frequent critic of the neocons’ misguided transformation of the conservative cause, writes: “The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with.”25 Even before the start of the Iraq war, Buchanan frequently referred to the neoconcontrolled Republican Party as the War Party. “A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.” One of Buchanan’s personal “mistakes” was to argue that the neocons are pursuing an Israeli agenda, specifically the destructive extreme right agenda pushed by Sharon and the Likud Party. Unfortunately, this exposed Buchanan to neocon hatchets. Instead of debating Buchanan on the merits, the neocons—many of whom are Jewish and do support the most extreme rightwing policies of the Likud Party— labeled him anti-Semitic. Buchanan wrote: The neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives. Indeed, it is the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.

Eight weeks into the Iraq war, which he opposed, Buchanan once again showed his usual backbone and independence. In an editorial of June 4, 2003, Buchanan listed several of the numerous lies told by the Bush Administration in the run-up to the war, and he then wrote: Is it possible Iraq never had that vast arsenal of weapons that we were led to believe? Did the intelligence agencies fail us, or did someone ‘cook the books’ to meet the recipe for an imperial war? It is time Congress investigated the Office of Special Plans, set up in the Pentagon to sift and interpret all intelligence, and placed under neoconservative superhawk Paul Wolfowitz.

25

New York Times, Sept. 8, 2002.

66


Unfortunately, it is off limits for America’s corporate media to fairly discuss the neocons’ connections to Israel and its most rightwing factions, or even the fact that most of the hardcore neocons are Jewish. Of the hundreds of special interest groups that lobby the executive branch and Congress regarding America’s foreign policy, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is by far the most influential and feared. Its enormous clout, coupled with its willingness to kill the messenger if the message is not perceived as sufficiently pro-Israel, puts the fear of God in any American politician, whether Democrat or Republican, who wishes to be candid and rational regarding Middle East affairs. The result is that there is much less meaningful debate in the United States regarding anything affecting Israel than there is anywhere else in the developed Western world, including Israel itself. In addition to compromising the war on terrorism, Bush’s Middle East policies have made things worse for both Israel and the Palestinians, with increased deaths on both sides, and with no peace in sight. History will prove Bush to be one of Israel’s worst enemies. Scornful of Clinton’s efforts to help secure permanent Israeli/Palestinian peace, Bush did nothing “peaceful” other than to refer occasionally to that charade known as the “roadmap” for peace. He and the GOP have been AWOL. His violence-first policies have especially harmed the long-term strategic interests of Israel, America’s most steadfast ally in the region, and jeopardized its very existence. When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it got nothing in return, definitely a Bush League bargain. The sad truth is that Bush and the GOP are not honest brokers for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or for peace in the broader Middle East, and the world knows this. As a result, Bush and his War Party are distrusted and worse than ineffective. They have in fact harmed Israel’s strategic interests, while also making things much worse for the Palestinians. SIDEBAR: Carter and Clinton to the Rescue America should empower Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to represent America in an international effort to seriously restart a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, with the goal of a permanent lasting peace mutually agreeable to Israel and the Palestinians. Nothing will promote peace more in the Middle East than for the United States to take a leadership role in brokering a permanent peace treaty between these two peoples. Yes, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem.


67

America’s allies and friends would be encouraged if Carter and Clinton were empowered to help mediate a peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. In sharp contrast to Bush, both are respected world leaders who devoted enormous personal effort to the pursuit of peace between Israel and its neighbors, including the Palestinians. Many observers believe that peace in the Middle East is impossible. We all hear people say something like, “The people in the Middle East just want to kill each other, and they’ve been doing it for centuries. There is nothing we can do.” This pessimistic—and erroneous—point of view has a certain appeal, and at weak moments your author sometimes succumbs to it too. But at the end of the day, it is a point of view—based in rightwing propaganda—that conveniently justifies doing nothing, while it whitewashes misguided U.S. policies. Notwithstanding the major setbacks under Bush’s watch, there have been major achievements in the Middle East over the years, and America must not make the mistake of thinking the situation regarding Israel and the Palestinians is hopeless. Peace is possible. Carter and Clinton proved it. But for the leadership and dedicated efforts of Carter and Clinton, there would not exist the lasting peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, and the lasting peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. Consider Carter’s enormous efforts. Imagine how much worse the situation would now be for Israel and the region if a permanent peace agreement had not been signed between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Carter worked tirelessly for that peace agreement, and it took strength, moral leadership and integrity on his part. In short, it took diplomacy, something missing from Bush’s and the GOP’s toolkit. Neither Egypt nor Israel has ever broken this peace agreement. At the same time, no one—no Jew, Muslim, or Christian—can truthfully say that Carter was not a strong supporter of Israel and its right to exist and live in peace with its neighbors. Carter—a Navy veteran, a strong Christian his entire life, and recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize—earned the respect and trust of both Israelis and Muslims. What happened to the three heroes of the 1979 peace agreement between Egypt and Israel? For his efforts, Egyptian President Anwar Al Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by army personnel who were members of the extremist Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Israeli Prime Minister Menachen Begin died of natural causes in 1992. As for Jimmy Carter, we will discuss in Chapter 8—“The Religious Wrong”—some of his ongoing unflagging efforts for peace. Consider Clinton’s enormous efforts for peace in the Middle East. Imagine how much worse the situation would be for Israel and the region if a permanent peace agreement had not been signed, during Clinton’s watch, between Israel and Jordan. The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace of October 26, 1994, ended the state of war that had existed between Israel and Jordan since the birth of modern Israel in 1948, and it normalized relations and settled all land disputes between them.

68


Upon becoming president, Bush immediately put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the back burner and thereafter blindly supported the rightwing faction in Israel at every turn, thus encouraging the killing to escalate. As a result, not even “phase one” of the “road map” to peace was successfully implemented. This failure scored political points for Bush with America’s extreme Christian right, many of whom see the growing pools of Israeli and Palestinian blood as glorious signposts along the road to Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. (We discuss this extreme rightwing influence in Chapter 9, “Eschatology and the Book of Revelation.”) The Bush presidency will be remembered as the wasted years. When it comes to matters of peace and war, Bush and the GOP cannot be trusted. Democratic presidents Carter and Clinton believed in diplomacy, and that war is a last resort, not a first. They demonstrated “peace through strength.” Republican Bush believes in war as a first resort, and is clueless regarding diplomacy. He and his GOP achieved “weakness through war.” In January 2005 Rice noted, “the time for diplomacy is now.” No, that was incorrect. The time for diplomacy regarding the Middle East, including the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, was the first day of the Bush regime. A sad irony imbedded in the End Times prophecy of fundamentalist Christians is that all Jews and all Muslims will be slaughtered like cattle and burn in Hell forever,26 while the beneficiaries—the chosen few among rightwing Christians—will go to Heaven to bask in the glory of their treatment of Jews and Muslims here on Earth. This rightwing crusader theology, supported by a rightwing president who believes His Heavenly Father directs him, is doing more to radicalize Islam than 1,000 bin Ladens. In bin Laden’s wildest dreams, Allah could not have sent him a better lap dog and ally than George W. Bush—and by extension, the GOP Congress that looked the other way when evil was afoot. The leadership of every major Christian denomination in the world, except for the Southern Baptists in America, opposed Bush’s war on Iraq because it clearly violated Christian theology. With unchristian chutzpah, Bush turned a deaf ear to reason and dissent, including that coming from his own United Methodist denomination, of which your author is an active and proud member. Worldwide Christian leadership accurately warned Bush about the enormous negative consequences that were likely to result if he pursued his immoral war on Iraq. The hijacking of Christianity to promote a war on Iraq defamed Christianity and helped torpedo any prospect for a strong coalition.

26

Under some End Times interpretations, Jews and Muslims would have a last-chance opportunity to convert to Christianity before the Second Coming, but, of course, if they did, they would no longer be Jews and Muslims.


69

SIDEBAR: “God Bless the World” and “God Bless Iraq” Never fans of American exceptionalism being used to justify American imperialism, America’s friends are especially amazed, at a time when American troops are at war in the Islamic world, to see the concept so exploited and twisted by America’s Religious Right, which ignores the biblical dictate that Christianity is a world community that transcends national boundaries. Foreigners are both amused and disgusted with the chauvinistic claim that “America is the best country in the world,” a bromide believed most vociferously by Americans who have never been outside the United States. On its face, “God Bless America” is a fine sentiment, but it contradicts Christ’s teachings when it implies that other peoples are not as worthy of God’s favor as Americans, or when it reflects blind support for American militarism, whether right or dead wrong. When America’s cause is right, religious jingoism is not needed. WWJD—“What Would Jesus Do?” Suppose Jesus needed an automobile with a bumper sticker that said, “God Bless” something. He might choose “God Bless the World” for his hybrid. But suppose his Father playfully forced him to pick a particular nation. It’s a safe bet Jesus would prefer “God Bless Iraq” over “God Bless America,” for the simple reason that Iraqis are much more in need of blessings from God. Yes, let’s keep those “God Bless America” stickers. But let’s also do “a tithe” of new stickers for “God Bless the World” and “God Bless Iraq.” Love America, yes, but love the rest of the world too. And for the truly daring, how about a few “God Bless France” signs too? Whether Christian or Islamic, there is no constructive role in God’s world for exclusive or militant evangelism. It is especially destructive when pushed by the world’s only superpower. As he turned the White House into a crusading cockpit, Bush found it impossible to cobble together even a minor league coalition for his reckless Iraq adventure. He struck out with the bases loaded and found himself at the head of the willowy Bush League of Nations. America’s ability to fight the war on terrorism has been severely crippled by numerous huge Bush blunders, including his occupation of Iraq and his policy of doing nothing to further peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Another major blunder is his coddling of nations that support terrorism, while he wages war on Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 or the war on terrorism. If the Bush White House were serious about dealing with terrorism, it would—in addition to taking a hard look in the mirror—focus on autocratic governments with policies that promote terrorists and terrorism. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are high on this list, but Bush does little to promote revolutionary, progressive change in these two countries, other than mouth rhetoric intended for America’s gullible. Bush and the GOP catastrophically transformed 9/11 into a green light for fascist leaders and fascist leader wannabes around the world—from Saudi Arabia to Paki-

70


stan, from Moscow to Beijing, from Washington, D.C. to Iran. They all rejoiced in the opportunity to consolidate power, restrict individual rights, smash political rivals, brutalize minorities, and destroy constitutional rights—all in the name of the “war on terrorism.” The damage caused by America’s chief sociopathic nitwit is inestimable. When Bush campaigned for the presidency in 2000, he didn’t even know the name of the leader of either Pakistan or India, and he thought Greeks were called Grecians. Much has been written about the decades-long cozy relationship between the Bush family and the ruling Saudi princes, although the true depth of this cesspool of oil and money will probably never be known. The Saudi princes, including relatives of bin Laden, have enjoyed an extraordinary amount of influence in the Bush White House, including sleepover rights. Although this may be in the best financial interests of the Bush family—which has pocketed tens of millions in Saudi money—it is in the worst interests of America. As for the war on terror, Saudi Arabia has a strong history of directly and indirectly supporting global terrorism, perhaps more than any other nation. Also, its long robust relationship with the Bush family disproves Bush’ new assertion that he supports democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East, and it is no surprise that a huge supermajority of the world’s billion Muslims don’t trust him or his regime. One of the best books that focuses on the financial and political ties of the Bush family to the extended Saud family that rules Saudi Arabia is Craig Unger’s House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties, which begins with the special royal treatment given to 140 Saudis within two days after 9/11, at a time when American airspace was severely restricted. The Bush administration authorized the immediate departure of these Saudis—many of whom are kin of bin Laden—and thus none of the Saudis were interrogated by American intelligence. Unger concludes, “Never before has an American president been so closely tied to a foreign power that harbors and supports our country’s mortal enemies.” If Bill Clinton had given the Saudis such special treatment, the GOP would have immediately started impeachment proceedings. Curiously, there was no such evacuation by the nationals of any other nation, Muslim or not. Is it too bold—too unfair to Bush and his Saudi cronies—to ask, “What did bin Laden’s relatives and the other scadaddling Saudis know, and when did they know it?” Curiously, it took almost two years for the Bush White House to even acknowledge that it approved the Saudi evacuation. This cover-up would have continued if Richard Clarke, following his departure from the Bush White House, had not focused needed sunlight on Bush’s secretive and paranoid inner circle. Clarke said he agreed to the evacuation plans on behalf of the White House because the FBI had apparently “determined” that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. This fails the smell test. How could such a determination—that the Saudis were not linked to terrorism—be made in just a few hours after 9/11? Consider how long it takes the Bush government to investigate anything. How could the departing members of bin Laden’s family be properly investigated and questioned by the FBI in just hours? They could not and were not. More telling, why would the White House during the precious hectic hours following 9/11 have even


71

taken the time to consider such an evacuation request? Why was protection of bin Laden’s family a top priority? The White House justified the evacuation by saying it was concerned about the Saudis’ safety following 9/11. If safety was the real concern—say, as opposed to protecting the White House from embarrassing disclosures—why weren’t the dozens of Saudis simply moved to a safe location in the United States where they could be properly questioned later? Imagine the uproar in America’s corporate media and in the GOP-controlled Congress if Bill Clinton or Al Gore had been president and had given cover to bin Laden’s family as Bush did. Imagine the immediate calls for impeachment. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) demanded that the White House investigate the departure of dozens of Saudis in the days after 9/11, believing that the Saudis could have shed light on the 9/11 attacks. “It’s almost as if we didn’t want to find out what links existed.” Exactly. Rather than focusing on obvious major-league problems such as Saudi Arabia, the Bush administration had its eyes on Iraq. Chomping at the bit to control Iraq, and blinded by his childlike faith that only good things would happen, Bush from the comfort of his White House Bubble rushed into his Iraq war without adequate plans for the war or its aftermath.

Blunders in Iraq and the Region It took more than three years of war in Iraq for a clear majority of Americans to realize that Bush and the GOP never had a plan for Iraq and still don’t.27 The final New York Times/CBS News survey before the November 2006 midterm elections asked this simple question: “So far, do you think George W. Bush has developed a clear plan for dealing with the situation in Iraq, or hasn’t he developed one?” Sixty-nine percent of Americans answered “no,” and 29% answered “yes.” Unfortunately, the survey did not ask any follow up questions as to what the gullible 29% were thinking. For example, of the 29% who believed Bush had developed a clear plan, how many believed it would lead to success? How many even had the foggiest idea as to what the plan might be? In the meantime, under its rudderless commander in chief and the civilian suits in the Pentagon and White House, the U.S. military is fighting blind in Iraq, never quite sure who the “evil doers” are, forced to rely upon unreliable Iraqi “intelligence,” as various Iraqi factions manipulate and leverage U.S. military power to further their various personal and sectarian agendas. Comprehensive planning shaped by reality has never been at home in a Bush League White House occupied by a gang of myopic incense swingers. These rightwing fools believed that it is the role of supreme powers to “create history,” not be 27

The “planning phobia” of the Bush regime brings to mind this humorous exchange from Casablanca: Yvonne: Where were you last night? Rick Blaine: That’s so long ago, I don’t remember. Yvonne: Will I see you tonight? Rick Blaine: I never make plans that far ahead.

72


fettered by lessons it might teach. One history lesson they ignored, at America’s peril, is that patriotic wars against imperial powers have occurred hundreds of times throughout world history, not only in America during its Revolutionary War but also numerous times in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world. In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush neocons isolated and ignored the U.S. State Department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau because it correctly expressed major-league skepticism about Iraq’s alleged WMDs. In its “Future of Iraq” project (17 volumes), the State Department also correctly assessed the enormous complexity and difficulty of construction and reconstruction of Iraq, but the Bush regime also dismissed this expert work. It threw it on the trash pile. November 27, 2006, won’t be remembered as a sad milestone in Bush League imperialism and incompetence, but it should be. On that date Bush’s war on Iraq became longer than America’s participation in World War II. Bob Woodward’s book, Plan of Attack, provides much detail about the Bush neocons’ rushed war plans for Iraq, as well as their cavalier attitude towards planning the reconstruction and winning the peace. Before the war, countless critics and experts said the reconstruction of Iraq would be much more difficult than the war, but the Bush neocons ignored this advice. According to Woodward, General Tommy Franks called Douglas Feith “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” Feith—the number three civilian at the Pentagon after Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz—was Bush’s key Iraq “reconstruction” official at the Pentagon and helped orchestrate the huge mess in Iraq. Unfortunately for America and Iraq, too much of Bush’s “plan” for Iraq was either Feith-based or faith-based. The Bush neocons believed a fairytale in which all Iraqis would be happy, even those without security, jobs, electricity, medical care, safe drinking water and their daily bread. Somehow the God of Capitalism would take care of everything. Woodward quotes Cheney as saying that the United States needed “to have a light hand in the postwar phase.” Planning and hard work were thus not necessary. Following the huge initial military successes, the Iraqi people eagerly desired and expected improvement in their lives. At that unique moment in history, America had an unprecedented opportunity to show it could deliver results. However, Bush and the Cons failed catastrophically, squandering the historic opportunity through lack of sensible and comprehensive planning for the peace, and through terrible execution. • In less than one year after the GOP’s invasion of Iraq, America went from liberators to occupiers—the enemy of a huge super majority of Iraqis. • A May 2004 poll taken by the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority found that only 2% of Iraqis viewed American forces as “liberators,” while 92% of Iraqis saw them as “occupiers.” (Although international law is ignored at will by Bush and the GOP, U.S. forces in Iraq are “occupiers” under international law, and as such are legally obligated to maintain the peace.) • Like most Iraqis, American Muslims also were happy to see Saddam deposed, and many were initially optimistic about the prospects for their relatives and friends in Iraq. However, their support for Bush’s policies rapidly plummeted as the Bush League failures mushroomed day by day in Iraq.


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

73

For example, the optimism of the Muslims of Dearborn, Michigan—the second largest Muslim community in America—quickly turned to disappointment within one year after the invasion. According to a Gallup poll in early 2004, about 80% of Iraq’s citizens said they wanted the United States to leave within two months. Although many Iraqis were initially hopeful, they soon learned that Bush’s GOP administration was uncaring and incompetent—anything but compassionate. One of the hugest Bush League blunders was the firing of several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, upon whom almost 20% of Iraq’s families depended for support. The mass firing broke prewar promises made by the top echelons of America’s military to their Iraqi military counterparts. Another huge blunder was the failure to secure hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions in hundreds of locations scattered around Iraq. Everyone knew Iraq was “one big ammo dump”—according to Robert Gates, who replaced Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense in late 2006. A government audit released by the GAO in March 2007 revealed the Pentagon did not even create a program to manage and destroy conventional munitions until well after the declaration that major combat operations were over. The 2007 GAO report, released four years after the invasion, also revealed: (1) the United States still did not know how many stockpiles of weapons and munitions remained unsecured; (2) the unaccounted for munitions could range from “thousands to millions of tons;” and (3) most of the explosives used in IEDs to kill American troops had been plundered from unsecured stockpiles of munitions. The GAO report warned that the stockpiles could still be looted by terrorists and insurgents, and it recommended a nationwide survey to locate unsecured munitions, but Bush’s overstretched Pentagon resisted this idea. The Bush regime in effect provided orders of magnitude more weaponry and explosives to Iraqi insurgents than Iran ever will. Iraq, which never had even a single one-room schoolhouse for terrorists, is now the central campus of Terrorist University, where the graduates who survive the tough final exams can find rewarding terrorist jobs throughout the world. As Terrorist University’s founder and number one supporter, Bush was the perfect catalyst for turning non-terrorists into terrorists and creating countless new decentralized militant organizations, most with antiAmerica objectives. According to an extensive report released in January 2005 by the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the recruitment, breeding and training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” Islamic terrorists.

74


SIDEBAR: Grand Ayatollah Sistani and Other Powers Behind the Throne The Bush administration talks only with political leaders who genuflect before America’s new emperor, a counterproductive policy that only magnifies cluelessness and incompetence in the Bush White House. Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani is the most prominent of about a dozen respected Iraqi clerics who neither have nor seek the ear of the Bush administration. Sistani has a huge following, in sharp contrast with the line of figurehead Iraqi prime ministers with whom the Bush administration occasionally deals.28 There is one certainty regarding America’s withdrawal, namely that America will have nothing but hugely ugly alternatives to withdrawal when a key group of Iraqi clerics, including especially Sistani, tell America to leave.29 In the meantime, Bush and America’s military are in effect working for Sistani and other Shiite clerics, helping kill their enemy in the Iraq Civil War, primarily but not exclusively Sunnis, and giving the Shiite forces time to consolidate power in Iraq’s military and police. The vast majority of Iraqis being trained and equipped by America are Shiites and Kurds, not Sunnis, and many Shiite death squads, which are reminiscent of the death squads that killed tens of thousands during Reagan’s secret illegal war in Central America in the 1980s, now operate within Iraq’s U.S.-trained military and police. Unfortunately, the ongoing bloody occupation has strengthened the hands of the most militant clerics, especially Muqtada al-Sadr, while undercutting and radicalizing “moderates” like Sistani. Sistani, like Sadr, has distanced himself from Bush and America, knowing he will lose stature if he is even seen with the American imperialist. In contrast with Bush’s uninformed outside perspective, Sistani does not need to meet with Bush in order to understand what is happening in Iraq.

28 Saddam Hussein was Iraq’s republican prime minister until the fall of Baghdad in early 2003. No prime minister succeeded him until May 28, 2004, when Ayad Allawi became state prime minister. During the interim, Iraq was run by American bureaucrats, principally Paul Bremer. Allawi was succeeded by Ibrahim al-Jaafari on April 7, 2005, and Nouri al-Maliki on May 20, 2006. 29 There was an ideal window of opportunity—in 2003 or 2004—for the United States to request an Iraqi referendum in which Iraqi citizens would decide the fate of the occupation, including its scale and duration, and including the opportunity to set a firm date for complete military withdrawal by the United States and its Bush League partners. Such a step would have exhibited right intentions and improved America’s credibility. Although the ideal time for this referendum has passed, it should nevertheless be immediately pursued. Unfortunately, the Bush regime decreed that American forces would be in Iraq for many years, i.e., perpetually.


75

Sistani has never met with Bush, never sat with Laura Bush in any State of the Union photo op, and never even met with Bush administration officials. When Secretary of State Rice flew to Baghdad in May 2005 in a surprise visit, she was unable to meet with Sistani and other key power brokers and religious leaders of Iraq. Imagine that. A few days later, however, Sistani demonstrated chutzpah when he graciously met with the foreign minister of Iran, who had traveled from Tehran to Baghdad to meet with Sistani and other Iraqi leaders. Sistani and other Iraqi clerics are biding their time, knowing that America eventually will voluntarily withdraw from Iraq or be kicked out. In the meantime American soldiers are dying helping fight the Shiite clerics’ battles. It was Sistani, over the objections of the Bush administration, who insisted on direct Iraqi elections, rather than the bizarre election alternatives pushed by Bush. Like the February 2006 destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, the assassination of Sistani or another prominent cleric—a foreseeable and even likely event—will further ratchet up the violence in Bush’s Iraq. Although events in Iraq have spiraled out of his or anyone’s control, Sistani has shown incredible restraint as he plans for the new Iraq. The slaughter in Iraq would be much worse if he had risen to the bloodlust spawned by Bush’s occupation. In late 2006 it was reported that Sistani—due to severe personal medical problems—had abandoned politics but would continue responding to religious questions. But let’s not reserve a Nobel Peace Prize for him. Not a pacifist, Sistani is using the occupation forces for his own purposes, and no one should be surprised when he and other “docile” rightwing clerics turn loose their long knives at a time of their choosing. •

•

•

Although Congress allocated billions of dollars for reconstruction, Bush’s unpopularity in Iraq soared. Even when playing Santa Claus, Bush could not inspire trust and friendship, largely because his regime’s incompetence fed waste, nepotism, corruption and bloody chaos. The Bush neocons failed to prepare for the foreseeable likelihood that Iraqi insurgents would use guerrilla tactics, rather than getting slaughtered in conventional combat with U.S. forces. The neocons ignored military history, which teaches that guerrilla tactics and other expressions of asymmetrical warfare are commonly used against a superior occupying force—a principal reason why America’s best military experts had recommended a much larger force in the first place. Bush greatly increased Iraqi unemployment, and thus poverty and animosity, by immediately firing not only the Iraqi military but also the Iraqi police force and countless other government workers, including even mid- and lower-level Baathist Party workers with expertise in running Iraq. These professionals were viewed as untrustworthy simply because they had worked for the Iraqi government. This was like firing all American military personnel, police, firemen and experienced administrators simply because they worked in Bush’s administration or were members of the GOP.


76

SIDEBAR: Looters in Iraq Could Learn from Bush and the GOP As part of a vast looting operation, more than 100 semi-trailers loaded with so-called “scrap” material cross the border into Jordan each day, according to a May 26, 2004, New York Times report. The scrap includes quantities of both old and new material, including components for utility plants and oilrigs, copper and aluminum ingots, as well as dismantled complexes of older buildings. Much of the scrap is in nearly mint condition. Well, that covers just Jordan, only one of five nations bordering Iraq. In addition, large quantities of looted material never leave Iraq. Based on the satellite monitoring of hundreds of Iraqi military-industrial complexes, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that entire buildings and sometimes entire complexes of buildings disappeared. The IAEA started this monitoring program in December 2003 after a uranium-contaminated steel vessel turned up in a scrap yard in the Netherlands. On a positive note, the looting of Iraq is much smaller in scale than the looting of America by Bush’s cronies and America’s Super Rich milking class. Of course, there is much more to steal in America. Also, the looting in Iraq is typically done with crowbars and trucks, whereas in America the looting was done for the ruling class by the President, the GOP-controlled Congress, and hordes of lobbyists wearing expensive suits—most of which is, more or less, perfectly legal. WWJD—What would Jesus do? Jesus would give the moral high ground to the Iraqi looters who are simply trying to feed their families. • • •

• •

Average Iraqi citizens quickly learned they would receive little or no benefit from America’s largess and the GOP-style privatization (i.e., looting) of Iraqi industry. Huge Iraqi contracts were granted to American oil companies by the U.S.led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) without the consent of the people of Iraq. The CPA provided no proper accounting as to the use of Iraqi oil revenues, and Iraqis were entitled to assume the worst. Extraordinary efforts to ensure transparency and fairness were called for, but the Bush neocons were deaf and blind to Iraqi sensibilities. After all, whether in America or in Iraq, oversight and accountability interfere with opportunities for GOP corporate cronies to loot. By 2007 as much as one-half of Iraq’s oil production was being diverted into a complex black market, with some of the profits being used to fund Iraq’s insurgency. The U.S.-run CPA could not account for $8.8 billion it transferred to various government ministries, according to a blistering report released in January 2005 by America’s Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The CPA’s reconstruction process was “open to fraud, kickbacks and mis-


•

•

77

appropriation of funds.” For example, one Iraqi ministry could account for only 602 of the 8,200 guards on its payroll. The Bush administration chose to work with many discredited Iraqis. At the top of this Bush League list of rogues is Ahmad Chalabi who was handpicked by the Bush administration to be the new leader of Iraq, even though he had no credibility or following within Iraq. Before Chalabi entered Baghdad with American forces in early 2003, he had not been seen in that city in decades. He was widely and accurately viewed as an agent of the United States. Over several years the United States had paid Chalabi millions of dollars to provide made-as-instructed phony intelligence on Iraq. Bush’s “plan” for Iraq encouraged cronyism and nepotism just like in Bush’s America. Several Chalabi relatives received plum appointments with many perks, including the opportunity to get rich at the public trough, just like in GOP America. One of Chalabi’s nephews became Iraq’s finance minister. An uncle of Chalabi was picked as one of the judges to try Saddam. A Chalabi cousin was put in charge of Iraqi oil security. GOP and Bush Family rules applied.

SIDEBAR: The Wrong Role Model As a possible role model for Iraq’s new government, the Bush administration is the antithesis of the liberal, pluralistic, just, democratic government that Iraq so desperately needs. Iraq’s Shiite leaders, who represent a large supermajority of Iraq’s population, can legitimately claim a much stronger electoral mandate than that deceptively claimed by the gloating Bush following his two narrow presidential victories. Accordingly, why shouldn’t Iraq’s new leaders also brag about their political capital and then go spend it, pursuing a narrow poke-em-in-the-eye agenda that favors themselves, their supporters and their cronies. An Islamic government in a Middle Eastern nation with a citizenry that is almost 100% Muslim would make more sense—and would have more legitimacy—than a Christian government in America, a nation whose birth, Constitution and greatness are anchored in religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Notwithstanding the absence of any democracy in Iraq during the lifetime of any living Iraqi, and notwithstanding years of oppression by Saddam and his chosen cronies and neo-conservatives, the new majority in Iraq needs to take the high road, and, in sharp contrast to the low road taken by Bush and the GOP, represent their entire nation, uniting rather than dividing, working for the welfare of all Iraqis, and not favoring their own branch of Islam. In short, they must govern Iraq exactly opposite from the way Bush and the GOP misgovern America. But don’t bet on that.


78

Ironically, an Islamic government in Iraq led by Islamic clergy—whether or not democratic—is likely to cause a fairer distribution of Iraq’s public oil resources than would either a Bush League puppet regime in Baghdad, or an independent Iraqi government modeled after Bush’s GOP administration. Bush’s and the GOP’s publictrough approach to governance epitomizes the style made famous by that unholy trinity of rotten political parties: 1) Saddam’s Republican Guard Party, 2) Texas’ Republican Guard Party, and 3) Bush’s Confederate Party, formerly known as the Republican Party. Iraqis should pray that their leaders reject Bush’s enrich-the-rich model, which involves the party apparatus funneling public revenues to its chosen few—to its cronies and coconspirators, to its donors and bribers, to its Enrons and Halliburtons, to its Chalabis and DeLays, and to its Blackwaters and a host of other public-trough slime balls. The situation on the ground in Iraq would be more positive if the United Nations, or NATO, or the Arab League, or any real well-intentioned coalition not headed by Bush and the GOP, had been in charge of the Iraq mission. The problem is Bush and the GOP style of governance. Corrupt governments, coupled with enormous meddling over several decades by outside powers, especially Britain and the United States, helped keep the Iraqi people under the boots of tyrants. The Iraqi people said “NO!” to Saddam, and they are shouting “NO!” to Bush and the GOP’s designs on Iraq. Iraq’s best hope, however slim, is that the Iraqi people will recognize and leverage the long periods in their often glorious history when Iraq was peaceful, diverse and tolerant, and that—notwithstanding recent decades of wars, civil unrest, and external and internal repression—the Iraqi people will make their own way to a safer and more prosperous future. • • •

•

To Iraq’s detriment, the Bush regime planned for Iraq to leave OPEC. This will prove to be another neocon fantasy—an oily pipe dream. The supply of electricity in Iraq became so inadequate that by early 2006 there were discussions of having Iran supply electricity to Iraq via new transmission lines to be constructed. During the 2003 invasion, Bush’s armchair civilian commanders ordered U.S. soldiers to guard the Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad with tanks and machine guns, while unguarded museums and hospitals were systematically looted. The Bush League incompetence and imperialism caused many unintended consequences, including violent attacks on Iraq’s Christian community. During Saddam’s reign, Christians were protected from Islamic extremists and could serve in government. They could even sell alcohol. Following the occupation there have been numerous attacks against Iraqi Christians, including torture, executions and church bombings, with Christian women also targeted. The Christian community has no militia to protect itself.

CHAPTER 4 THE UNJUST WAR IN IRAQ •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

79

Evidencing one small piece of the broader ethnic cleansing taking place in Bush’s Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians fled Iraq after the 2003 invasion, with some estimates of this tragic exodus as high as 120,000 for the first three years. A majority of these Christians want to come to America, but that door is barred for all but a lucky handful. A 1987 Iraqi census placed Iraq’s Christian population at 1.4 million, and subsequent rough estimates indicate it fell to 600,000 to 800,000 by 2007. The two largest Christian sects—Assyrian Christians and Chaldean Catholics—continue to worship in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The small community of Iraqis who practice the pacifist, monotheistic Mandaean religion is also subject to severe repression in the neo-Iraq and is on a path to extinction. Thanks to murder, rape, forced conversion, and a massive exodus, Iraq’s Mandaean community—estimated to number more than 60,000 in the early 1990s—had been reduced to about 7,000 by 2007. Even the puppet Iraqi Governing Council established by the United States was critical of Bush’s policies. For example, the Council objected to the U.S.-controlled CPA favoring foreign firms over Iraqi firms in awarding reconstruction contracts. Rend Rahim Francke, the Council’s designated ambassador to the United States, said in early 2004 that the occupation authority run by Paul Bremer is “opaque to Iraqis. It’s still not transparent.” She was appalled when American companies imported Asian laborers, while unemployed Iraqi citizens desperately sought work. Wanting time to implement its imperial designs for Iraq, the Bush regime fought rapid democratization in Iraq at virtually every turn. Bush opposed early local elections in 2003, while Shiite leaders including Sistani demanded a faster path to democracy. Under Rumsfeld’s watch, tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq were given inferior and inadequate flak jackets and body armor. Many turned to eBay and family and friends to buy the equipment they needed. Reacting to public outcry, Congress later required the Department of Defense to reimburse the troops and their families and friends for their out-of-pocket expenses in purchasing the needed equipment on their own. However, as late as 2005, the Rumsfeld-mismanaged Department of Defense, which was responsible for the inadequate equipment in the first place, failed to comply. In March 2007 USA Today reported that the Air Force had lost about 40% of the unmanned Predator aircraft used in Iraq and that it lacked sufficient trained crews to handle the demand for battlefield surveillance in Afghanistan and Iraq. American military patrols and convoys are dependent on Predators for surveillance and firepower, especially in the daily battle against IEDs, the number one killer of U.S. personnel. Bush’s failure in Iraq is likely to destroy or cripple the prospect of America having favored access to oil in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. A democratic Iraq, whether or not under the control of rightwing religious leaders—theirs, not ours—is unlikely to cater to either America or America’s oil industry.


80 •

• •

• •

•

• • •

•

Because of the escalating sectarian violence, school attendance rates dropped dramatically in Iraq. According to Iraq’s Ministry of Education, only 30% of Iraq’s 3.5 million students were attending school at the start of the 2006-07 school year, compared with 75% the prior year, and almost 100% at the time of the U.S. invasion in 2003. Attendance rates were particularly low in more violent districts in Baghdad, as well as in the Sunnidominated Anbar province and in Kirkuk in the north. The Ministry reported in October 2006 that 310 teachers were killed during the preceding year. Large numbers of Iraq’s educated and professional class—including businessmen, doctors, lawyers, journalists and teachers—left Iraq because of the chaos and because they are insurgent targets. About 2,000 Iraqi doctors were killed in the first four years of Bush’s occupation, and the medical system is in extreme chaos. One-fourth of Iraq’s 18,000 doctors left Iraq by October 2005, according to Iraq’s Health Ministry, and many more leave each month. Sunnis who go to Baghdad hospitals put their lives at risk, because Shiite militia from time to time enter these hospitals, even in broad daylight, to torture and kill Sunni patients. Hundreds of Iraqi professors and teachers have been killed, and thousands have quit. Murderers target women for “honor crimes.” In October 2006, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that up to 1.6 million Iraqis had already fled their homes in Iraq “in a steady, silent exodus” for other nations as a result of the Iraq war and resulting sectarian violence. The UN report noted that about 100,000 more Iraqis were fleeing each month. Other estimates also place the exodus at about 2 million through the end of 2006. This flood of two million refugees constitutes almost 8% of Iraq’s population. On a per capita basis, this is equivalent to more than 23 million Americans fleeing the United States, or about eight times the entire population of Iowa. According to Syrian security officials, about one million of the Iraqi refugees live in Damascus, a city of three million, and Jordanian officials report that more than 750,000 are in or near Amman, a city of 2.5 million. A report of Refugees International in late 2006 stated that the “displacement of Iraqis from Iraq is now the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.” According to the same UN report of October 2006, the Iraqi government and UNHCR estimate that an additional total of more than 1.5 million Iraqis were displaced within Iraq since the war started, including “more than 365,000 newly displaced who have fled their homes and communities” in the preceding seven months. On a per capita basis, this additional flood of 1.5 million internally displaced Iraqis is equivalent to about 18 million Americans, or six times the population of Iowa, and the number is increasing. UNHCR declared in October 2006 that the enormous scale and difficulty of the problem place it “practically beyond the capacity of humanitarian agen-


• •

•

• •

•

•

•

• •

81

cies, including UNHCR.” UNHCR later estimated that about 500,000 Iraqis were displaced in 2006. Estimates of unemployment in the greater Baghdad area in 2006 and 2007 typically ranged from 40 to 60%, with a high level of underemployment. Staying alive is the most important occupation. Iraqis are being killed at a much higher rate during Bush’s occupation than during that of Saddam before the invasion. Also, thanks to Bush, the worst likely lies ahead, as the Iraq Civil War and genocide are not yet full-blown, and regional warfare has not yet broken out. Bush and the GOP tried to use America’s military might to “shock and awe” Iraq and the world, but instead they exposed their own shocking and awful incompetence. Under grade “W” leadership, America’s A Team became bogged down in a wrong war, and the fault rests entirely with Bush and the GOP, not with America’s troops. The Bush regime did an even worse job controlling Iraq’s borders than it does controlling America’s own borders. The “new Iraq”—whether it remains intact, or fragments into three or more nations, or evolves into a soft confederation of three or more regions—will greatly expand its military capability at some point, including possibly the development of weapons of mass destruction. In the future, Iraq’s perspective on WMD development could mimic that of Iran, where, thanks to Bush and his warmongering neocons, the vast majority of Iranians—including millions of Iranians opposed to their theocratic dictators—now believes Iran needs its own nuclear weapons. The Iraqi forces trained by the United States and Britain have increasingly been infiltrated by militia forces and death squads loyal not to Iraq, but rather to powerful Shiite clerics and their private sectarian forces, such as Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. By arming and training Kurds and Shiites who control the Iraqi government, Bush has unwittingly picked sides in Iraq’s Civil War. As the Shredder in Chief of the U.S. Constitution, Bush is the worst possible American leader to counsel Iraq on its form of government and the essentials of an Iraqi constitution to protect all minorities, including especially the Sunnis. By late 2007 Bush had begun also arming, and paying the monthly salaries of, tens of thousands of Sunnis who previously had fought America’s troops and may do so again in the future, and who someday may attempt to march on the Green Zone and seize control of Iraq’s government. Even excluding the thousands of insurgent and sectarian bombings and attacks since the 2003 invasion, Bush’s Iraq has a much higher crime rate than Saddam’s Iraq. Having seen every justification for the Iraq war fall by the wayside, Bush supporters have been reduced to asserting that Iraqis are “better off” with Saddam dead. (It is good that Saddam is dead, but Iraqis are not “better off” with him dead.) Such desperate “better than Saddam” arguments on Bush’s behalf are like a desperate suitor making his last pitch to the beautiful lady he is unsuccessfully courting: “You really should marry me. I’m not as bru-


82

•

• •

tal as Jack the Ripper, and I’m not as crooked as my many Texan buddies like Tom DeLay.” Now that’s desperate. Notwithstanding Bush’s numerous claims that the training of Iraqi security forces is going well, America’s top two military commanders in the region—General George Casey and General John Abizaid—in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29, 2005, said that of the approximately 100 Iraqi battalions, only one was able to operate independently of U.S. forces, down from the previous grand total of three. In the same hearing, General Casey also noted that reducing American forces in Iraq would “take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force.” Before Bush’s 2003 invasion there were zero foreign militants operating in those areas of Iraq controlled by Saddam.

SIDEBAR: How to Immediately Reduce the Foreign Militants in Iraq by 98% The Bush regime frequently lies about the source, number and role of foreign militants in Iraq, never pointing out that there were no such militants in Saddamcontrolled Iraq before Bush’s 2003 invasion. Supported by America’s corporate media, White House spinmeisters painted a picture of foreign militants being the heart, soul and backbone of the Iraqi insurgency. In late 2005 the Center for Strategic International Studies, based in Washington D.C., estimated that foreign militants constituted only 4 to 10% of an estimated 30,000 insurgency militants in Iraq. Even using the higher 10% figure, there are no more than 3,000 such foreign militants in Iraq. But that 3,000 figure for the number of foreign militants ignores approximately 175,000 other foreign troops in Iraq, namely: • 160,000 U.S. troops, plus • 15,000 other non-U.S. coalition troops (most of whom remain in secure locations and do no fighting, but let’s count them anyway.) The withdrawal by the United States and the rest of the Bush League coalition therefore would cause the number of foreign troops in Iraq to be reduced from 178,000 down to 3,000—a drop of more than 98%. Ironically, while foreign fighters constitute only a very small portion of the insurgents in Iraq, foreign fighters (i.e., American troops) constitute the vast majority of the fighters doing the heavy work against the insurgency. On both counts, this is exactly backwards from what Bush would like you to believe. •

According to screening reports by the Pentagon for the period from 2003 into 2005, 28% of returning U.S. troops required mental health or medical care. The figures are higher for reserve and National Guard troops than for active-duty troops, and higher for females.


83

Kicked in the teeth by reality, the Bushies gradually downsized their military expectations in Iraq. Their fantasy started with: • victory with flowers … which declined to • victory with exploding flowers … which declined further to • occupation with animosity (and exploding flowers) … followed by • no failure …which morphed into • no appearance of failure … which slithered into • run out the clock and pass the mess to Bush’s successor … just so Bush could disclaim his inevitable legacy, which is: • the defeat of his and the GOP’s Bush League imperialism—coupled with America finally recognizing what the rest of the world long knew, that W is America’s worst president and worst commander in chief ever. Rather than focusing on rebuilding Afghanistan and having one success, Bush invaded Iraq and put America on the road to two failures.

America’s Chief Flip-Flopper The Bush administration’s rush to invade Iraq without a comprehensive plan created an environment that encouraged flip-flopping. Without a comprehensive plan, decisions were made on the fly and frequently reversed. Without a plan containing milestones and a compass, there was motion without direction. Without accountability and oversight, inherent GOP incompetence and corruption were greatly magnified. By 2006 Iraq had dropped to a tie for second-to-last in the Global/World Corruption Report, a composite index that is based on multiple expert opinion surveys of public sector corruption in 163 nations. Accordingly, Iraq in 2006 was tied for 162nd place regarding public corruption, with only Haiti seen as more corrupt. Along the way, the United States itself dropped three more positions in the 2006 index to 20th position. One of the enormous ironies of the early 21st century is that George W. Bush and the GOP—a man and a political party who do not believe in government or nation building—voluntarily put themselves in charge of Iraq. No one should be surprised with the resulting mess, the catastrophic death and destruction. No one should be surprised with the GOP-style corruption. The Bush administration has “turned the corner” so many times in Iraq that no one counts anymore how many times it has staggered around the block. A hallmark strategy of every Bush election campaign—from Texas through both of his campaigns for the White House—has been to lie about his opponents and, regardless of the facts, arbitrarily pin them with negative labels such as “coward” and “flip-flopper.” Ironically, Bush in Iraq has become America’s Chief Flip-Flopper. Here are just a few of the Bush League flip-flops in Iraq: • Flip-flop: The Bush neocons planned that many members of the Iraqi Governing Council were going to serve in the new Iraqi government formed on June 30, 2004. They didn’t. Flip flopping wildly, the neocons again and again tried to handpick Iraqi puppets who would somehow have popular support in Iraq. This proved impossible because Bush and his Iraqi bedmates were radioactive.


84 •

Flip-flop: Shortly after Saddam was deposed, the Bush administration— acting through Bremer and his 100 Orders—decreed that members of Saddam’s Baathist Party and senior Iraqi military leaders could not serve in the new government. In April 2004 Bush reversed course and began rehiring some former Baathists. Ahmed Chalabi, the former darling-for-hire of the neocons, declared that this was like returning Nazis to power in Germany. The Bushies and a succession of Iraqi puppet governments wrestled for years with the slaughter caused by de-Baathification, and after five years of war they still had not settled on a viable plan to rehire former government workers. • Flip-flop: Thousands of professors and teachers with Baathist connections also were fired. The neocons later reversed this foolish policy, but it was too late as too many hearts and minds had been lost. • Having rushed to war unprepared, Bush flip-flopped repeatedly regarding various Iraqi militia factions—first declaring them illegal and attacking them in cities and towns like Fallujah and Najaf; then not attacking them; then ceding them control; then vowing to crush them militarily; then trying to kiss and make up by welcoming them into the political process; then threatening them again; and so forth. As of late 2007, Bush was providing arms, bundles of American cash, and photo-op handshakes to Sunni leaders who previously had killed American troops—and who will again when it suits them. • Even the basic justification for the Iraq war flip-flopped repeatedly as reality set in and lies were exposed. As one justification after another proved false, the Bush administration more or less settled on “democracy” and removal of the tyrant Saddam, which noble goals, had they been used by Bush from the beginning as the justification for war, would not have been enough for the American people to support the war. To be clear, Bush has not flip-flopped in the one policy area where he has unrelenting laser focus—namely, doing everything possible for the Super Rich, even at the cost of bankrupting America. In every aspect of the Iraq quagmire, Bush League flip-floppers have taken the agenda every direction but forward. American soldiers die one day while fighting Sadr’s militia, but the next day are ordered to disengage, allowing Sadr’s militia to survive and regroup. One day there’s an arrest warrant for Sadr, and the next day he is asked to run for office, and the next day, well, Bush has no clue. One day in 2006 they cordon off Sadr City in Baghdad in attempts to restore order and recover a captured American soldier, and a few days later the flip-floppers relent to Sadr’s demands and lift the restrictions, leaving behind an American soldier. Although Bush was as eager as Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neocons to invade Iraq without cause, it is Bush who must shoulder the blame. In the final analysis, America’s president never questioned the justification for his war, and he allowed the war to proceed without comprehensive planning. Incapable of being a strong effective commander in chief, Bush lazily morphed into a flip-flopping puppet when he handed his strings to Cheney and other handpicked civilian hacks.


85

America’s King Who Is Wearing No Clothes The Bush administration formed the Bush League of Nations to create the appearance of broad international support for the invasion. It was their pitiful attempt to create a fig leaf, but most of the world saw the ugly naked truth: America’s King George, W, was wearing no clothes. He gave “www” a new meaning: “Witless Without Wardrobe.” On September 29, 2005, Lt. Gen. William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under Reagan, declared Bush’s invasion of Iraq to be the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history.” It is instructive that so many handpicked senior Bush administration officials resigned or left their positions in utter disappointment with Bush, his militant unilateralist policies, and especially the broken decision making process, which is controlled by a tight circle of groupthink neocons cocooned from reality. In March 2007 Matthew Dowd, Bush’s former chief campaign strategist, became the first member of Bush’s tightest inner circle to publicly break with him when he urged withdrawal from Iraq, calling the president “secluded and bubbled in.” Profoundly disappointed in Bush’s leadership, Dowd, who helped Bush win reelection in 2004 by painting John Kerry as a weak flip flopper on Iraq, now asserts that Kerry was right. Especially instructive and troubling during this time of war is that so many senior military officers have criticized the policies of this sitting president. The intensity of the criticism is unprecedented in modern American history, and never has the criticism been more deserved. Despite a strong reluctance to criticize a wartime president, these truth-telling patriots are speaking out because the Bush administration is so profoundly out of touch with reality. Among the many former senior military leaders of America who have criticized the invasion and occupation of Iraq are: Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki; NATO Commander Wesley Clark; CENTCOM Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, who was Commander of Operations of Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Gulf War I; General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft; and CENTCOM Commander Anthony Zinni, who followed General Schwarzkopf in that position. The list goes on. By the time you read this, many more of America’s finest will have stepped forward. As Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command from 1997 to 2000, Retired General Zinni was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration appointed him to one of its most important diplomatic posts—special envoy to the Middle East. General Zinni later co-authored Battle Ready with Tom Clancy and Tony Koltz. The book is a blistering indictment of the Pentagon’s conduct of the Iraq war, a war that the civilians wanted, but the generals didn’t. General Zinni appeared on Sixty Minutes on May 23, 2004 (“They’ve Screwed Up”). Here are just a few highlights: • Before the Iraq invasion, Zinni said it was “the wrong war, at the wrong time—with the wrong strategy.” He told Congress, “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on.” The situation in Iraq was contained, and the focus had to be on what was already on the plate—Afghanistan, the war on terror, fighting al Qaeda, and other threats.


86 •

As Commander in Chief at CENTCOM, Zinni developed a plan for the invasion of Iraq, and it was based on the widely respected doctrine that the United States should only enter battle with overwhelming force, also known as the Powell Doctrine. However, civilian Rumsfeld overrode America’s senior military officers and decided the job could be accomplished with high-tech weapons and far fewer troops. • This “on the cheap” approach of Rumsfeld was widely criticized, both before and after the war. Both Zinni and General Shinseki believed that more than 300,000 troops would be needed, and both saw this level of commitment as critical in the aftermath.30 • Zinni writes: “In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption.” • Although Rumsfeld was surprised at the level of violence that continued a year after the war began, Zinni said Rumsfeld should not have been. Before the war began, many generals, diplomats and other friends of America in the international community understood the situation, believed strongly that the problems were being underestimated, and gave warnings. But the civilians in the Pentagon did what they wanted and relied on inflated intelligence from Iraqi exiles with doubtful credibility who told them what they wanted to hear. • As for the senior civilian officials at the Pentagon who are guilty of dereliction of duty, negligence and lying, Zinni asserts that it “should be evident to everybody that they’ve screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That’s what bothers me most.” • Zinni places blame directly on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and a tight group of neocon policymakers—political ideologues—who hijacked American policy in Iraq. “I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody—everybody I talk to in Washington—has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do.” Zinni includes in that group: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; and National Security Council member Elliott Abrams. • “We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world,” says Zinni. The Bush administration and their cheerleaders in the media claim it is unpatriotic to speak out when our nation is at war. Zinni believes this is an absurd proposition. “Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result. I can’t think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what’s the difference between a faulty plan

30

However, the Bush civilians settled on only 160,000 troops, a number that Franks apparently did not want to go below. Rumsfeld took the position that fewer than 100,000 would be needed.


87

and strategy that’s getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we’re not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we’ve set out to do.” Smacked in the chops by reality in Iraq, the Bush neocons never recognized what hit them. “Reality? Never heard of that!” Their dumbfounded surprise was palpable. We must never forget the central goal of Bush and the neocons—a permanent imperial U.S. military occupation of Iraq and the control of its oil and the region through a vassal Iraqi government, all a central pillar of The Project for the New American Century. We must never forget the neocons’ promise to America and its troops that this war would be short and sweet. Yes, reality came knocking. Finding themselves mired in a policy cesspool of their own making, the neocons desperately sought to extricate themselves in any way possible. Confounded because their groupthink fantasy was not unfolding as they knew it must, the drowning neocons grasped for straws, seizing upon this or that event in Iraq—any event—as a divine sign that they were succeeding, that it must be only a short distance to Mission Accomplished. But America’s Ship of Fools had arrived not at Mission Accomplished, but at Mission Impossible. Time will tell whether the several promising elections in Iraq are significant milestones on the road to a better Iraq—stirring exercises in courage by Iraqis who want to control their own future and not be under the boot of either Butcher Saddam or Imperialist Bush—or whether they are just mirages, in a long line of mirages, on the neocons’ meandering road in fantasyland. In any case, the road for the Iraqi people will be long and difficult, and when and if a successful progressive democratic Iraq emerges, which now appears distant at best, it will be the Iraqi people themselves who deserve all the credit, plus a huge portion of extra credit because they will have achieved their Iraqi “mission accomplished” in spite of the unnecessary bloody setbacks inflicted on them by Bush and his GOP accomplices. In the next part of this book we’ll turn our attention to the Bush League of Nations itself, that sham lynchpin in the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign to achieve its imperial goals in Iraq.

PART II The Bush League of Nations

CHAPTER 5

The Bush League of Nations A Web of Deceit for the Gullible If we’re an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we’re a humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us. ... We’ve got to be humble. — George W. Bush, Oct. 11, 2000. When Bush became president, he had at his fingertips—to be wisely used or squandered—a tremendous reservoir of worldwide goodwill towards the United States and Americans. This reservoir had been justly filled by several decades of honest American policies under many American presidents, both Democratic and Republican. Following 9/11 this reservoir of goodwill was overflowing. Even in Muslim countries, the horror of 9/11 created huge supermajorities of goodwill and sympathy towards America. But Bush pursued an arrogant, unilateral, militaristic agenda, and when he went to bat in a most dubious cause—his war on Iraq—all he could muster was the lame Coalition of the Willing, better named the Bush League of Nations. Bush’s giddy decision to invade Iraq was based on lies, delusions and ulterior motives. His incompetence in building a coalition and in prosecuting the war was immoral and a fundamental dereliction of duty. He soon became America’s most incompetent commander in chief ever, America’s worst president ever. During the seven decades before Bush, several American presidents courageously took the high road and successfully led the world in muscular wartime coalitions to promote just causes. Our allies willingly played ball with us in major league coalitions because our common causes were just, and because our American skippers were men of vision, strength, integrity and leadership. Unfortunately, George W. Bush foolishly and arrogantly chose a unilateral, imperial, militaristic low road for America’s team. The “Decider” chose division over unity, and he soon found himself playing in a fantasy league, “A League of His Own,” the Bush League of Nations. In early 2003—after NATO, the United Nations, and the world community all sharply rejected Bush’s duplicitous plan to invade and occupy Iraq—the propaganda machines of the Bush regime and its allies in America’s rightwing Big Media ran in high gear to create the Big Lie, namely, that a strong, broad-based military coalition

92


of many dozens of nations supported and still supports Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq. But there is no grand coalition in Iraq, and, as for the few participants, none of them were enthusiastic about Bush’s war in the first place. As for the few participants, Bush is like an arsonist claiming that the firemen who risk their lives to extinguish the fire he created are supporters of his crime. Bush’s so-called Coalition of the Willing is a sham and a shame, a fraud and a failure. The Coalition of the Willing is not a major league of nations in any sense; it is not even a Class D minor league. It is the Bush League of Nations, misled by America’s own Bush League commander in chief, George W. Bush. Bush’s duplicitous invasion and occupation of Iraq—like baseball itself—is something the world does not understand and support. Not only does Bush play by strange Bush League rules, he modifies and ignores the rules at will. He is the game’s only umpire, a self-appointed umpire with bum eyesight—a cheater who knows the call before the pitch is made. Even the nations that love America, baseball and apple pie—nations that want to believe America plays a fair game—have not fallen for Bush’s hubris and his un-American form of the game. The Bush League is a fantasy league, whose immoral delusional owners are the Bush neocons. Among its many victims are truth, American values, and America’s reputation and influence in the world. Bush’s so-called coalition is the Big Lie, a fig leaf intended to hide naked Anglo-American aggression against Iraq and the region. Most of the U.S. media either, at their worst, adopted a Pravda-style role and eagerly beat the war drums for Bush, or, at their best, rolled over and played softball, not wanting to appear disloyal. Numerous American media figures with views critical of the war were punished by their corporate employers. One of the most prominent victims is Phil Donahue, who in early 2003, when the war drums were beating loudest, had his television talk show cancelled by MSNBC (which, along with NBC, is owned by General Electric, a huge conglomerate with substantial military business in Iraq) because he questioned the case for war and opposed it. According to a leaked NBC memo, Donahue presented a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war,” and the memo went on to warn that his show could be “a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.” Ratings trump responsible journalism. Money trumps truth. Regarding the coalition itself, virtually the entire U.S. media swallowed and regurgitated the Bush League propaganda that there was a strong, broad military coalition of nations fighting shoulder to shoulder with America in Iraq, with the number of coalition members ranging from at least 28 nations to as many as 55 or more, depending on the source of the propaganda. The reality is starkly different. Only two nations—the United States and Great Britain31—provided more than a token number of troops for actual combat in Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and neither provided adequate forces to accomplish the mission,

31

A small number of Polish and Australian forces assumed specialist roles during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, although neither nation highlights this on its resume.

CHAPTER 5 — THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS

93

thanks to the inept leadership of Bush and Blair, who were later dubbed the “Axis of Feeble.” The United States and Britain alone acted as de facto dictators in running Iraq after the invasion, as they shared responsibility, under Resolution 1483 of the UN Security Council, for the civil administration in Iraq, and each participated in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) before the so-called handover of sovereignty to Iraq on June 28, 2004. The military coalition—the Bush League of Nations—later assumed the name “Multi-National Force in Iraq” (or MNF-I), which was established May 15, 2004, and operates under the mandate of Security Council Resolution 1511 adopted October 16, 2003. Subsequent resolutions, including Resolution 1546 adopted June 8, 2004, and Resolution 1637 adopted November 8, 2005, further extended the MNFI’s mandate from time to time, as the war dragged on. Although the United Nations strongly opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq, it tried after the invasion to help clean up the mess Bush created. As Iraq quickly descended into chaos in the months following the March 20, 2003, invasion, the United Nations encouraged all nations to help Iraq and cooperated with the United States in passing the above resolutions. Unfortunately, Bush was unable to strengthen the weak coalition he had previously cobbled together. To the contrary, the already weak coalition wilted before his eyes. The MNF-I was organized into six geographical areas, with the United States in overall unitary command. Four of the six areas are headquartered by the U.S. military. The Multi-National Division Central South is headquartered by Poland. The Multi-National Division South East is headquartered by Great Britain. The MNF-I, woefully underpowered, is discussed further later. The United States and Britain provided virtually all, approaching 100%, of the coalition troops proactively engaged in combat in Iraq. The world thus correctly sees the coalition as an American-Anglo occupation force. But even America and Britain did not send their full-roster A Teams. With catastrophic consequences, their myopic leaders chose to do the job on the cheap and on the slow, sending less than one-third the military force required to accomplish the mission and “win” a war that should not have been waged in the first place. Their leadership was immoral, and the Bush League result was predictable. Bush chose to ignore the Powell Doctrine—that overwhelming force must be applied on the battlefield whenever America’s troops are placed in harm’s way—and fielded a team without a shortstop, without a right fielder, without a catcher, and without experienced coaches. Bush rushed to battle—or, more correctly, he rushed others into battle—without the right equipment and game plan to ensure victory in the 2003 World Series in Iraq. Bush’s incompetence greatly increased the number of American casualties, and although the pain and loss on America’s side is huge, the pain and loss on Iraq’s side is at least a thousand times greater. The most competent military experts—those battle-proven pros like U.S. Army General Eric Shinseki, who had not only the experience but also the responsibility to give such advice—urged Bush to field a full team, an A team, but Bush foolishly decided to do the job on the cheap, without a full roster. The fans of America’s team

94


wanted a major league squad with all positions filled by the finest professionals, but Bush cut and penalized the team with his Bush League leadership. Perhaps Bush thought the game was amateur doubles tennis and that a two-man team led by political hacks would do. By playing it on the stupid and on the cheap, Bush made the GOP’s war on Iraq very expensive for America’s soldiers, America, Iraq and the world. The fans of America’s team wanted its professionals to have the best equipment, but Bush ignored even the catcher’s simple request for a protective cup. After all, no Bush family cojones and no cojones of the Super Rich would be in harm’s way. Adding insult to injury, the Bush neocons dismissed as not real fans, not loyal fans, any of America’s finest fans who dared to question Bush’s game plan. Dissent and treason were synonyms in the Bush League playbook. The Bush League is run by a cabal of amateurs, none of whom ever played major league baseball for keeps. They are like drunken cowboy wannabes who buy new cowboy hats and imagine they are real cowboys, but who have no personal experience in riding even a plow horse, let along a wild bronco. Each is a Walter Mitty. America’s longtime fans throughout the world see the delusion and are not buying tickets to any Bush League games. They are not buying the Bush League popcorn. They are not drinking the GOP Kool-Aid. Although the Bush League of Nations in Iraq is a fantasy league with its origins in the imperial wet dreams of the Bush neocons, the blood and guts is real. Because of the escalation of violence in Iraq, Bush League team members increasingly moved into “cut and run” mode, or perhaps we should say “vamoosing” mode, because the “cut and run” label is reserved for use only by the far right against Bush’s political opponents and other sane people who argue for withdrawal. In the next chapter we examine each of the more than 55 nations that have been claimed by the Bush neocons and their cheerleaders, at one time or another, as coalition members. Moving beyond the military contributions of the United States and Great Britain, one sees a deep cesspool of Bush League tokenism and GOP propaganda. SIDEBAR: Jon Stewart on Bush and the Bush League “Yesterday, the president met with a group he calls the coalition of the willing. Or, as the rest of the world calls them, Britain and Spain.” —Jon Stewart As discussed later in this chapter, the diminutive coalition so humorously and accurately portrayed by Stewart soon became even weaker. Britain’s leader, who never gave a full measure to the coalition, quickly made force protection a top priority, rather than proactively trying to “win the war” by taking the fight to the ill-defined “enemy,” and soon began drawing down British troop levels, while searching for a face-saving way to withdraw completely.


95

As for Spain, it completely withdrew all of its 1,400 troops in April 2004 in accordance with the overwhelming will of its people, who never supported Bush’s war on Iraq in the first place. By foolishly initiating an unjust war in Iraq, while not finishing the just war in Afghanistan, Bush found himself losing both ends of a doubleheader. Virtually all the nations of the Earth—including especially those with world class teams whose cooperation is essential for America to win the Big Game—know that Bush is an incompetent player who personally went AWOL when he had a chance to try out for the Big Leagues then playing in Vietnam. In GOP style, Bush epitomizes the worst of America’s sports figures: the spoiled, overpaid, steroid-sucking player who cheats; the arrogant, wealthy team owner who cares not for the fans or the game itself; and the lazy, incompetent manager who ignores rules and plays on “hunches.” The world knows Bush is not a team player, but rather an untrustworthy unilateralist who would claim all glory for himself in the event of any win, however serendipitous, and who expects to be bailed out by others when things go badly. Curiously, the Bush League press guide, published by Big Media, asserts Bush is errorless and omniscient. Perhaps that is why he ducks responsibility and claims victory even when he loses game after game by lopsided scores. Bush was a failure in every business venture he ever attempted or touched. Why would other team owners join him in a league he owns and unilaterally runs? Bush invaded Iraq to benefit only himself and the Super Rich and powerful of America, not America’s soldiers, not Joe Lunchpail who works for a living, and not the people of Iraq or any other nation, all of whom he holds in low esteem. Bush has taken the most revered successful franchise in world history—the United States of America—and driven it to the cellar in the world standings. He must be impeached and thrown out of the game. SIDEBAR: Bush Discusses Thinking “I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.” —George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003 The world community refuses to follow Bush’s lead in Iraq because of his shortcomings as a man and a leader. The world’s teams and fans have voted with their hearts, minds and armies, and they want no part of a Bush League run by an immoral man who: • bullies the smaller players when he doesn’t get his way.


96 •

did not want you to play in the first place, but later, after he mucked up the field, insists that you have the responsibility to join his game and clean up his mess. • has one set of game rules for himself and his cronies, and another set for the rest of the world. • ignores and changes the game rules whenever he wishes. • breaks his team’s commitments and promises at will, even those sealed with spit and blood. • swears and calls people bad names. • was picked to lead his team not because of talent and accomplishments, but because he is the son of a prior coach and owner. • pouts and leaves the team when he doesn’t get his way, taking his Rich Boy baseball equipment with him. • lies and doesn’t play fairly. • ignores reality because he believes God swings his bat. • believes it doesn’t really matter how much he screws things up, because Armageddon and the End Times are close at hand. • thanks to cronyism, gets to play first-string shortstop, even though he has never fielded a major league hard grounder. • remains error free by shucking personal responsibility whenever he bungles a play, always assigning the error to someone else. • was chosen by America’s rightwing corporate media to be League MVP before the season even began. • is the laziest player on the team. • was born at third base but thinks he hit a triple. • stole home, thanks to five Republican politicians on the U.S. Supreme Court, with thanks also to election fraud in the state run by his brother. • pretends to be a Texas Ranger by wearing a ten-gallon hat, but can neither ride a horse nor swing a bat. • is a reckless record Big Spender who pays his team’s bills with Confederate currency and the blood and sweat of the unborn. • has no clue what the real score is. Long before Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the world was appalled by the jingoism and warmongering emanating from the Bush White House. Among the most appalled were America’s closest allies—all of them. For them, Bush in the White House was an endless nightmare. Even the people of Great Britain, our closest ally, overwhelmingly opposed the Iraq war. The British Parliament, including Blair’s own Labour Party, also opposed the war. Gerald Kaufman, the former foreign affairs spokesman for Blair’s party, declared before the Iraq invasion, “Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy.” The so-called Bush doctrine of “preemptive intervention” was well marketed in America, but it reminded America’s allies of dictators of days past. They knew that the United Nations charter clearly acknowledges a nation’s right of legitimate self-


97

defense. But the Bush neocons wanted much more, the right of naked aggression, without any showing of self defense or just cause, and without being limited by morality or international law. Longing to hear a few strong American voices for American values and common sense, our longtime allies must have taken comfort in the wisdom of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who in his Senate floor speech on February 12, 2003—a month before the invasion of Iraq—stated: And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption—the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future—is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter.

Lacking adequate backbone and intellect, Bush was putty in the hands of Cheney and Bush League neocons. Widely acknowledged to be a cipher on foreign affairs, even by his own party, Bush had no personal foreign policy framework to serve as a counterbalance to their toxic agenda. Nevertheless, he willingly entered a groupthink isolation chamber—the Bush Bubble—that limited the opinions and information he received. Bush in fact had never even thought much about America’s foreign policy, and he prided himself on his utter lack of curiosity about such things. This sort of mental detachment—especially if you put in under a cowboy hat—resonates well with the deep-thinking rightwing Republican zealots of Texas. However, America and the world are better served if politicians like Bush never get within a thousand miles of any national office. Bush’s supporters try to ignore the awful reality that the vast majority of the world believes he is a liar and a scoundrel, not a statesman or leader to be trusted. The distrust comes from all the peoples of the world, of whatever religion, of whatever geographic region or country, of whatever language, of whatever color or ethnicity. It comes from America’s strongest allies and America’s worst enemies, and from all the people in between. America’s King George III is wearing no clothes. He plays a perverted form of major league baseball completely naked—completely Bush—and it is a ghastly sight. Perhaps Bush fancies himself wearing pinstripes like Babe Ruth, but, if the world’s fans had their wish, Bush would be wearing prison stripes. His impeachment will have to do. The stench of distrust will stick to America long after Bush leaves the scene of his high crimes and misdemeanors. When America transitioned from Clinton to Bush, America went from Class A leadership to Class W. Thanks to Bush, the world now sees America as a rogue nation, a militant pariah. Bush has unwittingly made it much more difficult for future American presidents to lead the world in just causes—certainly one of the most costly unintended conse-

98


quences flowing from Bush’ incompetence. Bush has delivered a crippling blow to America’s reputation and power in the world, and it will take many years of hard work and some good luck for America to recover. Bush has greatly damaged America’s relations and influence with Europe, especially our long-term allies that he and his neocons gleefully knocked as “Old Europe.” Bush foolishly tried to divide Europe into two camps—those that supported him and those that didn’t—using simplistic black-and-white labels such as “old Europe” and “new Europe,” but he succeeded only in widening the Atlantic rift between America and Europe, and causing Europe, with all its diversity, to become united in its opposition to Bush and his Bush League policies. There is a widespread belief in Europe that America under Bush lost its way and is no longer a good model for Europe’s transformation into what some have labeled the United States of Europe. Thanks to Bush’s unilateral militarism and eye-poking “diplomacy,” Europe increasingly talks of the need to be a balancing, opposing power to America, and much less that of a friendly family member. The idea of a united Europe standing as an equal or superior to America is frequently called the “countervailing power” thesis and is completely Greek to the deep-thinking Bush neocons cocooned in their rightwing think tanks in Washington, who narrowly view power in military terms. The decline in America’s reputation and power has victims beyond America, including countless poor and oppressed people in numerous countries who might otherwise be saved by America. The victims of genocide in the Darfur region of western Sudan are a prime example. SIDEBAR: Genocide in Sudan: Where is America? In a brutal campaign of genocide, the Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militia allies are systematically raping and slaughtering black Sudanese living in the western part of Sudan known as Darfur. During Bush’s watch, over 2.5 million black Sudanese have been savagely driven from their homes, countless women and girls have been raped, and over 400,000 have died in the genocidal slaughter and from the resulting disease and starvation. Countless numbers of the survivors are asking, “In God’s name, will someone please help us? Will someone at least save our children? Where is America?” The sad answer is that Bush has our troops overextended and bogged down in Iraq with no exit strategy. America under Bush does not have sufficient available troops to even make a credible threat against the Sudanese regime. The war on Iraq and Bush’s tough talk were intended to cause evildoers worldwide to change their behavior. But America under Bush became a paper tiger. America under Bush lost the will and moral authority to lead and energize the world in just causes, such as stopping the genocide in Sudan. From Iran to North Korea, the evildoers have been emboldened and do what they want. Even the third rate thugs in Khartoum commit genocide with impunity.


99

The victims of the genocidal Sudanese government can now also be fairly viewed as Bush victims—unintended victims, but still victims. Only God knows how many more will die because the “Christian nation” of America lost its way. After reading a report on the horrendous slaughter of several hundred thousand Rwandans, mostly Tutsis, in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Bush declared, “Not on my watch.” Unfortunately, Bush’s eyes are now closed, his body is feeble, and his heart is cold. His refuses to commit a single American soldier to help stop the genocide in Darfur. He refuses even to press the United Nations or NATO to commit troops to the mission. He is the definition of a “compassionate conservative.” Perhaps, if we are lucky, one unintended benefit of Bush’s incompetence and power-drunk neocon policies in Iraq will be the complete rejection of these policies by the American people, thus making the election of rightwing politicians of Bush’s ilk less likely. At least that is the hope for an awakening America.

The Misnamed “Coalition of the Willing” The term “Coalition of the Willing” has been used occasionally for more than 15 years to refer to coalitions acting on their own without approval of the United Nations. Although the Bush administration used the term briefly in connection with its Afghanistan campaign, its most common recent use has been to refer to Bush’s coalition to invade and occupy Iraq. Since the Bush neocons could get neither UN nor NATO support, they created a charade and misnamed it the Coalition of the Willing. Several other more accurate terms have been suggested to describe Bush’s Coalition of the Willing: • “The Bush League of Nations—the Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed.” This term is the best, of course. • “COW.” Because many of the participants in the so-called Coalition of the Willing are being paid—bribed—by the United States to participate, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) referred to it by its acronym, “COW.” The United States is the cash cow that other nations wanted to milk. “The cow is US.” • “Coalition of the Unwilling.” This truth speaks for itself. • “Coalition of the UN-willing.” The vast majority of the world opposed any invasion without UN support. With UN approval, the coalition could have been incredibly strong and trustworthy. • “Coalition of the Willies.” That’s what Slate magazine called the fracturing coalition in early 2004 as the Bush administration found it increasingly difficult to keep nations on board. • “Coalition of the Billing.” Many used this term to highlight the opportunities for Halliburton and other war profiteers to make a fast buck. Well, it’s a lot more than a buck. • “Coalition of the Welfare States.” A New York Times editorial used this term because many of the participants are small, impoverished nations desperately in need of financial aid from the United States.


100 •

“Coalition of the Unwilling to be Named.” In addition to members it identified, the Bush regime announced it had the support of about 15 countries that wished to remain anonymous. Some referred to them as the “coalition of the unwilling to be named” or the “shadow coalition.”

SIDEBAR: The Coalition of the Unwilling to be Named When Secretary of State Colin Powell announced in March 2003 that the coalition included 30 countries, he also referred to “15 other nations” supporting the coalition that “did not wish to be publicly named.” These nations were so proud to be allies in Bush’s Mafia-style adventure that they wanted to wear masks. They had the same pride in their Bush League adventure as do Bush Family males who party with prostitutes but don’t want their names publicized. Some nations said they didn’t want their names to be used for propaganda purposes. They understood that Bush’s goal was to create propaganda, not a real coalition. Based on a list of 46 coalition countries later appearing on the White House website, the “15 other nations” (actually 16) unwilling to be named apparently were: Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Panama, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, and Uganda. Upon hearing the names of these superpowers, the Iraqi citizenry must have jumped with joy, knowing their salvation was at hand. •

• •

“Coalition of the Unwilling to be Maimed.” A large majority of the “participating” coalition nations restricted their soldiers to non-combat roles, with the understanding and hope they would be kept out of harm’s way. This is like hiring a bunch of expensive baseball players who never leave the locker room. They may provide some useful services in the locker room, but let’s not pretend they are members of a team willing to go on the warpath. “Coalition of the Silly.” This term is from down under. Australia’s membership in the Bush League deeply divided that country. “Coalition of the Shilling.” Since the two principal shills for the war, Bush and Blair, lied about every justification for the war, this description is painfully on target. (Also, because the shilling was formerly a monetary unit in Britain, some commentators have used “Coalition of the Shilling” in the same sense as “Coalition of the Billing.”)


101

•

“Coalition of the Sinning.” Because of the dismal human rights records of many of the coalition members, the International Press Institute in Vienna applied this label when the coalition was announced.32 • “Coalition of the Wanting.” Most coalition members wanted something from the United States and reluctantly joined the coalition in order to please Uncle Sam, not because they believed in the war. Their contributions were understandably minimal or even zero. Coalitions can be good or bad, strong or weak. Strong leaders with just causes can put together strong coalitions. Weak leaders with unjust causes are unable to do so. Unfortunately, coalitions are not really in Bush’s nature, since he’s a natural divider, a unilateralist with a track record of eye poking. When you play charades, a charade is what you get. When you build a coalition with smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors are what you get. When George W. Bush and the GOP go to bat, a Bush League of Nations is what you get.

The Bush League Propaganda Machine In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, White House propagandists and their rightwing media shills painted a picture of a vast willing global coalition supporting Bush’s war. A February 4, 2003, White House press release hyped a coalition of “nearly 50 nations” with a population of “approximately 1.23 billion.” The numbers proved to be faith-based, i.e., dead wrong. Even if the bogus population figure of 1.23 billion had been correct, it would have represented only about one-fifth of the world’s population of more than 6 billion. As for the number of nations in the coalition, the propaganda claims varied widely. There were estimates in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s and higher, depending on the creativity of the propagandists. Even counting all the Bush League members who gave nothing other than lip service and a flag, the number of members in Bush’s willowy coalition33 was small when compared to the 191 nations in the United Nations. Eighteen months after the invasion, the official website of the Multi-National Force couldn’t even agree with itself as to the number of coalition members. In October 2004 it referred to “28 non-U.S. military forces contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq,” although it had 29 names on a list, and it showed only 26 flags in a colorful flag display section of the website. (Perhaps Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Moldova refused to have their flags soiled by visual association with the Bush League.) Not even the Bush neocons paid much attention to the details of the coalition, since it was out of the loop when it came to setting policy and making decisions. During that same month—October 2004—Cheney in a campaign debate referred to 33 nations. A White House press release later mentioned 46 members. And so it 32

Johann Fritz, Director of International Press Institute, said the coalition “contains many governments that have done their utmost to suppress and stifle the independent media in their countries. They should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the other democratic countries named on the same list who continue to espouse the principles of a free press.” 33 Yes, “W” also stands for “willowy.”


102

went. Given the absence of standards as to membership, and lack of scruples as to the counting, numerous fictitious accounts of the glorious coalition abounded. During the rush to war in early 2003 numerous websites popped up to fan the flames of war, each spewing out propaganda describing an incredibly strong global coalition standing shoulder to shoulder in undivided support of Bush’s noble war. Frequently updated during the giddy early days of the war, these websites soon became stale, or disappeared completely, as the reality of the messy conflict hit home, and mouthing the Big Lie became less fun. As for the Bush League claim that much of the world’s population stood behind his coalition, let’s take a look at the world’s 20 most populous nations. Certainly Bush—America’s leader and the most powerful person in the world—was in a position to demonstrate his leadership skills by convincing all, or almost all, of these 20 nations—representing the lion’s share of power and influence in the world—to support his Iraq war. After all, every one of these nations was appalled by the slaughter of 9/11. But let’s leave Bush World and take a look at the facts. The following chart shows that the only coalition member among the 20 most populous nations is the United States. 20 Most Populous Nations - Coalition Support

13

14

15

16

19 20 17 18

12

1

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

2 3

1 - C hina 1,298,847,624 2 - India 1,065,070,607 3 - Unite d S ta te s 293,027,571 4 - Indo ne s ia 238,452,953 5 - B ra zil 184,101,110 6 - P a kis ta n 159,196,337 7 - R us s ia 143,782,339 8 - B a ngla de s h 141,340,477 9 - Nige ria 137,253,133 10 - J a pa n 127,333,002 11 - M e xic o 104,959,594 12 - P hilippine s 86,241,697 13 - Vie tna m 82,689,518 14 - Ge rm a ny 82,424,609 15 - Egypt 76,117,421 16 - Turke y 68,893,918 17 - Ethio pia 67,851,281 18 - Ira n 67,503,205 19 - Tha ila nd 64,865,523 20 - F ra nc e 60,424,213 C o a litio n M e m be r No n-M e m be r


103

The chart shows that none of the top 20 most populous nations on Earth (other than the United States) are in the Bush League.34 “The war is US.” By 2006 a growing majority of Americans finally realized what the rest of the world had known for years, that the Iraq war was a catastrophic mistake. The Bush regime bullies small weak nations, as it has no backbone or aptitude to confront the more powerful. Bush is the quintessential bully: cowardly, AWOL to the core, and ultimately Weak and Willowy when forced to stand on his own two legs. As time wore on, the Bush neocons referred less and less to their glorious coalition, and when they did, they omitted important details (such as the number of troops provided by each member, and their actual duties and accomplishments, or lack thereof), and retreated to the use of vague terms such as “strong coalition.”

A Real Coalition versus the Bush League of Nations Given the huge success of the 1991 Gulf War I coalition—ably organized and ably led by W’s father, George H. W. Bush—one might have expected that virtually all of its member nations would have eagerly joined the 2003 coalition led by W. But the exact opposite is the case, and the blame lies at the feet of America’s incompetent leader who lied and bullied America into an illegal, unjust war. By definition, a leader who has no followers is a weak leader. Yes, “W” stands for “Weak.” The Security Council in 1991 authorized, by a 12-2 vote, the use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait in what later became known as Gulf War I, and no permanent member of the Security Council exercised its veto power. However, in 2003, Bush flip flopped and decided not even to subject his planned Iraq invasion to a vote of the Security Council because he had at most only four votes out of 15 in favor of his madness. Also, multiple vetoes among the five permanent members were likely. The Bush neocons later stopped repeating one of their favorite lies about the coalition, namely that—and this is in the words of Don Rumsfeld, one of its more skilled liars—“the coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991.”35 Even the pompous propaganda puppets at Fox News stopped pumping such specific comparisons, preferring more vague lies. The 2006 version of the MNF-I website no longer displayed the names of the nations claimed to be in the coalition.36 The previously prominent page with the colorful national flags of coalition members had been removed. In its place, the 2006 homepage contained one simple sentence: “At this time, several nations (emphasis added) are contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq.” The only other item on that sparse page was a neocon slogan in large font at the top, which proclaimed in Orwellian fashion: “The World, Working Together, to Make a Difference.” In crafting this Rovian slogan, the Bush League neocons exe-

34 Britain is the 21st most populous nation. A solid majority of the British opposed Bush’s war on Iraq. 35 This Rumsfeld quote is from October 2003, several months after the invasion. 36 If you dug around enough, you could find on the 2006 website a link to a report “current as of May 15, 2005,” naming 26 countries then currently providing support. Even this was soon eliminated.

104


cuted a rare triple play—three lies in one slogan. Yes, all three parts of the slogan are lies: (1) “The World,” (2) “Working Together,” (3) “to Make a Difference.”37 Even this tagline was soon eliminated. Expanded later in 2006, the official website remained a distrusted propaganda factory, a less than useless website that pumped out happy news from a happy Iraq that existed only in the minds of the happily demented. If the “standards” used by the Bush neocons to determine who got dragged in and counted as a coalition “member” had been used in 1991, then well over 100 nations—a huge majority of all nations—would have been included in the 1991 coalition. Even the Soviet Union, which was not a member of the 1991 coalition, would have been counted in 1991 because it had voted in the Security Council to authorize military action. Let’s look at the facts in the following chart:

37

If making things worse is considered “making a difference,” then technically the third part of the slogan is in fact true. Yes, “W” also stands for “worse.”


105

Approval

Cost of War

Coalition Casualties

Troops

Nations

Leader

Coalitions: 1991 Versus 2003 1991 Coalition

2003 Coalition

Name

George H.W. Bush

George W. Bush

Nickname

"Bush the Father"

"Bush the Boy," "Shrub"

Also Known As…

#41

#43, "W" as in AWOL

Description

Statesman and Builder

Divider and Destroyer

Number of Followers

Almost all of the world

W: "What? Who? Where?

Number of Competent Leaders

1

0

Exit Strategy

Yes

Number of Nations in Coalition

34

W: "What?" 55…or "it's huge" (or maybe it's just 2)

Number of nations with significant ground combat troops

16

2

13

0

Arab and/or Muslim nations with ground combat troops Total Number

[660,000 to] 814,000

146,000 (Jan. 2007)

Number of U.S. troops

575,000

132,000 (Jan. 2007)

Percentage of Troops that are U.S.

71%

90%

Non-U.S. Coalition Troops

239,000 (29%)

14,000 (10%)

Number of Saudi troops

52,000 (6%)

0

Number of French Troops

15,000

0

Coalition Deaths

236 (+235 non-battle related)

3,251 thru 2006, and counting

U.S. Deaths

147 (+ 235 non-battle related)


British Deaths

47

127 thru 2006, and counting

Allied Arab Deaths

39

0

U.S. Wounded Add'l U.S. injuries/disease requiring medical air transport Direct Financial Cost

Fewer than 1000 for coalition


N/A

25,000 thru 2006, and counting $500 billion and counting Last 5 yrs. 10 mos. of Bush regime

Real cost of war

$61 billion 6 weeks total (100 hours after start of massive ground campaign) $61 billion

Cost paid by U.S.

$9 billion (15% of total)

Almost 100%

Cost paid by Arab Gulf Nations

$36 billion (59% of total)

0

UN Security Council?

Yes

No

NATO?

Yes

No

France?

Yes Saddam, Cuba, Yemen, Jordan, and Palestine

No

Length of war

War condemned by:

Catastrophic. Priceless

98.44% of sane people

Here are a few comments regarding the previous chart: 1) The number of nations in the 1991 Coalition is sometimes counted as 31 (rather than 34), because four Persian Gulf nations combined their forces into one. 2) Regarding the 1991 Coalition, if Syrian and Turkish coalition forces along Iraq’s border are counted, America’s share of total coalition troops drops from 71% to 55%, according to a 1994 Congressional Quarterly study.

106

THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS 3) Regarding the 2003 Coalition, the zero for the number of Saudi troops of course does not include: (1) Saudi citizens who traveled to Iraq to kill coalition troops, and (2) bin Laden himself and other Saudi citizens who are members of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. If these Saudis were included, the percentage for Saudi Arabia’s contribution of troops to the coalition— The Bush League of Nations—would be hugely negative, not just zero. 4) Regarding the 2003 Coalition, the zero financial contribution from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations does not include: (1) payments made by Saudi Arabia to help fund “educational programs” and other propaganda promoting hatred of the United States, Israel, Christians and Jews, (2) payments made by Saudi Arabia to fund terrorist attacks against Americans and Israelis, and (3) money transferred by Saudi organizations and individuals for similar purposes. If such payments were included, Saudi Arabia’s financial contribution to the coalition—The Bush League of Nations—would not be zero, but would be hugely negative. 5) As the 2003 Coalition further crumbles, America’s share of the troops is expected to rise to more than 95% by the end of 2008.

Arab and Muslim Opposition to the Bush League of Nations One of the most disturbing truths about Bush’s war on Iraq, a predominantly Arab nation, is that it is strongly resented by virtually the entire Arab world, including not only Arab governments but also Arab populations. Since this was decidedly not the case with Gulf War I in 1991, the widespread Arab enmity towards Bush’s war cannot be attributed simply to preexisting hatred of the United States. Rather, it is Bush himself, cheered on by the do-nothing-good, rubber-stamping, GOP-controlled Congress, who stoked the fires of Arab hostility. Bush, billed as the Great Uniter, succeeded only in uniting Arabs against America. Even oil-rich dictators who are long-term bedmates of the Bush family and America’s petroleum industry—including the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia— refused to join the Bush League, and their relationship soured as the war dragged on. At a summit of Arab leaders in Riyadh in March 2007, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia slammed the United States and the coalition. “In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation,” he declared. He also said that no foreign force would decide the region’s future. Abdullah is working hard to avoid Tony Blair’s fate, going down in history as Bush’s lapdog poodle. As for the 1991 Gulf War coalition, several Arab nations contributed a total of 190,000 Arab troops, which is greater than Bush’s entire 2003 coalition, and several times greater than the total number of all non-American troops claimed at one time or another to have been contributed to that 2003 coalition by the rest of the world. Although a few Arab nations did not join the 1991 Gulf War coalition, a large majority enthusiastically embraced it. In fact, Egypt, Morocco, Syria (yes, even Syria, which contributed 19,000 troops) and all six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates) were part of combat operations to remove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991.


107

Unfortunately for Bush, not a single Arab nation is a declared member of his Bush League of Nations. Even Middle Eastern nations that opened up their territory to the coalition’s use for logistics support, refused to join the coalition against Iraq. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Qatar and Bahrain are all conspicuously absent from the coalition. A huge supermajority of their respective populations does not believe Bush is trying to bring democracy to the region. SIDEBAR: Questions Never Asked Why is Bush so hated by the people in the region he allegedly wants to help? Since most of the people in Iraq’s neighboring Islamic countries live under dictatorships, why aren’t they flooding across the borders into Iraq to fight with, not against, the United States and perhaps for their own eventual freedom? Bush and the GOP do not want you to think about such questions, as the answers are too disturbing. Regrettably, America’s rightwing Big Media are also silent regarding these hugely important questions. There was a real need to seal Iraq’s borders against terrorists and insurgents seeking to enter Iraq and fight against American forces. But why haven’t hundreds of thousands of Iranians entered Iraq to fight on the side of America? How many have? Perhaps 100,000? No. Perhaps just 1,000? No, although even that small number would have been a positive sign. How about just one? Has not a single freedom loving Iranian entered Iraq to fight with America? Regrettably, the vast majority of Iranians despise Bush and his policies as much as they despise their hated dictatorial rightwing ayatollahs. Perhaps Iranians see too much similarity between Iran’s zealous Islamic ayatollahs and their Christianist ayatollah counterparts from Texas. Consider Syria, which is run by a ruthless dictator. Why haven’t tens of thousands of Syrian freedom fighters flooded into Fallujah and other hotspots to support Bush’s effort “to bring democracy” to Iraq and to the region? If they trusted Bush, why aren’t they helping Iraq now and thus themselves and their families in the long run? The answers to these questions are embarrassing for Bush. Hafez al-Assad, the father of Syria’s current dictator, seized power in a bloody coup in 1970 and maintained power until his death in 2000 through incredible brutal measures aimed at both real and imagined enemies, of whatever religious or ethnic community. The most infamous of his despotic actions against his opposition, including the Muslim Brotherhood, was the encirclement and total destruction of Hamah in 1982, a city in which approximately 20,000 men, women and children were slaughtered. In 2004 Saudi Arabia proposed—whether seriously or not—that Muslim nations such as Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Malaysia and Yemen send troops to Iraq to join and replace American troops and operate under the auspices of the United Nations. Unfortunately, there were no takers, because no Muslim nation wanted the taint of being associated with Bush, who in any case wanted to continue calling all the shots. To be clear, none of these nations supported Bush’s invasion

108


and occupation of Iraq. Rather, their intended purpose was humanitarian—to help clean up the mess Bush and the GOP created. In their eyes, this is like refusing to join a criminal’s plan of arson and looting, but then nevertheless trying later to help the criminal’s innocent victims. As for Africa, none of the numerous predominantly Arab or Muslim nations on that continent chose to participate in Bush’s coalition. Not even Morocco, which is moderate and strongly pro-American, at least prior to Bush’s reign. The entire continent of Africa—consisting of 56 nations—contributed a total of zero soldiers to the coalition,38 thus tying Antarctica. Egypt’s lack of cooperation is especially noteworthy, not only because of its prominent position in the Arab world, but also because it is, and has been for many years, one of the two largest recipients of American foreign aid, the other being Israel. A member of the 1991 coalition, Egypt refused to join the 2003 Bush League of Nations. Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak blames the Bush administration for the unfortunate rise in hatred towards the United States. “After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it. … There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region.” Of course, it is not just Arab nations and people who hate Bush and his war on Iraq. It is the entire Muslim world, which by and large believes Bush’s regime is waging an imperial war against Islam. Consider Pakistan, whose government, a dictatorship, is generally heralded by Bush as a strong ally of the United States in the war on terrorism. Even Pakistan, a UN Security Council member at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, opposed Bush’s war and refused to send troops to Iraq either before or after the invasion. Pakistan’s Foreign Office announced in August 2004 that Pakistan would not send troops to Iraq because of the “volatile” situation there. Pakistan’s unwillingness to help its fellow Muslims in Iraq who desperately need assistance is regrettable, but understandable given the high level of violence in Iraq. A poll in early 2004 showed that Bush is widely detested in Pakistan. Only 8% of the Pakistanis polled were positive on Bush—perhaps the 8% confused him with USC’s Reggie Bush, the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner—whereas bin Laden was held in high regard by 65%. In commenting on this poll, conservative Pat Buchanan wrote in a New York Times editorial of March 26, 2004: “We are losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of which future terrorists will emerge.” Thanks to Bush and the GOP, the opinion of the United States throughout the Muslim world has dropped into the toilet. As confirmed by countless polls, Bush’s voluntary war in the heart of the Muslim world drove America’s credibility to alltime lows. Muslims especially resent that Bush’s Confederate Party Coalition tried to run Iraq like a plantation, with Arabs playing the GOP’s neo-Sambo role. 38 For propaganda purposes, five African nations—Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Angola—were claimed by the Bush geniuses as coalition members at one time or another. Even knee-jerk Bush supporters should be appalled at this insult to their intelligence.


109

Here are some additional observations about the two Gulf War coalitions: • Given the great success of the 1991 Gulf War I coalition assembled by Bush the Father, it is revealing that Bush the Son didn’t have a Holy Ghost of a chance to cobble together a real coalition in 2003. • Many insiders and psychologists have speculated that Bush the Son started the Iraq war in 2003 simply to “one up” his father. • While Bush’s 2003 coalition was much smaller and weaker than the 1991 coalition, the mission of his 2003 coalition was much more difficult. The mission in 1991 was limited to evicting Saddam from Kuwait and defeating Iraqi forces arrayed in fixed positions in the open desert in southern Iraq, not to occupying and running Iraq. • Bush the Father understood the dubious proposition of pressing on to Baghdad in 1991, but Bush the Son chose not to seek his counsel or that of America’s best military experts and friends around the world. • Iraq’s military was much weaker in 2003 than it was at the time of Gulf War I in 1991, largely due to the severe beating it received in 1991 and years of UN-approved sanctions. The United States estimated that it destroyed 80% of Iraq’s military capacity in 1991. • On the other hand, Bush the Son inherited an American military that was much stronger than it was in 1991 (a fact expressly acknowledged by Bush the Father), thanks to a substantial strengthening of America’s military during the Clinton presidency. • Even though Iraq was much weaker in 2003 and the United States was much stronger, Bush the Son and the GOP leveraged their incompetence to create America’s worst foreign policy disaster ever. • Of the 34 nations in the 1991 coalition, an overwhelming majority, 21, did not support Bush’s 2003 invasion and wanted no part of it, and the position of the others can generously be described as reluctant tokenism or silent opposition. • Britain was the only major-league supporter of Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003, and even Britain’s “enthusiasm” in 2003 was only a whisper of what it was in 1991. • Britain sent only a fraction of the troops in 2003 that it sent in 1991, and when the worsening security situation in Iraq demanded more troops, it looked for ways to provide fewer and keep them out of harm’s way. • France was the favorite target of the Bush bullies and America’s Big Media. How utterly shameful and counterproductive. France is America’s oldest and most loyal ally, having stood shoulder to shoulder with America during its Revolutionary War, during Gulf War I, and during many wars in between. But past sacrifices, long-term friendships, and wise counsel mean nothing to the Bush League neocons who prefer docile acquiescence from weak-kneed suck-ups. In addition to the sin of leading the broad opposition at the United Nations to Bush’s war in 2003, France committed the most unpardonable sin of all, namely, it had the “Gaul” to be right. The French people and its government were right, and Bush was wrong, dead wrong, and he and the GOP owe France an apology.


110 •

• •

•

The large hate-France wing of the Republican Party wants you to believe that France always opposes America, which is just another GOP lie intended for gullible minds. Just consider the most recent relevant example, which is the Gulf War I coalition led by Bush the Father. France was a willing member of that coalition and contributed 17,000 troops, 350 tanks and 38 warplanes. In fact, if you add up all the troops—whether fighting or nonfighting—provided by the dozens of Bush League “members” other than the United States and Britain, you get a total force39 for Bush’s 2003 coalition that is fewer in number than the 17,000 French troops who served in the 1991 coalition. France is the definition of a true friend. The French fight shoulder to shoulder with America when the cause is just, and they speak the truth as they see it when the cause is not. Let’s also remember that the French gave America the Statue of Liberty, the world’s most famous symbol of human rights, and that Bush and the GOP gave America Abu Ghraib, America’s most infamous symbol of torture and disregard of human rights. The 1991 Gulf War Coalition was formidable and legitimate, and no one called it Bush League. In that genuine coalition, several European and Arab nations deployed entire divisions of troops.

Troops Contributed to the Iraq Coalition, By Country The admission “standards” for Bush’s coalition were so low and fraudulent that they were never written down or publicly disclosed. The Bush League geniuses shanghaied nations at will, especially small weak nations, and thus created a coalition out of thin air. Many shanghaied countries expressly disavowed membership. Several “members” declared themselves neutrals. There is not a single coalition nation whose citizens broadly supported the Bush League of Nations and its imperial leader. Not one. A majority of the 55+ nations claimed at one time or another by the Bush neocons and their cheerleaders to be coalition members have been recently cited by Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch for various human rights violations. The 39 most prominent “members” of the Bush League of Nations appear on the two-page chart that follows.

39

By July 2005, the 26 “members” of the Bush League of Nations other than the United States and Britain had a total of 16,370 mostly non-combat troops in Iraq, or fewer than 650 per nation.


111

Coalition Troops By Country Country

At Invasion

End of 2004

Max.

Jan. 2007

Comments

United States

150,000

140,000

162,000

132,000

lowest was 115,000 in Feb. 2004

United Kingdom

45,000

8,361

10,000

7,200

most were outside Iraq at invasion, 5000 by end of 2007

South Korea

3,300

3,700

3,700

2,300

to be cut by half in 2007

Italy

0

3,085

3,085

0

withdrew Nov. 2006

Poland

194

2,500

2,500

900

non-combat troops, withdrawal planned

Ukraine

0

1,589

1,589

0

non-combat mechanized infantry, withdrew Dec. 2005

Netherlands

0

1,345

1,345

0

withdrew Mar. 2005

Spain

0

0

1,300

0

non-combat, reconstruction, withdrew Apr. 2004

Romania

0

700

865

600

Australia

2,000

400

550

550

training security forces

Japan

0

550

550

0

non-combat engineers & medics, withdrew July 2006

Denmark

0

496

515

470

to withdraw by Aug. '07

Bulgaria

0

485

485

0

non-combat troops and support personnel, withdrew Apr. 2006

Thailand

0

0

423

0

non-combat medical and engineering troops, withdrew Aug. 2004

El Salvador

0

380

380

380

humanitarian and peacekeeping

Honduras

0

0

368

0

non-combat, reconstruction, withdrew May 2004

Mongolia

0

180

180

100

non-combat construction & guarding pipelines

Dominican Republic

0

0

302

0

non-combat, restrictive rules of engagement, withdrew May 2004

Hungary

0

0

300

0

non-combat transportation group, withdrew May 2005

Georgia

500

300

300

300

combat, medics and support


112

Coalition Troops By Country (Continued) Country

At Invasion

End of 2004

Max.

Jan. 2007

Comments

Azerbaijan

0

250

250

150

non-combat

Nicaragua

0

0

230

0

non-combat, restrictive rules of engagement, withdrew Feb. 2004

Singapore

0

0

192

0

non-combat, training, withdrew Mar. 2005

Norway

0

0

150

0

military engineers, withdrew Oct. 2005

Latvia

0

122

136

120

non-combat

Portugal

0

128

128

0

non-combat gendarmes, withdrew Feb. 2005

Lithuania

0

105

105

50

non-combat, including doctors

Slovakia

0

105

105

0

non-combat, decontamination, withdrew Jan. 2007

Czech

0

100

100

100

military police, 300 at peak

Albania

0

70

120

120

non-combat troops

New Zealand

0

0

61

0

non-combat engineers, withdrew Sep. 2004

Philippines

0

0

51

0

non-combat medics and engineers, withdrew Jul. 2004

Estonia

0

55

55

34

non-combat

Armenia

0

0

46

46

non-combat medics, engineers

Tonga

0

45

45

0

non-combat, withdrew Dec. 2004

Kazakhstan

0

29

29

29

non-combat military engineers

Bosnia & Herzegovina

0

0

37

36

non-combat

Macedonia

0

33

33

33

non-combat

Moldova

24

12

12

12

non-combat bomb defusing experts, withdrew Jan. 2007, may return

Total

201,018

165,125

192,622

145,530


113

America’s closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, whose leaders knew Bush best, courageously refused to join the Bush League, even though they risked retaliation from the Bush White House. Let’s consider America’s shameful treatment of Canada. In addition to participating in the war on terrorism, Canada willingly participated in the war in Afghanistan, and many of its soldiers died there, including several killed accidentally by friendly American fire. Nevertheless, Canada angered the Bush neocons when it declared it would participate in the Iraq war only with UN approval, which was not forthcoming. In December 2003, Bush decided that countries not supporting his invasion of Iraq could not bid on some $18 billion in reconstruction contracts, thus denying them a share in the spoils of war. Pumped up by early military successes, Bush was then at his vindictive best, and he put Canada on a long list of nations to be punished. This disgusted the Canadian population, including Canada’s new Prime Minister, Paul Martin, especially in view of the blood shed by Canada’s troops in Afghanistan and the $300 million already committed by Canada to the reconstruction of Iraq. Martin said he found Bush’s decision “very difficult to fathom.” Although Bush later relented, the damage was already done. The Canadians were victims of a key Bush League rule: The only thing that counts is what you do for Bush and the GOP today. Forget history. Prior friendship, cooperation and sacrifices don’t count. Jump when Bush says jump. If you do not docilely participate in Bush’s latest fiasco du jour, you will be punished. Even Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, who was elected Canada’s prime minister in January 2006, refuses to support Bush’s war. Many coalition members, such as Rwanda, provided nothing other than the duplicitous misuse of their names. The Bush neocons referred to this as “moral support,” even though the vast majority of the citizens of each such nation opposed the war. Some countries provided logistical support only, such as the use of air space and air bases, which in most cases had no military value. Many so-called coalition members actually opposed the war and wanted nothing to do with the military campaign, but were nevertheless willing to provide humanitarian help in the event Bush foolishly pursued his unilateral war. The Bush administration bragged about the number of nations in the coalition without ever referring to the broad opposition of the people of each member nation. However, there’s a critical distinction between a nation’s people willingly sending troops to war (whether or not there’s a popular vote) and a nation’s leader making the decision on behalf of the nation. Again, no coalition member nation ever had a solid majority of its citizens support Bush’s Iraq war. The leaders of several coalition members made calculated political decisions to put their nations’ flags, but not muscle, behind the coalition. By making soft nominal commitments, many such suck-up leaders hoped to stay in Bush’s good graces and receive benefits in return, such as increased foreign aid, debt forgiveness, American investment, or a favorable bilateral trade agreement. The citizens of each member nation by and large understood the political charade that their leaders were engaged in, and they cut their leaders some slack, especially when it became apparent that their troops were to be involved with minimal risk and in minimal numbers.


114

In addition to receiving what is best described as bribes, such leaders also wanted to avoid retribution. Statistically, it was smaller nations with weak militaries or even no military that succumbed most frequently to the Bush League bullying. None of the 20 most populous nations, other than the United States, joined Bush’s grand coalition. There is not one leader of a coalition member who truly supports and likes Bush and his Iraq war. Even Tony Blair must regret the day he climbed into bed with America’s King George III and got royally screwed. In Bush’s dog and pony show, Blair played a poodle. Coalition Deaths By Nation (through 2006) 3,500 3,000

3,001

Deaths

2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500

127

33

Great Britain

Italy

18

18

13

11

30

0 United States

Poland Ukraine Bulgaria Spain

All others

The source of the data in the above chart is www.icasualties.org. Very few of the small number of casualties suffered by coalition members other than the United States and Britain resulted from coalition soldiers taking the fight to the enemy. The U.S. military sometimes refers to “swimmers” and “non-swimmers” to distinguish between those who are truly committed to a military venture and willing to fight, and those who are not. Unfortunately, virtually all of the nations in the Bush League are non-swimmers who share the central goal of staying out of harm’s way. The United States and Britain provided almost 100% of the swimmers. Some nonswimmer nations lost brave troops in Iraq, but with few exceptions the deaths were caused by traffic accidents, roadside explosions, mortar and sniper attacks, suicide bombings, and the like, and were not the result of proactive military engagement with the enemy. The Bush League has more flags that swimmers. Virtually all of the flags were “mailed in” without the heart, soul, and commitment of the respective peoples they represent. There is so little pride among the members of this coalition that they choose not to gather for group photos showing off all their colorful flags.


115

Only a few countries offered “direct military” participation. Statements by the Bush administration itself show that more than 90% of the coalition members refused to send troops to actually fight the war. Instead, they offered to participate in ways that were largely soft and worth little or nothing, such as “political support,” “moral support,” and “over-flight rights.” Virtually all of the leaders of the coalition nations wanted nothing to do with Bush’s war, but were willing after the fact to provide “humanitarian and reconstruction aid” under what proved to be two huge false assumptions, namely that: (1) their personnel would be welcome and safe after the Americans and Brits did the shooting and restored a safe environment, and (2) there would be wonderful opportunities to make money at the Iraqi Public Trough, which the Bush neocons would keep filled to the brim with Iraqi oil revenues and U.S. taxpayer dollars. These leaders are like neighbors who unsuccessfully try to dissuade a drunken man from beating a small child, but later—after the thug has given his neighbors the finger and beaten the child anyway—step in to offer some medical aid and comfort to the battered victim. And if the thug offers them some money in the process, well what’s wrong with that? To be clear, we honor the service of all coalition troops, since with rare exception they bravely followed their orders. The blame lies not with the troops but with their respective political leaders. U.S. And Other Coalition Deaths in Iraq by Calendar Quarter 350 U.S. 300

Ot her Coalit ion

Deaths

250 200 150 100 50

Q3 2007

Q2 2007

Q1 2007

Q4 2006

Q3 2006

Q2 2006

Q1 2006

Q4 2005

Q3 2005

Q2 2005

Q1 2005

Q4 2004

Q3 2004

Q2 2004

Q1 2004

Q4 2003

Q3 2003

Q2 2003

Q1 2003

0

Although Bush’s war was created and directed by old, white, typically wealthy, male politicians, young Americans fight it. More than three-quarters of U.S. fatalities

116


are 30 years old or younger. Slightly more than 25% are ages 21 or younger. Half are from 22 to 30 years old. Fewer than one-quarter are 31 years or older.40 Finally noticing that they had bungled things badly in Iraq, the Bush neocons in 2004 began a hard push to get NATO to join in and help clean up their mess. Their efforts to engage NATO were less than effective for many reasons. SIDEBAR: NATO In addition to Bush’s Iraq war being unlawful under international law, there are several other reasons why NATO refused to join his Bush League of Nations. Here are a few of the lowlights: • Unilateral Militarism. The Bush neocons made all the decisions regarding the war it wanted, and all glory and booty would be theirs. To the extent other nations participated, their role was to take orders. • Disrespect. Bush went out of his way to insult NATO members who disagreed, and he foolishly and childishly made it personal in order to please his rightwing base. In November 2002, just prior to the NATO summit in Prague, Bush shunned German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in a rude display of Bush League diplomacy. Let’s not forget the GOP jokes about the Germans and the French, especially the French. Republicans led by crooked Congressman Bob Ney even had French fries replaced by “freedom fries” on the congressional menu, but Ney later ate his words and his “freedom fries” when he headed off to prison to serve a 30-month sentence for corruption. • More Disrespect. In addition to insulting NATO members that refused to join his Bush League of Nations, Bush even disrespected the few NATO members that did by never seriously consulting with them about the conduct of the war. • Lack of Empathy. Bush failed to consider the domestic political reality facing each NATO member nation and its leader. Even Tony Blair was not treated as an equal, which caused the British to call him Bush’s poodle, a lapdog always at Bush’s beck and call for photo ops and glorious barking whenever Bush’s ratings needed a boost. • Lack of Trust. It is difficult to find a single world leader who trusts Bush and his warmongering party. • Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Afghanistan provided an excellent case study of how Bush misuses and disrespects NATO. Although NATO refused to join the coalition, it later helped train Iraq’s military personnel. Because this peacekeeping effort was not under U.S. control, it was more popular in Europe. NATO nations unwilling to join Bush’s messy war on Iraq were understandably willing to help the battered people of Iraq by helping clean up his mess.

40

The source of this data as well as the data in the preceding chart is www.icasualties.org.


117

Knowing Iraq was going to be a cakewalk, Bush, like a spoiled child, did not want to share any of the delicious cake with anyone. But when the cake he baked turned out to be toxic, Bush desperately searched for others to eat it. In 2004, and without the slightest hint of an apology, Bush informed both NATO and the United Nations that it was their duty to help clean up the mess. Several Bush League members said in 2004 they would reconsider their plans to withdraw personnel from Iraq if a UN resolution gave the United Nations more authority in Iraq, but Bush remained intransigent. Fear of retribution from the Bush administration influenced the decision of many coalition members to join the coalition and stay longer than planned. However, Bush’s incompetence and disastrous foreign policy reduced his political and moral leadership to such a low point that he could not effectively punish nations that left the coalition or reduced their commitments. Nations opposing Bush drew strength from their numbers. If Bush were to take punitive action against every nation that opposed his war, he would have to punish the entire world. As the security situation in Iraq worsened, many coalition members looked for face-saving excuses to justify a partial or complete withdrawal as soon as possible. The meaningless transfer of sovereignty from the United States to Iraq on June 28, 2004, was one such convenient excuse. The series of Iraqi elections, including those of January and November of 2005, offered additional excuses. Profiting from the increasing chaos unleashed by Bush’s malfeasance and incompetence in Iraq, and using the car keys handed to them by Bush, Islamic hardliners in Iraq’s elections are riding to power in that famous “democracy” vehicle, a vehicle they are likely to abandon later at a time of their choosing. Perhaps Bush thought, “Dang, I thought religious rightwingers in Iraq would be great—no one told me them dudes wasn’t Christians.” The extend to which Iraq becomes a theocracy remains to be seen, but expect to see the marriage of religion and state, with civil law replaced largely by Islamic canon as embodied in the shariah. The only certainty is that the ultimate rulers of Iraq will not be the docile pawns so coveted by Bush and his GOP neocons in their imperialist New American Century dreams.

Ten Reasons Why the United States Must Immediately Withdraw from Iraq Here are ten compelling reasons why the United States must immediately withdraw its military from Iraq.41 1) A huge supermajority of Iraqis wants its government to set a timetable for the United States to withdraw its forces. Does the Bush administration believe in Iraqi democracy and self-determination, or not? • It does not. If Bush’s GOP regime ever believed in democracy, it would have set a firm timetable for withdrawal years ago, and U.S. forces thus would already be out of Iraq, whatever the chosen timeframe for withdrawal (e.g., 3, 6, or 12 months). 41

Of course, the U.S. military would be tasked with determining and implementing a plan for orderly withdrawal.


118 •

Numerous surveys of Iraqis, beginning within a year of the 2003 invasion, established that a huge supermajority of Iraqis want American troops to leave Iraq soon. A survey in late 2005 indicated that 82% of Iraqis were “strongly opposed” to the U.S.-led occupation. • According to the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) survey of September 1-4, 2006, 91% of Iraqis want a firm timetable for the United States to withdraw its forces. 37% of Iraqis chose “withdraw within 6 months,” 34% chose “within 1 year,” 20% chose “within 2 years,” and only 9% chose “only reduce as the security situation improves.”42 No ethnic group favored that last choice, an open-ended commitment. • There is a growing sense of urgency, which is reflected in the polls conducted by the PIPA during January 2006 and again in September 2006. The latter report states: “As compared to January 2006, there has been, overall, a growing sense of urgency for withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.” • If U.S. forces stay in Iraq, at some point they will officially be asked to leave or will be forced to leave. The United States should proactively manage this inevitable exit, not be managed and mangled by it. 2) Sixty-one percent of Iraqis (as of September 2006) approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq.43 • This figure is a substantial 14-point increase from the 47% reported in the survey conducted by the PIPA only eight months earlier (January 2006.) The lower 47% figure was outrageous enough by itself, far more than enough, to compel immediate withdrawal. • Because the United States is a distrusted, uninvited occupying force, most Iraqis do not see such attacks on American troops as terrorism, but rather as a legitimate tool to encourage America to withdraw. • Here’s another shocking finding from the January 2006 PIPA survey: while 47% of Iraqis supported attacks on U.S.-led forces, only 7% supported attacks on Iraqi government security forces, and only 1% supported attacks on Iraqi civilians. • One can speculate as to what percentage of Iraqis smile when they see Americans killed or wounded in Iraq. 3) Announcing the withdrawal will help reduce Iraqis’ deep distrust regarding the U.S. government’s intentions in Iraq, and may significantly reduce the attacks on American forces. Here are a few examples of this distrust:

42

The results vary considerably along sectarian and ethic lines, with the Shia results tracking closely to the overall results. No group favors an open-ended commitment, although the Kurds by a modest majority favored that approach only eight months earlier. (31% of Kurds chose the open-ended commitment in the September 2006 survey, down substantially from the 57% of Kurds that favored this approach only eight months earlier.) The Sunnis favored the fastest timetable, with 57% of Sunnis wanting U.S. forces out within 6 months, and an additional 34% favoring withdrawal within 1 year (for a total of 91%), and only 2% favoring an openended commitment. 43 The overall percentage of 61% breaks down as follows: 15% of Kurds; 62% of Shia; and 92% of Sunni.


119

•

A huge supermajority of Iraqis (78%) believes the United States, if told by the Iraqi government to withdraw all of its forces within six months, would not do so.44 • A huge supermajority of Iraqis (77%) believes the United States intends to have permanent military bases in Iraq even after Iraq is stabilized.45 • Only a small minority of Iraqis (18%) believes the United States plans to remove its entire military once Iraq is stabilized. • The Bush administration lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people within six months of the invasion. 4) Iraqis believe the U.S. military presence in Iraq undercuts the legitimacy and effectiveness of Iraq’s fledging government, partly because it is viewed as subservient to U.S. control. • According to the PIPA survey of Iraqis conducted January 2-6, 2006, three quarters of Iraqis believe America’s withdrawal would make the various factions in Iraq’s government more willing to cooperate with each other. • By a margin of 5 to 2, Iraqis believe an American commitment to withdraw would “strengthen the Iraq government.” 5) The invasion and occupation of Iraq is immoral and in violation of U.S. and international law. • The Iraq war is in violation of the principles of a just war set forth in international law, including the Geneva Conventions. • The Bush administration waged war on Iraq in violation of U.S. law and international law, including the UN charter, and in violation of Congress’s authority to determine the necessity of war. • The invasion and occupation of Iraq is immoral and was opposed by all major religious organizations in the world except the Southern Baptists in America. 6) The invasion and occupation of Iraq was built on a web of lies. • Bush and Cheney participated in a conspiracy directed from the White House to lie to and mislead Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq, including misleading statements and lies about Iraq’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability, the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), connections between 9/11 and Saddam, connections between al Qaeda and Saddam, and the imminent threat of Iraq to the United States and other nations. • Bush’s war on Iraq had virtually nothing to do with promoting democracy and human rights, but was waged to extend America’s corporate power, especially America’s Big Oil interests, by establishing a permanent American military platform in the center of the Middle East, the world’s biggest oilcan.

44 The overall percentage of 78% breaks down as follows: 64% of Kurds; 76% of Shia; and 96% of Sunni. 45 The overall percentage of 77% breaks down as follows: 58% of Kurds; 73% of Shia; and 97% of Sunni.


120 •

As late as 2007, 90% of U.S. troops in Iraq still believed the U.S. invasion was in retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11. The U.S. government must stop lying to our troops and start supporting them. A good first step is to pull them out of Iraq. 7) A majority of Americans want America’s troops to withdraw. • As the truth slowly emerged, a growing majority of Americans came to recognize that Bush’s mission in Iraq is a failed mission. • It is now too late, as well as politically impossible, for Bush to greatly expand the U.S. military force in Iraq to a level that would have had a reasonable chance of controlling the sectarian violence and creating an environment conducive to reconstruction work. In any case, Bush does not have the backbone to demand a military draft, and if he did, America would not support him. As of early 2006 barely 10% of Americans favored increasing U.S. forces in Iraq by any amount. • A growing majority of the American people understands that withdrawal from Iraq is the best of rotten alternatives, all thanks to the incompetence of Bush and the GOP. The 2006 midterm elections confirmed this. • Americans also understand that withdrawal is the inevitable course. • In withdrawing from Iraq, America must place the blame where it belongs, not on America’s finest, but on America’s worst—Bush and his incompetent GOP administration. A quick withdrawal will best honor America’s troops, especially those wounded and killed while bravely following orders, and it will prevent more of America’s finest from dying in the pursuit of Bush’s immoral war. America must not repeat the timetable of the Vietnam War, during which more than half of America’s casualties were suffered after the U.S. government knew its war policies were destined to fail. 8) The continued occupation of Iraq is more harmful than beneficial to Iraq and most Iraqis. • A huge supermajority of Iraqis (78%) believe the U.S. military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing,” according to the PIPA survey conducted September 1-4, 2006, in Iraq.46 Only 21% believe it is “a stabilizing force.” • The 2003 invasion put Iraq on the road to civil war, ethnic cleansing and genocide, all of which are exacerbated by the continued presence of American troops. Unfortunately, Bush’s policies from the start aggravated ethnic and sectarian differences in Iraq. In helping train Iraq’s army and police, the United States unwittingly picked sides, and unintentionally encouraged the growth of sectarian militias and death squads, including Shia death squads that operate within the Ministry of the Interior and other offices of the Iraqi government.

46

The overall percentage of 78% breaks down as follows: 41% of Kurds; 82% of Shia; and 97% of Sunni.

CHAPTER 5 — THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS •

121

Many of those Iraqis who tolerate the presence of American troops do so because they believe it serves their particular power-grabbing, revengeseeking, or sectarian purposes. • Raw military power does not give legitimacy to America’s foreign policy. Trying to influence Islamic populations with military force works precisely in the opposite direction. The vast majority of Muslims do not hate America and America’s way of life. They hate America’s Bush League foreign policy and its imperial leader. 9) Withdrawal from Iraq is necessary because Bush and the GOP are unable and unwilling to conduct the occupation honestly and competently. • Bush and the GOP cannot be trusted with matters of war and national defense. They neither talk straight nor shoot straight. • The mismanaged reconstruction work in Iraq is the most corrupt military contracting in American history, and the GOP-controlled Congress completely abdicated its oversight responsibilities. • The Bush administration itself is a horrible role model for people aspiring to improve their government and their lives. • By telling Iraq it must fund reconstruction largely on its own, the Bush administration threw in the towel on meaningful reconstruction activities, except for America’s huge military bases and fortified embassy bunker complex in the Green Zone—frequent targets of Iraqi insurgents—which are destined to remain imperial islands in a sea of chaos. • The Bush administration rejected Powell’s pottery barn rule. Bush’s version is that if he breaks something, he just break more things, and then blames someone else. • Bush’s war propelled Iraq and the region on a course for genocide and war with unpredictable consequences. Although America’s military presence in Iraq may keep the lid on the pressure cooker in Iraq in the short term, it is causing a dangerous build up in pressure in both Iraq and in the region. • America’s Bush League policymakers are flying blind in Iraq, unable to distinguish between friend and foe, and unwilling to learn or even talk with America’s various adversaries and potential allies in the region. 10) America’s so-called war on terrorism is compromised by the continued occupation of Iraq, which day by day is making America and the world less safe. • The Bush administration created in Iraq a fertile breeding ground for terrorists where none existed before. Ironically, this disastrous turn of events gave the neocons a bogus rationale for “staying the course” in Iraq, namely that Iraq now is “on the front line in the war on terrorism.” • The presence of uninvited U.S. troops in Iraq inflames Muslims worldwide and is the best marketing tool for the recruitment and motivation of Islamic terrorists. • Bush’s occupation also motivates genuine Iraqi patriots who want to expel all foreign occupiers in a war of liberation. • One drains the swamp to kill mosquitoes, but the ongoing occupation of Iraq creates new swamps that breed an endless supply of terrorists. The

122


Bush regime knows not whom they swat or why, and they cannot explain why they keep swatting. Although the way forward in Iraq is fraught with great uncertainty and risk, any alternative is better than Bush’s so-called “victory” strategy, or “stay-the-course” strategy, or “surge” strategy, all of which continue to fuel the chaos in Iraq. “Victory,” “stay the course,” and “surge” are not strategies, but simply slogans that lull the gullible mind. SIDEBAR: What’s the Right Question on Dumbness? What’s the right question on dumbness? Is it, “How dumb does Bush think his supporters are?” Or is it, “How dumb is he?” During more than three years of war in Iraq, the Bush White House smacked down dissenting voices by saying America must “stay the course” in Iraq. But in October 2006, on the eve of the midterm elections, the Bush White House decided to prohibit the phrase “stay the course” in presidential speeches and public statements. Perhaps forgetting that modern technology permits things to be recorded, Bush later that month declared on ABC, “Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been ‘stay the course.’” Bloggers soon pointed out numerous instances of Bush himself asserting, “stay the course.” Bush’s “vision” for Iraq is a schizophrenic fantasy with two conflicting objectives. On one hand, Bush calls desperately for America somehow to extract itself from the cakewalk-turned-quagmire—the Iraq war that is both a civil war and a war of liberation—that has cost America a heavy human price and countless hundreds of billions of dollars. On the other hand, he desperately wants America, by miraculous hook or crook, to still control Iraq through a puppet regime and a permanent American military presence. Like misbehaving children with their hands stuck in someone else’s candy machine—and unwilling to release the candy they’re trying to steal—Bush and his GOP never-wore-the-uniform neocons still lust for control of Iraq, that long-desired sweet centerpiece of their un-American fantasy known as The Project for the New American Century. In the next chapter we’ll take a hard look at more than 50 nations claimed by the Bush regime and the neocons, at one time or another, to be members of the Bush League of Nations.

CHAPTER 6

Members of the Bush League of Nations Lost in the Wilderness—A Leader Without Followers A Profile in Courage: The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. —John Brady Kiesling, an American career Foreign Service officer in Athens, Greece (from his resignation letter dated February 24, 2003, to Secretary of State Colin Powell, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.) We turn our attention now to each of the more than 50 nations that have been claimed, at one time or another, by the Bush neocons and their cheerleaders in America’s rightwing media to be “members” of the so-called Coalition of the Willing, i.e., the Bush League of Nations. First, an important clarification needs to be made. This book—as is the case with virtually all media—frequently uses the name of a nation as a shorthand reference to its ruling government, typically its executive branch. It is cumbersome to do otherwise. For, example, we might state that “Britain” decided to send troops to Iraq, as shorthand for “the ruling government of Britain” or “Prime Minister Tony Blair” having decided to send troops to Iraq. Also, in many cases it would be more accurate to refer to the “dictator” or “ruling junta” of a nation as having taken some action, rather than using only the nation’s name. The point here is that the shorthand use of a nation’s name does not imply that the people of that nation so acted, or even tacitly agreed with the action. In fact, regarding Bush’s Iraq war and the Bush League of Nations, the opposite is always true. Specifically, in no case did the people of any coalition partner of America vote to support Bush’s war on Iraq, or otherwise broadly support the decision of its leader to join the Bush League of Nations and invade Iraq. The reader is thus asked to remember and consider the relevant context in which a particular country name is used.

124


Afghanistan: Surprisingly, Afghanistan appeared in early 2003 on the original list of 30 nations in the coalition. What were the Bush neocons thinking? Perhaps they read their own rosy press releases, concluding that there was no more work to be done in secure and peaceful Afghanistan—Bush’s first huge “mission unaccomplished”— and that the “freed up” Afghan forces could be shifted to Iraq, joining the American forces that Bush had already foolishly transferred there. Or perhaps they thought that Afghanistan’s contribution would be the countless Afghan citizens who would answer Bush’s invitation to “bring them on” and travel to Iraq to fight against the coalition? In any case, Afghanistan was soon unceremoniously cut from the team. One odd note: When the Bush administration disclosed in early 2003 the first list of coalition members, it announced that Afghanistan “may” open its airspace to coalition military flights. “May?” Albania: Albania, a member of the Vilnius Group of countries seeking NATO membership, was included in the first coalition list of 30 countries, and it remains one of the more vocal supporters of Bush’s Iraq war. “We’re the most pro-U.S. nation in Europe,” said Satos Tarisa, its U.S. ambassador. Albanians are grateful that, under the leadership of President Clinton, the U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign in Serbia and Kosovo in 1999 saved countless Kosovo Albanians from massacres and ethnic cleansing at the hands of Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs. Although Albania announced plans to almost triple its troop levels in Iraq—to a grand total of 200 noncombat troops—its participation remains largely symbolic. It also agreed to American use of its bases and airspace. Unfortunately, Bush was unable, perhaps unwilling, to leverage to America’s advantage in the Muslim world the goodwill created by Clinton when he acted boldly to save the Muslims in Kosovo. By the end of 2006, Albania had reduced its force level to 120. SIDEBAR: Vilnius Group The Vilnius Group—which derives its name from the historic city of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, where the group first met—was created in May 2000 by a group of nine primarily Eastern European countries seeking membership in NATO. Croatia joined the group in May 2001, making it ten, and the group is thus sometimes referred to as V10. The ten member countries are: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. For decades the countries in the Vilnius Group have had strong positive attitudes towards the United States and Americans. This is quite understandable, since the United States and NATO played a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent birth of democracy in Eastern Europe.

CHAPTER 6 — MEMBERS OF THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS

125

In pursuing the war on terrorism Bush was able to tap into the deep reservoir of goodwill towards America among the people of the Vilnius Group. Given this goodwill—all of which Bush inherited—and considering the Vilnius Group’s desire not to offend the Bush administration and thus possibly jeopardize the group’s goal of attaining NATO membership, it is no surprise that some members of the group supported Bush’s war in Iraq, at least with words, albeit not with significant combat troops. Unfortunately, through lies and incompetence, Bush squandered the goodwill, just like he squandered the budget surpluses and the strong military he inherited from Bill Clinton. On February 5, 2003, that dark day in American diplomacy when Colin Powell made his infamous presentation to the UN Security Council regarding Iraq, the Vilnius Group issued “The Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries on Iraq.” It included the following justification and foundation for the group’s position: Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.

However, the so-called “compelling evidence” was nonexistent, and the world knew it. More telling, the Vilnius group’s decision to issue the statement had been made prior to Powell’s presentation. In any case, the ten nations in the Vilnius Group were shanghaied into Bush’s coalition, notwithstanding their lack of meaningful support for the war on Iraq. Two of them, Croatia and Slovenia, objected officially and immediately to their inclusion, and they were quickly dropped from the list, without the fanfare that typically accompanied the announcement of new members. Angola: Angola was one of six swing votes—the “Middle Six”—on the UN Security Council during its early 2003 debate of a Bush-backed resolution to end the effective weapons inspections program in Iraq and authorize war against Iraq. Notwithstanding Washington’s campaign of bribes and threats of retaliation, Angola withstood the pressure and refused to vote for Bush’s war. Angola simply did not believe Bush’s claim that he wanted to liberate Iraq. Also, the illegal campaign crafted by the U.S. National Security Agency to spy on Angola’s UN delegation did not help matters. It is noteworthy that more than 500,000 people were killed in Angola’s 27-year civil war that ended in 2002, a war prolonged by the rightwing intervention of the United States and apartheid South Africa. Because Angola seeks America’s help in rebuilding and developing its substantial oil resources, it had a big incentive to play ball in the Bush League. However, Angola stuck with its principles and moral values, and opposed Bush’s war. Oddly, Angola was among the 50 coalition members identified in the March 27, 2003, resolution of the U.S. Senate. Although Angola said at one point that Iraq was a threat, Angola provided no troops and no money for the coalition, in addition to not supporting the United States at the United Nations. Its inclusion in the coalition demonstrated the Bush administration’s fundamental dishonesty.

126


Armenia: Having provided so-called “political support,” Armenia appeared on at least one early list of coalition members, but the cold feet of the Armenian government made its membership uncertain. In September 2004 (six months after the invasion of Iraq) Armenia announced it would send 50 non-combat troops to Iraq for humanitarian purposes under a “security cooperation agreement” signed by the presidents of Armenia and Poland. The planned deployment, which was to be under the Polish Multi-National Force, raised concerns both within Armenia and within Armenian communities in Iraq and other Arab nations, and the Armenian prime minister later suggested that the deployment might not take place, citing a change in conditions since the pledge of troops just one month earlier. Passing the hot potato, the prime minister emphasized that the deployment decision would be made by Armenia’s parliament and constitutional court, even though the president had pledged the troops. Prime Minister Andranik Margarian explained, “There’s deep concern in Armenia too since our country will become a target for international terrorism in case of Armenian servicemen’s participation in antiterrorist actions.” He also stressed the need to learn more about the situation in Iraq. In October 2004 Armenia appeared on the State Department’s coalition list, but not on the Multi-National Force list, demonstrating that the Bush regime could not even agree with itself on the official Bush League roster. Armenia had 46 medics, engineers and drivers in Iraq as of early 2007. Australia: As discussed in the previous chapter, the United States and Great Britain provided almost all of the combat troops for the invasion of Iraq. The combat troop contributions from the rest of the coalition can best be described as token or nonexistent, and made for diplomatic and propaganda purposes, not for military reasons. Australia and Poland are most frequently cited as nations that provided some combat troops for the invasion, but neither contribution was significant (with Poland contributing fewer than Australia.) Although Australia sent a well-trained, elite force of 2,000 troops to the region, along with fighter aircraft and warships, the majority of these troops were stationed outside Iraq. Also, their rules of engagement limited the risk of casualties, and in fact no Australian troops were killed during the invasion. In the geopolitical poker game, Australia’s contribution was more than a joker but far less than a full deck. Nevertheless, it was “mission accomplished,” i.e., Bush could claim Australian support and continue dealing from the bottom of the deck back home. Rising above the Bush League sleaze of 2003, however, is the central fact that Australian and American forces have fought side by side many times over the last century—including in World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War I, and Somalia—and that there will always be great friendship between Australians and Americans.


127

SIDEBAR: Geopolitics and Diplomatic Language—From Down Under The decision of Australia to join the coalition was made unilaterally by the conservative government of John Howard, notwithstanding the opposition of the Australian legislature and 75% of the Australian people. Approximately one million Australians protested against the war on February 15, 2003, and many Australians called Bush’s charade the “coalition of the silly.” Howard also suffered an embarrassing “no confidence” vote in the Australian Senate at that time, the first such vote by Australia’s upper house in its 102-year history. However, Australians realized the political game that Howard was playing—offering enough to give Bush a fig leaf, but not so much as to upset Australian voters or other nations, especially Muslim nations in Southeast Asia, plus setting policies that would minimize the risk of Australian casualties. Most of Australia’s troops were located outside of Iraq in the Persian Gulf area, and none died during the invasion. As a result, the Iraq war was not the most important issue in Australia’s elections in October 2004, and Howard was reelected to a fourth term. Nevertheless, the Iraq war still divides Australia. Howard’s challenger from the Labor Party, Mark Latham, used Aussie diplomatic language when he described Howard, Bush and other leaders that sent soldiers to invade Iraq as “a conga line of suck-holes.” In another diplomatic faux pas, Bush in June 2004 supported Howard in the upcoming September election in Australia as Bush spoke at a White House press conference following a meeting with Howard, thus violating an informal rule of diplomacy that the leader of one nation (except for the United States apparently) does not interfere in the domestic affairs and politics of another nation. Bush’s comments were widely criticized in Australia. Bob Brown, the leader of Australia’s Green Party, diplomatically noted: How dare this popinjay of a president interfere in Australian affairs—Australian domestic political affairs? He should pull his head in. … [W]e don’t need President Bush, from his biased and quite small-minded point of view in Washington, telling the Australian people what they should think or what they should do.

After the so-called “combat phase” ended in early 2003, Australia quickly withdrew more than half its forces from Iraq and the region. Also, by October 2004, only 300 of the remaining 900 Australian troops were actually in Iraq, the rest being on warships in the Persian Gulf or at air support locations in the region. None of the remaining troops have combat roles, and much of their effort is focused on protecting themselves and other Australian personnel. In October 2004, Australia refused a request from the United Nations to send additional forces to Iraq to help protect UN representatives, although it did agree to train Fijian forces for this purpose. By early 2007 Australia’s forces had been reduced by more than 70%, to 550.

128


Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan, another nation with a token non-combat force in Iraq, had many reasons to suck up to Bush and especially his oil cronies from Texas. This former Soviet republic has major-league oil reserves and looks to America for continued aid and goodwill, as well as possible protection in a dangerous part of the world. With Russia on its northern border and Iran to the south, Azerbaijan and the bordering Caspian Sea offer transit routes for narcotics, terrorists and black-market weapons. Also, it is involved in a border conflict with Armenia, which occupies about 20% of its territory. Azerbaijan draws a parallel between this Armenian occupation and Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Azerbaijan thus joined the coalition as one of the first 30 members, offering “political support” and post-war humanitarian aid. As one of the few predominantly Muslim (93%, mostly Shiite) nations in the coalition, its forces protected Iraq’s holiest Shiite sites, located in Najaf and Karbala. It had 150 troops in Iraq in 2004 but reneged on a plan to add 250 troops to that total. Bosnia & Herzegovina: The people of Bosnia & Herzegovina suffered greatly during the civil war and genocide that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the experience gained in disposing of landmines and other explosives is being put to beneficial use in Iraq by 37 troops well trained in the disposal of unexploded IEDs and other ordinance. Their efforts are undoubtedly saving lives in Iraq. Bulgaria: As an inducement for Bulgaria to send 480 troops to the Iraq region, the Bush regime promised to buy $1.7 billion in debt Iraq owed Bulgaria. This pencils out to $3.5 million in U.S. tax dollars for each “rented” non-combat Bulgarian soldier, and it thus was an attractive business transaction for Bulgaria, notwithstanding the collection risk of being stiffed later by the Bush administration. Bulgaria, a former Warsaw Pact nation, also wanted to curry favor in order to be admitted to NATO, and in 2004 it became a NATO member. An additional inducement for Bulgaria was the prospect of sharing in the spoils of war, namely billions in reconstruction contracts. Initially wanting to be an anonymous member of the coalition, Bulgaria flipped back and forth before officially opting in, and its peacekeeping participation began five months after the invasion. Although its troops were skilled in handling non-conventional biological and chemical attacks, Bulgaria refused to provide combat troops. It also provided the United States with over-fly privileges and the use of an airbase on the Black Sea. When deciding later not to completely withdraw its troops from Iraq, Bulgaria oddly allowed any of its troops who wanted to go home to do so. As of April 2004, more than 60 of its troops had so chosen to leave Iraq.47 47

The following is for Casablanca movie fans only: In this scene Annina, who is desperate to escape Casablanca, has been weighing Captain Louis Renault’s proposal of sex for exit visas for herself and her husband. She seeks the advice of Rick Blaine: Annina: Oh, monsieur, you are a man. If someone loved you very much, so that your happiness was the only thing that she wanted in the world, but she did a bad thing to make certain of it, could you forgive her? Rick Blaine: Nobody ever loved me that much. Annina: And he never knew, and the girl kept this bad thing locked in her heart? That would be all right, wouldn’t it? Rick: You want my advice?


129

Also, for safety reasons its diplomats moved from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan, in October 2003. According to a mid-2004 survey, about 80% of Bulgarians believe Bulgaria’s role in Iraq could cause a terrorist attack on Bulgaria. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Bulgaria, a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, was aggressively courted by the United States, and it was in the minority on the Security Council that sided with the United States. Notwithstanding this support, Bulgaria was one of five Security Council members targeted for illegal espionage by the Bush administration, which instructed the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask Great Britain for help in the illegal bugging. This was just another strand in the wicked web of international distrust woven by Bush. By early 2007 Bulgaria had reduced its non-combat forces in Iraq by more than two-thirds, to 155. Colombia: Colombia, one of the world’s most dangerous places, was included on the original State Department list of 30 coalition members. Because Colombia depends heavily on American aid and military assistance to fight its anti-drugs war and FARC rebel forces, Colombia was willing to play ball to the extent of perhaps offering “political support.” Like many other coalition members, it did nothing to help the coalition and was quickly and quietly dropped from the list. Perhaps the United States and Colombia should team up to show Afghanistan how not to win its war against drugs. Costa Rica: This nation is one of a half dozen unarmed countries that appeared on propaganda lists distributed by the Bush administration in early 2003. It was later dropped unceremoniously from the Bush League. That’s only fair, since its citizens broadly opposed Bush’s war, plus Costa Rica asked in September 2004 to be taken off the list. Croatia: Like many other “members” of the Bush League, Croatia appeared on a few early lists hyping the coalition’s size, including that of the Heritage Foundation, a rightwing “think tank” and shill for the Iraq war that was part of the White House’s coordinated propaganda campaign to sell its illegal war. On March 19, 2003, just hours after Bush gave his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam, the Heritage Foundation released its article, “‘Coalition of the Willing’ Already Larger than the 1991 Gulf War coalition.” The U.S. Senate’s resolution of March 27, 2003, which “drafted” 50 members into the coalition, identified Croatia as one of the countries providing “diplomatic and strategic support.” However, the Bush administration soon dropped Croatia, and Washington’s bullying threats regarding Croatia’s flagging support caused relations between America and this bully-target country of 4.4 million to deteriorate. Croatia never provided a single soldier—combat or non-combat—to Iraq, and it stated that its airports and airspace would be open only to civilian transport aircraft.

Annina: Oh, yes, please. Rick: Go back to Bulgaria.

130


Czech Republic: Although the Czech Republic refused to participate in Bush’s invasion of Iraq, it did provide humanitarian aid in the form of a field hospital. In late 2003 its hospital personnel were replaced by a contingent of military police. By late 2004 Czech support for Bush’s Iraq war had dropped to 10%, and various plans to withdraw Czech troops were floated. Nevertheless, troop levels have been evenly maintained at 100, the maximum approved by the Czech government, with rotations occurring every three months. The expectation of reconstruction contracts for dozens of Czech companies—another Bush League mirage—was a key reason the Czech Republic allowed itself to be suckered into Iraq in the first place.

SIDEBAR: Leaving on a Jet Plane The Czech government was embarrassed in January 2003, shortly before the start of the Iraq invasion, when the Czech Defense Minister, who was in Kuwait visiting a Czech anti-chemical unit deployed there, made a symbolic offer to his troops— anyone who wanted to go home before the invasion could do so. At least 27 of the 250 troops decided to leave, with seven of them leaving immediately on the Defense Minister’s jet and the rest following later. They weren’t supposed to do that! Many military experts were amazed, with Jane’s Defence Weekly saying it was “certainly a unique approach” to troop morale. Denmark: Notwithstanding strong opposition from the Danish people and from all opposition political parties, the rightwing government of this NATO nation was one of the truly voluntary contributors to the coalition, although the level of its support was lukewarm. Denmark’s government gave its support voluntarily without evidence of coercion or bribes, although rightwing geopolitics was probably part of the mix. Denmark’s contribution included a submarine intended to monitor Iraqi intelligence, other ships, and medical personnel. However, its 470 troops did not include troops for ground combat, and requests for additional troops were refused. During Bush’s ballyhooed surge of U.S. troops in 2007, Denmark de-surged its troops, withdrawing all of them by September 2007. Dominican Republic: Spain’s withdrawal of its troops in April 2004 provided the Dominican Republic with a convenient excuse to do likewise, which it did in May 2004, while citing increasing domestic opposition. As part of the Ultra Plus Brigade led by Spain, the Dominican Republic depended upon Spain for logistical support. It was one of the 15 infamous “unwilling to be named” nations trumpeted by the State Department in March 2003. The MNF-I (Multi-National Force-Iraq) website as of October 2004 erroneously still listed the Dominican Republic as a member, although its flag had been removed. The Dominican Republic is one of several Latin American countries with a history of rightwing American military intervention, including a bloody history of American-supported death squads that rivaled those of Saddam.


131

Dominican personnel were frequently subjected to mortar attacks, but they had no casualties. El Salvador: The 380 personnel from El Salvador are mostly engineers and medical personnel assigned to civil reconstruction and the training of Iraqi forces. El Salvador is the only remaining member of the Ultra Plus Brigade, which consisted of five Spanish-speaking nations led by Spain. Spain, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Honduras all withdrew from Iraq in 2004. In June 2004 Salvadoran President Elias Antonio Saca said that El Salvador’s troops would relocate to “a safer place” until their mission ended. Eritrea: The inclusion of Eritrea on the State Department’s March 18, 2003, list of 30 coalition members was greeted with disbelief and derisive commentary. Eritrea is an extremely poor country plagued by famine and decades of war with neighboring Ethiopia, and its current president, a dictator, refuses to implement the constitution approved by the people in 1997. UN peacekeepers still patrol the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia under a 2000 peace agreement, and each country seeks America’s help in resolving the ongoing border dispute in its favor (even though it is unlikely Bush could identify either nation on a map of Africa.) The dictators of these two human-rights-deprived countries raced each other to be the first to suck up to Bush by proclaiming that Saddam was a bad dude, thus “joining” the coalition. This is Bush League at its best. Without explanation, Eritrea was soon dropped from the coalition list. Estonia: Wanting to join NATO and get in line for military and economic benefits from America, Estonia offered a token force of 31 non-combat troops—enough to fill one mid-sized bus—to help in “postwar” reconstruction. It became a NATO member in 2004. Estonia had 34 non-combat personnel in Iraq in 2007, down from a peak of 55. Ethiopia: As noted above, Ethiopia competed against Eritrea in a suck-up race to join the Bush League of Nations, with both countries seeking America’s help in their boundary dispute. Ethiopia’s government, a totalitarian regime with little regard for human rights or freedom of the press, disingenuously offered “moral support,” and Washington shamelessly included it in its first list of 30 coalition members. Like so many other members of the Bush League, Ethiopia’s total contributions to the war effort exactly equaled that of the extended Bush family: nothing. But Ethiopia was in no position to help, given that it was devastated by decades of war, famine and corrupt brutal government. In sharp contrast to the fanfare when Ethiopia “joined” the coalition, Ethiopia was soon quietly removed from the coalition roster. Georgia: This former Soviet Republic, which wishes to remain in the good graces of the United States, has been in the coalition from the beginning. It first sent troops to Iraq in August 2003. As of 2007, Georgia had 300 troops in Iraq, down from a peak of 500 in 2003, and it suffered zero casualties.

132


Great Britain: When the Iraq coalition was formed a large majority of the British people opposed the war, believing that the case for war had not been made and that the United States and Britain should not act unilaterally. An anti-Iraq war protest in London on February 15, 2003, was the largest protest in British history. The subsequent unraveling of the many lies used to justify the war further strengthened the opposition. Prime Minister Tony Blair took a beating because of his unquestioning support for Bush, with more than half of all Brits believing it was accurate to characterize Blair as Bush’s poodle, a lapdog serving at Bush’s beck and call. Blair’s respect and love for America and his appreciation of Britain’s special long-term relationship with America outweighed his substantial doubts about Bush, and ultimately led him down the wrong path. Not expecting much from Bush, Blair may have calculated that if Bush could rise to the occasion and offer just one-third the competence, integrity and leadership of Bill Clinton, then everything would turn out fine. It did not. Bush severely damaged the goodwill between America and Britain, and intense negative views of him are found in all British political parties and throughout Britain. In September 2004 the British ambassador to Italy, Ivor Roberts, while speaking at a conference in Tuscany, stated that Bush is “the best recruiting sergeant ever for al Qaeda.” Blair, foolishly following Bush’s lead, stuck too long to discredited positions on weapons of mass destruction and other lies and justifications for the war, further exasperating British voters. According to former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, “Blair’s discredited comments only underscore the sad fact that the issue of Iraqi WMD, and the entire concept of disarmament, has become a public joke.” Even as late as December 2003 Blair claimed that “massive evidence” of Saddam’s illegal weapons activity had been uncovered. Rather than simply admitting he and Bush had lied—thus taking the moral high road—Blair did a song and dance as he shifted the justification for war to the removal of Saddam from power. By shirking his share of the responsibility for mistakes made, Blair undercut both his own moral authority and Britain’s influence in the world. SIDEBAR: Blair, Unlike Bush, Acknowledges the Problem Although Tony Blair is reluctant to take responsibility for major mistakes in judgment and policy in Iraq, it is to his credit that he was willing early in the game to at least articulate some of the problems created by the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq. In the prime minister’s annual foreign policy speech to the Lord Mayor of London’s banquet in November 2003 Blair admitted there was broad opposition to the war in Britain, in the Middle East, and throughout the world. He said that what ultimately happens in Iraq will greatly affect the future of world politics because


133

it will test the validity of the view of those whose protest goes far wider than merely condemnation of the war in Iraq and extends to the whole of American and UK foreign policy. For this large body of people, the coalition is an army of occupation; its purpose is to suppress the Muslim population of Iraq; we are out to steal Iraq’s oil; and, even if they abhor the methods of those causing terror in Iraq, they will say we’ve brought it on ourselves. Their view is: you should never have been there, and get out now. That is the view of parts of the Arab and Muslim street and a significant part of western opinion and certainly of the developing world. More than that, these people say: the whole episode of Iraq is the epitome of the way the US/UK treat the Arab and Muslim world. It is a form of colonialism, that seeks to impose its culture, its rules and its beliefs on its unwilling victims.

Blair’s hope of course was to prove this view incorrect, but events on the ground in Iraq, as well as the coalition’s inept leadership, dashed his hopes. Blair must have taken some comfort in knowing, or at least hoping, that Bush had a host of competent advisors, including especially Colin Powell, to hold his hand. Unfortunately, Blair “misunderestimated” the weaknesses of Bush, as well as the degree of control exerted by the Bush neocons, especially plantation boss Cheney. Given Blair’s experience in foreign affairs and Britain’s special relationship with America, Blair also reasonably expected to have a large measure of influence in the relationship, perhaps even as an equal. Blair was disappointed on all accounts, and one cannot help but feel a measure of sympathy towards him. Largely because of voter anger over the Iraq war, including doubts about Blair’s truthfulness and judgment, Blair’s Labour Party was soundly beaten in Britain’s midterm local elections in June 2004. It received only 26% of the votes and fell to third place. The most prominent winner in Blair’s Labour Party was London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who opposed the Iraq war, calling Bush “the greatest threat to life on this planet.” In the European Union elections the same month, Blair’s party received less than 23%. Blair left office in 2007. SIDEBAR: Less Than a Full Measure Although Britain is America’s strongest ally in the coalition—and the only ally that made a meaningful contribution to the war effort—its level of military support was only a fraction of what was required. Britain committed 46,000 military personnel, plus warships and aircraft, to the Iraq invasion, but by May 2004 it had only 8,600 troops in Iraq, with an additional 3,500 in theater.

134


As the war dragged on, Britain further reduced its presence in Iraq, even though more coalition troops, not fewer, were needed. During Bush’s troop surge in 2007, Britain in fact “de-surged” its troops by about 2,200. In October 2007 Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, announced Britain would halve to 2,500 its remaining force of 5,000 by the spring of 2008, and other British officials said there was no guarantee that any British troops would remain in Iraq after 2008. UK Military Personnel in Iraq: Peak during major combat (March/April 2003): 46,000 End of May 2003: 18,000 End of May 2004: 8,600 January 2007: 7,200 January 2008: 5,000 April 2008 (est.): 2,500 Soon: 0 Extra credit: Britain’s contribution to Bush’s surge: (minus 2,200) Ignoring for the moment that the coalition from the beginning needed far more troops from both America and Britain, as well as other nations—at least 300,000 more according to America’s best military experts—let’s nevertheless take the 46,000 troop level to define what a true “full measure” from Britain would have been to maintain security in Iraq. By this conservative measure, the 7,200 British troops in Iraq at the beginning of 2007 represented about a “15% measure,” which is like ordering a pint of ale at an English pub but getting served less than three ounces in the bottom of your glass. No one in his right mind—or even in his intoxicated mind— who received such a partial measure would be happy with the bartender—Bartender Blair in this case. Compounding the shortfall, British troops took part in fewer offensive actions against Iraqi insurgents as the war dragged on, and minimization of British casualties became a preeminent goal. The British forces were headquartered in the Iraqi city of Basra, in an area in southern Iraq that is more peaceful than the Sunni Triangle and other hot spots. From time to time the Blair government entertained proposals to redeploy some of these forces to areas of greater violence, but political unrest for Blair back home was an obstacle. In November 2004 Britain did send 850 Black Watch soldiers from Basra to the “triangle of death” area near Baghdad to free up American soldiers for the taking of Fallujah. Five of these British soldiers were killed within days after their redeployment, causing a political backlash in Britain.48

48 These five deaths increased to 74 the number of British troops killed in Iraq. By 2007 the number of British deaths had increased 127. Many Americans, including your author, if ever faced with a life-or-death situation and having to jump into a two-man foxhole with an American ally of his or her choice, would pick a Brit.


135

To be clear, those five British soldiers gave the full measure to Britain. Doing their duty when called, they deserve our ultimate respect and gratitude. Likewise, every coalition soldier individually deserves our respect and gratitude—a full measure. No fault lies with them, but rather the fault rests entirely on the shoulders of Bush and Blair, and is due to their lies, half measures, and arrogant incompetence. Our soldiers deserved better. The Iraqi people deserved better. As Bush scrounged for additional troops for his ballyhooed surge in Baghdad in early 2007, neither Britain nor any other coalition member answered the call. Britain’s military operations in Iraq are conducted under Operation TELIC, as part of the MNF-I run by the United States. Britain provides the headquarters for the Multi-National Division South East, which includes the southern city of Basra and is one of six MNF-I geographical areas. Its focus shifted from direct anti-insurgency action to training Iraq’s security forces, most of whom are Shiites friendly to Iran and unfriendly to the United States. In 2007 Britain retreated from Basra, turned its bases over to the Iraqi government, and confined its troops to the Basra airport. Senior retired British military personnel sharply criticize Bush’s Iraq policies, especially the failure to do post-invasion planning. On August 31, 2007, British Major General Sir Mike Jackson, who headed the British army in Iraq in 2003, said America’s approach in Iraq was “intellectually bankrupt” and that Rumsfeld’s claim that America’s forces “don’t do nation-building” was “nonsensical.” British Major General Tim Cross, the deputy head of the coalition’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, added his criticism, saying Bush’s policies were “fatally flawed” and that Rumsfeld dismissed his warnings about the lack of planning detail, the troops levels needed to maintain security, and the need to involve the United Nations. “The US had already convinced themselves that Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy. … Anybody who tried to tell them anything that challenged that idea – they simply shut it out.” In a February 2004 flip flop, Britain dropped charges against Katharine Gun, a 29-year-old linguist who admitted she leaked a top secret request from the U.S. National Security Agency for Britain’s help in bugging several members of the UN Security Council during its debate on Iraq in early 2003. The targeted members of the 15-member Security Council were Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile and Pakistan. Gun said, “I felt that the British intelligence services were being asked to do something which would undermine the whole United Nations democratic process.” Guatemala: This Central American nation was briefly on a coalition list. Following the Madrid bombing and the anticipated withdrawal of Spain and the Ultra Plus Brigade, Guatemala’s President Oscar Berger decided Guatemala would not send any troops to Iraq, in spite of earlier commitments.

136


Honduras: By May 2004 Honduras had pulled all of its 370 troops out of Iraq, pointing out that its troops had been sent to Iraq for reconstruction, not combat. However, the MNF-I website (as of October 2004) still incorrectly listed Honduras as a member of the coalition. As a participant in the Ultra Plus Brigade, Honduras depended on Spain for logistical support and followed its lead in pulling out of the coalition. Honduras was among the 15 original coalition members “unwilling to be named.” It is among several Central American countries with a history of American military intervention and Saddam-style death squads. Hungary: Hungary’s 300 non-combat troops withdrew from Iraq by May 2005. This strongly pro-American ally had deployed a transportation group of 300 non-combat troops south of Baghdad, notwithstanding the fact that more than 80% of Hungarians opposed the Iraq war. Hungary, a member of NATO since 1999, has a profound sense of gratitude towards America because of its role in helping Hungary gain its independence from the Soviet Union. Hungary’s desire to support any American president, even Bush, was thus understandable. However, the Hungarian goodwill towards America was soon shattered by the lies, unilateralist policies, refusal to admit errors, and rightwing propaganda spilling out of the Bush White House. The abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison also increased domestic calls for Hungary to withdraw its support. In one of many debacles involving the Bush neocons’ favorite conman, Ahmed Chalabi, and his Iraqi National Congress, Hungary agreed before the start of the Iraq war to provide a base where the United States could train 3,000 Iraqi exiles—Chalabi’s infamous Free Iraqi Forces—to serve as guides and interpreters for American troops and as Iraqi administrators after the war. Several hundred U.S. army trainers went to Hungary’s Taszar airbase to establish the training facilities, but the program was quickly dismantled after only about 100 Iraqis had been trained, apparently due to a shortage of Iraqi volunteers and also because of questions about the scope of the training. Oddly, Hungary had approved the training program on the condition that there would be no combat training. SIDEBAR: A Hungarian Spanking of Boy George On October 16, 2004, the newly elected Prime Minister of Hungary, Ferenc Gyurcsany, delivered a diplomatic spanking to Bush when he declared that he did not believe in preemptive war. “Personally, as the father of four children, as a young man, as a working Hungarian who trusts in the future, and as head of government, I believe not in preventive war but in policies which prevent conflicts,” Gyurcsany declared. “Those who believe in the power of violence will fail.”49 Iceland: The Bush administration included Iceland on its list of the first 30 coalition members, then later dropped it from the list, and then reinserted it, and then dropped 49

Reported in the Associated Press, October 17, 2004.


137

it. You should check with flip-flopper Bush to determine the latest. This nation of 294,000 has no military and is defended by the U.S.-manned Icelandic Defense Force. As one of several Bush League “members” with no military, it obviously contributed no military forces and certainly was never a member. SIDEBAR: Pointy Heads in Bush Administration Seek Pointy Helmets According to The Washington Post: “Asked if Iceland would be supplying troops, ambassador Helgi Agustsson gave a hearty Scandinavian guffaw. ‘Of course not— we have no military,’ he said. ‘That is a good one, yes.’ In fact, Agustsson added, ‘we laid down weapons sometime in the 14th century,’ when the Icelandic military consisted largely of Vikings in pointy helmets.” Italy: Italy withdrew completely from Iraq in November 2006. The conservative government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi decided to join the coalition notwithstanding widespread opposition to the war at home. However, weak-kneed Berlusconi offered no troops for the invasion and sent 3,085 troops only after Baghdad had fallen. More than 80% of Italians opposed Italy’s military involvement, and the government’s efforts in the war on terror also got poor marks in Italy. Surveys show that Italians believe the risks of terrorism have greatly increased since 9/11. In the European Union elections in June 2004 support for Berlusconi and his party, Forza Italia, fell to 22.5%. His rightwing coalition includes neo-Mussolinist and neo-fascist extreme rightwingers that have much in common with the Bush neocons and the Bush family. Berlusconi, Italy’s richest person and its most powerful media tycoon, ruthlessly uses his media domination for personal and propaganda purposes and to counter corruption charges. In September 2004 Italy reportedly paid a ransom of at least $1 million to secure the release of two female Italian charity workers who had been kidnapped in Iraq and held for 21 days. In May 2006 Berlusconi narrowly lost his reelection bid to Romano Prodi. Japan: “For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times,” noted Bush, while in Tokyo on February 18, 2002. A century and a half? Before each meeting with America’s “Buffoon in a Bubble,” foreign leaders must pop pills that suppress snickers and guffaws. Although Japan is a nation that loves baseball and America, it refused to send combat troops to Iraq, whether for the invasion or for subsequent use. The government of Junichiro Koizumi “joined” the coalition simply by declaring that Iraq was a threat. Although Japan’s pacifist post-WWII constitution prohibits the use of Japanese forces outside of Japan to settle international disputes, this posture has been changing in the post-Cold War environment as Japan considers how to use its substantial military power, including the second or third strongest navy in the world, to counter terrorism and other new threats, and to protect Japanese corporate interests. Special legislation in 2003 paved the way for Japan’s Self Defense Forces to do reconstruc-

138


tion work in Iraq and elsewhere. Koizumi obtained parliamentary approval to send up to 1,000 non-combat troops to Iraq, which reflects a policy of tokenism, given the enormous capabilities of Japan and also the security umbrella provided Japan by the U.S. military. However, in late 2003 Koizumi postponed their deployment because of the worsening security situation in Iraq, and eventually deployed only 550 noncombat troops in Iraq. Japan pledged $5 billion in reconstruction funds and agreed to forgive most of the $4 billion owed it by Iraq. Japan withdrew completely from Iraq in July 2006. SIDEBAR: Ten Billion Yen in Japanese Bribes to Protect Japanese Soldiers and Japanese Oil Interests Japan paid 10 billion yen ($95 million) in bribes to several tribal leaders in early 2004 for the stated purpose of protecting Japan’s troops stationed in Samawa in southern Iraq. Because most Japanese opposed the deployment, the Japanese government was obsessed with keeping its troops out of harm’s way. The scheduled deployment of its troops to Nasiriya was suddenly halted because suicide bombings made that deployment too dangerous. The troops were later redeployed to Samawa, a relatively peaceful city with few security concerns. One might have assumed, wrongly, that Japanese soldiers had been sent to Iraq to protect Iraqis—to the contrary, Japan paid Iraqi tribal leaders to protect Japanese troops in an area of low security concerns. The payment of $95 million works out to $172,000 in protective services for each of the 550 Japanese soldiers deployed in Iraq. Of course, the $95 million greasing of palms had objectives beyond force protection. A principal purpose of the grease was to help ensure Japan’s lucrative role in the reconstruction of Iraq. In particular, Japan, which imports more than 99% of its oil, wanted to resurrect its plan to help develop the huge Al Ghavraf oil field, which is conveniently located only 40 miles from Japan’s military base in Samawa, Iraq. Kazakhstan: Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq, saying that Iraq should be handled “only within the framework” of the United Nations. Along with the vast majority of UN members, NATO, and the entire world, Kazakhstan was “UN-willing.” Six former Soviet Republics,50 including Kazakhstan, condemned Bush’s military action, saying it was “counter to the principles and norms of international law.” However, Kazakhstan later played the Bush League game perfectly when it decided to send a token force of 29 non-combat military engineers to Iraq. This decision was made shortly before Wolfowitz decreed on December 5, 2003, that only coalition members would be allowed to compete for $18 billion in prime contracts in Iraq. Kazakhstan’s token contribution put it on the “A 50

The five other former Soviet Republics are Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan.


139

List” of contractors, opened friendly doors in Washington, and gave the Bush neocons the propaganda boost they desired—the claim of another coalition member. The subsequent displays of phony gratitude by America’s General John Abizaid and others towards Kazakhstan were truly shameful. When the Iraqi insurrection became more heated in the spring of 2004, Kazakhstan confined its troops to their camp in Kut and threatened to withdraw them from Iraq. Kuwait: Although Kuwait was included in the U.S. Senate’s resolution of March 27, 2003, that identified 50 members in the coalition,51 it was soon dropped from the Bush League roster. Before being dropped, Kuwait was the only Middle Eastern country in the coalition (other than Turkey, which also was promptly removed). Muslim nations in the Middle East are ashamed to be associated with Bush and his Bush League for many reasons, including the fact that an overwhelming majority of the citizenry in these nations despises Bush and his policies. In fact, Kuwait functions as a large American military base, with about 60% of its total area available for such use, and most of America’s troops and equipment in Iraq passed through Kuwait. This important accommodation is the minimum amount Kuwait could do, given that the United States led the coalition in 1991—a real coalition—that rightly liberated Kuwait from Saddam. However, Kuwait provided zero troops for Bush’s war on Iraq and does not want to be included in the Bush League. Latvia: Seeking NATO membership and Iraq reconstruction contracts, Latvia’s parliament authorized a small non-combat force for Iraq, which stood at 120 in early 2007. Even though the contribution of non-combat troops by Latvia is window dressing, 80% of Latvians opposed their deployment. Latvia became a NATO member in 2004. Lithuania: Seeking NATO membership and wishing to curry favor with the United States, Lithuania offered some humanitarian help for Iraq, including doctors, which it provided in the token form of 105 non-combat troops, later reduced to 50 by early 2007. Lithuania officially joined NATO in 2004. Macedonia: Macedonia joined the coalition to have closer relations with the United States, obtain American help in collecting Iraqi debts, and share in the expected feeding frenzy surrounding reconstruction contracts. It also wanted to demonstrate its commitment to NATO in order to gain support for its NATO accession bid. Macedonia has a small group of 33 non-combat troops in Iraq—less than one busload. While awarding medals to Macedonia soldiers at an October 2004 ceremony, Rumsfeld said the United States supported Macedonia’s eventual membership in NATO. Later that same month it was disclosed that three kidnapped Macedonian construction workers for an American company had been executed in Iraq, two by beheading. Angry family members blamed Rumsfeld’s photo-op medal ceremony and the Macedonian government for their ghastly deaths. Notwithstanding these killings, Mace51

As was the case for dozens of other nations, Kuwait was included simply because it had declared that Iraq was a threat.

140


donia declared it would not withdraw its troops from Iraq. However, other Macedonian workers for the U.S. construction company soon left Iraq. Marshall Islands: The Marshall Islands is among the many former coalition members that Bush could not locate on a map. This nation has no military, and its contribution to the coalition is, or was, merely words and a flag. As a former Pacific Trust Territory, it is heavily dependent on the United States for economic assistance, and it follows the U.S. lead at the United Nations. Since citizens of the Marshall Islands may serve in the U.S. military, it is possible that some may become casualties in Iraq. This nation is located about half way between Hawaii and Australia, and its 57,000 citizens live on atolls and reefs scattered across several hundred thousand square miles of the Pacific Ocean. Micronesia: Like the Marshall Islands, this nation is a former U.S. Pacific Trust Territory heavily dependent on the United States. It has no military, but 400 to 600 of its citizens are on active duty in the U.S. military. Through September 2004 at least three soldiers from the broader Micronesia region died while serving with the U.S. military in Iraq, and we honor their service. The Marshall Islands is no longer on the coalition list. Moldova: In 2004 Moldova reduced the number of its troops in Iraq to 12, from 24. Yes, that’s 12, not 12 thousand or 12 hundred, or even 12 dozen. In January 2007 it withdrew the remaining dozen. Mongolia: Situated between China and Russia—two historically dangerous neighbors—the democratic nation of Mongolia, with a population of only 2.8 million, needs any international friends it can find. Genuinely pro-American and eager to play ball, Mongolia offered troops for the coalition apparently without being asked. After the end of the so-called “major combat operations” phase in 2003, Mongolia sent 180 all-volunteer non-combat soldiers to Iraq to work on construction projects and guard oil pipelines. At a February 2003 ceremony at the White House, Bush thanked Mongolia’s president, Natsagiyn Bagabandi, for joining the coalition. Two months later Mongolia requested a favor in return, a free-trade agreement. SIDEBAR: Mongolian Peacekeepers Arrive: “Better 745 Years Late than Never” Baghdad was a commercial and cultural center of the Islamic world until February 10, 1258, when the Mongols under General Hulagu Khan, a grandson of Genghis Khan, sacked the city, slaughtering 800,000 people, including the Abbasid Caliph, over a period of 40 days and destroying most of what had been the largest Arab city in the world. For good measure the Mongols in 1401, this time under Tamerlane, again sacked the city.


141

May the Mongolians who arrived in 2003 succeed in their peaceful mission and be better appreciated by the local citizenry than their 13th and 15th century ancestors. Speaking of invaders, Bush visited Mongolia in November 2005 to praise its gigantic contribution of 160 non-combat soldiers to the coalition. In return, the United States gave Mongolia a bribe—well, aid—of $11 million in military assistance. This works out to $68,750 per soldier, which is a multiple of what Iraqi soldiers are paid annually. By 2007 Mongolia had reduced its deployment to 100. Netherlands: With a peak of 1,400 troops in Iraq, the Netherlands was one of only five coalition members (other than the U.S.) with more than 1,000 troops in Iraq. It is apparently one of the very few nations that joined the coalition willingly without undue bullying or bribes. But enough is enough. It withdrew all its troops by March 2005. New Zealand: New Zealand appeared on the MNF-I coalition list during part of 2004, even though its government stated it never joined the coalition, and even though its troops were deployed in Iraq at the request of the United Nations. New Zealand had only 61 military engineers in Iraq, and it withdrew all of them in September 2004, notwithstanding the fear that Bush would retaliate with vindictive trade policies. Nicaragua: On the State Department’s original list of 30 members, Nicaragua withdrew all 230 of its non-combat soldiers in February 2004. They served in the Spanish-led Ultra Plus Brigade, which consisted of soldiers from five Spanish-speaking nations. Spain’s withdrawal from Iraq gave Nicaragua the excuse to leave also. Norway: Norway is another coalition dropout that was never really in the coalition. In 2003 Norway’s Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik declared that Norway opposed the war, but wanted to help rebuild Iraq. Although Norway withdrew all of its 150 military engineers in September 2005, the Bush administration continued to list Norway as a coalition member for several months. Palau: Palau appeared on early-2003 Bush League rosters showing more than 45 coalition members. Palau later dropped out, perhaps because of embarrassing satire regarding its possible role in Iraq. This Pacific Ocean nation of 20,000 people has no military, is defended by the United States, and is known for its scuba diving and tapioca. Curiously, Palau’s president offered its airfields and ports to the Iraqi effort—perhaps he suspected that Bush believed Iraq was located in the Pacific Ocean. It is possible that Palau’s contribution was to be coconuts, which would explain that multi-billion dollar no-bid contract received by Halliburton for giant slingshots. Except for those coconuts, Palau is unarmed. Panama: Like many coalition “members,” Panama provided nothing of value to the coalition and is no longer listed as a member. It was included in the group of coali-

142


tion nations “unwilling to be named,” as well as in the GOP-controlled Senate’s resolution of March 27, 2003, that deceitfully identified 50 coalition members. Panama merely offered “political support” by issuing a “made-as-instructed” declaration that Iraq was a threat. Philippines: During a hostage situation in July 2004 the Philippines government announced that it would withdraw all its troops (approximately 80) from Iraq by their scheduled departure date in August 2004, which it did. When the Philippines dropped from the coalition, many Filipinos were surprised to learn it was ever included. Poland: Polish leaders in October 2004 announced they would withdraw all of Poland’s 2,500 non-combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2005, as the Iraq war had become increasingly unpopular, with 73% of Poles opposed to the deployment of their troops in Iraq, according to a poll released in August 2004 by the CBOS governmental polling agency. An even larger majority said that Poland could experience retaliatory terrorist attacks. In fact, “only” 1,600 withdrew, leaving a reduced force of 900. Poland requested lots of military aid as it considered whether to keep any troops in Iraq. Poland leads and provides the headquarters for one of the coalition’s six geographical areas, the Multi-National Division Central South. By 2006 the number of coalition members participating in this division had shrunk to 12, with a total troop level of only 2,500, or slightly more than a paltry 200 per nation. Only three countries (the United States, Great Britain and Italy) sent more troops than Poland to Iraq, although the Polish total was not huge. When Poland first appeared on the coalition list, it requested that its name not be used for propaganda purposes. In spite of Bush, the Polish people are among the most pro-American in the world. Notwithstanding Poland’s withdrawal of most of its troops, Bush frequently praised Poland for being such a steadfast ally. Through 2006, 18 Polish soldiers and several civilians had died in Iraq. Although Poland said its troops would play only a noncombat role, some of its commandos did covertly participate in the initial attack, which the Polish government acknowledged only after Reuters released photos of masked Polish commandos in action. Poland expected many financial benefits by participating in the coalition, including: (1) recovery of a debt of $560 million owed by Iraq, (2) reconstruction contracts for more than 100 Polish companies, including more than 20 firms under contract with a Halliburton subsidiary to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure, (3) payments of more than $250 million by the United States to cover some of Poland’s military costs in Iraq, (4) the participation of Poland’s Bank Millennium in a consortium of banks that would run Iraq’s trade banking, (5) and loans from the United States. Poland’s foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, characterized direct access to crude oil as its “final goal.”


143

SIDEBAR: “Taken For a Ride” Bush’s position as least trusted leader of all NATO leaders is secure. In March 2004—about the time of the first anniversary of the invasion—Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said, “They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that’s true. We were taken for a ride.” Portugal: The rightwing Portuguese government of former Prime Minister Durão Barroso sent 128 gendarmes (national guard) and modest funds to Iraq for development and training projects. Many in Portugal’s rightwing ruling elite—who fondly remember Portugal’s imperial days and regret the way Portugal gave up its colonial empire—were content to be a small part of America’s imperial efforts. In a 2004 poll of Portuguese citizens however, about three-quarters said they wanted their forces to be pulled out of Iraq, and in April of that year its interior minister said Portugal might pull out if the fighting worsened. Portugal withdrew completely in February 2005. On a happier note, Iraq’s soccer team on August 12, 2004, shocked favored Portugal 4-2 in Iraq’s first match of the 2004 Olympics. Romania: Romania is one of many rent-a-state coalition members that provided no combat troops for the invasion of Iraq, although it agreed to participate in reconstruction and security efforts after “organized hostilities” ended. When cobbling the coalition together, the United States agreed to buy the substantial debt owed Romania by Iraq. Hoping to be admitted to NATO, Romania sent 700 troops to Iraq, and in 2004 it became a NATO member. In early 2006 the United States and Romania announced that America’s first permanent military presence in a former Warsaw Pact nation would be established at a Romanian air force base on the Black Sea, with the base to serve as headquarters of the U.S. Eastern European Task Force. By 2007 Romania had reduced its troops in Iraq to 600 from a maximum of 865. Rwanda: More than 800,000 Rwandans, mostly Tutsis, were slaughtered in the 1994 genocide, and millions more fled the country or were internally displaced. This country of 8 million people continues to be in desperate need of international aid and cooperation. Its people are unable and unwilling to contribute to America’s occupation of Iraq. The Bush administration acknowledged that Rwanda provided only “moral support” to the coalition, and its inclusion in the Bush League roster for several months was shameful. Singapore: Singapore also is no longer in the coalition. By March 2005 Singapore had withdrawn all 192 of its forces, most of whom had been in a unit that trained Iraqi police. Slovakia: Slovakia withdrew completely from the Iraq coalition in January 2007. Formerly part of Czechoslovakia and under the thumb of the Soviet Union, the de-

144


mocratic Slovak Republic was established in 1993. Its 105 non-combat support troops in Iraq were specialized in chemical warfare decontamination and worked to clear mines. Slovakia also authorized flyover privileges and the use of its bases. Grateful to be a free nation and desiring NATO membership as part of the Vilnius Group, Slovakia has several hundred skilled personnel deployed worldwide in various UN and NATO peace support operations. Slovakia was admitted to NATO in 2004. The right-center government of Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda, who lost his reelection bid in 2006, had strongly supported Bush in Iraq. Robert Fico, the new prime minister who had campaigned hard on a withdrawal from Iraq, declared, “Slovak soldiers can start packing their stuff, because they have to be home in February 2007. With this, the government is fulfilling its promise.” Slovenia: Slovenia was caught by surprise when the U.S. Senate passed its resolution of March 27, 2003, identifying Slovenia as one of 50 coalition members. The Slovenian embassy in Washington had previously advised the White House not to include it in the war coalition. Opposition parties in Slovenia threatened an extraordinary parliamentary session if the government did not clarify its stand, and there was a call for the prime minister to resign. Prime Minister Anton Rop reiterated the government’s position that Slovenia was not in the coalition. A related controversy concerned the Slovenian government’s “mistaken” impression that the United States was going to pay it $4.5 million as a reward for supporting the war. Solomon Islands: The unilateral inclusion of the Solomon Islands in the coalition highlighted the propaganda efforts of the Bush propaganda machine. Upon hearing reports in March 2003 that his nation was on the coalition list, Prime Minister Allan Kemakeza stated, “The government is completely unaware of such statements being made, and therefore wishes to disassociate itself from the report.” The Solomon Islands was dragooned and shanghaied into the coalition of, well, the unwilling, and this unarmed, almost-bankrupt nation with no independent military should never have been included. South Korea: South Korea, a key long-term American ally dependent upon the United States for aid and security, joined the coalition early, although its hopes to get something significant in return were soon dashed. In particular, it wanted America to help South Korea negotiate directly with North Korea. Unfortunately, poke-em-inthe-eye Bush treated South Korea’s leaders with scorn, the same way he treated North Korea’s dictator. South Korean polls show that South Koreans intensely dislike Bush and believe the United States to be a greater threat to peace than North Korea, which is a member of Bush’s infamous Axis of Evil. South Korea initially offered to send to Iraq an engineering battalion, as well as aid for war refugees. It later offered to send a total of 5,000 troops, subsequently scaled back to 3,700. Security for its personnel was a central issue, complicated by widespread opposition in South Korea to their deployment, as well as the beheading in Iraq of a Korean hostage. During his acceptance speech at the 2004 Republican Party convention Bush expressly named and thanked eight coalition nations, but he unwittingly failed to mention South Korea, even though only the United States and Great Britain contrib-


145

uted more troops to Iraq than South Korea. By 2007 Korea had reduced its troops in Iraq to 2,300 from a peak of 3,700. Spain: This nation, which had provided the eighth greatest number of troops (1,300 non-combat troops) to the Bush League, withdrew all its troops in April 2004, thus fulfilling a campaign pledge of its newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The previous Spanish government, the right-center government of Jose Maria Aznar, was second only to Tony Blair in its support of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, even though it had been opposed by 90% of Spain’s citizens, an incredibly high percentage. Imagine what it would take to get 90% of Americans to agree on anything. Thus the Spanish people were never willingly part of Bush’s so-called Coalition of the Willing. SIDEBAR: 3/11 in Madrid Exactly 2 ½ years after the 9/11 attacks, ten terrorist bombs exploded on commuter trains in Madrid, killing more than 200 people and wounding thousands more. Pulling a page from the Bush/GOP playbook, Jose Maria Aznar’s ruling party, the Popular Party, quickly lied and pointed the finger of responsibility at a politicallyconvenient target, the Basque separatist group known as ETA. Why? Because Spain’s rulers feared the Spanish people would focus their anger on them if al Qaeda, and not the ETA, was responsible for the bombings. Why would Aznar’s ruling party be so deceitful, especially since the truth about the bombers would ultimately be known? Well, Spain’s general elections were only two days away, and with skillful management of the news the ruling party, which was expected to easily win the elections, could get through the campaign and remain in power. But the deception backfired. Unfortunately for Spain’s ruling party, it did not have America’s rightwing Big Media to shill for it. Fortunately for truth and democracy, early evidence including videotape immediately fingered al Qaeda as the responsible terrorist group, and in an astonishing upset in the general elections, Spanish voters ousted the ruling party. The voter turnout was strong, 77%, which compared with a turnout of only 55% in the general elections four years earlier. The large majority of Spain’s citizens believed the Bush regime had deceitfully rushed to war against a nation that posed no threat to the United States, Spain, or any other country. It is surprising that the Spanish electorate, just two days after “Madrid’s 9/11,” did not overwhelmingly stick with their ruling party as a demonstration of their anger and patriotism. Somehow the understandable human desire for revenge did not prevail, and the ruling party was held accountable. The Spanish people understood that Bush’s war on Iraq had spawned terrorists and made the world less safe. The new Spanish leader said that one nation cannot bomb another nation “just in case” and that wars should not be started on the basis of lies.

146


Prior to its withdrawal, Spain commanded the troops of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and the Dominican Republic under the umbrella of the Ultra Plus Brigade. Taiwan: When the Bush administration was asked why it included Taiwan in an early list of coalition members, the answer was that Taiwan had made its airspace open to American military aircraft, a “rationale” that deserved and received widespread ridicule. Perhaps Bush’s handlers calculated that, with the assistance of America’s Big Media, they could slip it by a geographically challenged president and his geographically challenged supporters. In any case, Taiwan was quickly dropped from the coalition list for other reasons discussed below. Later, in 2004, when Bush was searching for chumps to clean up the mess he created, rightwing Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Jim Ryan (R-KS) proposed that the United States ask Taiwan to send 5,000 marines to Iraq to fight alongside American soldiers. This made some sense since Taiwan is not only a democracy but also a longtime American ally dependent upon the United States to protect it from Beijing. However, the Bush administration immediately declared it would neither seek nor welcome Taiwan’s troops in Iraq, the justification being its desire not to ruffle the feathers of the dictatorship in Beijing. The proposal to send Taiwanese troops to Iraq was also rejected by Taiwan’s president, Chen Shui-bian, as well as an overwhelming majority of Taiwan’s citizens, including especially its small Muslim community of 50,000. Thailand: Thailand withdrew all its troops from Iraq in August 2004 at the end of its one-year humanitarian commitment and was removed from the roster of coalition members. From the beginning Thailand declared itself to be neutral in Bush’s war against Iraq. It later agreed to a humanitarian mission involving 451 non-combat engineering and medical troops. An April 2004 poll showed that the majority of Thais wanted their 451 troops in Iraq to be withdrawn and only 22% wanted them to stay. The war was especially unpopular among Thailand’s minority Muslim population. Thailand’s prime minister stated that the nation’s troops would be withdrawn if any of them got hurt. In fact, the deteriorating security situation caused them to remain in their camp in Iraq until their withdrawal in 2004. SIDEBAR: A Few Enlightening Questions Question 1: Why would the Bush administration proudly list Thailand in its socalled Coalition of the Willing when in fact Thailand had declared itself a neutral in Bush’s war, and a vast majority of Thais opposed it? Question 2: Why would the Bush administration proudly count Thai personnel in its total of coalition troops when in fact these troops went to Iraq solely for noncombat humanitarian purposes without any intention of killing Iraqis or anyone else?52

52

This same point applies to the large majority of other countries in the Coalition of the Willing.


147

Question 3: If Bush truly wants to bring democracy and freedom to Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere, why are Muslims in Thailand and throughout the world so adamantly opposed to his efforts? HINT: The following should appear prominently in your answers: “oil,” “charade,” “Bush League,” “America’s Corporate Media,” “gullible American voters in red states,” “duplicity, deceit and deception,” “lazy not-too-bright pretend-cowboy,” “incompetent uninformed untrustworthy leader,” “liar,” “panderer to the Religious Wrong,” “Armageddon,” and “Crusader for Upside-Down Christianity and the Super Rich.” Extra credit for “lying scumbags.” Tonga: In March 2003 the Bush administration proudly announced that this small nation of 106,000 people (the last of the South Pacific Polynesian kingdoms, located about one-third of the way from New Zealand to Hawaii) was the 49th member of the coalition. Because the United States protected Tonga in World War II, Tonga felt bound by honor to support the coalition. Bush the Father never asked Tonga for assistance during Gulf War I. In fact, George the Son’s “request” for military assistance was the first such request since World War II. In July 2004 Tonga deployed 45 royal marines—enough for one large war canoe—to Iraq as peacekeepers, but they withdrew completely by the end of the year. U.S. government sources disagreed with themselves as to whether Tonga was ever in the coalition. Turkey: The Bush regime foolishly rushed to put Turkey on their initial roster of 30 coalition members, but Turkey did not remain there long. In another huge misjudgment and diplomatic blunder, the Bushies assumed that this American ally and NATO member would play ball in the Bush League. It did not, choosing instead to actively obstruct American military plans to invade Iraq, although it did eventually reluctantly allow the use of its air space. The Bushies planned to use Turkey—which shares a 218-mile border with Iraq—as a staging area for 60,000 American troops scheduled to invade northern Iraq under Operation Iraqi Freedom war plans. The Bushies haggled with the Turkish government as to the size of the bribe— euphemistically called economic aid—to be paid Turkey in return for this favor. Turkey wanted about $30 billion, preferably in cash since it did not trust Bush League promises. The Bush administration initially offered $6 billion in “special economic assistance” if Turkey’s parliament approved the use of its territory for the invasion, and it eventually upped the proposed bribe to $20 billion in grants and guaranteed loans, but it was still not enough. In a panic to try to close the elusive deal, the Bush regime offered major “OK, you can screw the Kurds” concessions to Turkey.

148


SIDEBAR: Selling Out the Kurds In duplicitously attempting to sell out Iraq’s Kurds—who have longed for a separate state in northern Iraq for decades—the Bush regime thought it had closed the deal with Turkey by promising the Turkish military that it could invade Iraqi Kurdistan, a virtually autonomous quasi-state in northern Iraq since 1991, which had been protected under the northern No-Fly Zone created by the United States and Great Britain in the aftermath of Gulf War I. The Bush neocons acquiesced to Turkey’s demands that the four million Iraqi Kurds would not be allowed to form their own nation, which Turkey feared would further aggravate the long-voiced demands of the 12 million Kurds in Turkey for their own independence. As part of this attempted sellout, the Bush neocons gave Turkey the green light to send tens of thousands of troops into northern Iraq, under the pretense that they were needed to protect the small Turkmen population and Turkish interests in oil-rich northern Iraq. Such a move by the Turkish military was vehemently opposed by the Iraqi Kurds— America’s most loyal allies and friends in Iraq—and would have led to war between them and Turkey. The unfortunate Kurdish people, who number about 30 million, have no homeland or nation, just the mythical Kurdistan (the land of the Kurds), which is spread throughout a large unfriendly region of the world that includes parts of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. The Kurdish language ranks about fortieth among the world’s several thousand languages, based on the number of native speakers. Even the tyrant Saddam—who gassed thousands of civilian Kurds—treated his Iraqi Kurds better than Turkey treated its Turkish Kurds. For decades Turkey suppressed Kurdish history, language and culture, and countless Turkish Kurds were slaughtered, and hundreds of thousands displaced, during the 15-year PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) insurrection in Turkey that temporarily ended in 1999. Kurds throughout the region are quite familiar with the lesson afforded by Turkey’s genocide of Armenian Christians in the early part of the 20th century, a genocide in which between one and two million Armenian Christians were killed and millions more were forced from their homeland. Bush rewarded the Iraqi Kurds for their loyal support of American policy in Iraq by trying to stick a Bush League dagger in their back. Of course, the Kurds have been betrayed in the past by the United States, both in 1975 and 1991, on the latter occasion when Bush the Father encouraged Kurdish uprisings against Baghdad, but then failed to follow through with promised support.53 In the end, Bush’s proposed deal in 2003 with Turkey—built on Bush League bribes and betrayal—fell apart because the Turkish parliament refused to play ball, and Turkish troops thus quite fortunately did not enter Iraq in any significant numbers during the invasion.

53

For on-line accounts of the ongoing betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds by the United States, you should read “Kurd Sellout Watch,” by Timothy Noah, who writes “Chatterbox” for Slate.


149

If Iraq’s Kurds emerge from Bush’s Iraq quagmire without getting screwed, it will be in spite of the Bush neocons, who would sacrifice them in a heartbeat if it served some perceived interest in the neocons’ fantasies. The Iraqi Kurds’ best hope with respect to Turkey—other than counting on themselves and their own substantial armed forces—is that Turkey, under European pressure and influence, will further moderate its policies against the Kurds as it seeks to integrate itself into the European Union. But don’t count on it. The breakdown of the “You Can Screw the Kurds” deal offered to Turkey on the eve of the invasion was a great embarrassment and surprise to the Bush neocons, although it should not have been, given the enormous opposition of the Turkish people to Bush’s war on Iraq. When Turkey pulled the welcome mat out from under the tens of thousands of American troops waiting on warships in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the Bushies had to hurriedly rewrite their war plans, with increased risk to American troops. Unable to deploy through Turkey, these troops had to redeploy via a much longer route, which eventually took most of them to Kuwait. Fortuitously, the Turkish obstructionism did not greatly compromise the military campaign. Nevertheless, with “friendly” Bush League teams like Turkey, who needs enemies? It is mind boggling that Turkey was ever called a coalition member, given its outright obstruction and opposition to the war. Even though other NATO members agreed to defend Turkey from Iraqi missiles, the vast majority of the Turkish people—more than 90%—strongly opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq. With a long history of problems on its long border with Iraq, Turkey could have been among the strongest, most important coalition members, but the Turkish people and its government did not trust Bush and his war party. As a final note, in September 2003, after the “combat phase” of the war had ended, Turkey “considered” sending 10,000 troops into Iraq, and in return it actually received $8.5 billion in loan guarantees. Turkey then turned around and decided not to send any troops. Halliburton could not have played the game better. SIDEBAR: No French Fries or Turkey for Thanksgiving In order to give the finger to the French government and all French people, countless Bush League supporters gleefully refused to eat French fries unless they were called “freedom fries.” Given Turkey’s bold rejection of Bush’s bribes and war plans—and in the interest of geopolitical and gastrointestinal consistency—these Bush League nitwits should also boycott turkey. Specifically, they should eat chicken instead of turkey for Thanksgiving, plus generous portions of crow and humble pie, and definitely no French fries. Vive la France!

150


Uganda: Although Uganda provided no troops, no civilians, and nothing else for the coalition, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said Uganda would remain a member. Perhaps he wanted this status in order to more effectively criticize Bush and his Bush League policies. On October 12, 2004, Museveni noted that: • he had blindly supported the war; • he joined because Bush claimed Saddam had WMDs and because Saddam was a friend of Sudan’s president Omar el-Bashir, “who was my enemy;” • Bush pursued interests in Iraq that were not disclosed to coalition partners before the invasion; • the strategic mistakes made by the Bush administration in Iraq had forced him to regret his support; • he regretted that the United States had appointed Paul Bremer as governor of Iraq, and that Bremer subsequently demobilized 1,000,000 Iraqi troops; • the bloody Iraqi insurgency was caused by U.S. “arrogance” and the mishandling of relations between American troops and Iraqi civilians; • the Bush administration did not invest much in building civilian confidence and support in Iraq, which are essential for success; and • the Bush administration had no interest in his opinion, even though he was a member of the coalition. For some reason the White House dropped Uganda from the coalition. In joining the coalition in March 2003, Museveni offered to “assist in any way possible,” which is Bush League diplomatic language for “no assistance.” Uganda, a country with continuing human rights violations, has a long history of brutal dictators, civil wars, wars with neighboring nations, genocide under Idi Amin, massive poverty, drought, starvation, and disease, including the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Ukraine: Before joining the growing list of Bush League dropouts, Ukraine had about 1,600 non-combat mechanized infantry troops in a peacekeeping brigade in Iraq in 2004, making it only one of six nations (including the United States) with more than 1,000 troops involved. A key reason for Ukraine joining the coalition was the desire of its corrupt regime to buy some friendship in Washington and soften U.S. claims that Ukraine had circumvented UN sanctions imposed on Saddam. In January 2005 outgoing President Leonid Kuchma ordered the withdrawal of all Ukrainian troops from Iraq in the first half of 2005. He apparently wanted to steal the credit for the withdrawal from Ukraine’s new president-elect, Viktor Yushchenko, who had made withdrawal a campaign issue. The decision to leave Iraq was strengthened when a huge explosion in southern Iraq killed eight Ukrainian soldiers and one from Kazakhstan. In Ukraine, it’s not just the old Republican Guard-style dictators and the newly democratically elected leaders who oppose the Bush League—the Ukrainian people also overwhelmingly oppose Bush’s war on Iraq. All Ukrainian troops departed Iraq by the end of 2005. United States: “The Coalition is US.” Even including all the non-combat troops of other coalition members, the United States provided almost 90% of the troops for Bush’s war. This means that if Bush had increased America’s troop levels in Iraq by only about 10% at the beginning, he could have efficiently dispensed with all other


151

coalition members and avoided all the coalition nonsense. This would have allowed him complete freedom, versus 99.9 % freedom, to run his own unilateral American war. Bush did increase American troop levels by about 10% in late 2004 and early 2005—and again in 2007 as part of his so-called surge—as security in Iraq worsened. Of course, Bush also had “cut and run” plans in place from time to time. In mid-2004 there were plans in place to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq to 115,000 over several months, from a level of 140,000. However, intense Iraqi resistance to Bush’s occupation caused him to cancel those withdrawals. Earlier, in January 2004, the Bush White House said it hoped that U.S. forces could be reduced to 50,000 by the end of 2005. Although the strategy of “cutting and running” was perfected by Reagan after 241 American troops were killed in the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983, it is politically incorrect for America’s corporate media to use that term to describe actions by GOP presidents. Uzbekistan: Although Uzbekistan, the most populous nation in Central Asia, was quietly dropped from the coalition in 2004, Bush should be ashamed that this rightwing despotic regime was ever considered on the team. President Islam Karimov is a ruthless dictator who suppresses all freedom of speech, assembly and religion, and uses the “war against terror” to justify his brutality. This justification for attacking civil liberties should be familiar to Americans. Many Uzbek Muslims have been jailed simply for having a beard in this primarily Sunni Muslim nation. Countless political opponents and other innocents have been tortured to death, and there is no independent judicial system. Karimov’s cozy relationship with members of the Bush regime goes back to the 1990s when Bush was governor of Texas, and ruthless Karimov has been an honored guest in the Bush White House. Although Uzbekistan was listed as an early coalition member and received hundreds of millions of dollars from the Bush regime, it never provided any troops for Iraq. During the run-up to the war in neighboring Afghanistan, Uzbekistan allowed U.S. forces to use its Soviet-era airbases.

SIDEBAR: In and Out of Bed … a Tortured Marriage Uzbekistan is a favorite torture destination in the Bush regime’s illegal and immoral extraordinary rendition program, under which suspects around the world are kidnapped and transported to various rightwing nations for outsourced torture. Although there was substantial public discussion in 2007 regarding illegal torture conducted directly by the CIA—especially during the congressional nomination hearings regarding Bush’s appointment of Michael Mukasey to replace the criminal Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, with Mukasey carefully dancing around the torture technique known as waterboarding in order to protect Bush and other war criminals in his administration from subsequent prosecution for war crimes—there is virtually no public discussion of even more horrific torture techniques committed in America’s name at rendition sites around the world.

152


A principal source of information regarding the Uzbekistan connection is Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, who was fired by Britain after he blew the whistle on the CIA’s extraordinary renditions to Uzbekistan and the resulting torture of rendered suspects by Uzbek security forces acting on behalf of America. The sunlight of truth is a wonderful disinfectant. In addition to dropping Uzbekistan from the coalition, the Bush State Department in 2004 “decertified” Uzbekistan (under U.S. law requiring the State Department to certify annually that governments receiving American aid adequately support human rights), thus effectively cutting off most American aid. Nevertheless, numerous other dictatorships continue to routinely receive positive human rights certifications, in spite of their routine violation of human rights, and notwithstanding the objections of numerous international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Congressional pressure and special legislation in 2003 to take action against Uzbekistan also helped change the Bush regime’s policies toward Uzbekistan, although its broader practice of outsourced torture continues. Other “Almost Shanghaied” Nations: Believe it or not, in addition to the long list of nations just discussed, there are several more nations that Bush supporters tried to slip into the coalition. Because their attempts to shanghai these nations were especially fleeting and feeble, we list here these additional nonmembers—the “almost shanghaied”—simply for the sake of completeness. They are: Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Fiji, Finland, France—yes, even France!—Greece, Ireland, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates. There is a large army working for the United States in Iraq that does not appear on the long list above, one that rivals the entire coalition in size. It is the shadow army of mercenaries fielded by a host of unleashed, for-profit companies that are making a killing in Iraq. Their presence, together with the rightwing worldview that placed them there in the first, is a central reason why Bush and the GOP lost their “little war” in Iraq. These mercenary companies are the subject of the next chapter.

CHAPTER 7

Private Military Contractors Making a Killing in Iraq Where is the justice of political power if it executes the murderer and jails the plunderer, and then itself marches upon neighboring lands, killing thousands and pillaging the very hills? —Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931) Contrary to popular belief, Britain does not provide the second largest coalition force in Iraq. Rather, that force number two consists of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of private for-profit companies, which are euphemistically called private military contractors, private military firms, and the like. These very profitable companies are paid to recruit and field shadow mercenary armies estimated to total substantially more than 100,000 personnel by early 2007, although no one on God’s Earth knows exactly how many are deployed, or by whom exactly, or precisely what their various missions are (other than to make money.) The force of 100,000 privately contracted employees in Iraq in 2007 is: • about three-quarters the size of America’s entire military force then in Iraq, • more than 13 times the size of Britain’s total of 7,200 troops still in Iraq as of January 2007, and • more than seven times the size of the entire Bush League coalition, excluding only the United States. America’s media coverage of this humongous mercenary force is abysmal—let’s say AWOL—even when the topic is the so-called surge in early 2007. The Bush regime understandably talks little about its mercenaries. In helter skelter fashion, America’s shadow army in Iraq sees action from time to time and has suffered significant casualties, although no one in the Bush regime is keeping count, or at least not openly disclosing the information. Having said that, the total number of U.S. mercenaries killed in Iraq through 2007 is probably about 1,000. The maze of private military contractors operates in Iraq—GOP style—behind a wall of governmental and corporate secrecy. Multiple layers of interconnected, politically well connected, contractors and subcontractors obfuscate the truth, cripple the mission, and guaranty windfall profits, which is the primary objective of this GOP program of governmental malfeasance and corporate welfare. Some of these

154


companies played roles in the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, as well as at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in a Bush League-style gulag of illegal secret military prisons in Eastern Europe, Asia and elsewhere. In plain English, the troops provided by the so-called private military contractors are mercenaries, although international law experts may quibble as to the precise legal definition of a mercenary. For example, regarding the Iraq Civil War, most experts would not consider Iraqi citizens to be mercenaries, whether or not paid by the United States, because mercenaries are typically defined to exclude citizens of the country experiencing the conflict.54 In any case, the Bush League neocons prefer to use misleading softer terms like civilian contractor, rather than mercenary. America’s private mercenary companies in Iraq perfectly match the Bush regime’s worldview and unconstitutional governance. They are music to a dictator’s ears. These armies function above and outside the law, doing Bush’s bidding in the dark, without appropriate accountability and oversight. Beholden to him and the GOP, they protect America’s corporate empire and serve as the emperor’s praetorian guard, much like Saddam’s Republican Guard, only less competent at their core mission and much more expensive. The presence of the huge foreign mercenary armies, together with the cancerous worldview that caused them to be there in the first place, are a central reason why Bush and the GOP lost their war on Iraq. Private mercenary armies make it easier for foolish American leaders to initiate and prosecute foolish wars, or, “fuelish wars,” if you prefer. Such armies and wars require only the wallet of the American people, not their heart and conscience, and definitely not a military draft. Mercenaries are the antithesis of America’s proud traditional military that is of, by, and for the American people. When Bush and Cheney outsourced America’s military, they outsourced America’s soul and American values. They also made it less efficient, more corrupt, and much more expensive. The private mercenary armies in Iraq must be immediately withdrawn and disbanded. This action is as important as withdrawing American troops. To withdraw one and not the other makes no sense. The flow of funds to war profiteering companies must also stop, and their conduct and the conduct of their enablers in the Bush regime must be thoroughly investigated. The vast majority of the mercenaries in Iraq are recruited and employed by dozens and dozens of American and British companies with names generally not well known to the public. However, a few public-trough companies such as Halliburton, KBR (formerly the Kellogg, Brown and Root subsidiary of Halliburton), DynCorp, Blackwater USA, and the Carlyle Group are more familiar because of their highlevel rightwing political connections and numerous allegations of war profiteering, fraud and corruption. Blackwater, with hundreds of employees in Iraq, became well known primarily because of one of the war’s most horrendous incidents. Four of Blackwater’s security contractors were killed on March 31, 2004, in an ambush in Fallujah after they had 54

Accordingly, the mercenary totals set forth herein do not include Iraqi citizens.

CHAPTER 7 — PRIVATE MILITARY CONTACTORS

155

gotten lost, and their bodies were savagely mutilated and burned by a crowd, with the remains of two of the charred bodies then hung on public display on a bridge over the Euphrates River. The misguided, incompetently-executed operation by Blackwater—Blackwater’s Fiasco in Fallujah—caused an enormous escalation in violence in Iraq, leading to the death of countless Americans and Iraqis. The intense media coverage of Blackwater’s Fiasco in Fallujah caused many stunned Americans to realize for the first time that America had hired mercenaries to fight its wars, and many wondered why. If the mission was important, why weren’t America’s finest, America’s citizen military, carrying it out? Why were corporate profiteers mucking it up? SIDEBAR: A Rapidly Growing Worldwide Market for Mercenaries An investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) identified about 90 private for-profit companies that offer mercenaries for hire around the world, on six continents, in 110 countries. A veil of secrecy undoubtedly causes the number of such firms to be understated. In any case, the business of killing allows them to make a killing. These firms are sometimes hired by the U.S. government to perform missions that cannot legally be performed by America’s military. Sometimes they are hired to perform missions that are simply illegal by any standard. The worldwide annual revenues for such mercenary companies are estimated at more than $100 billion. American and British companies, which dominate this rapidly growing market, have especially profited since the Iraq war began, largely because the United States and Britain are the two nations that have done almost all of the heavy lifting, including funding, in prosecuting the war. According to a security firm in London, the annual revenues of British-based private military contractors have increased by more than five fold, to more than $1.7 billion, since the commencement of the war in 2003. Many of America’s finest left the regular military for the higher pay offered to private soldiers for hire, and it is difficult to blame them. Former soldiers of all ranks are included among the mercenaries. MPRI, a privately-held company headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, brags that it has more generals per square foot than the Pentagon. The shift to mercenaries is part of a hugely negative, global, rightwing economic tsunami that includes privatization, the outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs, and the maximization of corporate power and profits—all at the expense of human beings, human benefits, and human rights. However, unlike the cost savings resulting from the private Wal-Martization of America, i.e., the outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs by America’s private industry, the hiring of mercenaries by America has exactly the opposite effect—it greatly increases costs. The grease—the raison d’être—for this odd phenomenon is that government money, not private money, is being spent, misspent and stolen—as the Bushies religiously feed their public-trough cronies.

156


If mercenaries were included in the total U.S. military presence in Iraq, then the total force would be at least two-thirds greater (e.g., the total of 150,000 troops in 2007 would swell to more than 250,000 if the mercenaries were counted.) Looked at from a different perspective, if this total force of 250,000 consisted only of America’s finest, with no mercenaries, then the total cost would be reduced by upwards to 70%, while at the same time both performance and accountability would be greatly improved. Ironically, American textile workers have lost their jobs to Asian workers who may be paid only one-tenth as much as the axed Americans were previously paid, but American soldiers, on the other hand, are replaced by mercenaries who are paid 5 to 15 times more. (In addition, lots of corporate overhead is added to the mercenary compensation.) What is wrong with this picture? Well, when you’re talking about the GOP-abused cash cow known as the U.S. Treasury, the Halliburtons of the world suck as much milk as possible from as many teats as possible, while not worrying about the health or ownership of the cow. Of course, maximizing the profits of large corporations is the common goal in both the outsourcing of textile jobs and the outsourcing of military jobs. The huge compensation disparity between the cost of an American soldier and the cost of a mercenary extends all the way up to those at the top of the GOP’s mercenary milking operation. The CEO of a large private military contractor can make 10 to 100 times, or more, the compensation of a four-star general in the U.S. Army. Ultimately, U.S. taxpayers pay the price. War profiteers commonly milk their cost-plus contracts by adding multiple layers of contractors and overhead to the actual pay received by the individual soldier. Private military contractors grease the skids for their government contracts by paying lobbyists to milk Congress and by making millions of dollars in both illegal and perfectly legal payments, including bribes—political contributions, if you like— to America’s elected officials, who happily participate in the milking of America. In addition to helping their cronies grab government contracts, the GOPcontrolled Congress blocked congressional investigation and oversight, in violation of their oaths of office. Cronyism, waste and corruption are hallmarks of the Bush regime. Politically connected companies such as Halliburton have an inside track to win war contracts and have, in effect, an exemption—similar to a Bush Family Pass—from effective oversight by either Congress or the American people. Will the last person in America who trusts Halliburton please turn out the lights on the way out? In fairness, let’s remember that Halliburton is not all bad. One benefit of its war profits, properly earned or not, is that they help ensure the continued annual payment of tax-avoiding deferred compensation to Cheney. Meanwhile, as the lucrative corporate milking operation continues around the clock, peace is an orphan. Using American taxpayer dollars that have found their way into their pockets, private military contractors promote and market war, all in America’s name. No peace drums are beaten, only the drums of war. Peace has no voice and no marketing budget.


157

Dictatorships and large international corporations have increasingly turned to private military firms to protect their interests and project their will around the world, almost always to the disadvantage of downtrodden populations. The innocent masses—plus democracy and human rights—are the most common victims of the mercenary business. And some Americans still wonder why America has such a difficult time winning hearts and minds around the globe. The large shadow army of private corporate mercenaries operates below the public radar, thus offering many political advantages to the Bush regime and its GOP supporters: • In sharp contrast with the reporting requirements governing American troop casualties, the Bush administration is not required to report casualties incurred by the mercenary force, which causes an understatement of the total American dead and wounded in Iraq. • The private employers of the mercenaries likewise are not required to report their respective casualties, and they typically do not, preferring to avoid negative publicity. • The use of the shadow army, rather than the U.S. military, helps the Bush regime circumvent the Geneva Conventions. Before he was nominated to be Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, who was affectionately called “mi abogado” (“my lawyer”) by Bush, famously wrote “torture memos,” in which he referred to provisions of the Geneva Conventions as “obsolete” and “quaint.” • The mercenaries were granted immunity from Iraqi law by an edict issued by the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and by the willingness of the Iraqi government to look the other way. Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17 of June 2004 gave contractors blanket immunity from Iraqi law, thus setting a precedent for no accountability even as laws subsequently changed. • Because the mercenaries are not employees of the United States, they are not clearly and directly in the U.S. military chain of command, and they are not subject to the rules of engagement and the Uniform Code of Military Justice that apply to America’s armed forces. • A heavy blanket of secrecy, including a Get Smart “cone of silence,” provides cover to military and civilian leaders all the way to the top of the Pentagon and the White House, whether or not they personally authorized mercenary misdeeds. Plausible deniability is a treasured defense of the Bush regime. • The use of mercenaries helped the Bush regime keep members of Congress uninformed and misinformed as to its activities. Only after the GOP lost its death grip on both houses of Congress in 2006 did meaningful investigations begin, and these investigations are being obstructed.


158 •

In addition, many mercenaries are able to circumvent U.S. law because they are not American citizens, or because they were employed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, or because they not directly under U.S. military command and control. • Using a narrow definition of “mercenary,” many arguably are not even subject to the body of international law that applies to mercenaries. • The Bush regime’s practice of placing themselves above and outside domestic and international law gives coalition mercenaries additional comfort. • The use of mercenaries reduces the need to increase the size of the U.S. military or reinstate the draft. For an administration lacking the will to reinstate the draft, mercenaries provide an easy alternative. • Without these mercenaries the Bush regime could not engage in the level of war it practices in Iraq and elsewhere. • Without these mercenaries, the opportunities to funnel humongous piles of taxpayer dollars to GOP-connected contractors and subcontractors would be greatly restricted. “It’s the money, stupid. Follow the money.” An estimated 40% of the money spent by the Bush regime in Iraq goes to private contractors, although no one knows the exact percentage. There is no system in place to evaluate effectively the performance of each contractor, and no matter how bad the performance, with rare exception the contractor gets paid. Americans, as well as Iraqis, have good reason to trust the professionalism and performance of the U.S. military, but they have little or no reason to trust the maze of private mercenary companies. Through 2006 only one contractor in Iraq had been indicted for crimes. It is the golden age for mercenaries—America’s GOP Mafia protects its own. Serious investigation of the dark underbelly of America’s mercenary business did not begin until the American people in 2006 wrested control of Congress from the GOP, which throughout the Iraq war partnered with the war profiteers in a deadly game of grime, crime and cover-up. The 110th Congress, whose two-year term started in 2007, has the Herculean task of investigating crimes and malfeasance in Iraq, and it will take many years and a measure of good luck for the truth to emerge, if ever. As for Blackwater, the most “successful” of the corporate mercenaries, a good starting point is Jeremy Scahill’s book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Blackwater owns and operates the world’s largest private military base, which covers 11 square miles in North Carolina. Erik Prince founded and personally financed Blackwater USA at age 27. He is a secretive multimillionaire rightwing Christianist whose family funded and helped many Religious Right and GOP causes, including James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and Christian Freedom International. He is the poster child for what contractors should not be in America’s war to win the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide, especially those inclined to believe the United States is engaged in a war on Islam. The revolving door between Blackwater and the GOP administration is well greased. Blackwater’s senior executives include controversial Joseph Schmitz, who resigned as Defense Department Inspector General in 2005 to join Prince’s company.


159

The killing and mutilation of the four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in March 2004 made them heroes and immediately increased Blackwater’s visibility. Moving quickly to exploit the golden opportunity, Blackwater—just one day after the tragedy—hired Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbyist firm involved in the GOP’s K Street Project. By the end of the year, Blackwater was bragging about its 600% growth. Applications for employment jumped. Its president declared they were in a billion-dollar industry, and “Blackwater has only scratched the surface of it.” The K Street lobbyist firm hired by Blackwater deserves a paragraph in this book. Founded by a former chief of staff for Tom DeLay, Alexander melted down and was shuttered in early 2006 in the face of the Jack Abramoff scandals. Former staffers and associates of Tom DeLay ran the firm, which gave it solid roots in GOP sleaze. Another Alexander client was PerfectWave, the defense contracting firm owned by Brent Wilkes, who was convicted in November 2007 in connection with the Randy “Duke” Cunningham government contracting scandal. (As we discuss in Chapter 18, Cunningham is in prison serving a sentence of eight years and four months, the longest sentence ever given a U.S. congressman.) The families of the four men killed in Blackwater’s Fiasco in Fallujah filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Blackwater, alleging numerous mistakes, malfeasance and negligence by Blackwater, including sending the four into harm’s way without sufficient force and equipment and in violation of contractual commitments. As reported in The Nation, the families of the four dead decided to sue only after they had been stonewalled, misled and lied to by Blackwater as to what really happened. “Blackwater seems to understand money. That’s the only thing they understand,” said Katy Helvenston, the mother of one of the victims. “They have no values, they have no morals. They’re whores. They’re the whores of war.” Congress has started investigating Blackwater, but don’t expect Blackwater and its political allies to cooperate. In the case of the Fallujah incident, it took a long time for Congress or anyone else to even identify the subcontract under which the four dead were employed, thanks to Blackwater’s obfuscation and stonewalling. War profiteering in Iraq is conducted with a profits-enhancing maze of contracts and subcontracts, and no one even knows how many exist. The shift to private corporate mercenaries has cost America and its military dearly. America’s military has been crippled by the GOP’s relentless campaign to privatize everything, all for the benefit of corporate interests. The rightwing pirates simply hate government and its employees, including its military personnel. Rumsfeld in particular despised the Pentagon organization for years and wanted to transform and privatize it. Incredibly, Rumsfeld declared war on the Pentagon on September 10, 2001, exactly one day before 9/11, that day of infamy when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon killing 189. He issued his declaration of war in an address at the Pentagon, warning his audience of an “adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America,” one that “attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans, and beyond. With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.” Rumsfeld wasn’t referring to al Qaeda or bin Laden. He was talking about the U.S. Department

160


of Defense itself and his desire to radically transform it. He said, “the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy.” Ironically, history would soon show that Rumsfeld’s words could better be applied to himself and his band of neocon suits: an “adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America … It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.” These words should be chiseled on his tombstone. Rumsfeld and his supporting cast of well-connected executives from public trough companies like Enron wanted the U.S. military to have a “small footprint” and its leaders to function like venture capitalists in an MBA-filled boardroom. In reality, a “small footprint” for America’s military meant a “huge footprint” for war profiteers, allowing them to pork up at the public trough with minimal public scrutiny and oversight. To function like “venture capitalists” really meant to devour like “vulture capitalists.” The war on terrorism, 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq were all dreams come true for America’s corporate mercenaries and the neocons. Rumsfeld must have thought he had died and gone to Heaven. But, in reality, America had lost its marbles. SIDEBAR: Halliburton—None Dare Call It Treason In March 2007 Halliburton, the energy services giant then headquartered in Houston, announced it was moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, along with its CEO, David Lesar, apparently in recognition of the fact that Texas is fading in energy and rapidly becoming an empty oilcan, whereas Dubai is a boomtown in the middle of the world’s largest oil reserves. The announcement was met with disbelief in Washington, although no one should be surprised by anything Halliburton does. The move by Halliburton from Houston to Dubai illustrates where its loyalties lie, and, in the words of Senator Patrick Leahy, is “an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years.” Henry Waxman, the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in February 2007 that a government audit indicated Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billing in “suspect billings.” Halliburton enjoyed a multi-year $16 billion contract with the U.S. Army, as well as many other Iraq war contracts. It also enjoyed the protection of the Halliburton White House and the GOP Congress. Although Halliburton declared the move will not result in tax benefits, we should expect further restructuring by Halliburton, including probably a reincorporation outside the United States, which could cost America’s taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, in addition to helping further protect Halliburton from public oversight and U.S. law.


161

In 2007 Halliburton spun off its notorious military contracting subsidiary, KBR (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root), and the company is at the center of a host of alleged crimes, some going back to Dick Cheney’s 1995-2000 reign as Halliburton’s CEO. Halliburton is America’s leader in war profiteering. America can trust its public servants who wear its uniform, but it has little reason to trust its private serpents who owe their loyalties to their profits, not to America or its soldiers. As is the case with America’s military personnel in Iraq, some mercenaries perform non-combat work, and some engage in combat. It is anyone’s guess as to what the mix actually is. In comparison, the coalition members other than the United States and Britain provide zero troops for combat. In addition, many mercenaries died in Iraq because of the incompetence and greed of their private corporate employers. The Bush regime is quite secretive as to exactly what functions the private military contractors perform and how many individuals perform each function. The range of activity is certainly broad, from logistics support—such as training, transportation, and food services—to actual combat and providing security for senior American officials and numerous key installations, such as the Green Zone in Baghdad. Iraqis desperately in need of employment are appalled at the high cost of hiring foreign mercenaries and other foreign workers to perform services in their country. They see foreigners being paid a large multiple of the salary for which they are willing and able to work. In more extreme cases, the cost of a U.S. mercenary might be more than 100 times the cost of hiring an Iraqi soldier to do the same work. Imagine the peace dividend of giving a mercenary the boot, and then using the cost savings to hire several Iraqi citizens, with each one then having the wherewithal to support a family of several people. An exercise in empathy is useful here. Imagine the “insurgent” violence and patriotic outrage of Americans if an unwelcome, uninvited foreign imperial power invaded and occupied America and then, rubbing salt in the wounds, hired foreign contractors at a cost many times what American workers would accept—say at two million dollars each—rather than hiring unemployed American policemen and firemen. The Bush regime simply does not trust Iraqis or anything about them—especially their religion—and therein lies a major reason for Bush’s and the GOP’s catastrophic failure in Iraq. Whatever tidbit of respect the Bushies had for Iraqis was greatly outweighed by their love for their private public-trough buddies. Civilian mercenaries who drive around Iraq in unmarked vehicles, without military uniforms or identification, represent to Iraqis an extremely offensive face of the occupation of their country. Some of these mercenaries committed horrendous crimes against innocent Iraqis, with impunity. As for the ballyhooed surge in Baghdad in early 2007, no one explained the role of America’s private mercenary army, and America’s Big Media ignored this highly relevant issue.

162


The goal of the mercenary companies is to maximize profits and do what is best for their companies, not to implement U.S. policy or do what is best for America or Iraq. However, there is virtually no public discussion of this inherent conflict of interest, a conflict that exposes America’s troops to greater danger. You can count on an American soldier, but you cannot count on a fat-cat CEO of a war profiteer. One problem is that employers of mercenaries typically retain the right to withdraw their personnel if security becomes an issue. U.S. troops under fire in a combat situation who need rescue or reinforcement can take comfort if American troops, under the American military chain of command, are coming to their aid, rather than unknown mercenaries hired by a company that may choose to keep its employees out of harm’s way. America’s private corporate mercenaries cause friction and compromise America’s mission in numerous ways. An American soldier who may be paid about $20,000 per year to drive a truck has to question the sense and fairness of a private corporate mercenary getting $100,000 and better benefits to do the same job. At a time when the U.S. military has repeatedly missed its recruiting goals and lowered its recruiting standards, it is not helpful that private companies “poach” many of America’s best soldiers in Iraq, including its special operations forces. For a variety of reasons, including cost and availability, mercenaries from numerous countries around the world are also hired to work in Iraq, and in some cases the hiring standards are low or nonexistent. Dozens of soldiers who served with the pro-apartheid military, paramilitary and secret police in South Africa and Namibia have worked in Iraq. Others have trained and served under other brutal rightwing dictatorships, such as the Pinochet regime in Chile. Mercenaries vary greatly in experience and training. Some are among the most competent and experienced warriors in the world. The pay rates vary greatly, from perhaps $300 per month for Fijian or Kurdish soldiers to over $1,000 per day for certain former Green Berets and experienced special operations forces. Blackwater reportedly charged in the range of $1,500 per day per employee for some of its operations. By comparison, in late 2003 many of the new recruits for Iraq’s new army quit because of difficulty in supporting their families on $60 per month, which is $2 per day. The GOP’s privatization and profiteering schemes have also found a home in America. For example, Blackwater expanded its domestic operations and reportedly charged up to $950 per day per person for its contracted employees during Katrina. Bush and the GOP would rather pay millions to GOP cronies than give a needy black person a lunch worth $5. Although the United States used mercenaries in many conflicts prior to 9/11, including Gulf War I, the scale of their usage in Iraq is unprecedented. On a percentage basis, more than ten times as many are employed in the current unsuccessful Iraq war as were employed in the successful Gulf War I. Bush’s war on Iraq is just another opportunity for the Republican Party, the Cons, to engage in so-called privatization, which truthfully should be called pirate-ization or piratization. The Cons don’t believe in government—other than bloating and


163

milking it—and thus are incompetent and untrustworthy to run it. That especially applies to America’s military and America’s national defense. Just as an atheist who doesn’t believe in Christianity is unfit to be the pastor of your church, the Cons who don’t believe in America’s government are unfit to run it. Whether it’s the Cons’ vendetta to privatize and gut Social Security, or the deregulation of the savings and loan industry, or the Enron-style deregulation of the energy industry, or America’s student loan program, or the Medicare corporate welfare legislation, or operation Katrina, or Bush’s war on Iraq, or the Afghanistan war, the result is always the same: corruption, inefficiency, and an explosion in administrative costs, with America’s middle- and lower-income taxpayers getting screwed to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Putting the GOP in charge of America’s military is like marrying a pimp—a bloated, white, over-the-hill, cocaine-addicted, womanizing, wife-abusing pimp— whom you know is marrying you for your money. Yes, you will get screwed, but don’t expect any of that romance you were promised. In the next chapter we turn our attention to the Religious Wrong, that decidedly unchristian warmongering gang of “Mission Accomplices” who bless and empower the GOP’s War on Iraq and its War on America.

PART III Bush, the GOP and Bush League Religion

CHAPTER 8

The Religious Wrong Creating the Neo-Jesus—Pro-Rich and Pro-War When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. —Sinclair Lewis (1885-1951)

One World Government and Other Bush League Fantasies The central purpose of the Bush League of Nations was to provide Bush and the GOP neocons with a veneer of political cover both in the short term—in their unilateral decision to invade and occupy Iraq—and also in the longer term—in whatever additional military campaigns they raged in pursuit of their broader imperial goal of expanding American supremacy in the world. In the eyes of the world, the neocons desired a modern American version of the Roman Empire, but much bigger geographically, and much more intrusive, exploitive and dictatorial. A vast majority of rightwing Christians fell for the coalition charade hook, line and sinker. The Bush League of Nations is a subterfuge intended to make rightwing Christians and other gullible American voters believe that most of the world was with us in a willing coalition of nations to share the mission and the load in Iraq. But as the war dragged on, increasing numbers of Christians slowly awakened to the reality of the Big Lie. The subterfuge was a necessary inconvenience for the Bush warmongers only because America still conducts elections, more or less. The vast majority of the rest of the world saw the Bush League for what it was and still is, and they yearned for America to come to its senses, restore integrity to the White House and Congress, and return to its traditional values. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Bush took the worst proposed foreign policy that was slithering around the GOP dumpster—The Project for the New American Century—and then foolishly decorated it with “Jesus Kills” cloth while donning his new crusader cap. The world after 9/11 wanted to be led by America, but Bush gave them his Bush League brand of American imperialism cloaked in America’s new national religion. The Taliban wing of the Republican Party had entered the White House. A virulent strain of Christianity had become the religion of empire. America had lost its marbles.

168


Incredibly, millions of rightwing American Christians supported Bush because they believed God communicates with him, supports him, and directs his decisions and policies. Bush and his handlers encouraged such misguided beliefs. While campaigning in Pennsylvania in July 2004 Bush said, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.” This amazes America’s allies and repulses the Islamic world. It also costs the lives of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere. SIDEBAR: A 9/11 in Iraq Every 11 Hours As for the number of Iraqis who died because of Bush’s illegal unjust war on Iraq, neither the Bush regime nor the Iraqi regime is really counting. Neither is America’s Christian right. In Chapter 4 we discussed the comprehensive independent Lancet survey that estimated, through July 2006, that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a consequence of the Iraq war. The estimate range was 943,000 at the high end and 393,000 at the low end. The middle figure of 655,000 Iraqi dead is more than 200 times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, and equal to about 218 9/11s during the 40month period of the study. Taking into account that America’s population is about 12 times that of Iraq, we conclude that Iraq on a per capita basis has been experiencing the equivalent of one 9/11 every 11 hours—around the clock, 24 hours a day. As indicated in Chapter 4, Iraq has suffered, on average on a per capita basis, the equivalent of 5,952 Virginia Tech massacres per month, or one Virginia Tech massacre every 7 minutes and 30 seconds—around the clock, 24 hours a day. Whatever estimate of Iraq’s dead you choose—even the lowball estimates begrudgingly offered by the Bush regime—the suffering in Iraq is staggering and incomprehensible to Americans. Every church in America should be angered and outraged by the horror that was unleashed in Iraq in America’s name and in Christ’s name. As for those Christians who supported Bush’s war so proudly and eagerly, one would hope to see some tears some day. Even a few crocodile tears would be a start. Whether or not Bush has a hotline to God, the Bush League charade appeals to many conservative Christians caught up in various rightwing prophecies of the end of the world—the “End Times”—including the Second Coming of Christ, the rapture and the Battle of Armageddon, which religious speculation we will discuss in the next chapter. The Bush League foray into the heart of the Islamic world also gives comfort to rightwing Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists who believe America should lead a militant Christian Crusade against the dark evil forces of the world, primarily Islam. At the same time, many conservative Americans have no use for any international coalition, whether Bush League or not, and want America to unilaterally set and pursue its own global agenda as it sees fit, free of any international taint, espe-

CHAPTER 8 — THE RELIGIOUS WRONG

169

cially that of the United Nations. This is appealing to many Americans on the extreme right who believe various conspiracy theories such as one world government and new world order. According to most variations of these theories, a powerful group of individuals is intent on obtaining complete control over every person on Earth, an Earth that would no longer have national or political boundaries. Fearing an ongoing assault upon the sovereignty and freedom of America, these conspiracy believers vociferously oppose the United Nations and other international organizations. If you are not very familiar with these conspiracy theories, you should Google terms such as “Black Nobility,” “Committee of 300,” and “illuminati,” in addition to “one world government” and “new world order.” You will be shocked by the creative lunacy you find, especially its biblical flavor. Ironically, America itself has far more power and influence in the world than all of these real or imagined conspiracy organizations put together, and thus America, especially under Bush and his neocons, is, or rather was, the closest thing on Earth to the “feared” one world government or new world order. Any rightwing American who is truly fearful of such one world government or new world order should empathize and role play for a moment—by stepping into the shoes of non-Americans who might be similarly concerned about concentrated power, and considering how these foreigners might reasonably view imperial America in these early years of the 21st century, which the neocons themselves call “The New American Century.” Foreigners—say, for example, Brazilians, Iranians, or Canadians—have much more reason to be fearful of such a new world order than Americans. Indeed, Bush’s War Party created such fear abroad where none previously existed, and where it did already exist it dumped gasoline on the flames. Before the Bush regime assumed power, the disease of such paranoia had been largely confined to rightwing America, where it has been nurtured by many fundamentalist biblical interpretations that are both recent and peculiar to America. Oddly, many of the supporters of this new, made-in-America Christianity—one might say “evolving” Christianity—are anti-science folk who don’t believe in evolution.

The Religious Wrong and the Separation of Church and State The de facto religion of the Bush League of Nations is rightwing political Christianity, as exploited by the rightwing political cabal known as the Religious Right,55 a term that is Orwellian doublespeak, since the vast majority of the Religious Right’s political agenda is an insult to Christ’s message of peace on Earth and compassion for the poor. So when you hear the term “Religious Right,” you should mentally translate it into something more accurate, such as the “Religious Reich,” the “Religious Wrong“ or the “Unchristian Right.” Another accurate label for the Religious Right is “Extreme Religious Right,” or “ERR,” as in “to ERR is human, and definitely not divine.”

55

The terms Religious Right and Christian Right are often used interchangeably.

170


SIDEBAR: To ERR is Human, and Definitely Not Divine The core agenda of the Religious Right is political, and not particularly religious, unless you count as religious the idolatrous worship of wealth, the wealthy, power, the powerful, war and weapons of mass destruction. In the case of any conflict between Christ’s message and rightwing politics, the latter always prevails. Rightwing politics trump the Bible. War is good. Follow the money. Cronyism and corruption crush Christ. The “religious” tag used by the Religious Right serves the purpose of maintaining the knee-jerk support of religious voters for rightwing policies no matter how extreme, including especially the secular schemes of the Super Rich and powerful. The so-called Religious Right has moved so far to the right that it should be called the Extreme Religious Right, or “ERR,” as in: “to support the GOP is to ERR.” The noun in the term “Religious Right” is “Right”—specifically an extreme rightwing political constituency—and the word “Religious” is merely an adjective that puts gloss on it. The ratio is at least 95%-to-5% in favor of extreme rightwing politics, with the 5% “religious” part consisting of divisive social issues cherry picked from the Bible, or simply picked out of thin air, so as to achieve extreme rightwing political goals, which are primarily economic. The Religious Right began to gel in the late 1960s and early 1970s, partly as a response to liberal, progressive Christians—Jesus would say “true Christians,” I believe—who pushed for civil rights and opposed America’s war in Vietnam. Political action groups on the right such as the Moral Majority—led by Rev. Jerry Falwell during its lifespan, 1979-87—became powerbrokers and money magnets. Recognizing the potential in grafting religion onto rightwing politics, many political and religious leaders who previously had believed in the constitutional separation of church and state did a flip-flop, and rightwing politics became their main passion. They made a Faustian pact with the Devil, and America has been paying the Devil’s price ever since. The exclusionary Religious Right is dominated by white males, and, with the exception of its opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage, its agenda is that of the Super Rich and Big Business, for whom Christ has become a lobbyist. Because the Religious Right is deeply rooted in rightwing political goals and not particularly religious values, it has no difficulty turning Christianity on its head whenever Christ’s message is inconsistent with rightwing political objectives, which is most of the time. This is why so many policies of the Religious Right bear no resemblance to Christ or Christ’s ministry. The Extreme Religious Right is an extreme political faction that effectively controls the Republican Party. It backs its man Bush in whatever madness he may engage in—such as the invasion of Iraq and the Bush League of Nations charade—and helps convince Christians that Bush can do no wrong because God is acting through him. Bishop Bush, in return, recklessly and relentlessly pursues the ERR’s corporate agenda: “of the Super Rich, by the Super Rich, and for the Super Rich.”


171

Until a few decades ago all Christian denominations in America, including all Baptist branches, strongly believed, as a matter of theology and common sense, in the separation of church and state, which separation is intended to ensure freedom of religion and freedom from religion. In short, virtually all Christians supported the U.S. Constitution. However in the late 1970s an unfortunate blending of Christian fundamentalism and the Republican Party began, leading to the erosion of the separation of church and state, and to the rewriting and shredding of the Constitution. Ultraconservative Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), the GOP candidate for president in 1964, presciently saw the dangerous religious writing on the wall by the early 1980s (long before your author did), and he condemned uncompromising pulpit politicians for using religion as a weapon to force government leaders to follow their God-determined positions 100%, and threatening to withhold votes and money. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism. —Goldwater’s speech to the U.S. Senate on September 16, 1981

Bush has taken the Religious Right’s misguided un-American efforts to new extremes, with little regard for the Constitution or their negative impact on all religions, including his own. Oddly, he shows no glimmer of curiosity as to why our founding fathers wisely separated church from state. Perhaps the most curious thing about Bush is his lack of curiosity. Religious fundamentalism by itself is generally not bad, when kept securely in the private realm and outside government. But fundamentalism transformed into theocracy is dangerous and frequently deadly. Americans who believe religious fundamentalists should run their government would be at home in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Bush’s Iraq, although they wouldn’t care for the particular flavor of toxic religious Kool-Aid being served. SIDEBAR: Thomas Jefferson and the Separation of Church and State “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” —Thomas Jefferson

172


“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” —Thomas Jefferson Oblivious to the irony, Bush works to meld religion and state in America, while he prays that the two will be separated in Iraq. But separating religion and state in a predominantly Islamic nation is much more difficult than in the predominantly Christian nation of America, a nation that from its founding in the 18th century recognized the wisdom of such separation. Bush and the GOP are thus on a fool’s errand—the Devil’s errand—in both Iraq and the United States. In sharp contrast to the Bible, the Koran strongly interweaves Islam and the state, and this structure is reflected by centuries of tradition in the Islamic world. On the other hand, Jesus is frequently given credit for inventing the separation of church and state, when he said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17. The unholy marriage of Christian fundamentalism and rightwing economic politics, together with their joint assault on religious freedom and the separation of church and state, are peculiar to America. We should praise God that no other predominantly Christian nation suffers from this disease of the mind and the heart. Unfortunately, there are several extreme rightwing Islamic nations, including Iran and Prince George’s princely Saudi Arabia, where Islam is coupled to a rightwing, exclusionary, elitist, dictatorial regime run by and for men. They are Islamic analogues to Bush’s vision of a Religious Right America. Just imagine the repressive toilet America would become if zealots like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson made up 51% of America’s population. Religion will simply not work in this small world unless the vast majority of believers of all faiths respect the religious freedom of others at least as much as they respect their own religion. As for the future of America itself, the memorable words of Abraham Lincoln spoken on June 16, 1858, in Springfield, Illinois, echo to this day: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Just as an America divided on slavery could not stand, an America divided by religious fundamentalism cannot stand. The neocons in effect are hoping and praying that the huge Islamic majority in Iraq—more than 95% of the population—and the large Shiite majority in particular—about 60% of the population—will behave much more liberally, democratically and justly in ruling Iraq than the Bush regime and his Confederate GOP have in ruling the United States. Iraq’s new rulers, without the benefit of democratic traditions, are expected, miraculously, to represent all Iraqis and to eschew Bush’s favorite tools: militarism, greed, corruption, bigotry, the misuse of religion, cronyism, politics by division, lying, and eye gouging. Now that would be a miracle. Ironically, largely below the radar of the American public, Bush’s blunder in Iraq spawned countless tragedies for Iraqi Christians and other Christians in the Islamic


173

world. For example, approximately 40,000 Christians left Iraq in a period of less than 18 months following the American invasion in March 2003, according to an August 2004 report of the Migration Ministry of Iraq. The Bush League incompetence fueled religious fundamentalism and violence, which frequently targets Christians. The funneling of taxpayer money to favored religious groups is one of Bush’s most infamous attacks on the separation of church and state in America. Upon assuming office Bush pushed Congress to approve his so-called faith-based initiatives, intended to break down the constitutional barrier between church and state and use U.S. tax dollars to fund tax-exempt religious organizations that provide social and other services. Because of obvious First Amendment concerns, Congress correctly refused to pass the legislation Bush wanted, even though Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. More than a few Republicans saw the unconstitutional evil afoot. So Bush circumvented Congress and implemented his faith-based initiatives by executive order. The result, notwithstanding the Constitution, is that federal funds flow to religious service providers from the newly created Compassion Capital Fund. This effort is directly and politically controlled by the White House Office, which steers faithbased centers in seven federal agencies (expanded to ten in May 2004), and the government bureaucrats now in charge are people who meet Bush’s litmus test for appropriate religiosity. Of the first $1 billion in tax dollars distributed from the Compassion Capital Fund, virtually all of it went to Christian groups. Jewish and Muslim groups received little or nothing. Also troublesome is the fact that the selected religious service providers, even though they receive federal funds, can discriminate in ways that other organizations receiving federal funds cannot. For example, the taxpayer-funded religious service providers can refuse to hire people of other faiths. Jews and Muslims need not apply. Also problematic for the Bush administration are the revelations of a former White House official—a deeply religious person who sincerely wanted to help the poor—that Bush’s inner circle privately made fun of evangelical supporters who visited the White House, calling them “goofy,” “nuts” and worse, while embracing them in public in order to win elections. The revelations appear in the book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, by David Kuo, the former Deputy Director of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Kuo describes how rightwing evangelicals were taken for granted and co-opted by the Republican Party, losing their influence and respect along the way. Bush bragged about, while underfunding, his faith-based initiatives at the same time he worked hard to cut funding for various social services. Here is a small sampling of his favorite cuts, most of which are from his 2005 budget proposal: • massive cuts (largest ever) in loans for needy college students, together with increased interest rates • cuts in funding for energy and natural resources programs intended to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil • cuts in incentives for developers to build affordable housing for the working poor • cuts in child care assistance for needy mothers who work


174 •

caps on Section 8 rent subsidies for the poor, which are paid primarily to below-poverty-level families that include the elderly, the disabled, or children • cuts in funding for mass transit, highways, bridges, and other essential elements of America’s infrastructure • cuts in community development • cuts in funding for rural education intended to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind law • cuts in the FAA budget, which will compromise aviation safety Let’s remember the context in which Bush worked so hard to make these cuts and screw America’s most needy and America’s middle class. Let’s remember for whom Bush works and that his priorities are the GOP’s priorities. Bush proposed his first round of massive tax cuts for the Super Rich because there was a budget surplus (thanks to Clinton.) Bush proposed his second round of massive tax cuts for the Super Rich because there was a budget deficit (which Bush created.) Bush then wanted to make these and other massive tax cuts for the Super Rich permanent even though there persists a massive deficit (which he created.) From a Christian perspective, all of Bush’s and the GOP’s budgets are immoral, as they victimize America’s middle- and lower-income Americans by cutting programs to benefit them, while at the same time enriching the Super Rich through tax reductions, tax exemptions, reduced IRS enforcement, earmarks, government contracts, and public-trough crony capitalism. Voting for Bush and the GOP is like dropping off your kids—again and again— at the home of a babysitter known to be a child molester. During the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, as well as during the 2002 and 2006 midterm elections, there were countless disturbing Republican Party campaign tactics that abused religion and the Constitution. Here are just a few examples from the run-up to the 2004 presidential election: • Republican leaders supported amending the tax laws to increase the power of religious leaders to engage in partisan politics, notwithstanding constitutional limitations. These politically motivated amendments were intended to placate congressmen such as Representative Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC), who for years had wanted a law allowing religious leaders to endorse political candidates from the pulpit. • The Republican Party ran a campaign to enlist 1,600 so-called “friendly” congregations in Pennsylvania—as well as thousands of congregations in other battleground states—to register voters and distribute Republican Party campaign literature. • The Bush/Cheney campaign later distributed a list of 22 duties for church volunteers, including forwarding the church’s membership roster to GOP party headquarters so that church members could be solicited for campaign contributions and votes. • The GOP pushed legislation in Congress that would expand the ability of houses of worship to preach politics from the pulpit and otherwise engage in partisan politics.


175

•

Jerry Falwell endorsed the reelection of Bush in 2004 in a newsletter sent from Jerry Falwell Ministries, his tax-exempt foundation.56 He also urged his readers to give up to $5,000 to Campaign For Working Families, a political action committee headed by Gary Bauer. Tax exempt as a Section 501(c)(3) organization, Jerry Falwell Ministries is prohibited by federal law from endorsing political candidates or engaging in political lobbying. The Religious Right has effectively turned many churches into Republican Party mouthpieces and partisan political headquarters. Your personal political beliefs are now a measure of your Christian faith. Without adequate regard for the Constitution, Christian fundamentalists are working hard to project their particular religious beliefs into many areas that must remain secular: • Faith-based education. Public education is under attack. An increasing number of rightwing Christians want private education, including religious education, to be paid for by taxpayers, at the expense of public education, which has been a bedrock valued institution in America for more than a century. • Faith-based textbooks. Grass roots fundamentalist activists have lobbied hard to have evolution replaced by creation science—an oxymoron—in science textbooks used in America’s public schools. Unfortunately, textbook publishers frequently dummy down their textbooks to avoid religious controversy and to appeal to a large dummy subset of Republican voters. Fundamentalists strive to censor anything that conflicts with their religious views, at the expense of the constitutional rights and personal freedoms of everyone else. • Anti-science policies. Any aspect of science that conflicts with the fundamentalists’ literal reading—or creative reading—of the Bible is subject to rejection and attack. Science is being mugged by rightwing religious bigotry, and an amazed world laughs at America. The Religious Right wants its interpretation and rewriting of the Bible—a form of New Age spiritualism—to control everything, everybody, everywhere. The extreme Young Earth Creationists (YEC), who believe the entire universe was divinely created only 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, want their unverifiable supernatural views to be taught in science classes in public schools. In doing so, YEC gives “YUK” a bad name. Muslims, even extreme rightwing Muslims, are more respectful of science than America’s rightwing Christianists. • The Age of Endarkenment. America was built on the principles of the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment, but the Bush regime has opened the door to the Age of Endarkenment. • Junk science. The Bush administration suppresses and ignores facts and widely accepted scientific principles that displease favored large corporations and donors to the Republican Party. When it cannot successfully suppress the unwelcome truth, including in many cases extensive multiple stud56

Falwell wrote, “voting for principle this year means voting for the re-election of George W. Bush. The alternative, in my mind, is simply unthinkable.”

176


ies by the government itself, the Bush team readily accepts as gospel whatever junk science its corporate paymasters fabricate. • Rewriting of science. Numerous rightwing political appointees without scientific credentials or training, such as Phillip Cooney whom we will discuss later, edit scientific reports to make them fit GOP ideology. • Anti-conservation and anti-environment. Notwithstanding biblical mandates to respect and preserve God’s World, large polluters and exploiters are loved and protected by Bush and his rightwing Christianists. Many on the extreme right oppose the environmental movement because it smacks of one world government. Early in his presidency Bush went out of his way to publicly project his own religiosity and promote his own religion, giving a skeptical world good reason to distrust him. It should have been no surprise that so many predominantly Muslim nations refused to join his Bush League of Nations in Iraq.

The GOP and Upside Down Christianity In addition to eroding the separation of church and state, the marriage of the Republican Party to religious fundamentalism and the Religious Right has caused central truths of Christianity to be discarded along the way. What are these discarded Christian truths? One is Christ’s compassion for women, the poor, the sick, the diseased, the suffering, the scorned, the destitute, the forgotten, and the downtrodden. As for possibly helping these poor people of Christ, the policy of the Religious Right and the Bush Administration is that government must help rich people first in every way possible, and then perhaps some benefits will filter down to the poor. This approach contradicts not only the teachings and ministry of Jesus Christ, but also the teachings of the world’s other great religions, including Islam whose faithful we should be trying to influence positively. Christ’s compassion is also missing from America’s foreign policy, which is defined best by the “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich” banner carried by America’s Prince of War, George W. Bush. The world looks on in horror. In Bush’s America and in Bush’s World, the Super Rich and large corporations grab as much as they can at the public trough—with the eager assistance of the Republican Party and an army of lobbyists that has doubled in size since the start of Bush’s administration—and if anything filters down to the poor and hungry, it is not by design but only because the nets of the greedy missed a few crumbs.


177

SIDEBAR: The Rich Ruler Luke 18: 18-25: “George W. Bush57 asked him [Jesus], ‘Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ … ‘You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ When W heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’” Bush, born into a life of inherited wealth and class bigotry, has totally rejected the letter and spirit of this scripture, and his example makes it easy for other rich Christians to also turn their backs on Jesus’ teaching. Bush implemented multiple humongous tax cuts for the Super Rich, the largest tax cuts in history, with the lion’s share going to the top one percent, and he shafted poor people at every turn. Another Christian truth discarded by the blending of the Religious Right and fundamentalism with the Republican Party is Christ’s role as the Prince of Peace. With his deeds, George Bush anointed himself the Prince of War and profited enormously at the polls. Every tenet of the Beatitudes from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount has been turned on its head and rewritten. The new GOP rendition is now entitled, “Blessed are the Warmakers.” In addition to the rejection of compassion for the less fortunate and Christ’s role as Prince of Peace, the merger of the Religious Wrong and the Republican Party also has subverted many traditional American values, including: • Fiscal responsibility—GONE; SCREW THE UNBORN • Balanced budgets—GONE • A fair taxation system—GONE • Separation of church and state—GOING, GOING … • Respect for other nations and cultures—SCREW YOU • Respect for other religions—YOU ARE GOING TO HELL • Cooperation with allies and institutions such as NATO and the United Nations—GONE • War only if just—THE EMPIRE STRIKES FIRST • Isolationism (formerly valued in some GOP quarters)—DITTO. SEE YOU AT ARMAGEDDON • Respect for human life—THOU SHALL KILL • If war, then shared sacrifice—WAR PROFITEERING; TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

57

Some manuscripts say, “A certain ruler.”


178 •

Truthful leaders and integrity in government—GONE; THOU SHALL LIE AND STEAL • Accountability in government—GONE • Fair elections / one person, one vote—STOLEN ELECTIONS; ONE DOLLAR, ONE VOTE; “MONEY BUYS US.” • A general sense of fair play—GONE • Compassion for the less fortunate—BLESSED ARE THE RICH • Respect for parents, the disabled, the elderly—“HEY, HEY, HO, HO, SOCIAL SECURITY’S GOT TO GO”58 • Respect for unborn generations of Americans—GONE. THEY DON’T VOTE. • Respect for God’s Earth—GONE. • Respect for God—SHOW ME THE MONEY For many decades both major political parties by and large agreed with the above list of values, and their policy differences were usually debated in the middle in an honest manner. However, the Republican Party, kidnapped by neocons and theocons, abandoned all of these values, and massively corrupted the political process in Washington. The above list of values reflects not only secular values but also spiritual and religious values. Almost all of these values are endorsed by the mainstreams of the world’s great religions. However, starting with Reagan in the early 1980s the GOP replaced these Christ-centered values with a “show-me-the-money” Culture of Corruption—a Culture of Cha-Ching. When covering “religious matters,” America’s media docilely use the slogans of the Religious Right to narrowly frame the issues and mislead. For example, in a shameful display of self censorship, the media love the phase “culture of life,” limiting it to abortion and stem cell research while ignoring a host of unchristian GOP policies with life-or-death consequences that make “culture of death” a more apt moniker for the GOP. Bush’s immoral war on Iraq alone has caused the deaths of thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not one of whom had any responsibility for 9/11. This is the GOP’s work, not God’s work. By cutting out so much Scripture—the heart and soul of Christ’s message—the Religious Right turned the Holy Bible into its Holey Bible. Its slimmed down, unchristian version is used to support extreme rightwing causes and doublespeak, such as: “War is Peace,” “Enriching the Rich is Compassionate,” and “Deficits Don’t Matter.” The Holey Bible thumpers on the Religious Right even support the GOP urinating on the U.S. Constitution. In Bush-speak, it is: “The Constitution Don’t Matter.” How did rightwing religion, including Christian fundamentalism, help transform and damage the Republican Party? At the core of religious fundamentalism is a bedrock, black-and-white, religious belief that “I am right, and anyone who doesn’t share my religious beliefs is wrong.” In the fundamentalist’s eyes, God blesses those 58

When Republican Senator Rick Santorum met with his supporters, he was encouraged by chants of, “Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security’s got to go.” Make no mistake about the GOP’s intentions regarding Social Security. They’ll be back.


179

who profess his or her particular correct beliefs, and all others are not blessed—in fact, they are all literally going to Hell. In the words of Eric Hoffer, “absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.” Here’s the truth. In God’s entire world, there is no living person who knows the specifics of Heaven and Hell—where and what they are exactly, or whether they even exist—and no one knows who will go where. Nevertheless, many fundamentalists claim they know, and they have a long list of categories of people who will go to Hell. One recently created category of the Hell-bound is for Americans who don’t vote Republican. How about other people of faith, say Muslims? Christian fundamentalists know with certitude that all Muslims are destined for Hell. This makes “winning their hearts and minds” a little tricky. How about Mormons? Fundamentalists believe the Mormon religion is a cult and that all Mormons will go to Hell (unless they convert to the right brand of Christianity, in which case, of course, they would no longer be Mormon.) At the same time, because most Mormons vote Republican, the political apparatus known as the Religious Right embraces them. But Muslims and Mormons shouldn’t feel they are the only ones picked on by Christian elitists. After all, there are many other categories of people on the Christianists’ long list of people going to Hell, including Jews and Catholics, and probably you too, dear reader, simply because you are reading this book. This infallibility of America’s fundamentalists carries over to the actions of their chosen and blessed leader, Bush, and their chosen and blessed party, the Republican Party. Since blessed Bush and the blessed Republican Party can do no wrong, they, along with the Super Rich and large corporations sustaining them, are free to commit whatever wrongs they wish. Even if it sometimes appears they are doing something wrong and immoral, they really aren’t, because God moves in mysterious ways. The GOP has morphed from that formerly respected “Grand Old Party” into the “Gang of Pharisees.” The GOP has been taken over by its Taliban Wing. Anyone who believes the Earth and the entire universe were created in seven days and are only about 7,000 years old is capable of believing anything, including the claim that God directs Bush and that Bush is a “compassionate conservative.”59 SIDEBAR: God Should Speak More Clearly It’s a mystery why God gives conflicting advice to various rightwing leaders about issues as important as war. Consider his directions to Bush and Pat Robertson, two leaders who claim hotlines to Heaven.

59

Likewise, regarding Islamic fundamentalism, anyone who believes he gets to copulate with lots of virgins by dying for Allah is subject to believing anything.

180


On one hand, as discussed later in this chapter, Bush said God had instructed him “to strike Saddam, which I did,” and Bush believed that things were going to go well in Iraq. On the other hand, Pat Robertson related a different message from God during an interview with CNN reporter Paula Zahn on October 19, 2004, in which he recounted his pre-invasion conversation with Bush. Robertson, who also had spoken with God about the upcoming invasion of Iraq, warned Bush in advance about the war. “I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be (a), a disaster, and (b), messy.” “I was trying to say, ‘Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.’” Robertson said Bush replied, “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” Another costly result of the unholy marriage between fundamentalism and the Republican Party relates specifically to how policy decisions are made. Since God directs the decision making process, there is no need to think too much about complex issues, or to solicit diverse perspectives and expert advice before deciding. With God on your side, there’s no reason to be concerned about one million Iraqi dead. Rev. Falwell—a staunch supporter of the Iraq war who died in 2007 at age 73—summed it up nicely when he described how terrorists should be killed—“blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” With God on your side, there is no reason to be concerned about science or inconvenient facts or people who get in the way. There is no need to debate or explore alternatives. To do so would violate God’s will. Knowing that God is on his side, Bush prides himself in decisions based on “his gut.” This characterization is better than admitting that Bush is intellectually lazy, and unable to think clearly or deeply. A myriad of Bush’s decisions, especially his decision to invade Iraq, gave new meaning to the expression, “It’s a no brainer.” The only debate permitted by God-directed Bush and the GOP-dominated Congress was between extreme far right and wacko far right. “Do we need 12 permanent military bases in Iraq, or is 18 the right number?”

Bush and God For political correctness, Bush generally moderates his religious comments when speaking in secular forums and to the outside world, even going so far as to articulate policies of religious freedom and tolerance. However, when appearing before friendly handpicked rightwing Christian audiences, this politician frequently wears rightwing religiosity on his sleeve. His speechwriters frequently used biblical words and phrases that have specific reassuring meaning to rightwing Christians, but which are not well understood by broader audiences. Bush works hard to appear different to different religious groups. When he spoke during the 2004 campaign to thousands of conservative Catholics at a Knights of Columbus gathering in Dallas, he repeatedly referred to a “culture of life,” one of Pope John Paul II’s favorite phases. Bush kissed up to the Pope, calling him a “true hero,” when in fact the Pope strongly opposed Bush’s war on Iraq and was intensely disliked by the Bush neocons.


181

Bush has avoided saying exactly what he believes on certain basic questions of faith. Does he believe in evolution?60 Does he believe gays and lesbians will all go to Hell? His closest advisors say they don’t know. It is possible that Bush himself does not know what he believes. Political expediency dictates Bush’s vagueness. He learned early that he could suffer politically if he were too specific and truthful. In the 1990s Bush held the view that Heaven was open only to people who accepted Jesus. Although this exclusivity claim is a basic belief of most of his Christian backers, Bush apologized in writing to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League prior to the 2000 campaign, denying that he ever made such an exclusivity claim. Bush knew that the truth would present difficulties when he ran for president, so he took a softer position publicly. However, his rightwing religious followers know what he believes, and they are satisfied with his winks and nods. SIDEBAR: Matthew 6:5-6 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. … But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” —Matthew 6:5-6. Bush distorts the Bible and good theology whenever it serves his political purposes. He believes God chose America to lead the war against evil in the world, and he believes God chose George W. Bush to lead America in this faith-based war. In referring to America and himself, Bush completely turns John 1:5 on its head. John 1:5 reads: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness shall not overcome it.” This passage refers to Christ as the light. However, in Bush-speak, Bush and America are the light, not Christ. It addition to being deceitful, this is simply bad theology. Following 9/11 Bush increased his use of strident, militaristic, moralistic text cherry-picked from the Bible. He assured us that God is not a neutral party, but is on our side in the battle between good and evil. Bush tried unsuccessfully to force everyone to pick sides in this battle. In his simplistic black-and-white world, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” This had the unintended consequence— some would say intended consequence—of uniting America’s enemies, while dividing America’s friends. Many GOP leaders used the same simplistic, black-and-white, either-or “logic” to label dissenting Democrats as terrorists and unpatriotic. But let’s follow the 60 Bush suggested in 2000 that evolution and creationism should be taught side by side in public schools, noting that “religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism.” Of course, under this “reasoning,” the world would still be flat, and American blacks would still be slaves.

182


“logic.” To the GOP’s dismay, a majority of Americans by 2006 had finally concluded Bush’s Iraq war was a mistake, and they wanted America out of Iraq.61 This means, following such GOP logic, that a majority of Americans must now be terrorists and unpatriotic. Fortunately, the rest of the world does not view the world through Bush’s faithbased, reality-deprived, unchristian, black-and-white glasses. The rest of the world looks at reality and sees a complex world quite unlike the fantasy known as Bush World. If Bush wants to know the number one reason why his Bush League of Nations is such a failure, he can simply look in a mirror. Nothing would please the world more, and do more to improve America’s standing in the world, than the impeachment and removal from office of George W. Bush and his chief puppeteer, Dick Shooter Cheney. SIDEBAR: God Should Receive Bush’s Salary “God told me to strike Al Qaeda and I struck, and then he instructed me to strike Saddam, which I did,” said Bush. (According to the Israeli paper Ha’aretz, this is how Bush explained things to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Prime Minister.) Bush—America’s Mr. Teflon when it comes to personal responsibility—in effect blames God for the Iraq disaster. This is slander of the Highest. Don’t expect any apologies. Bush must be certain that God does not want Bush to apologize for God’s mistakes—well, something like that. Here’s a message from Heaven that Bush ignored: A Host of Heavenly Angels thus chastised Bush: “You never listen! Mouthing faith in Jesus is not enough. Expecting God to do your job disappoints God, in addition to raising questions about what exactly it is that you do, and why you are even paid. Jesus wants his followers to get their noses out of their Bibles and their neighbor’s bedroom and, based on the reality of the world around them, work with others, including Jews and Muslims, to create peace and justice in the world. He wants his followers to use their hearts and God-given gray matter, and not be eye pokers and dividers. God does not favor ‘gut feeling’ over an active brain and a caring heart. If She did, She would have given man a Ouija board between his ears, which is all you appear to have.” When Christ returns in the Second Coming, it’s a pretty good bet that Bush will be among the first to get a good “whupping.” Yes, “W” also stands for “whupping.” Thanks to Bush’s telepathic pipeline to God, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was divinely conceived and blessed, even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Because Bush/God said, “it is good,” we don’t need to shed any tears for, 61

A February 2006 Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey showed that an overwhelming majority (72%) of American troops in Iraq believe the United States should exit within 12 months. That 12-month milestone passed long ago.


183

or even count, the multitudes of innocent Iraqis injured, tortured and killed. At the end of the day, all the non-Christian Iraqis are going to Hell anyway, and Bush is doing them a big favor by reducing their days of suffering on Earth, in that new Hellon-Earth known as Bush’s Iraq. Americans traditionally preferred a president of faith, but most Americans do not want a president who: • when deciding whether to invade Iraq, says he seeks the advice of his Father in Heaven, rather than the advice of human experts, including his earthly father who had more relevant experience than anyone regarding the formation of a successful coalition to invade Iraq, • believes that God is directing his actions in all matters, • believes that God favors America over all other nations, • believes that God favors Christianity, or a particular Christian denomination, over all other religions, and • wishes to impose his religious views on the rest of the world Any person of faith who allows his religion to short-circuit his God-given brain and heart discredits both himself and God. Such a person is prone to manipulation by others who misuse his religion to achieve their purposes, and such a person is also more likely to slip into self-deception, the hallmark of the Bush administration. When that person is an average citizen, the prospects for damage to the society are not great, but when that person is the President of the United States—say, a lazy shallow man who puts his religion first, ahead of his brain and heart, and avoids shouldering the hard work demanded by his oath of office—he deserves impeachment and removal from office. The world recognizes the countless moral ironies in Bush’s World, such as Bush finding no WMDs in Iraq, while at the same time driving the United States to make more and better WMDs. Is there any sane Christian who believes God is telling Bush to build more and better WMDs? Especially regarding crucial matters like waging war on Iraq, why haven’t journalists asked Bush if he writes down or, better yet, electronically records God’s instructions? “Mr. President, could you please give us an official recording or written copy of God’s instructions to you regarding Iraq?” Just for fun, you might want to send a request for this to the White House under the Freedom of Information Act. You might also ask if God sent Bush a written plan for post-invasion Iraq. If God never sent Bush a plan, then the civil war and genocide in Iraq cannot be Bush’s fault. Suppose Bush’s language-impaired brain misfired while he was transcribing God’s command. Suppose, for example, Bush asked God, “Hey, Big Guy, should I continue invading Gulf Coast countries like Iraq to get their oil?”—and God replied: “Stop! Don’t! Stop! Don’t! Stop! Don’t! Stop!”—but Bush mistakenly heard this as, “Don’t Stop! Don’t Stop! Don’t Stop!” Who knows? This could have happened. It’s certainly as plausible as any of the many justifications offered by Bush and the GOP for their Iraq war. Unfortunately, it is politically incorrect in America’s Big Media to question the sincerity and depth of Bush’s stated religious beliefs—even though he shoved the issue into play through his speeches and policy decisions and by claiming that he

184


talks with God for direction. It is simply off limits for Big Media to explore whether Bush is the Great Pretender when it comes to religion, and whether his religious posturing before trusting Christian voters is simply the means to an end, i.e., grabbing enough votes to attain the power to deliver Big Goodies to Big Business and the Super Rich. To be clear, Americans should have the freedom to hold whatever personal religious beliefs they wish, including believing that their religion is the only true religion and that their God is infallible. This progressive right—freedom of religion, freedom from religion—is worth protecting, even though the world continues to struggle with the tremendous costs of wars and discrimination caused or fueled by this or that exclusionary religion, each one of which has too many followers who believe their particular religion is the only true religion. However, religious infallibility becomes Hell on Earth when individuals go beyond their personal religious beliefs and attribute infallibility to their political leaders. Individual Americans certainly have the constitutional right to believe that God is infallibly directing Bush, and when they do so, they are merely being gullible and foolish. However, when an American president—Bush in this case—asserts that God is infallibly directing him, the line has been crossed, and he deserves impeachment, plus confinement in a mental institution. Once fundamentalists, whether Christian or Muslim, arrive at the point of infallibility, it’s an easy slippery slope into a dangerous abyss. The Bushians and the bin Ladenians exploit that abyss, where the respective nonbelievers deserve and get whatever punishment the true believers choose to inflict upon them. War anyone? Whenever leaders, whether Christian or Muslim, claim they converse with God or quote scripture while making the case for war, it’s a safe bet that evil is afoot. SIDEBAR: A Prayer for Christians “Dear God, if Heaven is reserved only for those who profess one particular flavor of Christianity, then please count me out. If it pleases you, I prefer to take my chances in whatever place you have reserved for all your good people, of whatever faith, including Christians, Muslims, and Jews, who endeavor to lead just lives here on your Earth, faithfully striving to make life better for all, especially the poor, the dispossessed, the sick, the lame, and the discarded.” The central problem with America in the first decade of the 21st century is that an extreme rightwing political faction—many of whom are much more rich than religious—has set an extreme rightwing agenda, and too many voters rubber stamped it,


185

thinking the agenda has its roots in a correct religion. In effect, countless pews have been marked, “For Republicans Only.” And “Jesus wept.”62 The neo-GOP ignores the Bible’s most important political issue—the poor—and uses a distorted Christianity as a subterfuge to wage class warfare. The neo-GOP wants you to believe that the Bible is their ultimate oracle, but “through a glass darkly” they intentionally misread and misuse the Good Book to justify whatever schemes they brew. Yes, even Satan can quote the Bible. In an American tragedy, Christianity has been reduced to rightwing economic politics, and this enables the mischief of Bush and the GOP. When the chips are down, Bush and the GOP do the rightwing thing, not the right thing. Like atheist bank robbers who for cover ride the church bus to their next bank heist, rightwing GOP kleptomaniacs have hijacked Christianity in order to loot the national treasury. Angry white fundamentalist males find it especially easy to justify discrimination and hatred against people who practice other religions or no religion, against other races, against immigrants, against women, against gays and lesbians, against foreigners—well, against anyone who is perceived to be different or doesn’t share their particular brand of religion or other bigotry. Fundamentalists love to dominate women and keep them in their place. Whether it’s Christian fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism, fundamentalism is always men, and always mean. Republican Party leadership cleverly promotes such discrimination and hatred while it pretends to be compassionate. Although religious bigotry is sometimes an unfortunate byproduct of religious freedom, it is irresponsible and blasphemous for Christian and political leaders to promote it. Quintessential dividers, Bush and the neo-GOP created and exploited several wedge issues. But if and when Jesus returns to Earth, he will give Bush the mother of all wedgies. Yes, “W” stands for both “wedge issue” and “wedgies.” The prophets of the Bible frequently spoke to the rulers and kings of nations, admonishing them that the powerful are called to greater responsibility and accountability. At the same time, the biblical prophets spoke for the hungry, the homeless, the helpless—the least, the last, and the lost. They effectively spoke about a nation’s priorities and how it spends its limited resources. The biblical prophets knew that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And thus, two millennia after Christ, with Bush’s Confederate Party in absolute control of the U.S. government, America lost its way financially and morally, and found itself going to Hell in a handbasket. In Bush’s White House there is no room at the dining table for the least, the last, and the lost. Jesus asks all Christians to feed his sheep, but Bush fleeced the sheep before feeding them to his Wolves. Every GOP budget during Bush’s reign has been an immoral, anti-Christian tool of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. During every war in America’s history, all 62

John 11:35. Yes, you are quite right—I am using the verse out of context. However, this is much fairer than Bush and Cheney using “Iraq” and “9/11” in the same sentence, which is criminally devious. Besides, whenever they do that, I know in my heart of hearts that Jesus weeps.

186


Americans—including the rich and powerful—were called upon to make sacrifices. That is, until Bush’s elective war on Iraq. When Bush and neo-GOP wage war, the rich get richer without personal sacrifice, while America’s soldiers are sacrificed. In addition to using war as a distraction for domestic plundering, the GOP uses many other tricks to sell its extreme rightwing economic policies to middle- and lowincome Christians, virtually all of whom are directly harmed by those very economic policies. One such trick is to remind low- and middle-income Christians that they should exalt in their poverty and misfortune. Blessed are the poor. Compassionate Bush is really doing you a favor when he makes the rich richer and you poorer. Praise the Lord!

Oppressors as Victims Another trick of the Confederate Party and the Religious Right—which is related to the “wedgies” trick—is to create and play the “victim card,” casting themselves as victims of the many evil forces that control and pollute America. These evil ones are everywhere. They include: liberals; progressives; Hollywood; libertarians and librarians; video games and television; commies; East Coast; Left Coast; city dwellers; Christians who don’t blindly vote for witless warmongers; illegal immigrants; lots of legal immigrants too; The New World Order; evolutionists; Jews; foreigners; New Age Religion nuts (but excluding the Religious Right themselves); queers; secularists; children once they leave their Mom’s womb and need food and health care; Catholics (but not if they vote Republican and believe transferring pedophiles to another diocese solves that problem); Harry Potter; perverts; the United Nations; Islamofascists; people who think women are people too and that middle-aged rightwing men obsessed with sex should stop telling women how to live and love; scientists; left-handed Norwegians; Democrats; blacks and Chicanos; the entire State of Massachusetts; intellectuals; anyone caught reading this book; Mexicans; Canadians too because some of them speak French; anyone else who speaks French; anyone “who don’t speak English real good;” professors; union workers; France; lawyers (excepting the hundreds of thousands of lawyers who work for Big Business and the Religious Right); abortionists; environmentalists; women who don’t know their place (“If you don’t know where it is, we’ll tell you”); and Hillary.63 Whew! Yes, “W” stands for “Whew!” Life is just a battle of good and evil forces. It’s us versus them. Rightwing Christians just can’t let their guard down. Whatever problem they have—poverty, loss of job, those secret urges, no health insurance—they can blame it on some evil doer, some poor bastard who had nothing to do with it. Welcome to Bush World. Welcome to the new GOP. Rightwing Christians should look in the mirror. America is in the toilet precisely because it is the Confederate Party—in league with the Religious Right and Big Business—that grabbed control of America for too many years. Their almost absolute control included all of the federal government—the Presidency, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court (with 7 of 9 justices having 63

A woman’s place is in the house … and the Senate … and the White House.


187

been appointed by Republicans), and all federal agencies including the FCC—as well as America’s Big Media and a large majority of state governorships and legislatures. But the Religious Right claims they are the victims. What nonsense from an alternate universe! In the GOP’s 21st century version of the Passion Play, all of the actors playing “the heavies” are found in the Bush administration—the Roman Emperor, Pontius Pilate, the moneychangers, Judas Iscariot, the Roman soldiers and the Pharisees— and their number one victim is Christ and his message, just as it was two millennia ago. And it is the Religious Right that made the difference and put these thugs and nitwits on America’s main stage—and cheered them on.

America’s President Who Really Is a Christian Among all American presidents of the last century, former President Jimmy Carter stands out head and shoulders above the rest in living a Christian life, one devoted to helping the less fortunate in the world, and one that Jesus would applaud. He is respected and trusted throughout the world. Since leaving the presidency, Carter has devoted his life to promoting freedom, peace and health in the world. Among his many activities is Habitat For Humanity International (www.habitat.org) a nonprofit ecumenical Christian housing ministry that has built more than 175,000 houses for families in the United States and around the world. Carter began volunteering with Habitat in 1984, and each year he and Rosalynn spend a week constructing houses. And he still makes time to teach Sunday school at his Baptist church in Plains, Georgia. Carter’s love for his country and all the peoples of the world is legendary. But he regrets that the United States, a “great country with great potential,” is not doing more to promote peace, freedom and health in the third world. “The problem lies among the people of the U.S. … It’s time to assess what the government is doing, and shape and influence it appropriately.” The Atlanta-based Carter Center (www.cartercenter.org), founded in 1982 by Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, wages peace, fights disease, and builds hope around the world. In more than 65 countries it has engaged and challenged governments while at the same time working side by side with poor people to help improve their lives. In promoting democracy throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America, Carter is frequently called upon to mediate international disputes. In August 2004 Carter, along with Carter Center staff members and other respected international officials, spent many days in Venezuela to help ensure the fairness and peacefulness of the national referendum election to decide whether President Hugo Chavez should remain in office. Their credibility and actions gave authenticity to the election results, and bloodshed was avoided. Unlike America, Venezuela uses a system of electronic voting that: (1) includes a paper ballot backup, and (2) records voters’ thumbprints electronically, transmits the thumbprints by satellite, and then checks them almost instantaneously to prevent people from voting more than once. The States of Florida and Ohio should hire Venezuela to install honest voting systems in those two states and to provide election monitors to prevent the Republican Party from suppressing the black vote and committing other election

188


fraud. Fidel Castro offered to send election monitors to Florida prior to the 2004 election, but Governor Jeb Bush did not accept his kind offer. Thanks to the Religious Right’s clout, a large majority of southern white evangelicals voted against Jimmy Carter, America’s first evangelical president and a southern white evangelical like them, because he was not of the right political party. Carter did not satisfy the Religious Right’s most important “religious” test—that you have to be a Republican. Jimmy Carter truly is a compassionate Christian. He remains actively engaged in the world and walks his faith everyday. Carter calls upon America to do more to promote peace, democracy and social justice in the world. One of his central concerns for years has been the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and a growing number of evangelicals have joined this moral fight. Perhaps hearing the growing number of passionate voices from across the political spectrum, Bush in his 2003 inaugural address pledged $15 billion over five years to fight AIDS in Africa. Bush deserves great credit for this initiative named PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief.) Although $15 billion is less than what Bush wastes in one month on the Iraq war, it is a lot of money, and it is saving countless lives in Africa. Nevertheless, many on the right saw a number of “sins” imbedded in the program. How could the GOP use taxpayer money (sin #1) to help destitute foreigners (sin #2) living in Africa (sin #3) who had brought the AIDS problem on themselves (sin #4) and were black (sin #5) and mostly women and children (sin #6.) The GOP Congress, which rubberstamped ever madness of Bush, somehow let this flawed but definitely compassionate “75% good” program slip though. The fact that a Republican president launched this program will make it difficult for other Republicans to stop the Democratic leadership and progressives of all stripes from expanding the program and correcting some of its literally fatal flaws, i.e., the “25% bad” part, which is killing countless people, and which includes the expenditure of funds to push abstinence over condoms, other contraceptives and family planning. Bush opposes the use of condoms (except for his family), and opposes comprehensive women’s rights and reproductive choices in family planning (except for his family). Upward to 3.5 million people die from AIDS in the world each year, according to a UN estimate. All things considered, PEPFAR is a major step forward and a hopeful sign.

Other Hopeful Signs Mainstream Christians must not give up hope, as there are numerous hopeful signs emerging from Christians on the right. A rapidly growing number of Bush and GOP supporters have had it with the GOP’s agenda of warmongering and doing everything possible for the Super Rich. Many have already rejected those phony “Christian” banners carried by “Christian” Bush. The support of white evangelicals for Bush and the GOP appears to have peaked, temporarily at least, sometime after the 2004 presidential election, in which Bush carried the white evangelical vote by about 4-to-1 over Kerry. By the 2006 midterm elections, a growing number of white evangelical Bush supporters had come to their


189

senses, which contributed to the GOP losing control of Congress. Many Christians abandoned their blind trust in Bush and the GOP upon realizing they had been lied to, manipulated, and taken for granted. Extensive GOP corruption and incompetence both in Iraq and at home also helped end the GOP reign of error, in Congress at least. There are many, many hopeful signs. Here are just three examples: • In November 2006 Rev. Joel Hunter quit as president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America because the organization would not let him expand the Coalition’s narrow agenda beyond the issues of gay marriage and abortion. Hunter said he quit because the coalition was unwilling to part with its partisan Republican roots. “To tell you the truth, I feel like there are literally millions of evangelical Christians that don’t have a home right now,” he said. Earlier in the year, Hunter had joined a coalition of several evangelical groups to help fight global warming. He wanted to help save the environment and also reduce poverty. “These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about,” he said. But these are issues that the Christian Coalition does not want to address. According to Hunter, “they began to think this might threaten their base or evaporate some of their support, and they said they just couldn’t go there.” • Shortly after the 2006 midterm elections, Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, California, and author of the best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life, withstood rightwing pressure and invited Barack Obama to speak at a church gathering to discuss the AIDS crisis. Warren joined a growing number of socially conservative Christian leaders who decided to put space between themselves and the GOP political machine and agenda. Because Obama is pro-choice and believes condoms have a place in the prevention of AIDS, many conservative evangelical leaders publicly criticized Warren’s decision to invite him. Although socially and religiously conservative—Warren is anti-abortion and opposes same-sex marriage—he and his wife are committed to fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa. “I’m a pastor, not a politician,” he told ABC News. “People always say, ‘Rick, are you right wing or left wing?’ I say, ‘I’m for the whole bird.’” • An increasing number of young evangelicals are questioning the hard right agenda of the Christian right. Rove thought he had picked a safe “bubble” location for Bush when he arranged for the president to give the commencement address in May 2005 at Calvin College, a conservative Christian liberal arts college in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the heart of Republican country. Bush was greeted by a letter of protest that appeared as a fullpage advertisement in the local newspaper. The respectful letter, signed by more than 800 students, faculty members and alumni, stated, “Your deeds, Mr. President—neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the environment and misleading the country into war—do not exemplify the faith we live by.” Although a majority of the Calvin community probably still favored Bush and his GOP policies, the protest was remarkable. Even at theologically conservative Calvin there is a growing Christian left.

190


Well, these are just a few of many hopeful signs among religious conservatives. In the next section we return to two of the hopeless on the Religious Right—bin Laden and Bush.

Bin Laden and Bush The parallels between Bush and bin Laden are striking. Although of different faiths, Bush and bin Laden both followed the same handbook of dirty religious politics: • Move to the extreme religious right; • Use rightwing religion to drive policy and stifle dissenting views; • Imply or claim that you are correct because God is directing you; • Seize exclusive ownership of your book of faith through grand displays of religiosity; • Divide at every opportunity; • Spread fear; • Label dissenters unpatriotic cowards or apostates; • Act outside the law because you are special, a Chosen One; • Couple your religion as tightly as possible with yourself and your renegade organization. Bin Laden and Bush are the heads of two symbiotic warmongering movements, and their shotgun marriage created a two-headed, out-of-control monster that leaves a path of death and destruction wherever it slithers. Bush and his bumbling Christianist party needed rightwing Muslim terrorists to fuel the GOP fear machine and divert attention from the GOP’s shameless kleptomaniac policies at home, and bin Laden and a multitude of independent Muslim terrorist groups around the world needed Bush and the GOP to breath life into their evil causes and provide an endless lethal stream of martyrs. Although each side claims divine inspiration, their marriage is definitely not made in Heaven.

SIDEBAR: Bush and bin Laden—Two Peas in a Pod “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.” —Blaise Pascal (1623-62) “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” —Steven Weinberg A comparison of bin Laden and Bush is instructive. They share many character traits, including a lust for power. Each preaches his particular brand of religion—rightwing militant fundamentalism in the case of Bush, and rightwing militant fundamentalism in the case of bin Laden. Both could be called militant “evangelicals.”


191

Bin Laden is a militant Islamist, and Bush a militant Christianist. Both are theoconservatives, or theocons for short. Both are cons. Both are wacko. Are there any differences between the religious banners they carry? Yes— although their respective victims, especially the dead, may not appreciate the differences. Bin Laden carries the militant banner of a peculiar strain of Islam, one that is inconsistent with the Koran as followed by most Muslims. Bush carries the militant banner of a strained interpretation of Christianity, one that is inconsistent with the Bible as followed by most Christians in the world. We know both are true believers because they and their rightwing propaganda machines tell us so. To his credit, bin Laden was a scholar of Islam during his formative years. Bush’s beliefs, however, were AWOL during the first two-thirds of his life, and his sins, crimes and corruption during that long period of extended adolescence were conveniently wiped clean when he was reborn, thus giving him a clean blank slate to pursue a political career—with more sins, crimes and corruption. Each professes to feel the spirit of God and claims that God supports and guides his decisions. Each uses and exploits God and a wonderful religion for political expediency and personal power. Each uses his religion to kill innocent people. Each was born into a wealthy life of privilege and wealth, devoid of any anchor of social and personal responsibility. Their two families—the House of Bush and the House of bin Laden—are cut from the same gold cloth. Each family hobnobbed with the House of Saud, which runs Saudi Arabia, frequently engaging in crony public-trough capitalistic schemes, without regard to the impact on their respective nations. Each family “dined” at the same Saudi public troughs, drank the same fine wines, and coveted the same fine oils. It would be nice to report that true love connected their families, but “what happens in Riyadh stays in Riyadh.” After all, what is life without love? Don’t the countless parties, sleepovers and season’s greeting cards mean anything? Or was it really only about money and power? It is rumored64 that the directors of “Brokeback Mountain” tried to recruit Bush and bin Laden as the movie’s co-stars, but bin Laden unfortunately could not be reached, although Bush made half-hearted attempts to locate him. Bush is tall, and bin Laden is taller. At 6-feet, 5-inches, bin Laden stands out in any crowd, which makes Bush’s failure to locate him all the more remarkable. There are other differences. For example, Bush loves the Saudi princes and supports their crony capitalism, welfare for the wealthy, and terrorist-supporting Islamic state. On the other hand, bin Laden hates the Saudi princes and wants to destroy their anti-American, anti-West, anti-democratic, anti-religious-freedom government and replace it with his own anti-American, anti-West, anti-democratic, anti-religiousfreedom government.

64

which rumor I started

192


Thanks to family connections, Bush attended Yale as a rich fraternity boy and prancing cheerleader and was selected for Skull and Bones Society. Bin Laden also was a rich prince who enjoyed many of the debaucheries available in the West to a man of substance and family connections. Both loved to get hammered and hammer as many females as possible. The randomness of birth separates them. Bin Laden was born into a Muslim family of kings and princes, and Bush was born into a Christian family of kings and princes. Their respective faiths were determined simply by chance, by an accident of geography as to place of birth. If Bush had been born in Riyadh, his oil DNA would have been the same, but, as for religion, he probably would have become a prancing cheerleader for the extreme rightwing Wahhabi sect of Islam. This raises at least two questions: (1) Can you imagine Bush trying to speak Arabic, especially while prancing? (2) Does “W” really stand for “Wahhabi Wannabe?” Bush was born an Episcopalian, but a later switch to the Texas Pretend-Rancher sect of Pseudo Christianity offered two bankable interlinked advantages: (1) a new inexhaustible supply of Bush Family Passes, and (2) lots of votes, if he could play the Religionist Card right and learn how to ride a horse.65 There is a rumor66 that bin Laden greatly admires Bush’s profitable misuse of Christianity and would like to cash in on it too by following in Bush’s footsteps. Specifically, bin Laden wants to convert to the Texas Pretend-Rancher sect, get forgiven for all his sins and crimes, buy himself a ranchette just over the fence from Bush’s, and become U.S. president just like Bush.67 If that happens, it will be tough to tell the difference in the White House, other than the fact that bin Laden reportedly actually has some compassion for the oppressed and the poor—you know, Christ’s people. Perhaps this rumor about bin Laden strikes you as a little farfetched, but it is not as farfetched as GOP propaganda that Bush is compassionate, or as farfetched as the GOP tales about Iraq and Saddam being behind 9/11. In any case, bin Laden’s conversion and relocation to Texas would take care of Bush’s Number One Mission Unaccomplished—tracking down the master criminal behind 9/11. The fact that bin Laden and Bush League have the same initials could be a sign from God. Who can say with certainty that it is not?

65

Bush never learned how to ride a horse, but rightwing Texans overlooked that requirement. which I am hereby starting. 67 If you see bin Laden, please don’t tell him U.S. presidents must be native-born Americans. If you do, he may not relocate voluntarily to Texas. After all, we really do need to kill or capture him. 66


193

Bin Laden would likely be a much better American president than Bush, since Bush is by far the worst American president ever.68 It would be difficult to do worse. Bush has created more terrorists and killed more innocent people than bin Laden, so there would probably be some improvement there. Bush has done more damage to America’s reputation and military power than bin Laden ever dreamed of achieving, so there could be some improvement there too. Putting bin Laden in Bush’s chair in the White House would also cause, at last, all Americans to finally realize and agree upon something extremely important— something they all should have known since 2001—that America has a dangerous nut case in the White House. Even though lots of Republican voters think an American president really doesn’t need to know where Europe and Asia are located, bin Laden does know much more about the world and Christianity than Bush ever will know about the world and Islam. Bin Laden speaks Arabic better than Bush speaks English. Bin Laden also speaks English better than Bush speaks English. Then there’s that weird codependency, that symbiosis, between bin Laden and Bush. By slaughtering thousands of innocents on 9/11, bin Laden gave Bush a chance to resurrect his faltering image and failing presidency. Returning the favor, Bush invaded Iraq and gave enormous legitimacy to bin Laden and his Grand Old Party of Terrorists, just when they needed a jumpstart. Although each now supposedly hates the other, each continues to promote the other’s career. Maybe we will see them together at last in Brokeback Mountain II. Two peas in a pod. The rumors that bin Laden contributed lots of cash to Bush’s reelection campaign are probably false, although there’s the possibility that Halliburton tried to broker a deal. A sticky point in negotiations might have been whether bin Laden would agree to be captured shortly before America’s 2004 presidential election. (Here’s a partial transcript of the negotiations actually obtained during a legal69 wiretap: bin Laden asks, “But how can I trust your promise to let me live with 50 virgins during my life of luxurious, leisurely captivity in your Club Med in Midland, Texas?” Bush replies, “Trust me? Dude, that’s stupid—I don’t even trust myself!” And the deal fell through.) On a more serious note, here is the sad reality. Thanks to Bush, bin Laden would do well in a free, fair, democratic election for high office in many Islamic countries, while Bush would be sent to prison or the looney bin at the first opportunity. Bush gives reassuring messages to his rightwing religious base without regard to his moral responsibility to represent all Americans. His numerous gaffes include him holding up the Bible and saying it is the “universal handbook” for our government. Stunts of that sort play really well in the Islamic world. Bush is his own worst enemy, as well as America’s worst president. He, not bin Laden, is the principal reason 68 69

Yes, “W” also stands for “Worst.” but fictitious

194


why the United States is losing the hearts and minds of Muslims in Iraq and throughout the world. The vast majority of the Muslim world sees Bush as a “my-God-is-stronger-thanyour-god” Christian crusader who knows in his heart that their religion, Islam, is inferior and false. Bush is unable to separate his religious sectarianism and bigotry from his broader moral and constitutional responsibilities as president. Many incompetent appointees were cherry-picked for his administration precisely because of their narrow religious beliefs and willingness to exploit their new powers for sectarian purposes. Sometimes their bigoted babbling goes beyond the pale. One prominent example is Lt. Gen. William Boykin, Bush’s deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, who headed the Pentagon office charged with finding targets such as Osama bin Laden. Notwithstanding his high level position and the fact that he set critical policy, Lt. Gen. Boykin appeared in full uniform before dozens of church audiences to preach politics and assert the superiority of Christianity over Islam. On numerous occasions he slammed Muslims and Islam. When referring to an enemy warlord in Somalia, he preached, “I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.” Boykin also declared that Bush “is in the White House because God put him there,” not because of an election.70 While commenting on the war against terrorism, Boykin remarked, “we in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this.” He believes “our spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.” Identifying Satan as the mastermind of terrorists, Boykin said Satan “wants to destroy us as a Christian army.” Bigoted Christianist fools like Boykin play into the hand of Osama bin Laden and others who want to create a broader religious war. Boykin’s bombastic declarations also violate official White House statements and policies intended to placate moderate Muslims and reduce the distrust and hatred of Muslims towards the United States. When publicity finally caught up with him, Boykin apologized for his remarks, and Bush later stated that he disagreed with what Boykin had said. However, rather than being demoted or sacked, Boykin only received a mild hand slap, because appropriate punishment would have upset Bush’s rightwing base. Sadly, Boykin’s antiIslam bigotry reflects the beliefs of numerous other senior officials in Bush’s administration. The Islamic world knows that Bush League crusaders are alive and well in the 21st century. Bin Laden must be smiling. In the next chapter we turn our attention to the important topic of the End Times prophecies rooted in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, which are important to millions of Christian fundamentalists. Unfortunately, End Times malarkey has helped dummy down, misinform and misdirect U.S. foreign policy in the greater Middle East, with disastrous consequences for the Bush League of Nations in Iraq, and for America’s stated goal of winning the hearts and minds of Muslims.

70

Fact: Bush was put in the White House not by God, but by five Republican politicians on the U.S. Supreme Court.

CHAPTER 9

Eschatology and The Book of Revelation Weapons of Mass Deception on the Road to Armageddon Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. —Thomas Jefferson Eschatology is the study of the end of history—the end of the world—from a religious perspective. Christians have probably written more obscure text about eschatology than any other religious topic. We are talking about the End Times, so hold onto your seats! If you’re not already familiar with the End Times prophecies in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, you should read this last book of the New Testament and come to your own conclusions. Although the Book of Revelation was written in mysterious, symbolic language and code, many Christians choose to interpret it as literally—and as creatively—as possible. You too can make up your own religion. A good point of departure is to Google some key words of biblical prophecy, such as: revelation, End Times, prophecies, millennialism, rapture, Anti-Christ, Battle of Armageddon, Second Coming, red heifer, 666 (Mark of the Beast), tribulation, and Final Judgment. You will find a treasure trove of information, including widely varying opinions regarding the prophecies and what they mean for Christians as well as non-Christians. You will find anything and everything, as well as their opposites. If you are appalled by all the rightwing “holier than thou” Christian religiosity, you should nevertheless consider devoting some time to studying the End Times literature. More broadly, if you left Christianity because of its hijacking and distortion by the Religious Right, you should nevertheless consider studying it as much as you study other religions such as Islam and Buddhism. In addition to all the helpful material on the Internet, you will also find a host of websites and discussion groups that accomplish nothing other than inciting hatred and violence by throwing gasoline on the growing fires of animosity towards Christianity and America. For some, that is exactly the goal—making certain that the road to Armageddon, Heaven and Hell is well lit.

196


To be clear, all Americans should fully support freedom of religion and separation of church and state. These protections should extend to all the various viewpoints of the End Times—even if you disagree with all of them—as well as to the religious beliefs of Jews, Muslims, Mormons, atheists and everyone else. We include this End Times discussion here because: • The End Times dogma profoundly affects America’s foreign policy, with millions of rightwing Christians using it as justification to vote for rightwing Republican militaristic leaders no matter how bad the outcome. In fact, the worse the outcome—the worse it gets in Iraq, for example—the better it is from an End Times perspective. Yes, the road to Hell is paved with “good” intentions. • The rest of the world—including our long-term allies and potential allies, as well as the Islamic world we presumably are trying to favorably influence— waits for America to come to its senses. • This religious dogma—coupled with Bush’s and the GOP’s natural inclination to divide and inflame people with “us versus them,” “good versus evil” policies—is making America more divided and acrimonious than anytime in the past century. • The religious dogma reflected in our foreign policy has also polarized the world, except that instead of the roughly 50-50 polarization found in America (with the balance shifting slowing away from the neo-GOP and in the direction of sanity, as reflected in the 2006 midterm elections in the United States), the rest of the world is now 95-5 opposed to America’s imperial wars. Most mainstream Protestants and most Protestant churches, as well as the Catholic Church (a frequent target of rightwing prophecies), do not read the Book of Revelation literally. They are not caught up in useless and sometimes dangerous speculation as to when the world will end and what exactly will transpire. Most are appalled that the rightwing fringe has gone bonkers on religious doctrine and polluted government in the process. With enormous influence over Bush and his party, this fringe has helped the GOP evolve into the Gang of Pharisees. There are millions of Americans who carefully study and interpret the Book of Revelation and the End Times prophecies, sometimes developing their own theories and beliefs as to the specifics regarding the main End Times events, together with a correct timeline for everything. For these people the End Times study is not an idle exercise, since for them it concerns the most important event of all—going to Heaven or Hell.71 Many search for signs of the End Times in current events here on Earth, especially happenings in the Middle East relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and in Iraq, the home of ancient Babylon. 71 They are going one place and you (maybe) and I (certainly) are going elsewhere. I recall a North Dakota sage telling me years ago that he preferred to go to Hell so he could be with his friends. On the other hand, can you imagine spending eternity in Heaven with religious bigots and flamethrowers like Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson? Don’t bet on that unfortunate scenario, however. Your best strategy may be to go to Heaven so you won’t be with people like that!

CHAPTER 9 — ESCHATOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION

197

There are numerous variations of the main events and the timeline for the End Times, simply because people have different interpretations of the key events of the Revelation prophecies, and when they will occur with respect to each other. Specific timelines result depending on what the individual believes regarding the key events: the tribulation (whether it’s pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, or post-tribulation); millennialism (whether it’s post-millennialism, pre-millennialism, or amillennialism), and so forth. The “wheels within wheels” nature of this religious interpretation and invention has split rightwing Christians into various camps, which may be quite bitter towards each other. To attract followers, many rightwing religious leaders compete on religiosity and certitude. In the process, they do America and Christianity a disservice. This is especially the case with those leaders who believe that the biggest crowds and biggest bucks are attracted most to the dog that barks the loudest with the most certitude and spittle. If you are unfamiliar with the End Times prophecies, please have some patience as we wade through the main points in summary fashion. Yes, this chapter is just a summary of a complex religious topic about which countless thick books have been written and will be written. Because it is impossible to write such a summary satisfactory to everyone, many will disagree vociferously with what is written here, and some will feel offended. Having said that, let’s barge ahead. Here is some End Times terminology: The rapture:72 the sudden, unannounced transportation of all true Christians to Heaven by Christ around the time of his Second Coming (more below on this “New Age” rapture phenomenon). When Christians use this term, it means they are going to Heaven. Already dead Christians will rise up from their graves (be resurrected); living Christians will then also be gathered up with the predeceased in the clouds; and together the two saved groups will meet Christ “in the air” and be with him forever in Heaven. For the minority of Christians who are caught up in this new rapture interpretation, there are three principal variations of the rapture, which are called pretribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation. These refer to when the rapture will occur. • Pre-tribulation: The rapture comes before the tribulation. • Mid-tribulation: The rapture comes during the tribulation. • Post-tribulation: The rapture comes after the tribulation. Christians sometimes refer to these in shorthand as pre, mid, and post. For example, a rapture Christian may describe himself as pre, which means that he believes people will be raptured—taken by Christ to Heaven—before the period of great de-

72 The concept of the Rapture comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, although the word “rapture” is not found anywhere in the English translation of the Bible. The word “rapture” itself means “caught up” and is derived from the Latin word “rapere,” which in turn comes from the Greek word “harpadzo” found in 1 Thessalonians 4.

198


struction known as the tribulation.73 Pre-millennialists (discussed below) popularized these three terms. We’ll discuss the rapture more later, including the concept of a “secret rapture,” but first we need to cover some additional important terminology. The tribulation: a period of great destruction, usually thought to be seven years, during which the Anti-Christ (Satan’s agent) comes to power and reigns over the Earth. During the tribulation the Earth is destroyed by unimaginable plagues, wars, earthquakes, diseases and other horrible sadistic events, and Christians are severely persecuted. (This is even much more horrific than living in America and Iraq under GOP rule—really.) Everyone is killed except for the chosen Christians, and some say the number so saved is limited to 144,000.74 Christ defeats the Anti-Christ at the battle of Armageddon, which marks the end of the tribulation. Armageddon: During the last 50 years, the Battle of Armageddon has become a central topic of discussion in some Christian circles. The Anti-Christ starts this final terrible battle, and the victorious Christ and his heavenly armies finish it. This bloody battle, in which the Anti-Christ and his armies are slaughtered, takes place in the valley of Megiddo near Haifa, Israel. (I am not making this up.) God takes out his enormous wrath and anger on the human species and the world.75 Jesus then reigns during the ensuing millennium of peace and paradise on Earth. Armageddon is especially important to pre-millennialists (more on this later). Pre-millennialists list more than a dozen key events on their eschatological timeframe, and Armageddon is one of them. Many see current events in the Middle East as signs that this battle in imminent. For many, an all-out war between Christianity and Islam in the Middle East would be wonderful news. The millennium: As noted above, the millennium is a golden age of peace on Earth under the reign of Christ. End Timers disagree as to whether the millennium is literally a period of one thousand years. The Book of Revelation uses the term a “1,000 years” several times to describe the period during which Christ rules.76 For background you should read Revelation 20:1-10. This Revelation scripture is among the most difficult and controversial text in the Bible. There are three different principal views of the millennium, which depend upon when Christ will return to Earth:

73 Perhaps on-line matching services such as Match.com should take this variable into account when introducing prospective lovers. Would a “pre” and a “post” repel each other? Or do opposites attract? 74 The limit of 144,000 is a minority view. After all, who wants to believe that only such a small number of Christians will go to Heaven, when there are hundreds of millions of people “competing” to be chosen? 75 See Revelation 4-19, Matthew 24, and Daniel 9. 76 The word “millennium” does not appear anywhere in the Bible, but a “thousand years” appears several times in Revelation 20. The ancient religion of Zoroastrianism was the first religion to describe such a period of universal peace.

CHAPTER 9 — ESCHATOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION •

•

•

199

Post-millennialism: Christ will return after (“post”) the millennium, the long period of peace and prosperity on Earth during which Christ’s church prevails over evil in the world and most people convert to Christianity. Following this return of Christ—the Second Coming—there will be the tribulation, the victory of Christ over Satan, and the final judgment of both the living (the “quick”) and the dead. The “1,000 years” in Revelation is taken figuratively, not literally, and thus the millennium is not a definite knowable length of time. This post-millennialist view was the most popular view well into the 19th century, but very few End-Times Christians subscribe to it now. Amillennialism (also known as non-millennialism, meaning that there is no literal millennium): The millennium is not a future golden age on Earth during which everyone converts to Christianity. Rather it describes the present period in which we now live, and it thus refers to both Christ’s reign in Heaven with his saints who have died before us, as well as to Christ’s current spiritual reign on Earth though the Christian Church. Good and evil coexist on Earth until that point when Christ returns to Earth—his Second Coming—to sort everything out, at which time there will be the rapture and the final judgment. This is a simpler, more straightforward view, and most mainstream Protestants subscribe to it—to the extent they think about it, if at all. The major protestant reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley (the founder of Methodism) held this view, although many newer groups of evangelicals and fundamentalists no longer do. Pre-millennialism: The “pre” means that Christ will return shortly before the millennium. The Anti-Christ will first appear and the extraordinarily painful tribulation will ensue. Christ will successfully overcome the AntiChrist in the Battle of Armageddon, and the 1,000-year millennium of peace will then take place, followed by the Final Judgment. One problem with this is that most scholars believe the Bible does not support a 1,000-year gap between the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. In recent years this premillennialist view has become most popular among evangelicals and fundamentalists. Amillennialism once was their most popular view.

By the way, many so-called Christians on the extreme right speculated that President Bill Clinton was the Anti-Christ prophesized in the Book of Revelation.77 However, applying any plausible test regarding the identity of the Anti-Christ, Bush certainly fits the bill much better than Clinton ever did, especially after Clinton left power without doing all those evil things befitting the Anti-Christ. So, in fairness, where are the Anti-Christ speculators among the Religious Right when it comes to Bush? The answer is that it is all rightwing politics, not religion. The Anti-Christ obviously cannot be a member of the Republican Party. Just for the record, Bush is not the Anti-Christ either. Let’s now continue our discussion of the rapture. 77

After Clinton’s presidency ended, Hillary became a popular choice for the Anti-Christ. I’m not joking.

200


Perhaps you have noticed a bumper sticker or two about the rapture, without understanding the message. Such a sticker might say something like, “Attention: Upon Rapture, This Vehicle Will be Driverless.” Well, the driver is letting you know that he or she may suddenly disappear without warning and be transported to Heaven, leaving the driverless car careening down the road. Really. This sort of chaos will occur in the same instant all over town, and all over the world (except for Massachusetts where obviously there are no Christians worthy of being raptured). In that one instant, countless automobiles, trucks, aircraft and so forth will suddenly be left with no one in control. If by chance you are a passenger in such a situation, you must quickly jump into the driver’s seat and take the wheel.78 The so-called “secret rapture” is at the center of what we have just described. According to this pre-millennialist viewpoint, Christians are taken up to Heaven by Christ during his Second Coming, but no one sees it happen. Millions of saved Christians instantaneously vanish, leaving behind their clothes and everything else. Accordingly, this has been called the “secret” rapture. Most Christians believe such a secret rapture is inconsistent with biblical text79 describing Christ’s Second Coming as very visible and tumultuous. Also, a serious problem with a secret rapture is that it effectively requires not only a Second Coming of Christ but also a later Third Coming at the end of the tribulation (i.e., before the Battle of Armageddon, the 1,000-year millennium, and the Final Judgment.) However, there is no biblical authority for this additional return of Christ, which would be the Third Coming. Catholics and the vast majority of mainstream protestant Christians simply do not believe these modern, overwhelmingly American interpretations of the End Times. Nor do Eastern Orthodox Christians. Most Christians do not believe these neointerpretations any more than they believe the Koran or the Book of Mormon. An excellent critique of the End Times fever is The Rapture Trap, by Paul Thigpen. Although this book is written from a Catholic’s perspective, mainstream Protestant Christians who wonder what this rapture and End Times excitement is all about will also find it illuminating. Mainstream Christians who have serious misgivings regarding this rapture craze should nevertheless respect the right of other Christians to believe what they wish— and perhaps you will decide to believe it too after you have studied it more, which is your right. At the same time, however, mainstream Christians should not feel that they are missing something important—they aren’t—or that they should buy into this legalistic doctrine just because it is promoted with such religious fervor both personally and though the mass media. The rightwing rapture viewpoint is difficult to miss on American religious radio because rightwing Christian radio dominates the market

78

This raises some serious public policy questions. Should rapture believers be allowed to drive? Shouldn’t each be required to hire a DPD (“Designated Pagan Driver”)? Does not the safety of the rest of the citizenry count for anything? At a minimum, shouldn’t rapture believers pay higher auto insurance premiums? 79 1 Thessalonians 4.


201

for religious programming through its ownership or control of a huge number of radio stations.80 The secret rapture is at the center of the incredibly popular Left Behind series of books (Number 1 on The New York Times bestseller list) that focus on the drama of all those people “left behind” when millions of Christians around the world disappear in one cataclysmic rapture. The first twelve books in this fictional series sold more than 60 million copies and helped spawn a huge industry with an End Times theme. By the way, if you liked the movie The Passion of the Christ, but thought it was a little short on gratuitous violence, then the Left Behind series should appeal to you. The co-authors of the Left Behind series, Rev. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, also wrote another book, Are We Living in the End Times?, in which they explain why they “think this generation will witness the end of history.” By the way, we won’t. Countless other “biblical scholars” and nitwits such as Pat Robertson have opined as to exactly when the world will end. For them, their fiction is money in the bank. But they are all full of, well, baloney—now that is something you can bank on. Early Christians believed Jesus would return during their lifetime. Jesus said to his disciples, “This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:2232. Similar text in Matthew 24:30-34 and Mark 1:24-30.) He also said: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24: 35-36.) Most of America’s rightwing Christian fundamentalists have narrow, timelimited, self-centered views of the world. Everything is about them, and everything is now. They expect the end of the world to occur during their lifetime, and many literally pray for the rapture to occur now. Most readers of the popular Left Behind series do not know that LaHaye helped fashion the Religious Right, wants to turn America into a strict Christian fundamentalist nation, would turn public schools into fundamentalist centers with Christian prayer and creationism, would ban sex education and eliminate the Department of Education, despises the separation of church and state, attacks Catholics and others not subscribing to his extreme narrow views, and is a paranoid purveyor of bizarre conspiracy theories. In the early 1990s Rev. LaHaye co-founded the Pre-Trib Research Center as a “think tank” to further “the cause of pretribulationism and the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy.” The Center publishes The Pre-Trib Perspectives, a monthly journal, “keeping the reader on the cutting edge of unfolding prophetic events.” He also founded the Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy where he teaches a one-year residency course of study in prophecy. The website notes, “Understanding Bible Prophecy can help you become a more confident Christian because knowing ‘how the story ends’ will help you realize that God has EVERYTHING under control!” LaHaye, a Bob Jones University graduate, is among the most influential evangelical fundamentalist leaders in America. Although wacko, he cannot be considered 80

Driving anywhere in America you will find both rightwing religious programming and rightwing political programming several times as you go from one end of the radio dial to the other. One hand washes the other.

202


a fringe player. In addition to ties to GOP illuminati such as John Ashcroft and George W. Bush, LaHaye is one of the Moral Majority’s original board members, and in the early 1980s he also co-founded the Council for National Policy, a secretive theocracy-pushing organization on the far right with strong connections to the rightwing of the GOP. To monitor the chances of the rapture happening anytime soon, go to RaptureReady.com and check the Rapture Index, which tracks 45 specific categories of events, e.g., “Volcanoes,” “Globalism,” “Occult,” “Oil Supply/Price,” “Gog (Russia),” “Liberalism,” “Beast Government,” “Ecumenism” and “W.”81 The index is even calibrated for convenient use, as follows: • Rapture Index of 85 and below: Slow prophetic activity • Rapture Index of 85 to 110: Moderate prophetic activity • Rapture Index of 110 to 145: Heavy prophetic activity • Rapture Index above 145: Fasten your seat belts The website notes, “You could say the Rapture index is a Dow Jones Industrial Average of end time activity, but I think it would be better if you viewed it as prophetic speedometer. The higher the number, the faster we’re moving towards the occurrence of pre-tribulation rapture.” During most of Bush’s watch, the Rapture Index has been in the highest category—“Fasten your seat belts.” For example, in 2006 it was well above 150—not a record, but still pretty dang good. In a 1970 bestseller, The Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsay carefully examined biblical text and Middle East events and concluded that the end of the world would occur in 1988—40 years after the founding of the nation of Israel. In case you don’t remember, it didn’t.82 But the book did scare the bejesus out of millions of young impressionable readers, which was exactly the point. Such books are part of an unholy array of weapons of mass deception—religious WMDs—intended to manipulate people though fear—fear of God, fear of Hell, fear of their shadow, fear of life—with the goal of converting them to a specific brand of rightwing Christianity and thus “saving” them, and perhaps causing them—totally a coincidence—to give their savings to a particular rightwing reverend or church. Cha-ching. In the twelfth book in the Left Behind series, Glorious Appearing, Christ returns to Earth to torture and destroy all non-Christians, sending them to eternal suffering in Hell. Can you imagine the uproar in America if the shoe were on the other foot, and 60 million copies of an Islamic End Times series were purchased by Muslim readers, an Islamic version in which billions of Christians and other non-Muslims were tortured, flayed, spattered, mutilated, crucified, and, well, you get the idea. Suppose further that millions of American Muslims believed these Islamic novels reflected God’s truth and were directly connected to current events in the Middle East.

81

OK, “W” is not really on the Rapture Index list, but he should be. An “umbrella” W could replace several other disasters, and the list would then be shorter and more manageable. 82 Since the world didn’t end in 1988 as promised, you may be wondering if Lindsay, a wealthy man, refunded all the money paid for his books. Nope.


203

All good men and women of faith, both Christians and Muslims, should reject the militancy, hatred, and bigotry that come from their respective camps of extreme rightwing lunatics who want a “war of civilizations.” Whether intended or not, the Left Behind novels effectively endorse and encourage the current bloody developments in the Middle East as necessary stages along the End Times boulevard. The disastrous imperial Bush policies in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East are good news to the discerning rightwing Christian who is engaged in religious fantasies and looking forward to the Second Coming. After all, how can anyone question God’s plan and eschatology so clearly set forth in the Book of Revelation? Derivatively, how can anyone question Bush’s “plan?” The secret rapture at the center of the Left Behind series, which is a pretribulation rapture, fortunately offers convenient “Bush-like Passes” that are especially attractive to those rightwing Christians who suffer from two character flaws: 1) A shortage of courage, and 2) A desire not to help the less fortunate in the world. First, by getting beamed up to the safety of Heaven before the tribulation, these raptured Christians avoid all the blood and guts, death and destruction, that take place during the period of incredible suffering. From the safety of box seats in Heaven at the right hand of God, they can watch and enjoy the horrible suffering of their former neighbors, friends, and close family members who are left behind. Similar to a “Get-Out-of-Jail” card, the rapture is a free avoid-the-consequences card for true believers. Second, most believers in this rapture also believe that the only way to Salvation—which means eternal life in Heaven with Jesus—is through the simple acknowledgement of Jesus as their personal savior, and not through good works on Earth. This convenient copout from hard work and justice is especially popular with rightwing GOP Christians in Texas who want to ignore Christ’s message of compassion for the less fortunate and vote for crony-capitalism Republicans who believe God’s motto is “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich.” Thus, regardless of the facts, these Republican voters from Texas can be counted on to support Bush and his GOP Busheviks. Sadly, a Republican congressman from Texas who claims to be a Christian has to be found in bed with, as they say, “either a live boy or a dead girl” before his supporters will dump him. Much of the End Times excitement sweeping the United States, especially anything connected with the rapture, is best viewed as another slice of New Age stuff from America, but coming this time from the far right. The use of the “New Age” label here is not intended to disparage rightwing Christians, although some may be displeased with the association. When hearing the term “New Age,” most Americans associate it with a fairly recent, unorganized and decentralized spiritual movement involving a smorgasbord of ideas and techniques, such as channeling, pyramid power, meditation, crystals and anything outside mainstream religion. New Age could also be used to describe that definitely disorganized late-1960s movement among American youth who wanted to positively change the world—with love, peace and a broader concept of God. Dissatisfied with traditional institutions,

204


many “members” of this New Age or hippie movement experimented with drugs83 as part of their spiritual quest, in addition to exploring other religions and other traditions such as meditation and yoga. Both fortunately and unfortunately, Americans are busy, creative, searching84 people. Americans have invented lots of wonderful things—such as vaccines, the telephone, television, computers and airplanes—as well as lots of terrible things— such as the first atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the Hummer, and virtually all other modern WMDs used around the world. We also are creative in spiritual matters, as we search for something better—or at least different—in which to believe, or at least to cause others to believe. Many rightwing televangelists search for that new clever twist that can expand their power and fatten their wallets. The main points here are that: (1) this latest rapture phenomenon is new doctrine, dating only from the 19th century, and, (2) its most tremendous growth has been in America. Although its origins were in Great Britain in the early 1800s, it grew quickly in America when John Darby (1800-82) brought it from England to America.85 The 1800s were a period of great spirituality in America, a time in which new religions (including the Mormon religion) and many new doctrines and interpretations took root. Darby coined not only the term “rapture,” but also other End Times terms such as “great tribulation” and “millennium.” To be clear, it is the right of all Americans to believe what they wish, whether the idea is from the 1860s or the 1960s, but let’s not pretend that everything is clear and crisp when you open the Bible. It is not. Unfortunately, much of the world knows there is far too much rightwing religious “wackocity” in America and in the Bush White House, but let’s leave the fruitful topic of American “wackocity” for another day. (For now, we’ll note only that “wackocity” is not a real word, but that in honor of W it should be, along with “decider” and “truthiness,” and that the “W-Scale” to measure “wackocity” should also be in honor of W.) 83

Others including George W. Bush did drugs simply because it was fun, without wanting to make the world better. 84 Sometimes Americans search, or pretend to search, for things that don’t even exist, such as WMDs in Iraq. 85 John Darby (1800-82), leader of the Plymouth Brethren, preached in the mid-1800s concerning a secret coming of Christ, and he traveled several times to the United States in the latter stages of his life. His ideas became known as “Dispensationalism,” and they rapidly spread through many American and British congregations. He and his ideas became especially popular among American fundamentalists. The Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909, helped popularize his ideas, which included a secret rapture. Dispensationalism is so named because it divides all of history into seven progressive stages called “dispensations.” During each Dispensation God reveals more of his plan, and humans are tested in various ways, always failing. The Dispensational scheme has two distinct divine plans, one for Jews (the “earthly” people), and one for Christ’s Church (the “heavenly” people). Accordingly, the Bible has to be divided between those passages intended for Jews and those intended for Christians. As you can imagine, this footnote can only offer a slight hint of Dispensationalism’s incredible complexity. Also, you can understand why fundamentalists and many evangelical Christians are so focused on the Middle East, where they see God’s plan playing out. President Bush, thank you for your war on Iraq!


205

If you decide to research the explosion of American spirituality in the early 1800s, sometimes called The Second Great Awakening—The First Great Awakening having taken place in the 1730s and 1740s—you should check out the Millerites, the tens of thousands of followers of William Miller who believed the apocalypse and Christ’s Second Coming would occur on March 21, 1844, later changed to October 22, 1844. When Jesus did not reappear, the Millerites were bitterly disappointed, especially those who had given away all their possessions, and the nonevent became known as the Great Disappointment. Perhaps the failed presidency of George W. Bush will be known in history as the Great Disappointment Redux. By the way, addressing a group of conservative journalists on September 12, 2006, Bush said he sensed a “Third Awakening” in America that coincides with America’s struggle with terrorism. “A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me,” said Bush, but he didn’t say which side he was on. Another crusade, anyone? As for the “secret rapture,” Christ never spoke about it, nor did any of his Apostles. It was all Greek to them.86 The early leaders of the Church in the first three centuries after Christ—often called the Fathers of the Church— knew nothing and wrote nothing about the “secret rapture” and undoubtedly would have considered it blasphemy. These leaders include the leaders who knew the Apostles personally, and they include the following generations of leaders who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote the basic creeds of the Church and assembled the Bible as it exists today. Eastern Orthodox Christians also never heard of the “secret rapture.” Nor did Saint Augustine. Nor did the Catholic Church. Nor did any of the Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley. Nor did any of America’s founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. Nor did the vast majority of American Protestants, including your author, living today who were raised in the Christian tradition. Whew! Jesus must be having a good chuckle about all this made-in-America apocalyptic hogwash. Well, what does Bush think about all this? Who knows? Probably not even Bush himself knows what he thinks. The truth is that Bush lived through the 1960s but chose poorly, which is one of his more prominent leadership skills. He did the 1960s backwards, upside down, and inside out. He chose the drugs and free sex part of the menu but passed on the Jesus part and helping others. He freely sampled the fun “sideshow for a few,” which was the focus of America’s media—marijuana, cocaine, alcohol and sex—but he went AWOL87 regarding the main course—Jesus’ message of “peace, compassion, tolerance and love”—you know, all that Hippie stuff that is despised by so many practitioners of the exact opposite—“war, greed, bigotry and hate.” Unfortunately for Bush, he chose poorly. Unfortunately for America, this man is now the poster boy for American-style Christianity. If Bush were to be scored in the

86 87

Perhaps we should say, “It was all English and American to them.” Another Bush leadership trait.

206


Christian Olympics event of “Making the World Better,” all the judges would have to give him a 0.0.88 Although Bush’s specific views on the End Times are not publicly known, he successfully causes his supporters to think he agrees with them. In any case, he does nothing to dissuade them of their views, or to discourage their efforts to have their particular brand of religion monopolize American politics. Many rightwing Christians welcomed the current Iraq war and turmoil in the Middle East because these bloody events appeared—through a glass darkly—to fit several popular versions of the End Times prophecies. Many rightwing Christians believe that God established the permanent boundaries of Israel thousands of years ago, and that the Bible predicted the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. Millions believe that God is now carrying out his master plan through Bush and that we should therefore praise Bush and support the war. Babylon’s role in the Bible is decidedly negative. It is portrayed as a center of decadence, greed, corruption and other forms of evil, and its fall and destruction are to be celebrated. Millions of rightwing American Christians speculate as to whether the chaos in Iraq means the end of the world is at hand. If in fact God’s grand plan is playing out before us, and we are about to witness the Second Coming, then Christians should not question the “details” of these events, such as the death of so many innocent people. Is it possible that this rightwing “Christian” perspective helps explain why the Bush administration made so many terrible decisions in Iraq and turned the world against America? For example, when American forces entered Baghdad in April 2003, their commander in chief never bothered to ask whether the world-renowned National Museum of Iraq and other cultural assets were being protected. He apparently didn’t care. American forces however were under orders to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Notwithstanding the Geneva Conventions, and notwithstanding numerous international requests during the run-up to the war that Iraq’s museums be protected, the Bush neocons did nothing to protect them. The predictable result was the loss of thousands of ancient books, manuscripts and artifacts covering several thousands of years of human history in what is now the GOP’s Mess-opotamia. Both the Western and Islamic worlds see the looting of the National Museum of Iraq and dozens of other museums and educational sites as a cultural catastrophe. On the other hand, how many Bush League Christians took pleasure in the loss of so many relics of false religions?

88

Except for the Saudi judge.


207

SIDEBAR: Camp Babylon The ruins of the ancient city of Babylon in Mesopotamia lie 55 miles south of Baghdad, in Babil Province just north of the modern Iraqi city of Hilla. Babylon, the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Babylonia and frequently referred to as the cradle of civilization, was home to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. According to Genesis, Babylon was the first city built after the Flood, and it plays a central role in rightwing biblical prophecy and the End Times. American forces established Camp Babylon shortly after the 2003 invasion and transferred control of the base to Polish-led forces in September 2003. In 2005 the Iraqi government assumed control. According to a British Museum report and a January 15, 2005, article in the Guardian, the construction and operation of Camp Babylon caused “widespread damage and severe contamination to the remains of the ancient city of Babylon.” Insurgent attacks against the base also caused damage. Military vehicles and construction activities, including construction of a helipad, damaged significant archaeological sites. Sand and earth, sometimes containing important artifacts, were used to fill sandbags. Visitors noted that it was difficult to distinguish the ancient ruins from the new ruins. Although rabid anti-Semitism has been alive and well in rightwing Christian circles for a long time,89 especially in the old Confederacy, the rising popularity of End Times prophesy has caused Christian fundamentalists to support Israel. But this support has many perverse ironies, including the fact that fundamentalists still don’t have any particular high regard for Jews. Israel and the Jews are simply necessary pawns along the fundamentalists’ private exclusive path through the End Times to Heaven. The fundamentalists’ real unspoken message to Jews is: “We love the Jewish people because through them we will be raptured and go to Heaven. Yes, it is unfortunate Jews will burn in Hell for all eternity, but we warned them, and we can’t be blamed for their bullheaded refusal to convert to Christianity.” Jews of course recognize the irony and the crocodile tears. Nevertheless, Israel has little choice but to embrace support from wherever it can get it, even from war criminals. Another irony is that anti-Israel sentiment, always a problem, has been greatly inflamed by the inept rightwing policies of Bush in the Middle East, as well as the extreme rightwing Israeli policies that Bush encourages. The Bush administration has done more to damage Israel than any other administration. The more Bush screws up in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, the more fundamentalists are comforted, and the more they want him to “stay the course.” Esca-

89

American presidents have also exhibited anti-Semitic tendencies. Newly released White House tapes from 1972 show President Nixon and Billy Graham exchanging anti-Semitic banter, something for which Graham apologized after the recording was made public.

208


lating carnage and body counts are welcomed evidence that biblical prophecies are coming true. The one-sided support by American Christian fundamentalists for Israel is based predominantly on extreme biblical interpretations and decidedly not on questions of justice, human rights, or international law. Bush’s Middle East Mess unfolded without any rigorous policy debate as to what is best for Israelis, Palestinians, the Middle East, the United States, and the rest of the world. In fact, the Bush White House and the GOP Congress prevented that debate, as they slammed the brake on meaningful efforts to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians. At the center of Christian fundamentalist support for Israel is the belief that the construction of the Third Temple90 in Jerusalem, as part of the reconstruction of the Kingdom of David, must take place before the eagerly-awaited End Times, including the Second Coming of Christ, can occur. Inconveniently, the construction site—the Temple Mount—must first be liberated from Islamic control. This will require the destruction of Al-Haram al-Sharif, the 35-acre Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem, which is one of the three most important religious sites in Islam, and includes the Dome of the Rock at the center and the Al-Aksa mosque at the southern end.91 The most common belief is that the Dome of the Rock occupies the exact spot where the first two temples stood. Since the creation of Israel in 1948 all American presidents, including Bush’s father, strongly supported Israel but at the same time more or less worked to implement policies fair to both Palestinians and Israelis, with the goal of attaining peace though peaceful negotiations. That is, until Bush the Wrong.92 Bush rejected the policies of all American presidents, including his father, regarding the Middle East, 90 King Solomon built the First Temple in the tenth century B.C., and the Babylonians destroyed it in 586 B.C. It was rebuild as the Second Temple about seventy years later, around 515 B.C. The Second Temple was renovated by Herod the Great around 20 B.C. and destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. Part of the outer western retaining wall, the “Wailing Wall,” is all that remains of the temple complex. 91 Although most mainstream Orthodox Judaism scholars oppose any attempt to build the Third Temple before the Messiah returns, many rightwing Israeli Jews wish to build the Third Temple as soon as possible. Many of them rejoiced in the recent birth of a “red heifer” on a religious kibbutz in Israel, a sign from God that they should start building the Third Temple in Jerusalem. In the 1980s a group of extremist Jews were arrested because they planned to blow up the Dome of the Rock. Apparently no red heifer had been born since the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in A.D. 70. The red heifer requirement comes from the Book of Numbers in the Bible, although cooperating rightwing Jews and rightwing Christians have different beliefs as to what the final end point is. For the Jews, the red heifer is tied to the start of their millennium, and the rebuilding of the temple—the Third Temple—will allow the Jewish messiah to enter Jerusalem. For many Christians, the Jews cannot rebuild the temple until after Christ returns in the Second Coming, and their Christian view of the millennium is quite different from that of the rightwing Jews. Also, all Jews will burn in Hell forever (unless they convert in time to Christianity.) This is a very short summary of the “wheels within wheels” complexity of all this. You may want to Google “red heifer” and jump in. You might also wish to reflect upon what Muslims think of all this. 92 Yes, “W” also stands for “wrong,” as in “Bush the Wrong,” “dead wrong” and “Religious Wrong.”


209

by becoming a captive of the neocons and the Religious Wrong. The result is greatly increased bloodshed on a path away from peace, with greater suffering and risk for both Israelis and Palestinians. Thanks to Bush, the way forward in the Middle East is much more difficult and dangerous. In every nation in the region, the prospects for progressive peaceful democratic reform have greatly diminished, and animosity towards America—the central victim of 9/11—has soared. America’s effectiveness and credibility in the region have been savaged, and Bush’s successor will have a much weaker hand to play. America’s rightwing Christianist leaders played a major role in the tragedy by blindly supporting and encouraging Bush at each step on the road to Hell. The extraloopy leaders with large television and radio audiences deserve extra credit. Which, as we end this chapter, brings us to Pat Robertson, that first-class nitwit whose television program, The 700 Club, is beamed to millions daily by his Christian Broadcasting Network. When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive incapacitating stroke on January 4, 2006, Robertson insinuated the next day on The 700 Club that God had caused Sharon’s stroke as punishment for his decision to withdraw Israeli troops and settlers from Gaza. Robertson declared, “The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, ‘divide my land.’ God considers this land to be his.” Robertson also pointed out that the assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was “the same thing.” It was divine punishment for “dividing God’s land,” which was promised to the Jews in the Bible.

CHAPTER 10

A Call to Christians and Other People of Faith Don’t Give Up—Embrace Your Faith and Continue Your Faith Journey I have often suggested to American Christians that the only way to understand their mission is to ask what it might have meant to witness faithfully to Jesus in the heart of the Roman Empire. Certainly, when I preach in the United States, I feel as I imagine the Apostle Paul did, when he first passed through the gates of Rome—admiration for its people, awe at its manifest virtues, and resentment of its careless power. American preachers have a task more difficult, perhaps, than those faced by us under South Africa’s apartheid, or Christians under Communism. We had obvious evils to engage; you have to unwrap your culture from years of red, white and blue myth. You have to expose, and confront, the great disconnect between the kindness, compassion and caring of most American people, and the ruthless way American power is experienced, directly and indirectly, by the poor of the earth. You have to help good people see how they have let their institutions do their sinning for them. This is not easy among people who really believe that their country does nothing but good, but it is necessary, not only for their future, but for us all. —Rev. Peter Storey, President of the Methodist Church of South Africa, and a member of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in his open “Dear Friends in the United States” letter, written shortly after 9/11. The Religious Right represents neither mainstream American values nor traditional religious values. No thinking person of faith who believes in Christ’s message of compassion for the poor, Christ’s role as Prince of Peace, social justice, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion should let Religious Right politicians speak for him or her. Just as Bush’s neocons moved so far to the Neanderthal right in foreign policy that they completely abandoned traditional American values, so have Bush’s right-

212


wing fundamentalist and evangelical supporters moved so far to the extreme right that they have abandoned mainstream Christianity and Christ himself. All forms of religious extremism drink from the same well of hate. We offer the following call to Americans of all faiths.

A Call to Americans of All Faiths 1) Americans of all faiths or no faith must defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights against the relentless unchristian attack by America’s extreme right. • Help defend religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The White House must protect the constitutional right of all Americans to practice any religion or no religion, free from governmental pandering or promotion on behalf of any particular religion. The government’s proper role is to help ensure freedom of religion, not to help Christians win a war among religions, and not to help rightwing Christianity replace sane Christianity. Support the “separation of church and hate.” • Oppose the public financing of faith-based education and faith-based textbooks. Stand up to the junk science and anti-science policies of Bush, the GOP and the Religious Right. • Demand the termination of Bush’s unprecedented faith-based initiatives, under which hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled, without congressional approval, to favored religious organizations, virtually all of which are Christian organizations meeting Bush’s litmus test. • Demand that the White House be the voice for all Americans, not a Bush League parsonage and pulpit for rightwing Christians. • Oppose Bush’s divisive religious litmus tests for judicial appointments. • Help expose the phony self-described “martyrs” on the Religious Right who invent nonexistent evils such as “The War on Christmas,” when the real danger is “The Religious Right’s War on Christianity.” • Keep on agitating for peace, justice and human rights. Help defend and add to America’s rich history of progressive values and accomplishments that the world so admires. Take comfort in the knowledge that countless millions of people of different faiths throughout the world pray for America to come to its senses and turn toward the light, away from the darkness that has permeated the Bush League White House. • Demand the restoration of habeas corpus. 2) Embrace your faith, whatever it is, and continue your faith journey. • Whatever your faith, do not assume that the loud sanctimonious voices on the extreme right speak for the majority of America’s churches and Christians, and don’t let them speak for you. • If you abandoned your Christian faith or no longer attend church, check out a mainstream or progressive church. Do this even if you are an agnostic or atheist. You are likely to fit in well at the majority of America’s mainstream churches, which by and large are filled with people who know they do not know all the answers, but have chosen to continue their faith journey to-

CHAPTER 10 — A CALL TO CHRISTIANS AND OTHER PEOPLE OF FAITH

•

• •

•

•

• • •

•

213

gether as they try to make the world better and safer. They welcome people of all nations, races, religions, economic classes, sexual orientations and political parties. Stand tall and be outspoken about your faith and principles. Support progressive media that are a small but growing alternative to the vast corporate networks of rightwing voices that dominate America’s political and religious media. Don’t let the power of Christianity be monopolized by the Religious Right. Check out and join interfaith organizations such as The Interfaith Alliance (www.interfaithalliance.org) that strive to promote peace and interfaith cooperation, rather than sectarian exclusivity and bigotry. Another excellent resource is Sojourners, a Christian ministry that practices the biblical call to integrate spiritual renewal and social justice (www.sojo.net.) Sojourners magazine is inspiring, as is the best-seller book, God’s Politics—Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, written by Jim Wallis, the Editor-in-Chief/Executive Director of Sojourners. Renounce the two unholy banners that Bush and the GOP so proudly carry: GOP Banner No. 1: “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich;” and GOP Banner No. 2: “Prince of War—Pandering Warmonger for the Religious Right.” Fight for better religion, not less religion. If you are a Christian (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic, Baptist or whatever), don’t separate yourself from your faith just because the neo-GOP and the Religious Right have given Christianity a bad name. Proudly carry the banner of the Prince of Peace as you support Christ’s mission of compassion on Earth. Remember the Eighth Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” and take back the Bible that the Religious Right stole. So enter the religious discussion and use the Holy Bible, not the Religious Right’s revised version known as the Holey Bible. Engaging and exposing the Religious Right without using the Bible is like hunting rats at the city dump without using your best ammo. Just for enlightenment, check out that peculiarly American, rightwing doctrine known as the End Times prophesies, as well as other such New Age spiritualism peculiar to America.

3) Americans should work with their friends throughout the world to help build bridges of trust and peace, many of which were destroyed by America’s Bush League government. • Americans of faith should encourage their foreign friends to tell their truth, and not to give up on America. Ask them to call upon their leaders to speak candidly about America’s leaders and policies, and to courageously set forth their proposals and vision for a better world.


214 • • •

Support specific activities to build cultural bridges, such as student exchange programs, foreign travel, the study of foreign languages, and humanitarian programs. Join the growing millions of Americans—a majority of Americans—who want and demand a saner better America. Wage peace. America’s longtime allies in Europe and the rest of the world are with you. Remember the words of Gimli in Lord of the Rings: “Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?”

4) Remember the American spirit represented in the Statue of Liberty, that wonderful gift from France the construction of which was completed in 1886, and remember the famous final lines from the poem The New Colossus about that American beacon of hope, which boldly declare: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Help rekindle that American spirit of freedom, hope and opportunity for all, not just the privileged and chosen few. 5) Above all, don’t let any Bush family member or Religious Reich leader instruct you in religious or family values they don’t follow themselves. Remember their motto: “Rich in Valuables, Poor in Values.” Rightwing Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists control virtually all of America’s religious radio and television media, having purchased wide networks of radio and television stations over the past four decades. This control enabled them to set for America a decidedly narrow list of “religious issues,” as they pursued their extreme rightwing politics. Media power does matter. Ownership has its privileges. Over 1,600 rightwing Christian radio stations and about 250 Christian television stations constitute a rightwing web that provides a consistent rightwing message. Pat Robertson, a minister of politics and propaganda who ran for president in 1988, even has his own television network called the Christian Broadcasting Company, on which he has hosted The 700 Club for decades. This live television program is broadcast daily from Virginia City, Virginia, and, according to the network’s own website, airs in 95% of America’s television markets and in almost 90 million American homes, and is seen daily by about one million viewers. Robertson is hardly the loopiest or most dangerous of the rightwing preacher politicians. For example, check out D. James Kennedy, a Dominionist fundamentalist and biblical literalist who had a political agenda that many would say makes the Taliban look mainstream, and who believed God wants Dominionists to seize control of all branches of the U.S. government in the name of God. Kennedy built and until his death on September 5, 2007, ran a $35 million-per-year empire with a focus on winning elections for Christian fundamentalists. His Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida has a radio and television audience estimated at 3.5 million. The Coral Ridge


215

Hour shamelessly promotes a rightwing political agenda and is broadcast to about 150 countries in the American Forces Network. Bush genuflected before Kennedy and obtained his blessing before running for president. In return Kennedy had special access to the Bush White House. Although lacking formal theological training, hard-line extremist James Dobson leveraged his Focus on the Family media empire to become the most effective evangelical proselytizer and Christianist for Bush in 2004, and in 2006 he launched another nationwide church-based campaign focused on using churches in key close election districts to register millions of Republicans and distribute millions of election guides carefully crafted to support Republican candidates. Dobson has about 7 million listeners and organized stadium rallies for Bush. Rightwing extremist preachers have unintentionally converted many good Christians to atheism. Don’t let them do the same to you.

Be Proud of America’s Liberal, Progressive Accomplishments In the 1960s many Christians in the South, including many evangelicals and Baptists, both liberal and conservative, joined the liberal progressive cause of bringing civil rights to blacks in the South. This struggle for social justice must have made Jesus proud. The landmark federal legislation known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. President Kennedy sent the legislation to Congress in 1963, and President Johnson courageously supported and signed it even though he knew this legislation would cause his party to suffer tremendously in the South. Immediately after signing the bill, Johnson said, “We have lost the South for a generation.” Johnson was right except that he underestimated the time period. In fact, the Democratic Party’s Christian stand against racism caused it to lose the South for several generations. The majority of Southern whites who supported segregation and opposed the expansion of civil rights for blacks held their noses and bolted for the Republican Party, which welcomed their bigotry and Old South “white-sheets” mentality with open arms. While much progress has been made for equal racial opportunity since 1964, Jesus knows that the struggle for civil rights in the South, in the rest of America, and throughout the world continues into the 21st century. Although the GOP in the 21st century has no monopoly on racism, 92.666%93 of the racists in the United States are proud members of the GOP, which ever since 1964 has been skillfully throwing racist raw red meat to undereducated and poor whites, who ironically are natural political allies of blacks, not their enemies. When Bush became President, America’s values went South. From the time of America’s founding to the present, virtually all of the major advancements in freedom and the American way of life were due to the hard work of liberal progressive people of faith. Their beliefs and long history of accomplishments shaped America into the beacon of freedom that many in the world still admire, notwithstanding Bush and the neo-GOP. Although that beacon has been dimmed by imperial Bush League policies, values and incompetence, never has the time been 93

OK, I made up this precise number. The actual percentage could be even higher.

216


better for liberals and progressives of faith to rise to the great challenge, revitalize America, and pursue that never ending American quest for freedom, hope and opportunity for all, not just the privileged and chosen few. SIDEBAR: Another Big Media Lie—that “Liberal” is a Dirty Word As masters of Orwellian doublespeak and dirty politics, the Republican Party has worked hard over the years to make “liberal” a four-letter word. America’s rightwing Big Media, especially the “hate radio” spectrum spawned and monopolized by the extreme right, relentlessly pushes this mean-spirited slander. Bush and the GOP avoid meaningful debate on important issues where their positions are weak and would not be supported by the people if the truth were on the table. They count on enough voters to be gullible and misinformed. They count on unprecedented piles of cash from Big Money to make their slogans and deceptive ads overwhelm the public discourse. As Big Money capitalists, they market their deceptive message just as Big Tobacco markets cigarettes. They believe and practice the words of Edith Sitwell, “The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.” But remember also the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” So be proud of being a liberal, or a “progressive” if you prefer that synonym. When you turn on the radio and hear the word “liberal” uttered with scorn, just for fun think of that four-letter word “Bush.” Unfortunately for America and Bush himself, W took a good family name—Bush—and in the eyes of the world turned it into an obscenity. Speaking of obscenities, Bush single handedly made “FEMA”94 a dirty four-letter F-word for millions of people in the South. Just one of many disastrous fumbles by Bush during his Bush League watch, Hurricane Katrina showcased his administration’s cold unchristian uncaring corporate heart, plus the unprecedented corruption and clumsy incompetence that so epitomizes his administration and the “Republican’t Party” in this 21st century. In his January 2007 State of the Union speech he didn’t even mention Katrina or New Orleans. Jesus is the ultimate compassionate liberal. He’s so liberal that he’s a revolutionary. The only quibble with the term “compassionate liberal” is that it is redundant— since liberals are naturally compassionate, you can save a word and just say liberal. So let’s simply say Jesus is a liberal. Period. On the other hand, let’s consider the oxymoronic label “compassionate conservative” that Rove cleverly pulled out of thin air and stuck on Bush. The reason for this marketing trick is that “conservative” sounds too, well, mean, especially to anyone who had a glimmer of what Bush and the neo-GOP wanted to do to the bottom 90% of America.

94

Federal Emergency Management Agency.


217

Well, Rove had a problem, because “conservative” does mean “mean.” So Rove added “compassionate” to it. “Compassionate conservative” did sound better, even though no one could figure out what it really meant. But, as Jesus said, “no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it’s still a pig.”95 Jesus was the liberal. Herod the Great and Emperor Tiberius were the conservatives. Jesus was compassionate. Herod and Emperor Tiberius were not. Likewise, there is no compassion in America’s latter-day neocon warmongering empire builders. Thus Jesus speaks today to Bush and the GOP: “Stop the spying, stop the lying, stop the dying.” The American Revolution: Yes, those rotten liberals—revolutionaries even—of America’s 13 colonies, especially the true blue, progressive patriots of Massachusetts, risked their lives in the birth of our nation. The American conservatives of those days strongly supported England’s King George III, even though reportedly he could not speak English coherently, and they called our liberal patriots bad names such as traitor. Had he been alive then, America’s King George III—W, that is—would have opposed any change in the status quo, not wanting to jeopardize the big profits he was making at the public trough in the government regulated tea trade, a Halliburton-type cha-ching operation he inherited from his father, aka 41. Our King George III might have said, “Don’t rock the boat—we rich is doing fine, and I hate elections anyways.” It’s a proven fact that 99%+ of the DNA of America’s George III is identical to the DNA of the British Empire’s George III. Yes, all these “Georges” are confusing. Let’s just all agree that America has suffered greatly from too many greedy, gorging, not so gorgeous, Georges. Speaking of liberal patriots (who are willing to put their own lives on the line in just wars) and conservative Super Rich phony cowboys (who risk only the lives of others), we’ll take the New England Patriots over the Dallas Cowboys on any Sunday. All Americans benefit from the liberal progressive values underlying the American Revolution. The Emancipation Proclamation: Virtually all Americans also now support and benefit from the liberal values that underlie the Emancipation Proclamation, which was issued by Abraham Lincoln during America’s Civil War (1861-65), and which freed America’s blacks from slavery. Southern whites had wanted to keep their black slaves, who were legally classified as property and considered sub-human or nonhuman. This slavery seemed just and Christian because the whites had purchased their blacks in a perfectly legal manner. But a wide spectrum of liberal progressive Christians disagreed, and America fought its bloodiest war. It is sad and ironic that Southern whites—most of whom bolted the Democratic Party when it went too far in fighting for civil rights four decades ago—have hi95

OK, Jesus didn’t actually say this, but he probably wishes he had. He did say: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Matthew 22:39.

218


jacked Lincoln’s Republican Party, jettisoned its traditional values, and now run it as the Confederate Party. It is difficult for southern white Republicans to say “Abraham Lincoln” and “Republican Party” in the same sentence without laughing. Jefferson Davis must be smiling. The Confederate flag is still much more popular in the South than the Stars and Stripes, and a Confederate currency has replaced the dollar thanks to the financial malfeasance of Bush and the neo-GOP. Meanwhile, the struggle for civil rights continues to this day. American Civil War: Well, you know the theme here, although none dare call it treason. It really all comes down to family values. Was the family known as The United States of America worth preserving? Would America allow those who didn’t believe in social justice for all to take their black slaves and split in an ugly divorce? The patriotic liberals of the north, led by Abraham Lincoln, fought America’s most ugly and bloody war with the racist whites of the South, led by Jefferson Davis. The American Civil War officially ended in 1865, and Northerners stopped fighting it then. However, the South never stopped fighting, and many Southern whites will acknowledge this if you ask. Well, the Civil War is now really finally over, and the South won. Conservative Southern white males grabbed control of the Republican Party in order to run America like a plantation for its new plantation owners—the Super Rich and Big Corporations. Voting Rights for American Women: Looking back to a time about a century ago, it is hard now to fully appreciate the long struggle of liberal progressive Americans to give women the right to vote. American women now take their 19th Amendment rights for granted, rights that conservative males opposed because women were going too far. The struggle for sexual equality in America continues today, and it’s grounded in that liberal, revolutionary notion that women are people too. Not that much has changed. The primary enemy of American women today still is America’s wiener-take-all misogynists—a huge rutting herd of old conservative white males, many from the so-called Religious Right—who want to control women, dictating what women can and cannot do, especially regarding personal and private matters of the family, the bedroom, reproduction, and the female body. Women, continue to stand up for yourselves and your families. Men, stand up for women and your families, and help elect more women to public office. Imagine how much better, and more peaceful, the world would be if only women could vote and only women could be national leaders. A constitutional amendment implementing this would make more sense than any of the constitutional amendments recently proposed by conservatives males. Integration of the Military: Blacks fought in World War II with distinction but largely in segregated units. Following the war Harry Truman ordered the integration of the U.S. military, notwithstanding the heated opposition of many generals, mostly Southern whites who inaccurately predicted terrible negative consequences including morale problems, violence, and a reduction in military capability. Our nation still benefits from Truman’s decisive liberal action to promote social justice and civil rights. The New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, including Social Security: The GOP’s efforts to emasculate Social Security will continue.


219

Medicare: This efficiently run program for America’s seniors was signed into law in 1965 by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson as an amendment to Social Security, and he enrolled Harry Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary. The GOP has been busy trying to gut it, along with Medicaid. We’ll discuss both of these important programs in the next chapter, along with Social Security. Well, you see the picture. The list of liberal, progressive achievements is long, and there are many items that we could add to it. Here are just a few: minimum wage; worker safety; child labor laws; veterans’ rights and programs; food and drug safety; transportation safety; rights for the disabled; clear air and water legislation; anti-discrimination protections; equal employment opportunity; GLBT rights; birth control and family planning; public education; and let’s not forget the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights. America’s liberals and progressives had to fight for each one of these achievements, sacrificing and working hard to overcome reactionary conservative opposition. On occasion conservatives supported these efforts, but generally they did not. Eventually, the “radical” views of progressives are adopted by most conservatives, or at least by their children and grandchildren, who learn, for example, that giving blacks and women the right to vote is not really that bad an idea. The progressive achievements are based on progressive values that are, or become, cherished American values. They are at the core of what defines America as a free and just society, and they were the envy of the world until the Religious Right and the neo-GOP arrived on the scene. Listening to the propaganda of America’s rightwing media and politicians, one might conclude that rightwing Christians go to bed each night smugly knowing they are morally superior to the rest of us. In the real world, however, rates of teen pregnancy, births outside marriage, divorce, adultery, spousal abuse, premarital sex,96 child abuse, adulterous gay sex by televangelists, bigamy, and so forth, are just as high, and typically higher, in the red zones of America’s Bible Belt than they are in Massachusetts and the rest of that American Sodom and Gomorrah known as the East Coast. And when it comes to hypocrisy, the readings in those red zones are off the charts, unequaled anywhere in the world. Acknowledging that sad reality, a few evangelical leaders on the right have bemoaned the fact that they cannot truly expect to change America until rightwing Christians lower their own divorce rates, etc. and practice what they preach. Amen. This discussion provides clues as to the answer to that pithy question raised by so many American voters: “Why is it so difficult to find a viable GOP candidate for high office who is not a serial wife abuser and adulterer?” The Religious Right constantly shouts the exclusive correctness of their Christianity, but Christ’s teachings are much more in line with liberal Christianity. You don’t have to be the loudest right-eous Christian to do Christ’s work, and in fact you don’t have to be a Christian. However, if you want to do Christ’s work, it certainly helps if you’re a liberal.

96

By the way, if you never get married, it’s not “premarital” sex. (This has nothing to do with this chapter—it’s just funny.)

220


There are many Christians of all denominations, as well as countless nonChristians, doing God’s work in Afghanistan and Iraq, trying, typically in small personal ways, to make life better for Afghanis and Iraqis in any way they can. They aren’t in the spotlight, and they don’t seek it. They are not getting rich, and some have been killed, such as Tom Fox of Christian Peacemaker Teams who was killed by his captors in Iraq in March 2006. Their dedication and bravery contrast sharply with that of America’s rich rightwing televangelists. In the run-up to the Iraq war some of these television stars gushed about how great it was going to be to go to Iraq and convert Muslims to Christianity. Their subsequence silence was deafening. To be clear, there are countless evangelical Christians of all stripes who contribute enormously to charitable and humanitarian efforts around the globe. Just don’t expect to see the “show-me-the-money” Pat Robertsons of America knocking on doors in Baghdad any time soon, trying to convert the residents to Christianity, or trying to make their lives better.

Bush League Christianity is Bombing in Baghdad Whether real or fake, the religious underpinning of the Bush League of Nations alone is reason enough to end it. It is both unconstitutional and counterproductive for the U.S. government—which until Bush was anchored in religious freedom and separation of church and state—to promote Christianity of any flavor in the world. Especially harmful are Bush’s statements, intended primarily for his far rightwing political base, to the effect that he feels directed by God and that he feels God chose him to lead American’s efforts against terrorism. The disastrous Bush League of Nations charade in Iraq must be ended immediately. America must renounce the misguided and un-American goals of The Project for the New American Century, while folding up the Bush regime’s imperial tents. The world understands the insanity, but the true believers in the Bush regime will never admit they were wrong, and they will abandon neither their Bush League war on Iraq nor their imperial policies that led to it, so long as they hold the reins of power. Only the American people can force the change. SIDEBAR: Five People Bush Meets in Hell Security Guard (Saddam Hussein): “Stay in line there, cretin!” Bush: “Cretin? Don’t you know who I am? Me and my kind always go to the front. I want the best table, free gore-may food, that kinda stuff.” Saddam: “Everyone knows who you are. In fact, the vote letting you in was unanimous.” Bush: “There’s voting here? Where am I? In Hell? Hah, hah, hah …” The background din was replaced by several seconds of Pure Silence, which always happens in Hell when a Profound Truth is uttered.


221

Bush: “Well, just take me to my ranch. I’m scheduled for another three-week vacation … and, dang, I haven’t had one since last month. Hey, come to think of it, I had only a half dozen vacations—or was it six?—right before 9/11 ... or was it 11/9? Dang, I know I was on vacation more than half the time, a little over 40%.” Saddam: “‘Take you to your ranch’—now that’s pretty funny. Hmm, maybe we’ll arrange a side trip for you— it’s just a few brimstones away, right above us in Texas. Say, you don’t recognize me, do you?” Bush: “Well, you kinda look familiar, but your neck looks funny. And you’re much too dark for him. Too colored … too tanned, I think.” Saddam: “We all get a little toasted that way down here. So color doesn’t matter here—unlike up top in Texas where so many of you Damned Republicans come from. Hell, you Republicans from Texas alone make up 66.6% of Hell—if we ran an election down here, you dudes would win in a landslide without even cheating. But I suppose you’d cheat anyway, just on habit and general principles.” Bush: “Well, ouch! That really hurts! So how do you divide people, you know, pick on them? Do you have blacks, too?97 Hey, do you have any queers? … immigrants? … and poor people and crips? … and colored, OK other colors … I mean all those targets on Karl’s list … what I mean is … ” Saddam: “Shut up! I don’t have time to listen to your babble. You’re causing my head to overheat. Shut up!” Bush: “Hey, there must be lots of hot babes here … huh?” Saddam: “Hot babes? Oh, you mean women.” Bush: “Yah, that’s it. How many do I get? How many are there?” Saddam: “Well, there are none, at least none for you Damned Republicans.” Bush: “None! Why’s that?” Saddam: “Because the worst woman is better than the best male Republican.” Again … sudden Pure Silence, this time setting a new record for length. The pain oozing from all the horny, testosterone-afflicted, Hellions was palpable. Saddam: “Dubya, you’re going to be bunking with Cheney in the Paris Room.” Bush: “Holy shit! I must be in Hell! Please! Please take this Bush Family Pass and send me to Heaven. I have to get away from him … and Rumsfeld … and Rove … and away from Cheney … and …” Saddam: “Hey, stupid, you already said Cheney!” Bush: “Well, for Dick Shooter, I just wanted to be sure.”

97

“Do you have blacks, too?” This was Bush’s nitwit question to dumbfounded Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso in late 2001.

222


Saddam: “A Bush Family Pass for Heaven? No such luck. By the way, I’m bunking with you guys too. Hey, I’ll show you that neat photo of Rummy and me back in the good ol’ days— it’s posted on the volcano entrance. You know, back in the 1980s when he and his Neanderthal neocon gang were helping me kill all those Iranians … what a gas! More than one million bastards killed … lots of civilians and child soldiers … hah, hah, hah … makes me feel good just thinking about it.” Bush: “Yah, me too. So our weapons … our chemical weapons related programs … the WDMs … or BMWs … or WMDs whatever … the intelligence … plus Rummy … that kinda stuff … helped you a lot, huh?” Again, Pure Silence. Bush: “Hey Saddy Boy, maybe me and you can gang up on good ol’ Cheney … you know, good ol’ Chicanery Boy. Now he’s one dude I never trusted, never liked. A real world class Dick. But he had those photos of me and … dang!” … [pause, as Bush mulls over his fate] … “Hey, Saddy Boy, I bet your mustache tickles.” Saddam: “Here’s looking at you kid.”98 Bush: “Yah, we’ll always have the Paris Room.”99 Pure Silence.

We now turn our attention to “The GOP’s War on America,” which is Part IV of this book (Chapters 11 and 12.)

98

With apologies to Casablanca fans. Ditto. I hope thoughts of Bush and Saddam in flagrante delicto don’t cause you to throw up the next time you watch Casablanca. 99

PART IV The GOP’s War on America

CHAPTER 11

The GOP’s War on America’s Workers, the Poor and the Disadvantaged Of the Rich, By the Rich, For the Rich There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again. —George W. Bush, Sept. 17, 2002 The Bush neocons wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and 9/11 gave them the convenient excuse they sought. However, they faced a major inconvenient fact—that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, the connection was so nonexistent that it is highly likely that not even one individual among the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died because of Bush’s war had had even an inkling of bin Laden’s 9/11 plan, let alone supported him or his plan (versus Bush himself, who had had much more than an inkling, but ignored all warnings.) The neocons correctly concluded that they could make it to Baghdad by duping a do-nothing-good, see-no-evil GOP Congress and gullible American voters through a relentless campaign of lies and distortions. The Bush League of Nations, one key element of that campaign of mass deception, was intended to make Americans believe that there was broad international support for the Iraq war. Although the Bush League did provide modest military advantages to the United States in Iraq, its main purpose was to provide essential propaganda for domestic consumption, thus paving the road to war. The war in turn helped push an extreme domestic agenda for America, which is the subject of this Part IV of this book. It did so by: (1) distracting the voters’ attention from domestic legislation and executive decisions, both legal and illegal, and (2) fueling perpetual fear, thereby boosting knee-jerk support for America’s “war president” in both international and domestic affairs, including his unprecedented assault on the U.S. Constitution and America’s democracy. Do Bush and the GOP have a strategy for success in Iraq, let alone an exit strategy? Is there anyone in the entire world outside America who believes Bush and the GOP have a strategy for success in Iraq, or ever did?

226


As for Bush’s personal “exit strategy,” it’s apparent to the most casual observer that he intends to hang on until January 20, 2009, and then “cut and run,” dumping his Bush League mess into the lap of his Democratic successor. This will fit well that familiar pattern of George W. Bush’s entire personal, business and political life: defecate and go, leaving the cleanup to others. In parallel, Bush’s and the GOP’s domestic plan is “gut and run.” Give trillions of dollars to the Super Rich and Big Business. Savage the U.S. government by bloating it while making it less efficient and massively more corrupt. Run up multiple enormous unsustainable deficits and debts. Bankrupt America both morally and financially. Plant the seeds for the GOP Great Depression II. Screw generations of the unborn by giving them the GOP Shaft. Take the money and run. “Gut and run.” Both internationally and domestically, someone else will have to cope with the enormous piles of GOP excrement left by America’s worst president ever and America’s most corrupt Congress of the last century. Going for a Bush trifecta, let’s throw in Bush’s personal plan for his early adolescent years—the first two-thirds of his life—which was “rut and run.” So, to sum it up, here’s Bush’s trifecta: 1) Adolescent Years (to age 40)—Rut and Run 2) International/Iraq—Cut and Run 3) Domestic Policies—Gut and Run In this chapter we’ll focus on a few choice items from the GOP’s destructive domestic agenda.

The Wedgies—A Phony Culture War The focus of this chapter is on the big money issues—feeding the Super Rich at the expense of everyone else—the raison d’être of the Bush administration and the GOP. Included are some of the so-called cultural issues used by the Bush regime and the GOP to inflame, divide and conquer—anything to remain in power so they could continue carrying water for the Super Rich. The Bush administration is especially adept at amplifying, and frequently creating out of thin air, so-called “wedge” issues designed to rally and inflame its supporters and gain lots of votes. Although the immediate purpose of this assault— which ramps up right before each election—is to win elections, the real long-term prize is the milking of America by and for the Super Rich. The “wedgies,” which typically are soft inflammatory “cultural/religious” issues, are tricks of the trade to accomplish an unrelated secular agenda that could not be accomplished without these tricks. At the same time, they deflect attention from real Christian issues that demand but don’t get attention. Prejudices are exploited, minorities are bashed, wars are waged, and artificial social issues such as Terri Schiavo (including the publicity stunt of Bush flying back to Washington to sign a bogus bill) are created—all for the purpose of energizing Bush’s base and distracting America so that the GOP and the Super Rich can take the loot out the back door. Gay marriage is one of the most prominent wedge issues. In the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, Bush conservatives calculated correctly that pushing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage in all states would be a

CHAPTER 11 — THE GOP’S WAR ON AMERICA

227

clever wedge issue to use against Democrats and attract the Religious Right to the polls. Republican senators wasted the U.S. Senate’s time on this charade even though they knew it would be impossible to get the necessary three-fourths approval of the Senate. When campaigning in Ohio in 2004, where conservatives were attempting to get a ban on gay marriage on the ballot, Bush was met with a newspaper ad that read: “Jobs lost in Ohio since 2001: 255,000; gay marriages in Ohio: 0. Focus on Americans’ real priorities, Mr. President.” That sums it up. The cultural bashing by the GOP successfully diverted attention from truly important problems, especially Bush’s shortcomings in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush was reelected in 2004, the GOP maintained control of Congress, and America was safe for GOP looting for at least another two years. A growing number of conservatives believe it is not appropriate to amend the Constitution for the purpose of banning gay marriage. Even Dick and Lynne Cheney, who have a lesbian daughter, believe this is a matter for the states to decide, not the federal government, or so they said. It was not until after the 2004 election, shortly before Christmas 2006, that their daughter, Mary, announced she and her partner were going to have a baby in the spring. We wish the new family of three well, and we pray for that day in America when the birth of a child to good parents like Mary Cheney and Heather Poe no longer triggers such ill will from the Religious Wrong or anyone else. We pray for that day when such a joyful event will be no more newsworthy than the birth of any other child in America. SIDEBAR: “Gay Marriage? Haven’t They Been Punished Enough?” (Jesus Talks About Gay Marriage.) Jesus sat listening to a group of dusty travelers at a dusty camel stop along a dusty Interstate near dusty Anywhere, Texas. The travelers were bemoaning the sad state of American-Style Marriage, especially in blood-red areas of red states like Texas. One dusty sage noted, “About half the red marriages in Texas are total failures— divorces, I mean—and 62% of the rest are close to cardiac arrest.” “Yup,” interjected Jesus, “you wouldn’t buy a camel with that track record.” Seeking to bait and trap the long-haired hippie liberal, the Pharisee Phat Robertson—who had just stepped out of his air-conditioned “Leave-No-ChauffeuredPreacher-Behind” limo and was both cranky and cranked up—asked Jesus: “Why should those perverted, disgusting queers—the evil doers who have caused every abomination, every hurricane, every fornication and plague afflicting God’s people, the South’s defeat in the Civil War and the freeing of our slaves, the collapse of Christian … well, all things evil—why should those friggin’ fornicating fornicators have the right to marry and thus pervert that most holy institution of …”

228


Interrupting the sputtering well-lathered Phat, Jesus replied: “And so, Pharisee Phat, you are trying to ask, ‘Should American gays and lesbians have the right to marry?’ My Father in Heaven recently told me, ‘Of course not, Son! Haven’t they been punished enough?’” A “hah, hah, hah” hallelujah chorus rang out from the crowd, except that no laughter came from the gurgling gullet of Pharisee Phat. Sadly, Phat’s unique double-stranded helix of DNA—one strand for Bigotry and one for Buffoonery— permitted him joyful laughter only when the least, the last, and the lost were being screwed, barbequed and tattooed by the Religious Right. “But kidding aside,” continued Jesus, “I say that even a blind woman can see that it is heterosexuals, especially the males—Dad sometimes calls them the ‘Dumb-Stick Afflicted’—who most violate and profane marriage. Therefore I say onto you that it is the heterosexuals who should forfeit their right to marry, and thus, henceforth, only gays and lesbians should have that sacred right.” “Yes, a gay marriage is better than an unhappy marriage,” Jesus noted. “You see,” continued Jesus, “marriage is like a camel. A camel looks a little different from each perspective … it just depends on where you’re standing. Unfortunately, bigoted rightwing male Texan politicians don’t know squat about raising healthy camels.” Jesus then reinforced the lesson with several parables—all grounded in love, tolerance, faith, liberty and personal responsibility—including the observation that a Christian is obligated to worry first about the log in his own camel’s eye and not the speck in his neighbor’s camel’s eye. Well, Jesus was talking pretty fast at this point, and although your faithful scribe may have missed something, you get the general idea. Jesus did add something here about Christians not having the right to judge or screw up their neighbor’s camel, particularly when they’re busy mis-screwing their own. Like I said, Jesus was talking pretty fast. Anyway, reinforcing his lesson with a nice simile, Jesus said, “A loveless marriage is like Bush’s horseless ranchette in Texas—a sham and a shame. In the Middle East, we Arabs and Jews say it is like a wannabe leader who is all saddle and no camel.” With sad disappointed eyes, Jesus then looked straight into Pharisee Phat’s heart—or, more accurately, into that part of Phat’s fat corpus where a heart is usually found—and spoke thus: “It is more difficult to find a multi-millionaire Religious Right preacher who has not violated his marriage vows—one who lives the purity tests that he wishes to impose on all others, especially women—than it is to find a flying camel that speaks fluent French.” This last observation by Jesus for some reason—perhaps it was the French part— really got Phat’s camel—or rather, his goat—turning Phat permanently into a Category 5 hurricane of foaming fury and ballistic bigotry, although many longtime Phat observers later remarked they could hardly tell the difference. Tens of millions of rightwing American Christians, including Pharisee Phat Robertson, believe that Muslims will burn in Hell for eternity unless they convert to


229

Christianity and accept Jesus. As a personal religious matter, this belief represents freedom of religion—and Bush as an individual is free to believe this—but as an ingredient, even the slightest ingredient, of American foreign policy, it represents insanity, and that’s where “W” the president became “Wacko.” Bush grossly misused and abused religion to sell his war on Iraq. If Christianity were a child, Bush would be a pedophile. His immoral Bush League values are just not in the ballpark. Much of the world sees Bush’s war on Iraq as a militant evangelical Christianist war. Along the way Bush and the Religious Right co-opted the term “evangelical” and gave evangelicals a bad name. The invasion of Iraq offered rightwing evangelicals the illusory prospect of traveling to Iraq and converting Muslims into Christians—but, alas, not one rich leader of America’s Religious Right has had the courage to go to Iraq and chew on that bone. The milking of cultural/religious issues by Bush and the GOP Cons has several hallmark characteristics. These conservatives talk or cast meaningless votes about the soft issues, but, after the election, they go back to work for the Super Rich, who actually get something. Lies and deception are standard operating procedure. Say one thing and do another. This is Bush and GOP conservatism at its best—conservatives con you when it serves their interests. They especially con middle- and low-income workers who vote Republican for this or that hot social issue. Here are some examples: • GOP conservatives talk about making government smaller—but the Super Rich get a big cut in capital gains taxes (and, along the way, the conservatives actually make government much bigger, which helps keep that “issue” alive.) • GOP conservatives talk about bashing gays and restricting their rights—but the Super Rich get the elimination of the estate tax (which only helps the top one-half of 1% of all estates, as the bottom 99.5% paid zero estate tax in the first place.) • GOP conservatives talk about restoring traditional values in America—but the Super Rich and Big Business get tax breaks totaling more than one thousand billion dollars, plus reduced IRS audit and enforcement regarding their tax returns. • GOP conservatives talk about stopping abortion—but the Super Rich and Big Business get massive deregulation—typically involving privatization of the profits and socialization of the costs and risk—and stuff hundreds of billions of dollars into their own pockets. Bush, his family and his neocon team do not practice what they preach. For example, the Bush administration pushes abstinence-only sex education. But what are the odds of finding even one adult member of the extended Bush family who has practiced abstinence before marriage? If Bush wanted to demonstrate moral consistency and strong leadership regarding this “important” issue, he could have demanded virginity tests for his two daughters. The Bush regime criticizes the content and language in movies and on television. Yet both Bush and Cheney use foul language without apology, and their policies are much more deadly than anything in the media.

230


The storm troopers in the Cons’ attack on minority rights and women’s rights are a gaggle of gleeful white men, who especially love to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, while their own testosterone-driven defects are immune from scrutiny.

Bush’s Domestic Banners Virtually all of Bush’s domestic agenda can be explained and predicted by two banners he proudly carries on behalf of the Republican Party: • Banner No. 1: “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich.” Does a policy favor the Super Rich and large corporations? If yes, then Bush knows it is an excellent policy. Consequences and fairness don’t matter, since the core of the GOP’s donor base is happy. The corollary is that if a policy helps the working poor or middle class, it is a bad policy. • Banner No. 2: “The Prince of War—Pandering Warmonger for the Religious Right.” Don’t even pretend to represent all the people. Show your strength, leadership and extreme religiosity by dividing and bashing. Your kind of so-called Christians will love you for your rightwing religiosity. Ignore facts and avoid critical thinking, knowing that God is directing you. You need the “Christian” vote in order to screw America’s workers and the world. These Bush banners have cost middle-and lower-income Americans dearly. They represent class warfare on America. The two Bush banners also weaken America’s influence and power in the world. • Regarding future international coalitions, why would any nation or people trust Bush or the neo-GOP enough to join America in a major league way? • Why would poor oppressed peoples living under dictators rally behind a man who represents the Super Rich and whose family is Exhibit A for crony capitalism? • Why would poor but hopeful people in fledging democracies like Gaza and Iraq respect a warmongering elitist and his party who actively oppose their interests and aspirations? • Why would oppressed Muslims anywhere in the world trust this crusader for the Christian right—a crusader who knows you are going to Hell unless you convert to his particular flavor of Christianity, and who enjoys sleepovers with the rightwing princely dictators of Saudi Arabia? • Why would workers or the unemployed in Iraq expect anything good from this two-Americas man who stiffs the working class of America to the advantage of the don’t-need-to-work class? Although Bush’s two banners gained him and the GOP millions of votes at home and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, they cost America the support and goodwill of billions of “voters” around the world. We turn our attention now to a few of the most important items on the Con’s destructive domestic agenda.


231

Gutting Social Security to Feed the Super Rich SIDEBAR: Bush Talks Good about Retirement “Now, we talked to Joan Hanover. She and her husband, George, were visiting with us. They are near retirement—retiring—in the process of retiring, meaning they’re very smart, active, capable people who are retirement age and are retiring.” —George W. Bush, Feb. 12, 2003 Social Security taxes are very regressive and fall most heavily on middle- and lower-income working families. Although this fact alone is bad enough, the whole truth about Social Security is much worse. Social Security is a major piece of the U.S. tax system—a system that, especially over the last 25 years, has become a scheme “of the Super Rich, by the Super Rich, and for the Super Rich.” As we shall see, GOP kleptomaniacs have raided the Social Security lockbox to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and their privatization schemes—better known as pirate-ization schemes—are intended to kill the system completely. Reagan was the first president to raid Social Security funds, and he is responsible for destroying the Social Security lockbox. The Internal Revenue Code has grown in length from 14 pages at its inception in 1914 to 17,000 pages. Chances are good that none of those additional pages were written by or for you, unless you are a member of the Super Rich. But Bush’s corrupt friends at companies like Enron and Halliburton have their dirty fingerprints all over them. SIDEBAR: The K Street Project A huge army of Washington lobbyists works for the Super Rich and large corporations. They are paid well because they work financial miracles for their clients in the hallways and backrooms of Congress. They are welfare workers for the rich and powerful. They are expert navigators of the GOP public trough in Washington. There were already far too many lobbyists in Washington when Bush took office, but the number more than doubled under his watch. The number exploded because America’s GOP-controlled government was for sale. When it comes to understanding GOP values, just follow the valuables. By 2005 the number of registered lobbyists in Washington had grown to more than 34,750, which means there are about 65 lobbyists for each of the 535 elected senators and representatives in Congress. The scale of corruption is unprecedented. So is audacity—lobbyists frequently even write the legislation for lazy lawmakers who are too busy raising money, living high on the hog, and milking the system.

232


The GOP launched the “K Street Project” in 1995 to force lobbying firms to hire Republicans and give generously to GOP politicians and causes.100 Among the GOP thugs leading the carrot-and-stick effort was Tom DeLay, the House majority whip. The carrot for the lobbyists’ cooperation included access to GOP leaders, reduction in government regulation and oversight, and the ability to write the legislation and regulations they really wanted. The stick was the threat to cut off access to America’s GOP-controlled government. The GOP took names, maintained hit lists, and operated like the Mafia. The GOP-centric lobbyists and the GOP-run Congress worked hand in hand with the GOP White House on their pro-Big Business and pro-Big Government agenda. Yes, notwithstanding the decades of rightwing propaganda about the GOP advocating smaller government, the exact opposite is true. The expansion of the federal government under Bush and the GOP Congress is unprecedented, and the reason for this is simple. It’s all about money, lots of money. The bloated, porked-up, GOPmismanaged government provides countless opportunities for hungry GOP pigs to dine at the trough. The “GOP” richly deserves to be called the “Gang of Pigs.” At the same time, GOP lobbyists are as happy as pigs in mud. Their compensation has risen enormously since Bush took office, and the amount charged new clients has about doubled. Average starting salaries for Washington lobbyists have jumped to about $300,000 per year. The revolving door for government workers and elected officials has never been better “greased,” with many sought-after individuals making more than $1 million annually. What a great system! Everyone is happy, right? Well, not exactly. Middle- and low-income Americans are getting screwed. In fact, America’s bottom 99% is getting the GOP shaft. If you want to get sick and outraged about America’s tax system, then you should read, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich—and Cheat Everyone Else. The author of this popular book is David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The New York Times. If you’d like to focus on the Social Security shell game, which is the subject of this section, then you should read that book’s Chapter 8, “How Social Security Taxes Subsidize the Rich.” Here’s an expanded road map of the gutting of Social Security to date: Step 1: Congress in 1981 passed the biggest income tax cut in history, even though: (1) the federal deficit that year was $125 billion; (2) the United States had not had a balanced budget since the 1960s; and (3) the federal debt was almost $1 trillion. The Super Rich were the main beneficiaries of this Reagan tax cut—of course. The richest 1% received more than half of the estimated $1.3 trillion tax cut. The highest income tax rate was substantially reduced from the then current 70%. The now100

The GOP’s “K Street Project” takes its name from Washington’s K Street, where many lobbying firms are headquartered.


233

discredited champions of supply-side economics pushed the tax cut, although the Democrats also played a key role in the tax cutting frenzy. [Key point: The Super Rich made out like bandits.] Step 2: What happened? Well, the supply-side wizards representing the views of the Super Rich said that the lower income tax rates for the rich would cause more investment, more economic growth, and, ultimately, an increase in tax revenues and a balanced budget. Regarding their promise of increased tax revenues and a balanced budget in two or three years, they either lied or were stupid, although “they lied” is the best bet. In any case, they were fox raiding the chicken coop. In 1982 the federal deficit more than doubled from the previous year, and in 1983 it increased again, to $343 billion. Our federal government was fiscally out of control, and unemployment hit 10%. [Key point: The Super Rich were doing fine—they were getting wealthier because they were not paying their fair share of taxes.] SIDEBAR: Voodoo Economics During the 1980 presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush famously referred to the supply-side theories favored by Reagan as Voodoo Economics. David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, later blew the whistle on these theories, together with their promise of “trickledown” benefits to the middle- and lower-income classes, in his 1996 book, The Triumph of Politics, Why the Reagan Revolution Failed. Reagan, to his credit, may have initially believed the theories would work. He probably wasn’t certain, but thought they were worth trying. In any case, when he realized they didn’t work, he recognized his mistakes and tried not to repeat them, which is to his credit. However, as discussed below, George W. Bush has repackaged the failed supply-side snake oil and relentlessly pushed it. Faith-based ideology, coupled with unbridled greed, has triumphed over facts and common sense. Step 3: Things were such a mess that Reagan had to accept several tax increases. However, since Reagan politically couldn’t call them “tax increases,” he consistently referred to them as “revenue enhancements.” (The progressives in your author’s home state of North Dakota call this sort of duplicity lying, but in GOP-speak it’s called talking.) These 1982 tax hikes did not reverse any of the previous income tax cuts for the rich. Rather, various regressive excise taxes were imposed, including a nickel-a-gallon gasoline tax, which had the biggest impact on the working poor. Johnston notes that the revenue enhancements “could also have been called tax hikes on Joe Lunchpail to benefit the rich.” [Key point: The Super Rich did fine—thanks to Reagan, their income tax cuts were still in place, and they felt no pain from the recession or from the “revenue enhancements” pinned on the little people. Very key point: The tax-and-spend Republicans took a giant stride forward in achieving their principal goal: shifting as much of the tax burden as possible from the Super Rich to middle- and lower-income working Americans.]

234


Step 4: Partly to distract attention from the federal budget mess and the high unemployment rate, the Reagan administration shifted the spotlight to Social Security. A commission headed by Alan Greenspan in 1982 said that Social Security was in terrible shape, and that unless something was done, there would be a big problem in about 31 years—yes, 31 years! Democrats and Republicans then worked together to greatly increase Social Security taxes, even though many said the administration was just using scare tactics. Senator Daniel Moynihan called the increase “thievery”—the rich would be the beneficiaries of the stolen goods since they kept their Reagan income tax cuts while everyone else paid more in Social Security taxes. [Key point: The Super Rich are doing fine—you don’t need to worry about them, given that the President, Congress, and an expanded army of lobbyists and tax attorneys work for them.] Step 5: Several additional increases in Social Security taxes were imposed in the last three decades. The maximum Social Security tax was $327 per employee in 1970. By 2006 it had risen to $5,840.40. Since the employer pays the same amount on behalf of the employee, the maximum tax on the employee is really $11,680.80 per year in 2006. If your spouse works, you can double this amount to $23,361.60! The employee and the employer each pay an amount equal to 6.2% of the employee’s wages, up to a wage cap of $94,200 in 2006. For Joe Lunchpail, or any other middleor lower-income wage earner, the effective Social Security tax rate is really double the 6.2%, which is 12.4%. [Key point: The Super Rich are very happy. For someone with $1 million in annual income, the effective Social Security tax rate is about one percent, vs. the effective rate of 12.4% for Joe Lunchpail. For someone making $10 million per year, the effective tax rate is only, well, you get the idea. But keep reading. It gets much worse.] Step 6: Working Americans have been paying much more each year into Social Security than is paid out in benefits. This overtaxing started in 1983, and it was very modest then (only $4.5 billion for the year), but since then it has dramatically increased. From 1999 through 2002, the total amount of Social Security overtaxing was almost $640 billion. Between 1984 and 2002 the U.S. Government collected about $1.7 trillion more in Social Security taxes than it paid out in benefits. [Key point: This is a shill game designed to benefit the Super Rich. To see how, keep reading.] Step 7: You are probably thinking, “But wait—the government should be collecting a lot more each year in Social Security taxes than it pays out, because it has to set that money aside and have it available years later when people retire—especially with the baby boomers about to retire.” You would be entirely correct if our government was honest, but our government is not. The $1.7 trillion is Social Security overtaxing has not been set aside in any lockbox. (Remember how the rightwing and the media laughed at Al Gore for his lockbox focus during the 2000 presidential campaign. Well, he was right, and the expensive joke is on us.) The U.S. Government has spent all of the $1.7 trillion on its day-to-day operating expenses. The money has not been invested for us in stocks, bonds, real estate or anything of value other than U.S. Government IOUs. [Key point: The $1.7 trillion in extra Social Security pay-


235

ments by middle-and lower-income taxpayers was used to help reduce the large budget deficits caused by Reagan’s 1981 income tax cuts for the Super Rich. Your $1.7 trillion was used to offset the taxes no longer paid by the Super Rich. The Super Rich are doing fine.] Step 8: Our national debt grew greatly during this period (1984-2002), even though the $1.7 trillion in Social Security overpayments was used to cover day-to-day expenses of the U.S. Government. As noted above, when Reagan took office, the national debt was less than $1 trillion. Between 1983 and 2003 the national debt grew by an additional $3.6 trillion, and it would have grown by an additional $1.7 trillion (for a total increase of $5.4 trillion) if the $1.7 trillion had been put in a separate Social Security lockbox where it belonged. [Key point: The Super Rich are doing fine. Using the keys to the phantom Social Security lockbox, they took and pocketed most of the $1.7 trillion.]101 SIDEBAR: A National Lottery Creating 1,700,000 New Millionaires. $1.7 trillion is a lot of money. Note: It’s $1.7 trillion, not $1.7 billion, and not $1.7 million. In billions, it’s 1,700 billions. In millions, it’s 1,700,000 millions. So, as an alternative, if the $1.7 trillion stolen from the Social Security lockbox had instead been distributed in a super lottery with $1,000,000 prizes awarded to random middle- and lower-income taxpayers, rather than just to the Super Rich, America could have had 1,700,000 new millionaires. Well, America did conduct such a lottery, but the system was rigged to give virtually all the winning tickets just to the Super Rich—and they didn’t even have to pay taxes on their winnings. Alternatively, as David Cay Johnston notes, the $1.7 trillion was enough to double the value of all 401(k) retirement plans in the United States. Step 9: We were snookered again, this time in June 2001 by George W. Bush—just a few months after he took office following his selection by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ignoring a multitude of terrorist threats, Bush instead focused on one of his highest pet priorities—additional tax cuts for the Super Rich. He immediately accomplished this in two mighty blows for them and against everyone else. First, the most wealthy 1% of all taxpayers received the lion’s share of his fiscally irresponsible $1.3 trillion income tax cut. Second, the federal estate tax was greatly reduced over a period of several years, going to zero in 2010 (with reinstatement in 2011), which estate tax savings, contrary to rightwing propaganda, benefited only the top 2% of all estates, since 98% of all estates already were totally exempt 101

From 2004 through 2006 Bush grew the national debt by more than an additional $1+ trillion, and stole and gave to the Super Rich many hundreds of billions of dollars more from the Social Security lockbox. For the “National Lottery” example in the sidebar, however, we’ll simply stick with the lower $1.7 trillion figure, and not add hundreds of billions of dollars to it.

236


from the estate tax. By 2007, only 1 of 200 estates (one-half of 1%) paid any estate tax whatsoever. Additional rounds of humongous tax cuts for the Super Rich followed. [Key point: The Super Rich got much richer. Bush was successful in further widening the rapidly growing gap between the Super Rich and everyone else.]

SIDEBAR: Welfare for the Wealthy Bush and other Republicans lied when promoting the elimination of the federal estate tax. In particular, they painted a totally bogus picture that countless farming families had lost their farms because of the estate tax. “To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax,” lied Bush. In fact, he and his lying coconspirators greatly overstated the number of farms lost due to the estate tax. In fact, no one could identify a single farm that had been lost. There apparently were none! On the other hand, countless thousands of American families have lost their farms due to low prices for agricultural products—the result of the new religion of the extreme right: corporate agribusiness, global competition and the so-called free trade system that punishes small farmers. Many of the richest people in America opposed the elimination of the estate tax. Bill Gates, Sr. and Warren Buffet are two prominent examples. More that 120 wealthy Americans signed a statement in 2001 arguing that “repealing the estate tax would enrich the heirs of America’s millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet.” The Walton family alone would be enriched to the tune of tens of billions of dollars by the repeal. The estate tax helps promote an America meritocracy, not an aristocracy of wealth where economic and political power is passed down from generation to generation. Bush and other Republicans also lied when saying that the estate tax was unfair because assets were being taxed multiple times (say, once when you earn it, another time when you save it, and another time when you die.) To the contrary, without the estate tax, many of the largest fortunes are never taxed. For example, virtually 100% of the extended Walton family fortune of tens of billions of dollars in Wal-Mart stock has never been taxed, and under Bush’s giveaway plans there will never be any estate tax on it. The Walton family loves Bush’s tax plans, and over the years has taken extraordinary steps to avoid paying taxes. In sharp contrast to the Walton billionaires, the Bill Gates family realizes the unfairness of all this, and along with many other thousands of very rich Americans, including Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker and George Soros, oppose the elimination of the federal estate tax. “Without an estate tax, these rich men believe, America will have a growing concentration of power, not in the hands of the industrious or even the merely lucky, but in the hands of people whose only smart economic decisions were picking their parents and staying in their good graces,” notes David Cay Johnson.


237

These enlightened wealthy people believe a person’s success should be based on merit and less on hereditary. Among the many other reasons why they oppose Bush’s estate tax madness is that the elimination of the estate tax would hurt countless charities because it would reduce the tax incentive to make charitable gifts. Step 10: This is really part of Step 9 and involves a campaign of lies. How could American voters be so dumb as to allow another Republican president to raid Social Security for the benefit of the Super Rich? Well, Bush and the GOP lied to America. During the 2000 presidential campaign, some voters were smart enough to at least ask about the impact of the proposed huge income tax cut on Social Security. Bush promised many times during the campaign that he would not touch Social Security money and that at least $2 trillion of the expected federal surplus (created under Bill Clinton’s watch) would be locked up safely for Social Security. Bush said, “For years, politicians in both parties have dipped into the [Social Security] Trust Fund to pay for more spending. And I will stop it.” Bush lied. He repeated those promises after his inauguration. Bush lied again. By the time the tax cut legislation passed in June 2001, several newspapers including The Wall Street Journal had already reported that Bush really intended to pick the Social Security lockbox. [Key point: The ends—more humongous tax cuts for the Super Rich—justify the means—lies by Bush.]

SIDEBAR: Paul O’Neill: “We’d all be in jail” Bush’s handpicked former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill, was extremely critical of the way Social Security is managed. Speaking to a group of investment managers just days after Bush’s tax cuts were passed in June 2001, O’Neill said that if he and his fellow executives had managed their corporate pension funds the way the U.S. Government managed Social Security, “we’d all be in jail.” O’Neill, a truth teller who previously was chairman and CEO of Alcoa, said, “we would not be permitted to have pension-fund obligations without assets behind them.” He went on, “I come to you as managing trustee of Social Security. … Today we have no assets in the trust fund. We have promises of the good faith and credit of the United States government that benefits will flow.” Step 11: This is another snookering of the Social Security system and all middleand lower-income taxpayers (like Step 9 above.) Following the 2002 midterm elections, Bush took the opportunity to further line the pockets of the Super Rich by imposing another supply-side tax cut on an already Bush-damaged economy. More than two-thirds of this $350 billion income tax cut goes to the top 10% of taxpayers. This further crippled the ability of the U.S. government to set aside funds for Social Security. [Key point: The Super Rich are happy. Bush and the Republican-controlled

238


Congress further lined their pockets, and, in any case, the Super Rich don’t need Social Security benefits.] SIDEBAR: The Greenspan Flip Flop Regarding the interplay between Bush’s record budget deficits and the future of Social Security, flip-flopper Alan Greenspan bowed to rightwing political demands that there not be any tax increases for the Super Rich (or any cancellation of the large tax cuts previously given them by Bush.) In testimony before the House Budget Committee on February 25, 2004, Greenspan urged Congress instead to cut Social Security benefits for future retirees. He later repeatedly made this plea. The main cause of the massive record budget deficits is the tax cuts for the Super Rich, but Greenspan wanted to protect the Super Rich, while scalping middle- and lower-income retirees. However, in 2001 Greenspan had assured Congress that the Bush tax cuts would not jeopardize Social Security benefits. Incredibly, this flip-flopping shill later advocated that the tax breaks for the Super Rich be made permanent.

Step 12: Assess your level of outrage. If you are a middle- or lower-income worker (say, anyone but the top 2%) and are retired, or will be retired soon, you should be outraged at what Bush and the GOP are doing to Social Security and your financial future. If you are a young middle- or lower-income worker not close to retirement, you should be incredibly, incredibly outraged: 1) Guess who is now paying for all the Social Security benefits that are currently being paid out each year to the people already retired; 2) Guess who is effectively pocketing the Social Security “overpayment” that you make each pay period (hint: it’s not you, and none of your dollars are going into any Social Security lockbox); 3) Guess who will pay for all Social Security benefits for those people who retire in the coming years, including the baby boomers; 4) Guess who should plan on funding his or her own retirement. [Key point: You’ve been screwed, and you should be mad.] Step 13: (making it a baker’s dozen): For simplicity, in the above saga of misdeeds we focused on the interplay between the tax cuts for the Super Rich and the gutting of Social Security. There is also interplay—disastrous interplay—between the tax cuts for the Super Rich and: (1) Medicare, (2) Medicaid, and (3) our exploding national debt. We’ll cover these topics later in this chapter. If you are not a member of the Super Rich—or if you are a member of the Super Rich who cares about fairness and the future of America—then you should be alarmed by the GOP policies of the Bush administration. [Key point: The screwing is continuing, and you should be very mad.]


239

SIDEBAR: Bush’s Base In October 2000, while wearing a tuxedo and apparently joking to an affluent crowd, Bush declared, “This is an impressive crowd: the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.” [Laughter] Another disadvantage of Social Security taxes is that they are a form of double taxation. The wages of Joe and Judy Lunchpail are subject to income taxes, and the same wages (up to $97,500 in 2007) are also subject to Social Security taxes. (The Super Rich thus pay this double tax only on a small portion of their income—the first $97,500 in 2007—which is another nice tax break for them.) In general, middle- and lower-income working Americans are being double and triple taxed, but the Super Rich are frequently being single taxed, or half-taxed, or no-taxed. Capital gains, for example, which are at lower rates, disproportionately benefit the Super Rich, for whom they are designed. Republicans want work income to be taxed at a higher rate than idle income. In fact, many Republicans want their idle income completely exempt from income tax! Also, Republicans have successfully shifted much of the tax burden from the income tax to other forms of taxes (sales tax, gasoline tax, various license and use charges, and so forth, in addition to the Social Security and Medicare taxes discussed above) that are regressive and thus fall most heavily on middle- and low-income Americans. For example, a wealthy person making a million dollars a year could not smoke enough cigarettes, use enough gasoline, or take his family to enough parks, to make those taxes and charges constitute more than a drop in the bucket compared to his income. That, of course, is precisely the goal of Bush’s “of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich” policies. In addition, higher usage fees—say, for America’s national parks—help keep the riff raff out. For years many conservative Republicans had their sights set on destroying Social Security and Medicare, which they see as socialistic. Yes, Social Security is socialistic, and that’s good. Both working and retired Americans strongly support and need this valuable liberal, progressive program. Americans who count on, or expect to count on, Social Security benefits in their retirement, as well as Americans who have family members in that position, would be off their rockers to vote for the GOP, aka the Cons, aka the Republican’t Party. One strategy of rightwing conservatives in the GOP is to “starve the beast,” which means cutting taxes so much for the Super Rich that programs such as Social Security can no longer be afforded and will have to be cut or eliminated. The strategy also involves making life so painful for middle- and lower-income workers that they will become predisposed to gutting government. Unfortunately, with Bush at the financial helm, the “starve the beast” strategy is no longer mere rhetoric. It is being achieved in an exceptionally aggressive and deceitful manner. Kiss Social Security and America goodbye.

240


One of the leading Republican architects of the strategy to kill off the U.S. government is Grover Norquist, who in 1994 helped Newt Gingrich draft the Contract with America, better known as the Contract on America. In a May 25, 2001, interview with Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Norquist said, “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” Incredibly, Bush and his party, the Cons, have taken the “starve the beast” strategy to new previously unimaginable levels of madness. Bush has not only greatly increased the size of government (versus shrinking it to a size where it can be drowned,) but he also has run massive budget deficits in order to give tax cuts to the Super Rich. The resulting huge deficits previously could not have been imagined by even the most looney Norquist supporters, who undoubtedly believed, “No Republican would do that.” But the Republican Party did do that. Thanks to Bush, America is on the road to bankruptcy and financial Armageddon—the GOP Great Depression II—with America’s power and financial future increasingly in the hands of foreign bankers, including de facto enemies of America and governments that support terrorism. The GOP is willing to kill America in order to kill Social Security, which will be just one minor victim on the GOP road to Armageddon. The GOP’s massive tax cuts for the Super Rich created the massive budget deficits, which in turn are being cited to justify cuts in Social Security benefits. Unless America really wakes up, the Cons will get away with this. Greenspan argued for such cuts in Social Security, even though Social Security now takes in much more each year than it spends (which is due mainly to huge increases in Social Security taxes paid by working Americans and the fact that the baby boomers have not yet started to retire.) Thanks to tax cuts for the Super Rich, federal revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) declined by 5.2 percentage points (a 25% decline) from 2000 to 2004. This decline exceeded the entire budget deficit by 45% for that year. Federal individual income tax collections equaled 6.7% of GDP in 2004, having peaked at 10.2% in 2000. This is a decline of 3.5 percentage points (or 65%) in four years, and is just slightly less than the entire federal budget deficit ($413 billion) for that year (2004.) Because this financial stuff is very complex, it is perfect clay for lying rightwing politicians who know they cannot sell their snake oil if they tell the truth. Here in a nutshell is their three-step Dance of Duplicity: 1) they raise regressive taxes (including Social Security taxes) on middle- and lower-income American workers; 2) they give massive tax cuts to the Super Rich; and, surprise, 3) they reduce or eliminate benefits for workers and retirees. If you make less than $300,000 per year, the joke is on you.


241

SIDEBAR: Death Taxes Karl Rove and other Republican liars are adept at coming up with bumper sticker slogans to market their deadly snake oil. One example is the deceptive term “death tax,” which they couple with other lies to hide the truth that 98% of all estates paid no federal estate tax, and that 99%+ of all estates would have paid zero if reasonable exemption increases proposed by Democrats had been approved, rather than the actual looting by Bush which gives hundreds of billions in tax breaks to humongous estates that now will pay zero taxes. Duplicitous slogans unfortunately work, especially against working Americans who work such long hours that they don’t have time to pay attention. For example, when taxpayers are asked if they are for or against “death taxes,” a huge majority answers “against.” (Of course! Being against death is like being against disease.) However, when these same taxpayers are given the essential facts—for example, that only 2% of Americans who died had an estate big enough to result in any taxes under the prior law—then by a wide margin they do not want to eliminate the estate tax. Yes, this tax stuff is complicated and difficult to understand, which works to the advantage of the Republican liars. “The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” —Attributed to Albert Einstein. So don’t feel too bad or alone if you don’t understand all the issues. However, unless you are Super Rich or have your own tax lobbyist in Washington, D.C., you are getting screwed by those who do. Thus, it may be worth some of your time to get involved and let your voice be heard. Never giving up on their goal of eliminating Social Security, rightwing extremists can be expected to push forward on privatization, which means the creation of new personal retirement accounts. In practice, this will prove to be another tax dodge for the wealthiest in America, who will receive the lion’s share of the tax benefits. GOP-friendly Wall Street conservatives also love this idea, as it presents an opportunity for fat cat investment bankers and brokers to make hundreds of millions of dollars in additional fees, while greatly increasing the cost of running Social Security. It will also undermine Social Security financing. Consider also what would have happened to the value of your private Social Security account during the recent stock market downturn if this scheme had been in place. Fortunately, the American people, including not only Democrats but also a significant percentage of Judy and Joe Lunchpail Republicans, have slowly been awakening to the fact that Bush and the Cons are pushing fiscal schemes from Hell. The GOP-run Congress got away with its milking and destruction of America because too many voters were not paying attention. The voters’ swallowing of the GOP’s “deficits don’t matter” mantra is adequate proof of that. There are countless examples of voters not paying enough attention. One of the most costly examples is the deregulation of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s and the result-

242


ing collapse of most of America’s S&Ls, which cost American taxpayers more that 1,000 billion dollars. (Imagine a pile of one million dollars, and then imagine one million such piles.) Not really understanding the complexities, Americans snoozed, and members of Congress were astounded and relieved that they received passes for the deregulation mess they caused, with not a single member of Congress losing his job, going to jail, or even being taken to the woodshed. Another expensive example is the deregulation of the electric power industry in recent years, which cost consumers countless billions of dollars in inflated electricity charges. In this case, Bush-friendly looters including Enron gamed the system and made out like the bandits they were. Once again, the GOP-controlled Congress, as well as American voters, handed out too many passes to the GOP’s fat cat corporate base. The gutting of Social Security—called privatization by the Bush League looters—will have even more disastrous consequences. American workers and retirees should remember that in the GOP dictionary, “privatization” means “pirate-ization.” American workers and retirees should also heed Bush’s own words, “fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.” Thanks to God and Franklin Roosevelt, the safety net of Social Security is in place. If it did not exist, the Banana Republicans would oppose its creation, just as they did during the GOP Great Depression of the 1930s. Unfortunately, thanks to the Devil, the GOP aims to destroy the safely net by replacing Social Security with “broker security” and “social insecurity,” while opening the door to fraud. Bush spent the first year of his second term traveling across America unsuccessfully trying to sell the GOP’s Social Security schemes to America’s voters. The time he wasted would have been better spent on planning an exit strategy for Iraq, something he refuses to think about. SIDEBAR: Strengthening Social Security The best way to strengthen Social Security is to eliminate the cap on income subject to Social Security tax ($97,500 in 2007), without changing the payments to retirees. This cap elimination also has the advantage of ameliorating a major Social Security negative that operates to the disadvantage of low- and middle-income workers and to the advantage of the rich, namely that the current tax is very regressive. For example, a low-income worker making only $10,000 per year pays 6.2% of that in Social Security tax (12.4% if we include the employer matching amount), while a Bush fat cat making $1,000,000 per year pays less than 0.6% (less than 1.2% if we include the employer match.)

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) This public entity exists to protect retirees by guaranteeing the pension obligations of certain defined benefit pension plans, although the monthly payments per retiree are capped. The PBGC exists as a safety net for employees and retirees in the event a


243

covered plan fails or is in danger of failing, which happens when corporations fail to set aside enough funds each year to cover the retirement benefits that they have agreed to pay. Unfortunately, senior executives of many large corporations use such underfunding of pension obligations as a creative accounting tool to pump up corporate profits and thus their own incentive compensation. In the process they stiff their employees and retirees, as well as American taxpayers who may later get stuck with a huge bill. Corporations with covered plans pay insurance to the PBGC, which hires money managers and consultants to prudently invest the money. All parties have a legal fiduciary duty to act on behalf of employees covered by the plans, but there is inadequate review and auditing by the federal government, since corporations, money managers and other consultants do not want such oversight. In 2001 the PBGC had a surplus of more than $7 billion, but by 2005 the PBGC had a deficit of $23 billion, due to a huge number of corporations walking away from their pension obligations. Their behavior was definitely Bush League.

Medicare and Medicaid Medicare is a nationwide, federally administered health insurance program that covers the costs of certain medical care and hospitalization services for seniors over age 65 and certain other eligible individuals. President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law in 1965, and most Americans over 65 are covered by it. Medicaid is a nationwide program sponsored by the federal government and operated by the individual states that provides health care services to certain lowincome individuals. Within broad federal guidelines, the individual states decide who is eligible, the services covered, the pay rates for providers, and so forth. The program varies from state to state and does not provide services to all low-income people. As discussed previously in this chapter, Bush’s massive tax cuts for the Super Rich have jeopardized both Medicare and Medicaid. Under Bush’s expanded version of Reagan’s Voodoo Economics, the amounts deducted from your paycheck for Medicare are not being set aside in any lockbox to be available when needed. Rather, 100% of the amount you pay each pay period (1.45% of all your wages, without limit, in 2006) is used to pay the current operating expenses of the U.S. government, and, of course, to fund the GOP’s massive ongoing tax cuts for the Super Rich. Republicans pump out much propaganda to encourage Americans to believe that almost all of the federal government “free benefits” go to lazy, shiftless people who can work but simply choose not to (a description, by the way, that applies better to the inherited-wealth aristocrats who don’t need to work, and will never need one cent of benefits from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like.) All sorts of programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, get lumped together in the rightwing propaganda, and the federal government is incorrectly painted as bloated with high administrative costs. Out of necessity and greed, Republicans resort to such lies in order to sell their bogus policy of cannibalizing America’s social safety net for middle- and low-income Americans in order to fund Bush’s massive tax cuts for the Super Rich.

244


Extreme rightwing GOP Neanderthals would completely eliminate all these programs if they could. How about the GOP Congress? Although it did strive to screw middle-and lowincome Americans whenever it could by cutting benefits, its primary mission was to manipulate these programs to create a massive welfare system for large corporations and the wealthy. We will discuss this further below. Regarding Medicaid, columnist Bob Herbert in a June 11, 2004, opinion in The New York Times provides a good example of Republicans at work at the state level. In May 2004 Mississippi “approved the deepest cut in Medicaid eligibility for senior citizens and the disabled that has ever been approved anywhere in the US.” When he signed the rollback legislation, Mississippi’s governor Haley Barbour—a former chairman of the national Republican Party—complained about taxpayers having to “pay for free health care for people who can work and take care of themselves and just choose not to.” The truth is that the new law, in addition to other cuts, ends Medicaid eligibility for 65,000 low-income seniors and people with severe disabilities, including, for example, “a 36-year-old mother of three who was left a quadriplegic after a car accident.” The “stunning rollback of services in Mississippi’s Medicaid program” was initiated by the Republican-controlled state senate. According to Herbert, “If you want to see ‘compassionate’ conservatism in action, take a look at Mississippi, a state that is solidly in the red category (strong for Bush) and committed to its long tradition of keeping the poor and the unfortunate in as ragged and miserable a condition as possible.” Hurricane Katrina and a GOP-run FEMA provided another more recent example of “compassionate” conservatism and incompetence at work. Even organizations officially classified as terrorist organizations by the United States, such as Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, provide emergency assistance faster and better than the Bush League FEMA, and that’s just one reason why they, and not Bush, are winning the hearts and minds of Muslims. The Bush administration pushes Medicare policies that favor its base of wealthy contributors and large corporations over everyone else. The main thrust of Bush’s 2004 massively expensive Medicare legislation—the largest expansion ever—was to reward pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and other large corporations, all at the expense of middle- and lower-income working Americans. Because it is impossible for the Bush regime to sell its Medicare policies to Congress and the American people based on the merits, it resorts to lies, distortion and anti-democratic tactics. The Bush regime’s pattern of duplicity is illustrated in the Medicare legislation it pushed through Congress in 2004. Among the abuses: • The Bush team lied to Congress about the expected cost of the proposed legislation. Knowing Congress wouldn’t approve a bill costing more than $400 billion, the Bush team lied, saying it would cost only $400 billion, and withheld much higher official cost estimates. Specifically, Medicare’s Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, said the Bush administration threatened to fire him if he disclosed to Congress cost estimates showing the legislation would be about one-third higher than the $400 billion. In hiding the relevant information from Congress, the Bush regime even lied to the members of its


•

•

•

•

•

245

own party, and it later blocked an effective independent investigation of the fraud. Republican House leaders including Tom DeLay apparently even tried to bribe a GOP House member to get him to vote for the legislation. Following the longest roll call in the history of the House, the legislation passed by a few votes shortly before dawn. In a break from House procedures, the voting was kept open so that dissident House members could be coerced and bribed. Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) told a radio station that GOP colleagues had offered a $100,000 campaign contribution for Smith’s son (who was running to replace his father, who was retiring) if he voted for the Medicare bill. The House ethics panel later played patty cake with the crook DeLay as it did a milquetoast investigation of the bribery and coercion charges. Smith did not run for reelection in 2004. In May 2004 the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is the investigative arm of Congress, determined that the Bush administration (through its Department of Health and Human Services) violated two federal laws in the way it conducted its publicity campaign promoting the new Medicare changes. In hyping the legislation, the Bush team illegally spent taxpayer money to produce phony videos that were made to resemble news reports. The “announcers” in the videos were not real reporters, and they were paid with taxpayer money. At the end of the English version of the socalled “story package,” a woman says, “In Washington, I’m Karen Ryan reporting.” At the end of the Spanish version, a male “announcer” says in Spanish, “In Washington, I’m Alberto Garcia reporting.” The GAO’s legal opinion stated that the deceptive videos: (1) violated a statute prohibiting the use of federal funds for covert propaganda, and (2) violated the federal Antideficiency Act, which applies to the unauthorized use of federal funds. As for the substance of the legislation, this incredibly expensive legislation was a sellout by the Bush administration to pharmaceutical companies and the managed care industry (HMOs, etc.), which contribute enormous sums to Republican coffers. During the drafting, debate and passage of this Big Pharma welfare legislation, the pharmaceutical industry had an army of more than 700 paid lobbyists in Washington working hand in hand with Bush and the GOP Cons to screw America. GOP Congressman Billy Tauzin, who played a key role in shepherding Big Pharma’s Medicare legislation through Congress, became the head of Big Pharma’s most powerful trade group on January 3, 2005, the same day he left Congress, and received an annual compensation package valued at $2.5 million. One of the most outrageous provisions of the Medicare bill prohibits the U.S. government from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare’s 41,000,000 beneficiaries. Stunningly unbelievable—this massive pricefixing is so corrupt and anti-American that it is difficult to comment upon. So let’s simply repeat what the Bush legislation does: It prohibits the U.S. government from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare’s 41,000,000 beneficiaries!


246

SIDEBAR: Price Fixing and Welfare for Big Pharma Yes, this Republican corruption and sellout—this corporate welfare for the pharmaceutical industry—actually prohibits the U.S. government from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare’s 41,000,000 beneficiaries! Medicare, probably the single largest purchaser of drugs, is thus not able to negotiate volume discounts or any other price discounts. Price negotiation used to be part of the free enterprise system in America, and anyone selling to the federal government would have expected price negotiations during the procurement process. Of course. However, the Republican Party has carved out an un-American exception for Big Pharma, and all Medicare recipients and American taxpayers are getting screwed. The cost will be enormous—countless tens of billions of dollars. America already pays much more per prescription than any other industrialized country in the world. Prescription drugs purchased in the United States totaled about $184 billion in 2003, which was 13% higher than the previous year. Annual price increases typically greatly exceed the rate of inflation, with double-digit increases being common. In sharp contrast, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides an excellent model for the purchase of drugs by the United States government. Thanks to a 1992 law, the VA for over a decade has been negotiating the prices of drugs it buys for millions of American veterans. According to a 2001 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of a list of 24 drugs, the VA paid 52% less, on average, than did Medicare! It is truly amazing how rightwing Republicans—most of whom claim to be Christians—have no problem with enormous amounts of corporate welfare, say $10 billion or $100 billion, being handed out like pieces of candy to the pharmaceutical industry, while at the same time, if a disabled black woman in Mississippi gets $100 more in some form of “welfare,” they go ballistic, believing that to be the end of the civilized world. • •

•

The bill also provides for massive payments, billions of dollars, to large corporations that already provide drug benefits to their retirees. These corporations did not even request this pork. Drug and insurance companies spent $140 million lobbying Republican Congressmen on the Medicare drug benefit. They are the big winners in the GOP giveaway, and America’s seniors are the losers, as are future generations of Americans who will have to foot the bill for the GOP’s fiscal madness and thievery. The bewildering Medicare D Prescription Drug Plan dumped on America’s seniors in 2005 appears intended to confuse and “torture” them, while pumping huge profits to dozens of GOP corporate donors and creating a wonderful environment for scams. The pro-Big Pharma, anti-seniors hodgepodge plan is yet another example of the GOP’s duplicity and incom-


•

247

petence. Any middle- or low-income senior who votes for the Cons might just as well pray for cancer. The Republican welfare legislation for Big Pharma also prohibits the purchase and reimportation of lower-priced prescription drugs from Canada— drugs that were manufactured in the United States. This is another Bush poke-in-the-eye for American consumers, especially the elderly who need more prescriptions, and it is designed to reward Bush’s donor base. See the following sidebar for how some states are responding.

SIDEBAR: Reimportation of Drugs from Canada Prescription drugs in America have become so unaffordable for many middle- and lower-income consumers, especially seniors who require more drugs, that many consumers are trying to buy their drugs from Canada via the Internet, notwithstanding an FDA prohibition on reimportation of drugs manufactured in the United States. Consumers should demand answers from their congressmen to a broader question: How can prescription drugs that are manufactured in the United States and then shipped to Canada be so much cheaper than the same drugs sold in the United States? The shipping to and from Canada, together with the costs and profits of the additional middlemen, should make it more expensive for Americans to buy these drugs from Canada. Yet the drugs purchased from Canada and shipped back to the United States are frequently 50% less expensive than the same drugs purchased in the United States. Several states tried to take action to allow their citizens to purchase FDAapproved drugs from Canada and elsewhere and have them shipped (“reimported”) to the United States. These states include Minnesota, Wisconsin, California, North Dakota, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine and New Hampshire. In February 2005 a group of senators led by Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced S. 334, which would allow Americans to purchase FDA-approved medications from other countries, prevent drug companies from interfering with these purchases, and ensure drug safety. The co-sponsors of this Senate bill included 21 Democrats and 7 Republicans. The reimportation of FDA-approved drugs has broad bipartisan support among the American people. However, the Big Pharma-friendly Bush administration and the GOP congressional leadership opposed these efforts, favoring price fixing over the free market. Even the so-called “free trade” agreement with Australia, which became effective January 1, 2005, prohibits the reimportation of drugs from that country. Of course, Big Pharma has given enormous sums of money, as well as countless junkets and other perks, to GOP candidates.


248

The pharmaceutical industry is attacking these efforts in numerous ways, including lobbying Congress and the FDA to stop the reimportation of drugs, restricting drug sales to Canadian pharmacies, and suing Canadian companies. Also, the industry claims there are consumer safety issues, which is a disingenuous argument since Canadian pharmacies work under drug quality and safety control laws similar to those in the United States. Also, the drugs in question are manufactured in the United States. •

Many traditional Republicans, even rightwing Republicans, feel betrayed by Bush and the modern GOP, the Cons. These include Bruce Bartlett, former member of the Reagan White House and author of the 2006 book, Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Regarding Medicare, the traditional GOP perspective was that Medicare was too big and too expensive, and needed reform. But the GOP, with control of all branches of the federal government, didn’t reform or improve anything. The Cons added about $18 trillion in new benefits and greatly increased Medicare’s unfunded liabilities, while making Medicare operations less efficient. Traditional Republicans once again were betrayed by their own party. The pork barrel Medicare legislation pushed through by the Republican Party— the Cons—has numerous other major problems that are beyond the scope of this book. It is worth noting, however, that the largest organization representing retired Americans—the supposedly “nonprofit” AARP—was an accomplice of Big Pharma and rightwing Republicans during the legislative process (although the AARP later regretted its actions.) See the following sidebar. SIDEBAR: AARP Sellout Millions of members of AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) were outraged by AARP’s role in the passage of the pork barrel Medicare legislation pushed through by the Republican Party. The central problem is that AARP has many conflicts of interests that adversely affect its representation, or pretended representation, of 35 million retired Americans. The conflicts would not exist if AARP’s only source of revenue were its membership dues. Unfortunately, AARP receives much more revenue from other sources than from membership dues. These other revenues include royalties for insurance that is marketed under the AARP name, payments from the sale of its membership lists to insurance companies, and millions in advertising revenue from drug and insurance companies that advertise in AARP’s magazine. AARP also stood to gain much from the Medicare legislation, especially in the sale of so-called Medigap insurance, which pays costs not covered by Medicare. Greed triumphed over the best interests of AARP members.


249

AARP later expressed regret for its actions. Nevertheless, AARP members should consider leaving AARP and joining or creating a membership organization that truly represents them, an organization without inherent conflicts of interest, an organization with the backbone to stand up to GOP politicians. Although consumers should continue fighting for the right to buy drugs outside the United States, this should be viewed as a short-term fix. A better solution is to make sure that drug prices in the United States are fair, and that pharmaceutical companies cannot sell drugs in the United States at prices higher than what they charge outside the United States. In addition, drug costs are only a small portion of the total cost of health care. More urgently needed is political action by millions of average consumers to help reform the entire health care industry. This industry is dominated by huge corporations and other for-profit entities that use an army of lobbyists and lots of campaign cash to kill unfriendly legislation and push their preferred legislation through a forsale Congress. Especially pliable is the Republican right that is heavily biased by its “of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich” DNA. Most industry legislation slides through without notice, but on rare occasions American voters learn about something that is so outrageous that they decide to get involved. This happened with drug prices and reimportation, but the wave of protest was still not strong enough to cause change. Time will tell whether consumers have enough staying power to eventually reform and fix the system.

Health Care and Health Insurance The number of Americans with no health insurance has risen steadily and relentlessly during every year of Bush’s and the GOP’s war on middle- and lower-income Americans. The number of uninsured Americans rose to 47.0 million in 2006, an increase of 7.2 million over the 39.8 million uninsured in 2001. The percentage of Americans uncovered also grew every year during Bush’s reign—from 14.1% in 2001 to 15.8% in 2006. During the same five-year period—2001 to 2006—the percentage of Americans covered by employer-based insurance plans dropped steadily every year, from 63.2% in 2001 to 59.7% in 2006. Most of those still receiving benefits were forced to shoulder an increasing portion of the load, thanks to benefit cuts and higher co-pays and deductibles. Millions of Americans with employer plans now pay more money for less coverage. The United States is the only nation among the top 25 industrialized nations that does not provide health coverage for all its citizens. At the same time, America spends much more per capita on health care costs, almost 2.4 times the average of other industrialized nations ($5,267 per capita annually, versus $2,193.) Although paying much more, Americans get much less than their foreign counterparts and are unhappier with their system. Compared to the Western average, Americans go to the doctor and the hospital less frequently, and have a shorter life expectancy. The same

250


immoral story applies to America’s children, who have lower vaccination rates and higher infant-mortality rates. The privately run and milked U.S. health care system is incredibly inefficient, heavily burdened with paperwork and confusing procedures, and structured to provide maximum returns for shareholders and wealthy industry executives who are not caregivers (doctors, nurses and so forth.) America’s private system is far too decentralized, has too many layers of administration and paperwork, and is operated in large part so as to deny and delay coverage, thereby increasing profits, while passing around like “hot potatoes” those individuals most needing medical care. As a result, America spends more than $1,000 annually per capita—almost $400 billion annually—on administration and paperwork, while Canada, for example, spends less than one-third this amount on a per capita basis. Why is America’s health care system so wasteful? It is wasteful precisely because it is private. It is a private con game run by and for huge corporate interests, which—in a surprising coincidence—lavishly donate principally to the GOP. For these corporate con artists, “primary care” and “compassionate care” refer not to human patients, but to the con artists themselves and to their incestuous crony relationship with America’s for-sale government. The health insurance companies and other large corporate interests that are at the heart of America’s health care system do not actually provide health care. In fact, they make more profit when they deny health care to patients. Rather than providing health care, America’s private health insurance companies spend billions each year on advertising and gaming the system for their own advantage. Their key “added value” is to create bureaucratic red tape and other obstacles for patients and the actual caregivers—doctors, nurses and other staff—who are forced to waste enormous time and money coping with the bureaucratic obstacles and the paperwork of hundreds of different billing and reimbursement systems. Along the way, health insurance companies have enjoyed record profits, and their CEOs and other senior executives pocket exorbitant compensation. According to Forbes magazine, William McGuire, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, received compensation totaling $124.8 million in 2005. UnitedHealth is the nation’s leading insurer, and McGuire was number three on Forbes’ list of highest-paid CEOs. Critics noted that his compensation of $124.8 million in 2005 could cover the average health insurance premiums of more than 33,000 Americans. Incidentally, McGuire retired under pressure in October 2006 due to a pay and stock options scandal affecting UnitedHealth and dozens of other large U.S. companies. An investigation determined that McGuire’s options to purchase 1.5 million shares had probably been “backdated” to increase their value. His stock option package has been reported to be worth $1.6 billion (imagine 1,600 piles of $1 million each.) This is literally many thousands of times what is paid to the most highly compensated executive in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which is run much more efficiently and fairly than America’s private health care system. The additional reported amount of $1.6 billion in stock options for McGuire could have paid the health insurance premiums for an entire year for 422,400 Americans, or it could have paid for health insurance for all uninsured Americans in several of America’s least populous states.


251

The large majority (74%) of those without insurance coverage are in working families. There are more than 8.5 million American children (more than 11% of America’s children) without coverage, and 65% of those are in families where one parent works full time. Hispanics are least likely to have health insurance. During the three-year period from 2002 to 2004, an average of more than 32% of Hispanics were not covered. Young adults in America constitute the age group least likely to have health insurance. As of 2004, more than 31% of young adults (18-24 years old) were not covered. The percentage of middle-class workers without insurance coverage has risen enormously. Among American workers ages 25-34 who earn the median income or more, the uninsured rate is 26%, double what it was in 1979. As for middle-income workers ages 35-44 earning at least the median income, the rate almost doubled, standing at 19%. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in America is unpaid health care bills. Health insurance premiums for businesses, especially small businesses, have risen enormously, to the disadvantage of both small employers and their employees. In the five-year period ending in 2004, annual inflation averaged 2.5% while health insurance premiums for small businesses jumped about 15% annually. American workers planning to retire in the next several years are likely to be severely affected by a disturbing trend regarding health care benefits for retirees. A study released in January 2004 showed that in 2003 alone 10% of larger U.S. companies (those with 1,000 or more employees) eliminated health care benefits for future retirees. An additional 20% of the large companies surveyed said they were likely to eliminate such benefits within four years. The health care delivery system in America has not been designed for the bottom 95% of America’s patients and is desperately in need of overhaul. Although the purpose of this book is not to propose a solution to America’s health care crisis, one fact is clear—the leadership of the Republican Party wants tens of millions of Americans to be without health coverage, and it works relentlessly and successfully to increase that number every day. Although one reason for the GOP’s opposition to universal coverage is legitimate ideology relating to goals such as self reliance, the main reason for the opposition is that scores of huge corporations—which contribute to both major parties but predominantly to the GOP— stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars annually if the inefficiencies, political influence peddling, and public trough opportunities—including “perfectly legal” price fixing—are eliminated. Even though America’s health care system needs major surgery, it is the kiss of death for any political leader to push reform because the corporate and political forces on the right have demonstrated their ability to kill the messenger and sidetrack any serious policy debate on the merits. A second central fact is that America can and must massively improve its health care system. Studies indicate that more than $250 billion annually could be saved in reduced paperwork alone under a system of national health care financed by the federal government, in place of the current one run by private insurance companies.

252


Americans need health care—not health insurance companies. One excellent solution is universal coverage with a single payer, based on individual choice and modeled after America’s efficient public Medicare system—just eliminate Medicare’s age requirement and give each American the right to choose Medicare or not. In any case, it is criminal for Congress and the American people not to have this debate. One feature deserving more consideration is a value-added tax (VAT) to provide partial funding for universal health coverage. Although a VAT tends to be regressive, it would significantly reduce the competitive disadvantage faced by U.S. businesses that now pay employee health coverage costs when their foreign competitors do not. Another advantage is that everyone would pay into the system as they purchase American goods and services. This would include millions of illegal aliens, as well as foreigners legally visiting the United States—just as Americans visiting Europe help pay for European health care costs when they pay a VAT in Europe.

Slamming Education—Leave No Rich Child Behind SIDEBAR: Bush Discusses Children and Learning “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?” —George W. Bush, Jan. 11, 2000. In his proposed budget for 2005, which is typical of all his budgets, Bush wanted to kill 65 federal programs, more than half of which relate to education. The total projected savings from killing the 65 programs was under $5 billion, a significant sum but only one percent of the projected budget deficit, and about equal to what the United States spends in Iraq in only two weeks. The cuts, which would affect many children, are microscopic when compared to the GOP’s tax cuts for the Super Rich. Bush’s real education motto is “No Rich Child Left Behind.” Because this motto has always worked well for Bush and other members of his family, he must think it makes sense as an educational policy for all. SIDEBAR: Bush Discusses Children and Illiteracy “[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling.” —George W. Bush, Jan. 23, 2004. In February 2004 the Utah House of Representatives, which is dominated by Republicans, defiantly expressed its frustration with the No Child Left Behind federal education program by voting to prohibit Utah’s education authorities from using any


253

local money to comply with the federal law. The Utah lawmakers said the federal legislation invades the state’s right to run its own education programs, and costs a lot more money than the federal government provides. The Bush administration has become increasingly more intrusive in dictating costly requirements to state and local governments without adequately funding the associated costs. SIDEBAR: Bush Discusses Childrens and Learning “[C]hildrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.” —George W. Bush, Sept. 26, 2007. Many other states have voiced similar objections. In January 2004 the GOPcontrolled Virginia House of Delegates adopted a resolution, 98 to 1, to ask Congress to exempt Virginia from the federal law. The resolution said No Child Left Behind presented the “most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States.” The chairman of Virginia’s House Education Committee said the law was “utopian nonsense.” The 700-page federal law has strong bipartisan opposition and is unpopular among both local educators and voters. During Bush’s tenure, the cost of attending college greatly outpaced the rate of inflation. Nevertheless, Bush in his 2005 budget proposed cutting federal assistance for needy college students by $550 million, and he also jacked up the interest rates paid by college students on their loans. Our “education” president is certainly “schooling” young Americans and their families in the realities of rightwing politics.

Bush League Unemployment—in Iraq and America A major contributing factor to the failure in Iraq was the inability of the Bush administration to create jobs in Iraq following the initial military successes. America’s troops did their job superbly, but their civilian commander in chief was AWOL— again. The most casual observer would have known that Iraqis, like Americans, need and want jobs in order to support their families. America had a tremendous unprecedented opportunity to show Iraqis and the world that freedom and progressive capitalism could improve their lives. Unfortunately, Bush and his neocons—without an ounce of working class DNA among them—made the decisions. With neither a plan nor the desire to help the Iraqi masses, they focused instead on making Iraq profitable for American contractors, a dubious mission at best, which they botched with tragic consequences. Their misguided malignant focus cost the support and goodwill of the Iraqi people, and, ironically, in the process Iraq became much more dangerous for American contractors. The Bush regime has little empathy for people who must work to survive. Bush personally has more in common with Saudi princes and the world’s Super Rich than he does with America’s working class.

254


Consider Bush’s “plan” regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi military and police forces living and working in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Here, in effect, are Bush’s communications to the Iraqi armed forces: 1) “Trust me and America. We are on your side against Saddam. Please do not resist our invasion. We are going to build a new Iraq together.” (By and large, Iraq’s armed forces happily did as requested. Their hopes were high.) 2) “You’re fired. We terminated your salary and your dignity. You are worthless. Be a good capitalist and go find a way to support your family. Go away.” 3) “Don’t expect any social safety net—didn’t you know we’re busy destroying this very thing in America?” 4) “Iraq will have an enormous number of job openings for security forces and armed guards. However, we will fill these with foreign contractors because we don’t trust you. We are telling you this so you wouldn’t waste your time (and ours) completing job applications.” 5) “We plan to pay foreign workers 10 or 20 times the market rate—many times the salary you would happily accept. For example, a non-Iraqi truck driver may make $10,000 or more per month.” 6) “Keep all your weapons, as you may need them later. Take whatever ammunition and explosives you wish. To help you, we have left unguarded hundreds of Iraqi weapons storage facilities.” 7) “See you later!” This is Bush’s Bring-em-On Plan. Bin Laden could not have devised a plan more harmful to Iraqis and America’s troops. Yet none call it treason. But let’s be fair to Bush. Since Bush can’t create good jobs in the United States, how could he be expected to create jobs in Iraq? When it comes to job creation, Bush is in the same Bush League as his father, who also had a dismal record. In responding to Bush’s 2004 State of the Union speech, Al Franken noted that Bush and his father presided over a net loss of jobs during their combined seven years in office. This means that if “the Bushes had run this country from its very beginning to the current time, not one American would have ever worked. We’d be hunter-gatherers.”102 You have to go back to Republican Herbert Hoover and the start of the GOP Great Depression of the 1930s to find a job creation—well, job destruction—record that bad. The American people back then had the wisdom to replace Republican Hoover with Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, who united the nation in its most troubled times, and worked for all Americans as he charted a better course, including putting Social Security in place for America’s workers. Herbert Hoover was well named. Like a Hoover vacuum cleaner, he sucked up and destroyed millions of American jobs. The Bushes are also well named. Millions of unemployed workers now are unsuccessfully beating the bushes to find good jobs, or even rotten jobs, or even two rotten jobs each.

102

During the first three years of Dubya, America lost about 2.2 million jobs.


255

SIDEBAR: Bush and Work “You work three jobs?…Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that. Get any sleep?” —George W. Bush talking with a divorced mother of three in Omaha, Nebraska, February 4, 2005 In Bush’s America, three jobs are sometimes necessary to make ends meet. Of course, Bush himself never held even one regular workingperson’s job. In Bush’s America, tens of millions of workers give an honest day’s work for much less than an honest day’s pay. The message of Bush and the Cons to American workers and Iraqi workers is the same. You are worthless. In fairness, there are a few moderate Cons in Congress who are not quite this coldhearted. Many of these compassionate Cons view America’s workers not as worthless, but just worth less, and this is why they voted to keep America’s minimum wage frozen at $5.15 per hour since 1997. The freezing of the minimum wage by the Republican Party meant that during each and every year since 1997 the purchasing power of minimum wage workers declined, increasing poverty among the working poor. The purchasing power of the minimum wage declined by 20% from 1997 to 2006, to its lowest point in fifty years. Increases in the minimum wage most help working women and other disadvantaged American workers. The Economic Policy Institute reported in 2006 that women constitute 59% of the American workers who would benefit from an increase of the minimum wage to $7.25 by 2008. About 3.9 million parents with children under 18 would benefit from this change. The GOP’s decade-long screwing of America’s working poor ended only in 2007, when the new Democrat-controlled Congress—in the face of GOP obstructionism and veto threats—managed to push through modest increases in the minimum wage. Bush’s “plan” to create jobs in America includes making permanent the GOP’s tax cuts for the Super Rich. Perhaps he thinks the Super Rich will use the additional cash to retire, thereby freeing up jobs for regular working Americans. But most of the Super Rich don’t have real jobs, and, in any case, the crony positions they open up by retiring aren’t available to Joe and Judy Lunchpail. As for dealing with the difficult issue of American jobs going overseas, Bush offers nothing, not even vague ideas. Somehow, good new American jobs, like Iraqi jobs, are supposed to magically appear. They don’t. However, what does magically appear is more profit for large multi-national corporations and GOP contributors. The shifting of the tax burden from the Super Rich to middle- and low-income working Americans—primarily through increased Social Security taxes and huge tax cuts for the Super Rich—increases the incentive for good American jobs to be shipped overseas. The greatly increased Social Security taxes disproportionately

256


make middle- and low-income jobs more costly to employers, thus increasing the cost savings and profits to be gained when employers ship jobs abroad. This added incentive would not exist if the Super Rich were still paying their fair share of taxes, and Joe and Judy Lunchpail were not subsiding them through increased Social Security taxes. Ross Perot referred accurately to the tremendous sucking sound caused by these jobs going offshore. Well, the GOP loves and promotes this sucking sound, and American middle class workers are the unfortunate suckees. Bush’s numerous predictions about job creation have been very inaccurate. He lied. Monkeys randomly picking numbers would have done better. • 2002: The Bush administration predicted that 100,000 jobs would be lost. The United States actually lost 1,450,000 jobs! • 2003: The Bush administration predicted a gain of 1.7 million jobs. The United States actually lost 440,000 jobs. That’s a swing of 2,140,000 jobs in just one year. • 2004: Early in this election year the Bush administration predicted that 2.6 million new American jobs would be created during the year, a view much too rosy for most economists, even given the turnaround in the economy. To reach this 2.6 million figure, Bush would have needed the job creation abilities of Bill Clinton. • After 2004: The presidential election was over, and the Bush regime stopped giving rosy estimates from Bush’s alternate universe. Through the first six years of Bush’s presidency, the total number of jobs created was dismally low compared to the six-year figures for other presidencies. The six-year figure for Bush was only 3.6 million jobs created, versus almost 18 million jobs for Clinton. When it comes to wages and jobs, Bush is our American Idle. Bush’s DNA and privileged rich-boy upbringing make it impossible for him to empathize with anyone other than the Super Rich. One result is a growing divide in Bush’s and the GOP’s two Americas—something in which he must take great pride. Bush simply has no frame of reference, no empathy really, for average working Americans or Iraqis who are unemployed or just scrape by from payday to payday, where the loss of a job is catastrophic. Clueless Bush must be thinking, “Why don’t they just get a bunch of money from their daddy or out of their trust accounts? Why don’t they just get some crony dough from their public trough cronies?” To make matters worse, the jobs created during Bush’s presidency are not as good on average as the jobs lost. They don’t pay as well, and the medical insurance coverage is not as good, if there is any coverage at all. Many of the new jobs are at Wal-Mart, that wonderful profit-generator and advocate of low prices, crummy wages, and rotten benefits. Wal-Mart rabidly opposes any increase in the minimum wage. By way of comparison, Costco’s lowest wage is higher that Wal-Mart’s average wage. Wal-Mart also features discriminatory personnel policies, especially policies that discriminate against women. Many of its workers qualify for food stamps and cannot afford to pay for the company’s skimpy medical plan. It hires illegal aliens to save


257

money. It abhors unions, has none, and will spend any amount and do anything to keep them out. During the three-year period ending January 31, 2004—the first three years of Bush’s administration—Wal-Mart increased its U.S. employment from 962,000 to 1.2 million, for a total increase of 238,000. This means that if Wal-Mart’s employment had remained unchanged during this period, the total U.S. job losses would have been greater by 238,000. However you look at it, a lot of great jobs were replaced by crappy Wal-Mart jobs. Unfortunately, this trend is continuing as Wal-Mart expands its empire. Also, Wal-Mart is a major reason why so many U.S. manufacturing jobs have been exported, since it strong arms its vendors to manufacture overseas. The employee turnover rate at Wal-Mart is an incredible 44% per year. If WalMart did not grow at all, it would still have to hire about 600,000 employees annually to replace all the ones who quit or are fired. A Wal-Mart memo leaked in 2005 showed that the company wanted to reduce the percentage of its workforce who are full-time employees from 40% to 20%, the reason being that benefits and wages were rising too fast. Paul Krugman of The New York Times sums it up: “The problem from the company’s point of view is that its workers are too loyal. It wants cheap labor that doesn’t hang around too long. But not enough workers quit before acquiring the right to higher wages and benefits.” Workers who shop at Wal-Mart are like prisoners who help construct their own gallows. Wal-Mart is an ideological campaign contributor, with a huge majority of its contributions going to the Con Party. Yes, “W” stands for “Wal-Mart,” and “WalMartization of America.” Wal-Mart has been a fabulously successful company for its shareholders. The 2003 Forbes 400 Richest Americans list showed five Waltons occupying the spots from 4 through 8, each with a fortune of $20.5 billion. (Helen Walton, S. Robson Walton, John Walton, Jim Walton and Alice Walton were all tied for fourth place.) Much has been written about Sam Walton’s tax avoidance successes. Son John died in 2005 at age 58 in a private plane crash and was a director of Wal-Mart until his death. From day one in his administration, Bush focused first on helping the most needy in America—the Super Rich—and he successfully pushed through his $1.6 trillion tax cut, of which more than half went to the top 1%. In order to sell the tax giveaways, Bush said that the cuts would create 800,000 new jobs. Boy, that sounded good. It is nice to know you have a president who cares about the little people. But wait—there are a couple of problems here. • First, let’s do the math, pretending for the moment that we believed Bush’s line about jobs created. It’s a $1.6 trillion tax cut for 800,000 new jobs— that’s $2,000,000 in tax incentives for each new job created! (You really have to do the math a couple of times before you believe the answer. Bush apparently counts on his supporters not being able to divide two large numbers each having lots of zeros.) Well, this is Bush’s Con administration in a nutshell. Give the money to the Super Rich, and some of it might trickle

258


down as the Super Rich hire more gardeners, security guards, tax attorneys, and lobbyists. But it doesn’t work. • Second, but wait—even though $2,000,000 for each of those new jobs was given to the Super Rich, America didn’t actually gain those 800,000 jobs. In fact, it didn’t gain a single job, not one! America actually lost 2,600,000 jobs. Shouldn’t we get our money back from the Super Rich? Yes, plus lots more. The average American worker makes less than $50,000 per year. What rational person would even think of giving $2,000,000 in tax incentives to create one new job? It would have made more sense to use the money to directly hire the workers America needs, including police, firefighters, national guardsmen, soldiers, medical care workers and teachers. Rather than giving a check for $2,000,000 to one of the Super Rich in the hope that he would somehow create one new job, the $2,000,000 could have been used to pay the annual salary of 40 such workers. Spending the money directly on salaries for workers has other advantages. • First, these workers pay taxes on the salaries received, which directly reduces the budget deficit. This is not the case with the tax-giveaways for the Super Rich, who pay no taxes on their gifts from Uncle Sam. And who really knows what the Republican Super Rich do with their elephant’s share. Paris anyone? • Second, spending the money directly on salaries for workers favors work over the idleness of the Super Rich, who don’t have to do any extra work for their cut, or any work at all. • Third, spending the money directly for new jobs reduces unemployment compensation payments. • Fourth, WWJD?103 Jesus would say, “Yes, hire my working folk at $50,000 per job. But, Good God, don’t give $2,000,000 to a Pharisee as an incentive to non-create one new job!” Think of the many services that have been cut under Bush’s watch so that he and his GOP could give humungous tax cuts to the Super Rich. All of the tax cuts for the Super Rich must be reversed, and their tax rates must be returned to what they were in the early 1980s or even earlier.

Poverty in America SIDEBAR: Bush Knows Poor People “First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren’t necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn’t mean you’re willing to kill.” —George W. Bush, May 19, 2003

103

WWJD?: “What Would Jesus Do?”


259

The poverty rate in America rose dramatically during Bush’s watch, reaching 12.6% by 2006, according to the Census Bureau. In 2005, 37 million Americans were living below the poverty level. The GOP’s global war on the poor is working, especially on America’s working poor. The “poorest of the poor” have done even worse. In 2005, 43% of Americans in poverty were living below one-half the poverty line that year ($8,045 for a family of three), which was the highest percentage for extreme-poverty Americans since the federal government began tracking this data in 1975. The last decline in poverty was in 2000 during Clinton’s presidency, when 31.1 million people (11.3 %) lived under the poverty threshold. This means that an additional 5.9 million Americans fell below the poverty threshold during just the first five years of Bush’s regime. During the Clinton administration, the poverty rate dropped from a high of slightly more than 15% in 1993 to 11.3% in 2000. Children and women have been among the hardest hit during Bush’s watch. About 13 million American children live in poverty, and their poverty rate increased more than 17% under Bush. Contrary to Republican propaganda, America’s enemy is not the poorest 10% of its citizens. Although the Republican Party makes war on the poor, the disabled and the defenseless—most of whom are children and all of whom are portrayed as leeches—the real battle is between the top 1% of our population and everyone else. In Bush’s America, the top 1% has won, and the bottom 99% has lost. Rightwing Republicans accomplished this by focusing America’s rage on America’s poorest, who are easy voiceless targets of the vicious right. Bush and the Cons do believe whole-heartedly in welfare, but only welfare for the Super Rich, Big Business, and their Crooked Cronies. They care not for the welfare of the least of Christ’s people. Yes, “W” stands for “welfare for the wealthy and wicked.” Perhaps you’ve heard a wealthy Republican congressman “explain” why Congress was justified in automatically giving itself frequent generous increases in salary and benefits at the same time it refused to increase the minimum wage for America’s workers. “I challenge anyone to live on my salary,” declared former GOP House majority leader Tom DeLay from Texas, whose annual base salary alone was then more than $167,000, and only God knows what his special perks and under-the-table “benefits” were worth. We challenge DeLay and other congressmen who voted against increasing the minimum wage to live on $5.15 per hour. Jesus was a Robin Hood, but Bush and the Cons are Robbing Hoods. The Bush administration’s addiction to lying rather than dealing with facts is a principal reason its credibility is shattered both at home and abroad. After a Camp David meeting with his economic advisors in August 2006, Bush summarized the situation, “Things are good for American workers.” In an editorial, The New York Times replied, “The comment is preposterous.”104

104

New York Times editorial, August 29, 2006.

260


Bush also asserted, “solid economic growth is creating real benefits for American workers and families.” In a Labor Day 2006 editorial, The Washington Post replied, “This assertion was false. Mr. Bush should use this Labor Day to rethink his rhetoric and adjust his policies.” The Washington Post editorial dated September 4, 2006, was entitled, “Mr. Bush and Labor Day— Workers aren’t benefiting from growth.” A Census Bureau report released that month (August 2006) regarding workers income in 2005 did at first glance have one piece of data that appeared to be positive for America’s workers, and this tidbit was seized upon by rightwing shills who wanted to paint a rosy picture. The particular piece of data was that median household income had risen 1.1% to $46,326 from the prior year, the first increase since 1999. Unfortunately, even this piece of “good news” was bad news for America’s workers, as 100% of the gain was among the retired (23 million households headed by someone age 65 or older.) The median household income for the rest of working America—93 million households—actually fell by 0.5% from the previous year. In addition, the small uptick in household income in 2005—the so-called “good news”—was not due to higher wages—in fact, wages had decreased, and family members were taking additional jobs to make ends meet. More telling, the $46,326 in median household income in 2005 was about 5.7% less than the 2000 amount ($49,133.) The heralded Census Bureau report in fact was additional evidence that the economic benefits of America’s latest growth cycle, which began near the end of 2001, were going almost exclusively to America’s big businesses, with virtually nothing going to America’s workers and small business enterprises. The Washington Post in its editorial noted, “Between 2001 and 2005 the income of the typical, or median, household actually fell by 0.5 percent after accounting for inflation, even as workers’ productivity grew by 14 percent.” Full-time workingmen and workingwomen under 65 experienced another drop in wages and salaries during the year. The median hourly wage for American workers declined 2% from 2003 to 2005, taking inflation into account, with workers also paying more for benefits. America’s workers are working smarter and harder, but all the productivity gains accrue to big business and senior executives. While corporate profits have climbed to their highest share of America’s economy in several decades, the portion going to wages and salaries is at its lowest point ever. (The U.S. government began keeping these records in 1947.) The portion going to wages and salaries equaled 45% of GDP (gross domestic product) in the first quarter of 2006, an enormous drop from its almost 50% share in the first quarter of 2001, which was the start of Bush’s watch. The principal factor for increasing corporate profits is the American workers’ declining share of the economy. W’s worker whacking is working. Yes, “W” also stands for “worker whacking.” To make matters worse, the above figures for wages and salaries include the compensation packages for America’s most highly paid executives, many of whom have gorged themselves at the expense of Joe and Judy Lunchpail.


261

In January 2006 David Cay Johnston reported105 on new U.S. government data indicating that “the concentration of corporate wealth among the highest-income Americans grew significantly in 2003, as a trend that began in 1991 accelerated in the first year that President Bush and Congress cut taxes on capital.” According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of the latest economic data: • In 2003 the top 1% of American households owned 57.5% of corporate wealth, up from 53.4% the year before. • In 1991, the top 1% owned “only” 38.7%. • For every group in the bottom 99%, the percentage of corporate wealth has decreased since 1991. • The bottom 20% of households—America’s poorest—dropped by 57% to only 0.6% of corporate wealth in 2003, down from 1.4% in 1991. • In other words, the top 1% increased their share by 4.1 percentage points (from 53.4% to 57.5%), which increase in share (just the 4.1 points) is 6.8 times the total corporate wealth of the bottom 20%. • In 2003, the incomes of the top 1% ranged from $237,000 to several billion dollars. The average income of the bottom 20% was less than $16,300 that year. Such dramatic changes in the distribution of wealth and income in America—a destabilizing tsunami—are not the God-given result of a free enterprise system, but primarily result from government policies that are of, by and for the powerful and Super Rich. The GOP supports not a free enterprise system, but rather a “freebie enterprise system” rigged for the chosen few. The economic expansion that started in 2001 is the first expansion since World War II that failed to significantly increase wages for America’s workers. In the past, the cliché has been that a rising tide lifts all boats. However, the Cons have been running America to ensure that only the yachts of the Super Rich are lifted. SIDEBAR: Welfare Reform 2006 was the tenth anniversary of the signing by Bill Clinton of historic welfare reform legislation known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Clinton had promised the nation in 1992 to “end welfare as we know it.”106 Clinton continued, “We will say to those on welfare: You will have and you deserve the opportunity through training and education, through child care and medical coverage, to liberate yourself. But then, when you can, you must work, because welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life.”

105

“Corporate Wealth Share Rises for Top-Income Americans,” New York Times, January 29, 2006. 106 This is from Clinton’s “Our New Covenant” address of July 16, 1992, at the Democratic National Convention in New York City, during which he accepted his party’s presidential nomination. He repeated the promise in later State of the Union addresses.

262


The 1996 welfare reform legislation included work rules and set an outer fiveyear limit on how long an individual could receive welfare. Clinton showed his backbone by signing the reform legislation even though he was criticized for the compromises he made with the GOP-controlled Congress. There were two sides to the legislation. On one side of the bargain, Americans receiving welfare had to commit to work if they could, and to diligently pursue educational and training programs designed to help them achieve gainful employment. On the other side of the bargain, the government agreed to provide programs to improve the environment and opportunity for employment. This proactive government involvement included: • a higher minimum wage; • increased aid for child care; • a block grant program for states administering the program; • health care coverage for children in low-income families; • an expansion in the earned income tax credit designed to reward work over welfare; and • various other pro-work policies. What happened? Notwithstanding some criticism, Clinton’s welfare reform legislation is widely viewed as successful, at least during the years of his administration. Welfare rolls decreased by more than 50%. Poverty rates among children, especially black children, dropped dramatically. Employment rates for single mothers rose. During Bush’s reign, however, the progress slowed and then reversed, thanks to GOP policies that favor the Super Rich at the expense of the poor. The GOP cut budgets for the welfare-to-work programs and froze the minimum wage at its 1997 level, $5.15 per hour. Since 2000, child poverty rates increased, and the employment rate for single mothers decreased. In the GOP’s America, it is more important that multi-millionaires get additional millions than it is to help a hungry child get that next meal. Much needs to be done to ensure the reforms remain successful, and to undo the damage inflicted by the GOP. Government involvement was a key part of the success, and government must stay engaged. It is this government involvement—one half of the bargain—that the GOP crippled during Bush’s regime. Without substantial continued governmental involvement, millions of working poor will be permanently trapped in poverty, with a growing portion of them in extreme poverty. On February 6, 2006, Bush signed the cleverly named Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reduced support for America’s poor and maintained welfare for America’s wealthy. As for America’s poor, the legislation reauthorized for another five years the welfare reform begun in 1996, which Bush said, “has proved a tremendous success over the past decade.” He read these remarks in a signing ceremony before a group of rightwing supporters, including many from the Religious Right, who were pleased with the additional federal funds that would be funneled through faith-based organizations (i.e., rightwing churches and groups that pass the GOP’s religious filter.) Under a new rightwing policy euphemistically called “charitable choice,” religious groups receiving these federal funds can discriminate in hiring.


263

In an article published September 14, 2006, in the Salt Lake Tribune, Michael Leavitt, Bush’s Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, also praised the welfare reform, declaring that it “had been an unqualified success.” However, Leavitt failed to address the Bush regime’s reneging and underfunding regarding this program to move Americans from welfare to work. He made no mention of the minimum wage or GOP budget cuts in effective programs that were helping America’s working poor. In Leavitt’s words, the only actions left were to “strengthen work requirements while putting a renewed focus on marriage.” Truly incredible. Leavitt then bragged about the $750 million that the new legislation made available to faith-based organizations and other organizations for “healthy marriage projects” and “to promote responsible fatherhood.” Further, he said this was being done “without increasing federal spending”—which, when translated into plain English, meant that the government funds diverted to rightwing Christian groups would be taken from effective welfare-to-work programs. The GOP’s war on America’s working class is one war Bush and the GOP are winning. It is one more reason why Bush and his regime are so detested around the world. In the next chapter we turn our attention to the GOP’s bankruptcy of America.

CHAPTER 12

The GOP’s Bankruptcy of America Living from Grandchild’s Paycheck to Grandchild’s Paycheck A government, for protecting business only, is but a carcass, and soon falls by its own corruption and decay. —Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) The Republican Party does not believe in living from paycheck to paycheck. It believes in living from grandchild’s paycheck to grandchild’s paycheck. —James A. Swanson

Financial Responsibility Does Matter, But You Won’t Find It in the Republican Party SIDEBAR: Definition of GOP Conservatives Conservatives Con you when it Serves their interests, which is all the time. They Con you in order to Serve the Super Rich and Big Business. Over decades the political right worked hard to equate “conservative” with fiscal responsibility. The message has been repeated so often—like misleading commercials for cigarettes and alcohol—that even many liberals and progressives believe it. Virtually all of the media repeat it as a truism. If you believe “conservative” implies fiscal responsibility, you have been conned by the Cons. Looking back at the last quarter century of American history, “conservative” has meant the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. The Democratic Party has been and remains the party of fiscal responsibility. Over the last quarter century the Republican Party has gone on a spending rampage and, at the same time, slashed government income by giving massive tax cuts to the Super Rich. Bush has merely taken the Con insanity to dangerous new levels of madness.

266


The result has been record annual budget deficits and a rapidly escalating national debt. The massive Republican deficits and debts would have been much worse if there had not been a tremendous increase in the Social Security tax burden on working Americans, which as noted previously was not set aside in a trust fund but was used to fund the current operating expenses of the United States. The Super Rich take the money out the back door of the U.S. Treasury by the truckload, and middleand lower-income Americans, like sheep, keep delivering it through the front door. The perfect storm for this record fiscal irresponsibility was created when Republicans took control of the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. They took the keys to Fort Knox and America’s greenback printing press, gave the keys to the Super Rich and large corporations, and turned America into the world’s No. 1 Banana Republic. America’s Banana Republican Party had won. Let’s take a look at the facts. The following chart shows the annual federal surplus/deficit numbers for the last 36 years, together with the name and political party of the president in charge.

1969-73: RICHARD NIXON (Republican)—5 Years • Started with a small surplus and turned it into a large deficit.

CHAPTER 12 — THE GOP’S BANKRUPTCY OF AMERICA • •

267

Set a new record for total deficits during his term in office, even though he left office early to avoid impeachment and removal from office. GRADE: D

1974-76: GERALD FORD (Republican)—3 Years • Increased the deficit each year of his administration. • During last two years, had the two largest deficits in history. • GRADE: F 1977-80: JIMMY CARTER (Democrat)—4 Years • The average deficit during his 4 years was less than the deficit he inherited. • GRADE: B 1981-88: RONALD REAGAN (Republican)—8 Years • Exploded the deficit to crippling levels. • Gave humongous tax cuts and tax dodges to the Super Rich. • Increased taxes on middle- and lower-income workers. • Launched the GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle Class. • In 8 years, created the 8 biggest deficits in history. • The father of Voodoo Economics. • GRADE: F SIDEBAR: Reagan’s Reckless Records As in the Olympics, record-setting performances in Washington deserve to be recognized. Therefore we pay tribute to Ronald Reagan and his place in the record books, as of the time he left the White House. American Presidents with the Worst Annual Deficits, as of 1988: Worst Deficit Ever: Ronald Reagan 1986 Second Worst: Ronald Reagan 1985 Third Worst: Ronald Reagan 1983 Fourth Worst: Ronald Reagan 1984 Fifth Worst: Ronald Reagan 1988 Sixth Worst: Ronald Reagan 1987 Seventh Worst: Ronald Reagan 1982 Eighth Worst: Ronald Reagan 1981

268


Whew! Reagan must have been exhausted after single-handedly inflicting that much damage on America’s unborn who will be stuck with the IOUs. Can you imagine the outrage of America’s Big Media if Reagan had been a Democrat? What if Bill Clinton had given those eight years of Reagan shafts to America? One rumor107 is that Kenneth Starr spent millions of taxpayer dollars investigating that very possibility—that Clinton somehow was responsible for the fiscal madness that occurred several years before his presidency when Reagan was “at the helm.” Or maybe it was Hillary. Reagan was the godfather of Voodoo Economics, which put America in the financial toilet. In fairness, we should also credit the two later Republican American presidents—both financial numbskulls and both from Red Texas—who broke Reagan’s records for the worst annual deficit and took Voodoo Economics to new Texas-style levels: 1) Bush the Father 2) Bush the Son 3) Let’s pray they never have a dog or grandson named “Holy Ghost.” 1989-92: GEORGE H. W. BUSH (Republican)—4 Years • Increased the deficits steadily during his term. • In 1991, smashed Reagan’s record deficit. • In 1992, mightily smashed his own record deficit. • GRADE: F 1993-2000: BILL CLINTON (Democrat)—8 Years • Finally, after 12 years in the Land of the Cons, America had a president who told the fiscal truth, and walked it. Yes, a Democrat. Of course. • Turned the largest deficit in history into the largest surplus in history. • Greatly decreased the deficit (or increased the surplus he created) every year he was in office … 8 years of improvement in a row. • GRADE: A+ 2001-07: GEORGE W. BUSH (Republican)—6 Years and counting • In just three years, turned the largest federal surplus in history (Clinton’s surplus) into the largest deficit in history. • His first six years were the six worst years in history in the worsening of the federal budget. • Joined his father and Reagan in the Holy Triumvirate of Voodoo Economics. Praise the Lord! • Achieved record federal spending each year while never vetoing a single spending bill. • Inflicted great pain on the middle- and lower-income workers of America. 107

Which I am starting by writing this.

CHAPTER 12 — THE GOP’S BANKRUPTCY OF AMERICA • • • • •

269

Gave humongous tax breaks to the Super Rich. Presided over the largest expansion of government pork and corruption in history. Protected America’s fiscal position the same way he protected America on 9/11. GRADE: F GRADE DESERVED: W

In summary, the only period of financial responsibility since 1981 was when a Democrat was in charge. Bill Clinton’s eight years of Grade A financial responsibility—a noble patriotic effort—stemmed temporarily the catastrophic tidal wave of 18 years of GOP Grade F mismanagement and looting (under Reagan, Bush the Father, and Bush the Son). Giving credit where credit is due, here are some additional facts about Clinton’s Grade A management: • Over eight years, with financial improvement each and every year, Clinton turned an annual budget deficit of $290 billion into an annual budget surplus of $127 billion, the largest ever. • The turnaround to financial responsibility did not occur without straight talk and unpopular painful medicine. In his 1993 budget Clinton increased taxes and slashed expenses. He knew this medicine was necessary to reverse years of financial irresponsibility under the Republican Party, whose policies featured wasteful spending along with tax cuts and dodges for the Super Rich and GOP cronies. • Every Republican member of Congress opposed Clinton’s 1993 budget and the 1993 Debt Reduction Act. They claimed that Clinton’s tough medicine would cause greater deficits and a recession, but they were wrong—again. • Many Americans thought Clinton’s 1993 budget should have contained more money for education and health care, but Clinton showed strong leadership in administering the needed but unpopular medicine. Clinton knew that deficits do matter, and he was concerned about the financial health of the country we would leave our children and grandchildren. The Republican Party was AWOL, basking in the glow of its ill-gotten loot. • Clinton’s financial stewardship had numerous other benefits, including: a big reduction in interest rates; the largest budget surplus ever; huge growth in excellent jobs; tremendous strength in the stock markets; strength and respect in the world; an America that believed in itself again; and an America that believed in helping its unborn, wanting to leave them—countless future generations of children—a valuable financial legacy, not an immoral IOU in the form of a cold GOP Banana. Upon being appointed president in 2000, Bush immediately planted his “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich” banner in the U.S. Treasury and stuck his greedy hands into the pockets of all middle- and lower-income Americans. This was his number one priority, ahead of national security and everything else. With incredible incompetence and Orwellian doublespeak, Bush recklessly reversed the eight years of fiscal responsibility under Clinton. If they were alive today, honest

270


conservatives such as Eisenhower and Goldwater would take Bush and his GOP out behind the woodshed for a thrashing. Economists agree that the budget deficits and other huge GOP deficits discussed in this chapter cannot be sustained indefinitely. With the Republican Party in charge, it’s not a question of “if” there will be a Financial Armageddon—a Big Bang, a Hell on Earth—it is only a question of “when” and “how.” The Super Rich do well financially no matter what happens, as will their offspring in perpetuity. So will the extended Bush family and its cronies. Unrestricted by national boundaries, they maintain extravagant life styles anywhere they wish, even as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are gutted. Under Bush, the Super Rich pocketed hundreds of billions of dollars and will pocket trillions (that is, millions of millions) more over the next two decades if the Con Party’s tax cuts for the Super Rich are made permanent. Bush and the GOP Congress ransacked America’s finances like thieves and drunken sailors. They eliminated checks and balances while they wrote unlimited checks and IOUs. The GOP Congress abdicated its constitutional duties by refusing to oversee and investigate financial malfeasance, fraud and waste in the executive branch, and it changed and gutted congressional ethics rules to protect its own “crooks within.” Until the 1980s both parties believed in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. They understood the unfairness of stealing from grandchildren and the unborn to fund current financial addictions. They knew America needed to be fiscally strong in order to be morally and militarily strong. But then Reagan and the deficits-don’tmatter neo-GOP rode into town. Even some Republican leaders said they were appalled by the pork barrel politics and fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP Congress and the Bush administration, but when the chips were down they did little about it. It is “so disgraceful,” noted Senator John McCain, who said he had never seen it worse. “Republicans used to be for fiscal discipline,” he commiserated. But, like other GOP leaders, Chameleon McCain likes to have it both ways, always talking the good talk about fiscal responsibility and other populist issues, but then working to get Bush reelected. When it comes to walking the talk, this self-proclaimed “straight talker” is a “crooked walker” who couldn’t defend his own wife when she was slandered by Bush operatives in South Carolina’s primary during the 2000 presidential campaign, but later genuflected shamelessly before Bush’s most rightwing Christian supporters. The American voter must also shoulder a big share of the blame for the horrible financial condition of America. The problem is that Americans vote for politicians who promise to: (1) spend more (on both good things and pork), and (2) reduce income, by cutting taxes. We know that “spend more, reduce income” economics does not work for our families, but we continue to vote for Alice in Wonderland charlatans—Bush League Republicans—who do exactly this to America. The most dishonest and dangerous among them assert that Reagan proved “deficits don’t matter.” Our children and grandchildren will painfully learn that our deficits do matter.

CHAPTER 12 — THE GOP’S BANKRUPTCY OF AMERICA

271

SIDEBAR: A National Lottery for all Taxpayers, Not a Rigged System for the Super Rich. Bush’s budget deficit for 2004 was $413 billion, another new all-time record. The biggest cause of this disaster is Bush’s tax cuts for the Super Rich. Rather than giving the money to the Super Rich each year—say $300 billion of it—a fairer plan is a national lottery that each year randomly awards $1 million each to 300,000 different taxpayers. This means that a new American millionaire would be created every 105 seconds throughout the year, every year, forever. This has many advantages over Bush’s rigged lottery system for the Super Rich: • The new lottery system would live up to America’s democratic ideal of equal opportunity for all, as opposed to an aristocratic worldview that reserves opportunity for men of position and wealth. • The new lottery would reduce the annual budget deficits because the recipients would pay income taxes on their winnings. In sharp contrast, the Super Rich pay zero taxes on their winnings under the rigged lottery that Bush and the GOP run for them. • The winners of the new lottery would be more likely than the Super Rich to spend their winnings in America, thereby providing greater stimulus to the economy and creating more jobs. In fiscal year 2005 the U.S. government had to spend $352 billion of taxpayer money just on interest payments to the holders of America’s national debt. This represented about 40% of all individual federal income taxes collected during the year. The interest paid ballooned to $406 billion the following year (fiscal year 2006), and similar huge unsustainable increases can be expected until America falls off the GOP Debt cliff. Bush disingenuously announced plans to slash his massive deficit in half within a few years, but even Republicans did not believe him. “The numbers simply do not add up,” said the Republican chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), in early 2004. The GOP’s fiscal policies and performance were so bad under Bush’s watch that he finally stopped saying his policies would lead to balanced budgets. Bush’s White House sees no problem with lying and using creative accounting when it comes to the federal budget. For example, in January 2004 the White House said that in the prior fiscal year the discretionary spending increase was limited to 4%. However, as the rightwing Wall Street Journal pointed out, the White House excluded supplemental increases, and when those are counted, the increase is 15%, “the largest single-year increase in at least three decades.” The truth about the Bush administration’s intentions—to enrich the Super Rich regardless of the consequences to America—is made abundantly clear in the bestseller, The Price of Loyalty, which is about Paul O’Neill’s experiences as Treasury Secretary in the Bush administration. Unlike Reagan and his early supply-side econo-

272


mists—who were true believers but wrong—O’Neill saw Bush and his closest advisors for what they are—political opportunists with virtually no interest or skill in economics. When O’Neill pointed out his great concern that another big tax cut was moving America towards a fiscal crisis, Cheney infamously said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter … We won the midterms. This is our due.” O’Neill was stunned; he couldn’t believe that Cheney would say such a thing. Let’s remember that O’Neill is a conservative, not some leftie opponent of Bush, and was handpicked by Bush to be his Treasury Secretary. From the beginning of Reagan’s presidency and continuing through the Bush regime, the GOP worked relentlessly to create the Second Gilded Age in America, an era in which government power is used to promote the interests of corporations and the Super Rich at the expense of common men and women. During the Gilded Age (1872-1900), corporations assumed all the rights and privileges of American citizens, and more. The U.S. military was used imperialistically to promote corporate interests. Government and corporate corruption was widespread, and monopolies ruled America. The GOP wants to turn the clock back to 1900, killing America’s progress in human rights since then, and gutting Social Security, Medicare and other security programs for all Americans. SIDEBAR: The Same Answer Every Time “Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep.’”108 John 21:15-18. And Bush replied, “How about feeding your sheep to my wolves?” On the first day of Algebra class the math students solved the first equation and found that X = 9. One student had trouble understanding the concept, and so he wrote “X = 9” as the answer to every subsequent problem. That created some laughter in the classroom, but the student caught on pretty quickly and later laughed about it too. The GOP is like that slow student, except it doesn’t get it, and we’re the joke. For every problem or non-problem, whatever the facts, the GOP has the same answer: “X = Huge Tax Cut for the Super Rich.” When Bush became President, he inherited from Bill Clinton a federal government that Clinton had restored to fiscal responsibility after 12 years of Republican mismanagement and misdeeds. The newly appointed Bush was looking at rapidly growing budget surpluses “as far as the eye could see.” Bush’s answer to this “problem” was: “X = Huge Tax Cut for the Super Rich.”

108

The GOP’s Neo-Bible says, “Feed my wolves.” Yes, “W” stands for “wolves.”


273

Bush said things similar to the following, “We is returning the surplus to the people. You knows better than the government how to spend it.” Then when Bush ran the budget back into Republican Red and created record deficits, his pre-programmed “solution” was still: “X = Huge Tax Cut for the Super Rich.” However, because the surpluses had disappeared, Bush switched to different “justifications” and different lies like, “These tax cuts will eliminate … I mean, create … lots of jobs, and explode …er, eliminate the deficits.” Many of the political slogans written for Bush by Karl Rove are intended to evoke the response, “Boy, that sounds good—anyone with half a brain would agree with that.” Fortunately, dear reader, you have a whole brain. Fortunately, a growing number of traditionally conservative voters have begun using more of their brainpower, as reflected in the 2006 midterm elections. Here’s the GOP’s bedrock principle: No matter what the facts, no matter what the impact on America, no matter what the truth, Bush and the GOP will religiously push “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich” policies. To Hell with the unborn who will suffer the consequences. The GOP believes in winner-take-all, wealthy-take-all, public-trough politics. It’s no surprise that the Bush League of Nations is such a dismal failure. The nations of the world—whether longtime American allies or adversaries, whether developed or undeveloped, whether democracies or dictatorships—see Bush and the GOP as rotten role models, and they oppose their blueprints for the world. Among Republican senators, there were at least three (all from New England, none from the South) who tried, more or less, to block Bush administration budgets that did not balance the huge tax cuts for the rich with spending cuts or other tax increases. The three are Senators Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Just like former GOP Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, they began to realize they were in the wrong party. After losing his bid for reelection in 2006, Chaffee even indicated he was considering leaving the Republican Party. This should surprise no one. The Con Party has morphed into the Confederate Party, having reintroduced Confederate currency, military adventurism, and toxic divisive values to America. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility, commented on Bush’s $2.4 trillion budget for 2005: “This president is running us right over the fiscal cliff. The president says he wants to go to Mars. He’s taken the deficit to the moon.” Conrad noted that Bush’s deficit alone is $991,000 per minute.

National Debt More national debt was added during the eight years of Ronald’s presidency than in the entire prior 200+ year history of the United States. During its first 200 years, America incurred most of its debt during troubled times such as World Wars I and II.

274


Yet, on Reagan’s watch of only eight years (1981-89)—a time without major war when no American soldier killed a single Russian soldier or vice versa—our national debt increased by more than 260%, primarily because of reckless tax cuts for the Super Rich, and secondarily because of profligate spending. Yes, Reagan was a big spender—a big spender and a big borrower. During the eight years of Reagan’s watch, the national debt increased by an average of 13.8% per year, the highest ever in American history. Our national debt during the Reagan years increased from less than $1 trillion ($937 billion) to $2.6 trillion. This is Reagan’s Legacy of Debt to America’s children and grandchildren. It can accurately be called “Reagan’s Leave-No-Rich-PersonBehind Legacy of Debt for America’s Unborn.” America is not indebted to Reagan—America is in debt because of Reagan. That is Reagan’s biggest legacy. He spawned the wild notion that “deficits don’t matter,” which allowed the GOP to loot and bankrupt America. Visit www.reagandebt.com to see America’s current, up to the second, national debt, which is accurately labeled, “The Ronald Reagan Memorial National Debt.” The website notes the astute comment in 1989 by ultra conservative George Will regarding Reagan’s legacy: ... something fundamental happened in American governance when a conservative Republican administration produced deficits of $200 billion—and nothing happened. Nothing, that is, dramatic and immediately visible. ...for the political class, the event was a splendid liberation: all the rules were repealed.

Assuming an annual weighted-average interest rate of just 4% on America’s national debt—it’s actually higher—the interest payment on just the additional debt incurred under Reagan is approximately $65 billion per year, which painfully comes out of our government’s annual operating budget each and every year. This perpetual annual $65 billion drain could have been used for better purposes, for example, to increase our annual defense budget by more than 20% in perpetuity, or to fund the equivalent of 200 Peace Corps each year in perpetuity, or to save tens of millions of lives in third world countries. But Reagan and the GOP worked instead for the Super Rich. At a news conference in March 1981 Reagan said that a “drastic reduction in the deficit ... will take place in the fiscal year 1982.” This was based on what his nitwit supply-side economic advisors told him to say. However, rather than falling as promised, the deficit ballooned to a record $128 billion that year. Reagan learned the hard way that his economic advisors were wrong, and he thereafter made fewer rosy predictions. Under GOP mismanagement and looting that started with Reagan, America lost its financial backbone and went from being the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation. Thanks to the neo-GOP, America’s national debt increased more than 900% since Reagan entered the White House! In the years ahead, when you talk with your grandchildren about what America once stood for, be sure to tell them about that wonderful gift of debt the Republican Party gave them. It should be named the “Reagan-Bush I-Bush II National Debt,” in honor of the crooks and fools who created it.


275

The reckless fiscal mismanagement by Republican presidents continued unabated during the entire period from 1980 through W’s watch, interrupted only by eight years of tough fiscal stewardship by Democratic President Bill Clinton. If Clinton had not been at the helm for those eight years—if some GOP lackey of the Super Rich had been in charge—the rightwing looting would have continued, and the United States would now be several additional trillions of dollars further in the hole than it actually is. The Reagan - Bush I - Bush II National Debt

National Debt (Trillions of Dollars)

10 9

2007

8 7 6 5 4

Bush League

GOP Insanity: "Deficits Don't Matter" "Borrow, Spend, and Steal"

End of Reagan 1989

3 2 1 0 1750

Birt h of Nat ion 1776 1800

St art of Reagan 1981 1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

Year

Bush took Republican fiscal recklessness to new levels of madness. The amount that Bush and the GOP add to the national debt in a typical year is more than onethird of the total national debt incurred by the United States during its first 200 years. When Bush became president, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that there would be a total budget surplus of $5 trillion during 2002-2011. In 2004—after Bush had been in office only three years—it was estimated that, during this same 2002-2011 period, the United States would suffer a total deficit of more than $4 trillion. That’s a Bush League turnaround, a catastrophic freefall, of $9 trillion. Bush and the GOP coupled irresponsible record spending with four rounds of irresponsible tax cuts primarily for the Super Rich, and the result was as certain as night following day: record budget deficits and an explosion in our national debt. In 2004 the U.S. government under Bush spent $2.3 trillion and suffered a $410 billion deficit. In the last full year of Clinton’s administration the U.S. government spent only $1.8 trillion, and it enjoyed an $86 billion surplus. Let’s consider the additional annual interest America must pay on just the additional national debt created by the GOP since 1980. This additional interest was about $360 billion in 2006, or about one billion dollars per day. (Imagine 360,000 piles of one million dollars each.) This should be called the “GOP Debt Tax,” and it

276


is an enormous waste of limited resources. This annual GOP Debt Tax is equal to about 70% of the entire annual Department of Defense budget, and it increases every day. The interest paid on America’s national debt represents an enormous lost opportunity. This money is annually flushed down the Republican Voodoo Economics toilet. It is real cash that is no longer available for a host of needs: Homeland Security, national defense, Social Security, Medicare, education, health care for every American, and so forth. The budget deficits and growing interest payments harm America’s long-term strategic interests by boosting interest rates, reducing saving, reducing investment, and reducing jobs. When the GOP is in charge, America needs no enemies. Thanks to Bush and the Republican Party, there is no GOP plan on the horizon to ever repay even one penny of the principal of the national debt. Bush may be counting on the rapture—or a huge meteor destroying Earth—before the real financial Bushit hits the fan. Although Bush can retire safely to the gated community of Bush World when he leaves office, America’s children and grandchildren, plus generations of the unborn, cannot. America has become a Banana Republic run by Banana Republicans, and their GOP Welcome Wagon for the unborn is a huge GOP shaft, a cold Bush Banana. Republicans no longer just “tax and spend”—they “borrow and spend,” or, more accurately, they “borrow, spend and steal.” As for spending, the “borrow and spend” GOP put spending on steroids. Even Reagan—especially Reagan—who pandered for votes by railing against Big Government, expanded the federal government with unprecedented spending increases. Most appropriately, the largest government office building in Washington was built in his honor and has his name on it. The GOP believes in Big Government because huge corporations and the Super Rich now own and milk it—the U.S. Government should be renamed America, Inc.—and the GOP has no social responsibility other than to themselves and their cronies. Low- and middle-income schmucks, on the other hand, fight and die in foolish wars not of their own making, ultimately have to pay the bills, and receive nothing in return. Republicans have created an imperial corrupt government of wasteful consumption and multiple wasteful deficits. The savings rate in the United States is now negative, personal debt is at a record high, and people are consuming the equity in their homes. GOP America is consuming itself, as it consumes much more than it makes. It is burning the furniture to keep warm. This parallels Bush’s personal profligate lifestyle. As a leach on every company and organization to which he was appended, Bush always sucked out more than he contributed. The GOP concluded this is a good model for America. Honest conservatism in the GOP is dead. Its leadership is Confederate, and its agenda is Confederate. The GOP is “consumptive,” not “conservative.” “Consumptive” is accurate not only in the economic meaning of “consumption”—i.e., the using up of resources— but also in the old medical sense of “consumption”—i.e., a disease of the lungs in-


277

volving the wasting away of the body, now known as pulmonary tuberculosis. Yes, the Republican Party is the Consumption Party, skilled in the wasting away of America. Yes, “W” stands for “wasting away.” The reckless fiscal policies of the GOP compromised America’s ability to respond effectively to future economic and terrorist shocks such as 9/11. The budget surpluses and strong fiscal position of the United States existing on 9/11 gave America the ability to respond flexibly, swiftly and aggressively to the challenges. More than ample resources were readily available to fund a strong appropriate military response, as well as diplomatic and economic initiatives. The Federal Reserve had ample room to implement an aggressive stimulatory monetary policy. Resources were available to rebuild and move forward. Unfortunately, the Bush regime’s tax cuts for the Super Rich and other reckless decisions greatly reduced America’s options to respond to any major future shock or challenge, whether military or economic. Bush League policies painted America into a dangerous corner. More and more members of Bush’s own party are grumbling. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) in 2004 gave his realistic perspective to the Senate: “The country’s finances are in dire condition. We face a sea of red ink as far as the eye can see … We are on the edge of an abyss and we must stop before we commit fiscal suicide.” Yes, Republican Voinovich used the right word—suicide. Bush and the Republican Party put America on the road to financial Armageddon. Praise the Lord! You might ask where the more than $350 billion in additional annual interest goes after it disappears down the Republican Voodoo Economics Toilet. Well, it is gobbled up by the holders of U.S. bonds, treasury bills and other debt instruments, who are mainly the Super Rich, large corporations, foreign governments and other entities. Unfriendly foreign governments hold a rapidly increasing portion of America’s debt. Saudi Arabia, which holds an enormous share, effectively uses a portion of the hard American dollars it receives to fund its anti-America and anti-West policies, which are seeped in Wahhabism. At the end of the day, it and other unfriendly nations use a portion of the GOP Debt tax to fund terrorist organizations. Communist China’s share of America’s debt is also rising rapidly. SIDEBAR: Research Project for a Student If you’re an economics or political science student looking for an interesting topic for your class, you could consider investigating the “special” financial relationships between Saudi Arabia and the United States. What are the implications for America’s energy policy? What investments has Saudi Arabia made in America? What percentage of America does Saudi Arabia already own? How does Saudi Arabia compromise America’s so-called war on terrorism? What are the foreign policy implications for America? Another irony is that America’s Super Rich, in addition to receiving huge tax cuts, also receive humungous annual interest payments on the U.S. debt they hold, a

278


portion of which had to be issued to fund their huge tax cuts! This is like a bank robber stealing a fortune from a bank and then sending the bank an invoice each year for interest on the money he stole. SIDEBAR: Insanity Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The irresponsible tax cuts by Bush meet this definition. So does voting for the Republican Party—unless perhaps you are a member of the Super Rich who doesn’t care about the moral and financial condition of the nation that we leave our children and grandchildren. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof described Bush’s 2005 budget as “dazzlingly deceitful,” with fudging and gimmickry, noting that he had seen such irresponsibility before—“in Argentina.” Kristof revisited Bush’s first speech on budgets—one before a joint session of Congress on February 27, 2001—and notes that in it, according to Paul O’Neill, Bush made statements about retiring the debt that the White House knew to be false. The following is from Bush’s speech: “Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. (Applause.) We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. (Applause) ... We should approach our nation’s budget as any prudent family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs.” Yes, from its first days in power, the Bush regime lied to the American people. As of 2006, each newborn American is immediately saddled with a GOPinflicted “birth tax” of $28,000, together with large increases annually imposed by the Big Spenders and Big Borrowers known as the GOP. This $28,000 is the newborn’s share of the national debt. This GOP birth tax is like a serious birth defect, and America’s unborn will have to live with it and pay interest on it forever. In reality, the financial news is much worse than that. The large “birth tax” of $28,000 (plus additional principal and interest each year) reflects only what is commonly called the “national debt,” which is primarily publicly held debt, and does not include other huge commitments and contingencies of the U.S. government, including Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ health care. The larger total—the “total burden”—is more than five times as large as the national debt. This means the “birth tax” on the newborn is really more than five times the $28,000. In a few moments we’ll return to this larger looming GOP-caused catastrophe. Apologists for the GOP’s fiscal policies assert that the huge annual budget deficits are manageable. “Sustainable” is another adjective frequently used. But even if the budget deficits were sustainable—which they aren’t—this doesn’t mean the policies are prudent for America. A rotten policy that may be sustainable is still a rotten policy. Asserting that the deficits are “sustainable” is like a neocon saying that his daily rapes of a neighbor’s daughter are sustainable. (You can imagine the argument:


279

since the victim is young and strong, a daily rape should be sustainable, whereas maybe ten rapes a day might not be.)109 The spend and borrow GOP has put America in a deep financial hole, and the prudent course is to stop digging—stop the financial raping of America and its unborn—and figure out a prudent way out of the hole. Temporary budget deficits can make good sense during a recession or depression when an economic stimulus is needed (with the understanding that debt is paid off during good times.) But that is not America’s situation. GOP deficits are permanent, and they loom before us “as far as the eye can see.” The incredible power of compounding interest is now working against America, the world’s biggest debtor. Before Reagan, it was working for America. Responsible professionals in the U.S. government including the Comptroller General of the United States know that the path charted by the Cons is not sustainable. In his November 7, 2005, report covering fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the Comptroller General warned: “Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living and ultimately our national security.” The Comptroller General is America’s chief accountability officer and is head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). It is his job to report on America’s financial health. In addition to the huge federal debt (the $28,000 per American discussed above), there has been explosive growth during Bush’s watch in the gap between future promised and funded benefits (primarily Social Security and Medicare), as well as tremendous growth in many other federal commitments and contingencies, including veterans’ health care. This total burden (“Total Burden”), as calculated by the GAO, has risen to a staggering $46.4 trillion at the end of the government’s fiscal year 2005, versus “only” $20.4 trillion as of the end of 2000. Thus the Total Burden far more than doubled in only five years under Bush and his Con-controlled Congress, and it is continuing to grow rapidly every second of every day. It is virtually impossible for anyone to truly comprehend a staggering number like the $46.4 trillion in Total Burden, or “just” the additional $26.0 trillion added to the Total Burden during just the first five years of Bush’s watch. But let’s give the numbers some common sense perspective by calculating how rapidly the Total Burden increased for the average American household during Bush’s first five years. We do this by evenly spreading the $26.0 trillion (Bush’s five-year contribution only) over all 113 million American households. Here’s the bad news: The rate at which additional Total Burden (Bush’s contribution only) was imposed on American households during the first 5 years of Bush’s watch is equal to: • $5.25 per hour, per American household, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the entire 5-year period. • $22.14 per hour, per American household, based on a 40-hour workweek,110 for the entire 5-year period. Incredibly, this hourly rate is about 138% of the

109

If you have a more ugly metaphor or simile that you prefer, please let me know. It is tough to come up with one that is more ugly that what the Cons are actually doing to America.

280


average hourly earnings of private, non-farm, production or nonsupervisory workers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. • $46,050 per year, per American household. Incredibly, this is more than the median household income! (See the GAO figures in the sidebar below.) In other words, if during the first five years of the Bush regime, 100% of American households had applied 100% of their total household income to reduction of the Total Burden—and thus had not spent one red cent for food, shelter, medical care, taxes or anything else!—it would not have been enough to cover just the financial burden added during those five years by Bush and the Cons! America’s Comptroller General, David Walker, has worked hard to inform the public of America’s growing fiscal crisis. His many trips and presentations across America include his “Fiscal Wake-up Tour” of the United States in 2006. The following is taken from one of his presentations regarding America’s huge fiscal burden: SIDEBAR: How Big is Our Growing Fiscal Burden?111 Our total fiscal burden can be translated and compared as follows: Total fiscal exposures (as of 9/30/05) Total household net worth Burden/net worth ratio

$46.4 trillion $51.1 trillion 91 percent

Burden Per person Per full-time worker Per household

$156,000 $375,000 $411,000

Income Median household income Disposable personal income per capita

$44,389 $30,431

Many prominent economists have openly talked about America being on the road to bankruptcy. Some, such as Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, believe America by some measures is already bankrupt. In a research paper he published in 2006, Kotlikoff wrote that “the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implic110

This assumes no vacation time. The calculation is based on 52 workweeks per year, each 40 hours long. 111 The source of this table is the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). It is a financial snapshot as of the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005.) www.gao.gov/cghome.


281

itly promised future net payments of various kinds.” Some, including Kotlikoff, have calculated the fiscal gap (i.e., the “Total Burden,”) to be as high as an incomprehensible $65 trillion. There are a few terrifying scorched earth “solutions” to this looming disaster, one of which would be to immediately and permanently cut all Social Security and Medicare benefits by two-thirds. In the sad tradition of Banana Republics, a future American president may be required to beg for massive debt forgiveness from America’s domestic and international lenders, with catastrophic consequences. Ironically, the Banana Republican Party’s financial recklessness is a much greater threat to America’s power and sovereignty than the threat of “world government” imagined by conspiracy-theory rightwingers in their most hallucinatory nightmares. Following the horrors of 9/11, Americans united behind their president, George W. Bush, and his approval rating soared to almost 90%. Expecting Bush to lead, Americans were eager to answer the call, eager to give sacrificially in a grand historic response to the challenges of 9/11. The call never came. Americans wanted to unite in a shared transformational sacrifice that would not only punish those responsible for 9/11, but would also transform America and the world to make both better and safer. But Bush and the GOP never made the call. The Bush White House and the GOP-controlled Congress had no noble plan to lead America, let alone the world, and they still don’t. They had only blind ideology, incompetence and greed, which are ingredients of a toxic stew, not a noble plan. Their efforts in Afghanistan were tentative and unsuccessful; their immoral and illegal war on Iraq bogged down and inspired more terrorism; and their efforts to lead and secure America were half-hearted, seeped in fear mongering and propaganda. Handed opportunity by 9/11, the Bushies created catastrophe and turned the world against America. They united America’s enemies and divided America’s friends. They caused America the victim to be seen as the bad apple. They transformed America’s military into Goliath and spawned a multitude of enemy Davids. They sold out America and its Constitution. Bush made no inspirational call to the children and grandchildren of that “Greatest Generation” of Americans who answered the call following Pearl Harbor. The American blood spilled abroad in Bush’s wars would not be the blood of America’s rich and powerful. There would be no military draft or other shared sacrifice. There would be no noble focus, no grand strategy other than making sure that America’s Super Rich and well-connected cronies profit from the 9/11 opportunity. Bush’s various so-called “emergency” funding requests raised the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2008 to a staggering, mind-boggling $196 billion—more than $16 billion each month, more than $1 billion every 48 hours. Yet there would be no new or old tax to pay for Bush’s wars. In fact, the Super Rich would continue to receive their huge tax cuts each and every year. One hundred percent of the enormous bill for the Bush regime’s incompetence and greed would be passed to future generations of Americans. Screw the unborn.

282


Trade Deficits and the GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle Class Lester Thurow, MIT professor of economics, famously said that the epitaph of the Reagan presidency will be: “When Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the world’s largest debtor nation.” When Reagan rode into Washington in 1981, he launched the GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle Class, which catastrophically restructured America, devastated its manufacturing infrastructure, and crippled America’s national security in the process. This economic war became the GOP’s new religion and acquired among those on the extreme economic right a status higher than that of Christianity, with venerable godlike Reagan increasingly spoken of in reverential tones, and—as the years rolled by—with facts and reality being replaced by Reagan lore and rightwing hallucinations. When Reagan became president, America imported more raw materials than any other nation, and it exported more manufactured products than any other nation. The GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle Class completely reversed this and turned America into a Banana Republic—of, by and for Banana Republicans. America now exports more raw materials, and imports more manufactured products, than any other nation. Bush took the GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle Class to new levels of madness, and his and the GOP’s anti-union, anti-worker, pro-Big Business economic policies cost America and America’s workers dearly. The humongous growth in America’s trade deficit under Bush destroyed millions of higher-wage, higher-skill manufacturing jobs in the United States, and pushed millions of Americans into restaurant and other service employment where wages and benefits are much lower. W and Wal-Mart won the battle to downgrade America’s workers. Economists believed America’s record trade imbalance of $418 billion in 2002 under Bush was very ominous for America’s financial health and its workers. However, much worse performance was yet to come. The 2003 trade deficit under Bush grew by 17.2% to $489.9 billion. The 2004 trade deficit exploded by another 26.1% to $617.7 billion, and the 2005 deficit jumped another 17.5% to $726 billion.112 The 2006 deficit hit $763.3 billion, a new record for the fifth consecutive year. An International Monetary Fund report in early 2004 warned that America’s ballooning trade and budget deficits are “significant risks” to the world economy. It predicted that in a few years the total amount of money owed to foreign creditors could rise to 40% of the United States’ domestic economy, “an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country.”

112

For each year, the merchandise-only deficit (versus both goods and services) is actually much higher than the stated figure. For example, the merchandise-only trade deficit was $666 billion in 2004, versus the stated figure of $617.7 billion for aggregate goods and services.


283

SIDEBAR: Kansas For Sale—America For Sale When it comes to deficits, Bush and his Republican Party rely upon obfuscation and ignorance. They count on millions of their supporters not wanting to look at the numbers, not knowing the difference between a million dollars and a trillion, and not having the time to understand and size the problem. But the multiple GOP deficits are in fact staggering and constitute a much greater threat to America than 100 bin Ladens and 100 9/11s. Reagan was not proud of the fact that he transformed America from the largest creditor nation ever into the largest debtor nation ever. In contrast, Bush cares not in the least that he has broken all of Reagan’s worst financial records and weakened America catastrophically. In order to finance Bush’s record annual trade deficit, America in 2004 had to suck up 80% of total world savings that year, and the percentage has increased since then. Foreigners held about 43% of all U.S. Treasury bonds, notes and bills, and the percentage is growing. This nuclear cannon pointed at America’s head should alarm even Bush’s hardcore supporters, especially those who believe America should never be influenced by foreigners. At the same time, America’s foreign owners recognize that it is becoming increasingly risky to buy and hold Bush League Confederate dollars, which have fallen precipitously in value thanks to the GOP printing presses working day and night to churn out record amounts of Confederate currency. Naturally, America’s growing horde of foreign creditors increasingly invests in American assets in addition to U.S. Treasury debt instruments, such as American real estate and American businesses. Although most conservatives no longer believe in “Buy American,” America’s foreign lenders and owners do believe in “Buy America.” Regarding “Buy America,” let’s size the looming GOP-inflicted catastrophe by asking how much of America could be purchased with Bush’s $2 billion per day trade deficit. Let’s consider Kansas. The area of Kansas is 82,282 square miles, which is 52.66 million acres. Assuming a purchase price of $1,000 for Kansas farmland (which is actually higher than the average 2004 sale price),113 American farmland equal in area to the entire state of Kansas could be purchased for $52.66 billion. This sum is only a small fraction, less than one-thirteenth, of America’s annual trade deficit ($726 billion in 2005.) This means that if those dang foreigners used all those Bush-deficit dollars that they collected in just one year, they could buy American farmland more than 13 times the size of Kansas. This means that, in less than six years of Bush League government, foreigners could pocket enough dollars to buy Kansas-like farmland equal in area to all of America, including Alaska.

113

For comparison, a 2005 survey in Nebraska indicated that Nebraska agricultural land sold for an average of $829 per acre.

284


The GOP’s national anthem is “Come Buy US,” sung to the tune of “Kumbaya.” Thanks to the GOP, it is “Bye Bye America.” But Bush and the GOP—both afflicted with attention deficit disorder—pay no attention to deficits. “Deficits don’t matter.” Truly incredible.

Tax Shelters: GOP Kleptomania for the Super Rich “The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway,” noted Bush on August 9, 2004, while explaining why he refuses to tax the wealthy. Don’t believe figures you read about the percentage of income that the Super Rich pay in taxes. Much of the income of the Super Rich never gets reported in the first place, largely because the tax code was written by and for them. Although actual tax fraud is a big problem (as discussed below), the real crime is all the perfectly legal tax avoiding devices and tricks available to the Super Rich. The real tax rates for the Super Rich are undoubtedly much lower than the reported numbers. On the other hand, every penny of Joe Lunchpail’s wages for work gets accurately reported through his employer, and taxes are withheld from every paycheck. The billionaire Waltons of America benefit from one set of rules, while Walton workers are subject to another. Guess who is screwing whom. According to reviews and reports by the IRS itself, the tax underreporting or fraud by W-2 Joe Lunchpail is virtually nothing when compared to that of wealthy individuals and proprietors. In early 2006 the Internal Revenue Service reported that there was 99% compliance regarding America’s workers and their wages, salary and tip income. This fact was noted in the IRS’s updated estimates of the tax year 2001 “tax gap” based on the IRS National Research Program (the “NRP”), a comprehensive three-year study of the 2001 tax year returns of individuals. The IRS noted that compliance is highest where there is third-party reporting. Incredibly, according to the NRP report, the noncompliance rate is 57 times higher for non-farm sole proprietor income, which, unlike the case with W-2 Joe Lunchpail, does not rely upon third-party reporting. The IRS news release noted: For example, one percent of all wage, salary, and tip income is misreported, contributing an estimated $10 billion to the tax gap. In contrast, non-farm sole proprietor income, which is reported on a Schedule C and is subject to little third-party reporting or withholding, has a net misreporting percentage of 57 percent, contributing about $68 billion to the tax gap.

Regarding the total amount of tax underpayment (i.e., fraud), the IRS concluded: The updated estimate of the overall gross tax gap for Tax Year 2001—the difference between what taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid on a timely basis—comes to $345 billion. … IRS enforcement activities, coupled with other late payments, recover about $55 billion of the tax gap, leaving a net tax gap of $290 billion for Tax Year 2001.

That last incredible figure of $290 billion is worth repeating. If all Americans had paid their federal income taxes in full without fraud, the United States would have had additional tax collections of $290 billion! This total was for tax year 2001, the


285

year of the comprehensive IRS study, and the current total is undoubtedly higher. Whatever the exact amount, if Americans didn’t cheat on their taxes, the additional taxes collected would eliminate, or almost eliminate, the humongous annual budget deficits of the Bush administration ($318 billion in 2005). However, the GOP-controlled Congress over the years handcuffed IRS tax enforcement by changing the rules to make it harder for IRS enforcement employees to do their jobs, and easier for the Super Rich to evade taxes. Also, tax collection efforts under the Cons focus too much on the small fish. In August 2006 The New York Times reported that the Internal Revenue Service was planning to outsource collection of delinquent taxes of less than $25,000 to private tax collectors, even though federal employees can perform this work much more efficiently. The outsourcing also raises issues of privacy and fraud. At the same time, the IRS planned to lay off almost half of its auditors who examine the estate tax returns of America’s wealthiest. When Saddam’s trucks backed into the Iraqi treasury and left filled with cash, it undoubtedly was perfectly legal, since Saddam and his government made the laws. A signed document authorizing the withdrawal was even provided to the Iraqi treasury. Well, the U.S. tax laws operate pretty much the same way for America’s Super Rich, except that the loot pocketed by them dwarfs Saddam’s take. Many of America’s brightest and most creative professionals work as tax lawyers and tax accountants for the Super Rich. Their job is not simply to do all the routine paperwork for their clients and calculate the amount of taxes due under the tax laws. Rather, their main added value is creatively pushing the envelop of tax avoidance techniques and schemes. A tax code that is 14,000 pages long provides lots of paint for financial artists to paint creative tax-avoiding masterpieces. Their question is: “What kind of masterpiece do you want me to paint?” Answer: “One that shows me not paying any taxes.” Reply: “No problem.” SIDEBAR: Grand Jury Investigation of KPMG’s Tax Shelters KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms, was one of the more aggressive creators and sellers of strategies to eliminate huge tax liabilities. Thanks to a whistleblower, the IRS learned of the KPMG tax shelters in 2003 and took action to end them. A federal grand jury in Manhattan investigated and indicted KPMG, which had collected at least $124 million in accounting fees for its fraudulent tax shelter work. In 2005 KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in helping wealthy clients create at least $11 billion in phony tax losses, thereby helping them dodge $2.5 billion in taxes, and agreed to pay $456 million as part of a deferred-prosecution settlement. In March 2006 one of nineteen indicted senior KPMG executives pleaded guilty, and more indictments appeared likely. It’s unclear what action, if any, will be taken against the wealthy investors, who are predominantly rich individuals and corporations. In some cases, the statute of limitations to collect delinquent taxes has expired. Some investors sued KPMG regarding their tax exposure.

286


KPMG is not an isolated example. The Dallas-headquartered law firm of Jenkens & Gilchrist shut its doors on March 31, 2007, a few days after agreeing to pay the IRS a penalty of $76 million in connection with the firm’s violation of tax laws and promotion of abusive and fraudulent tax shelters to high-net-worth individuals. In 2005 the law firm and its insurers agreed to pay $81.6 million to settle lawsuits filed by more than 1,000 tax shelter clients. Founded in 1951 and headquartered in Dallas, this well-regarded firm had more than 600 attorneys at its peak in 2001. Many of the tax-elimination packages Jenkins marketed to the Super Rich had catchy names such as: • “HOMER” (Hedge Option Monetization of Economic Remainders); • “BART” (Basis Adjustment Remainder Trusts); • “COBRA” (Currency Options Bring Reward Alternatives); • “BLISS” (Basis Leveraged Investment Swap Spreads); • “BEDS” (Basis Enhancing Derivatives Structure); and • “BOSS” (Bond & Option Sale Strategy). An eye-opening description of the tax shelter business is contained in Perfectly Legal, by David Cay Johnston. It describes a host of specific cases and tricks that should make you sick. The tax system creates an incentive for the Super Rich to cheat, and the professionals doing their dirty work are paid dearly. For example, Johnson writes, Only the very rich can buy these tax shelters. Ernst & Young has been known to charge people a fee of $1 million just to look at a tax shelter proposal. But then, compared to paying taxes, tax shelters can be a real bargain. One Ernst & Young shelter cost $5 million to wipe out $20 million in tax obligations, according to its confidential offering. Ernst & Young sold a similar shelter that promised people with salaries of $20 million or more that they could live tax-free. KPMG and BDO Seidman, in particular, fought government efforts to learn about their tax shelters and who used them.

Many of the tax schemes rely upon secrecy—by being structured so that key information is not filed with the IRS. Also, Congress has taken many steps to protect the Super Rich by effectively handcuffing IRS enforcement.

Environment and Energy Policy—Attacking America’s Security Within a few days after his inauguration in January 2001, oilman Bush appointed oilman Cheney—the former head of public-trough energy giant Halliburton—to chair an energy task force that would determine America’s energy policy, which would include gutting environmental protections at every opportunity. The task force was named the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), and on paper was composed solely of Bush administration officials. However, lobbyists and oil and energy company executives, including several from Enron, dominated the agenda and the proceeding. Environmental groups and consumer representatives were excluded from meaningful participation. America’s energy policy was determined in secrecy by Cheney’s team as they met with lobbyists from the coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries. The rushed energy


287

policy—presented in a report in May 2001—was a payback to corporate polluters that funded the Bush/Cheney campaign. The NEPDG report was widely criticized for many obvious reasons, including the fact that it was “of, by, and for” the oil and energy industries. Among the industry lobbyists and representatives was Bush’s own “Kenny Boy” Ken Lay, the chairman of Enron, who by coincidence gave the most cash to the Bush/Cheney 2000 election campaign.114 Bush stopped talking about his buddy “Kenny Boy” when the Texas-style corruption at Enron was exposed. Lay was later convicted on numerous counts and sentenced to prison, but he dropped dead in 2006 before justice was served. Industry lobbyists participated extensively in private meetings of the NEPDG. In addition to telling NEPDG what they wanted, they even wrote key parts of the report and legislative agenda. The NEPDG report called for everything that was good for oil and energy companies, and it sacrificed America’s broader interests. The report called for increased tax breaks and subsidies for energy companies, more privatization and deregulation, drilling in the Arctic wilderness, and reduced environmental protection. In short order, consumers in California and other states paid billions more in bogus energy charges due to fraud and diminished federal oversight. The Bush administration fought legal action to open the NEPDG’s records to public review and sunlight. At the insistence of two congressional Democrats, Congress ordered its investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), to obtain the records of the energy task force. The records were needed in connection with Congress’s investigation of California’s 2001 energy crisis and the fraud leading to the looting and collapse of Enron. Cheney completely stonewalled all requests, arguing that the principle of separation of powers prevented Congress from intruding into meetings between the executive branch and private individuals. The GAO then filed a lawsuit in federal district court. Unfortunately, the case was assigned to a judge, John Bates, who had just been appointed by Bush, and who previously was an assistant to Kenneth Starr—the Whitewater Independent Counsel and hatchet man for the extreme right. In a partisan ruling, the judge dismissed the case, and the GAO, under pressure from the Bush White House, declined to appeal the ruling. Fortunately, two public interest organizations, Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, had also filed lawsuits, arguing that the Bush administration ignored “open government” protections of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which generally requires public meetings whenever agency officials seek outside advice. There is an 114

The following movie scene is for Casablanca fans, with Ken Lay playing the part of Jan Brandel, who is trying to get out of Casablanca, and Bush playing the part of the crooked Captain Louis Renault: Ken Lay (as he tries to hand Bush a bribe at Rick’s Café Americain): President Bush ... may I? Bush: Oh no! Not here please! Come to my office tomorrow morning. We’ll do everything businesslike. Ken Lay: We’ll be there at six. Bush: I’ll be there at ten.

288


exception if an agency committee is “composed wholly of full-time officers or employees” of the federal government. The plaintiffs argued that the energy lobbyists and representatives were de-facto members of NEPDG. The district court sided with the plaintiffs and ordered discovery to proceed. Cheney stonewalled the discovery requests for information and petitioned the federal Court of Appeals, again asserting the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court of Appeals rejected his petition, leaving him free to claim executive privilege in opposing specific information requests. Cheney then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2004 gave Cheney at least a temporary victory. It did not order Cheney to respond to the discovery, nor did it uphold his blanket claim of privilege. Rather, it said that the lower federal courts should have made the plaintiffs narrow their informational requests to avoid compelling Cheney to claim executive privilege. The legal proceeding would thus bubble along, with the assurance that no seamy details regarding the task force would see the light of day until after the 2004 election, if ever. It didn’t hurt Cheney’s case that his longtime duck-hunting buddy, Antonin Scalia, sits on the Supreme Court. Extreme rightwing Scalia was one of the five Republicans on the Supreme Court who stopped the vote counting in Florida in 2000 and anointed Bush president and Cheney vice president. Although Cheney and Scalia went duck hunting together in Louisiana while the case was before the Supreme Court, Scalia ignored federal judicial rules and refused to remove himself from the case. The host of the duck-hunting outing was another prominent oilman. Scalia and rightwing Clarence Thomas joined in a concurring opinion that would have gone much further. They wanted Cheney to be immune from any discovery, which would be a big step forward on the road to a presidential dictatorship. Bush later successfully packed the Supreme Court with two more similar extreme rightwing justices who consistently side with corporate and executive power over the public interest. The activities of Cheney’s NEPDG unfortunately remain classified. However, thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club and a prior decision of the Supreme Court in July 2003, the Commerce Department in 2003 made a partial disclosure of some NEPDG documents, including charts and maps dated March 2001 of oil fields and pipelines in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Two charts contain details regarding Iraqi oil and gas projects, and one project was entitled, “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” Of course, the Bush League invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil. But Iraqis for some reason believe Bush’s invasion and occupation was about Iraq’s oil. In a survey conducted in 2006 by Michigan University and Eastern Michigan University, 76% of Iraqis, when asked to give the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, gave “to control Iraqi oil” as their first choice. (This high figure does not include Iraqis who gave “to control Iraqi oil” as their second or third choice.) The same study indicated that 91% of Iraqis opposed the presence of American troops, an increase of almost 20% over 2004. Imagine you are a Middle Eastern Muslim wrestling with this conundrum: “Why in Allah’s name is America’s oil located under my land?” Is it “intelligent design” perhaps? Also imagine you are trying not to harbor any skepticism as to the American armies occupying your land. Imagine also that both the U.S. president and the


289

vice president previously ran—or rather, mismanaged—oily companies and have benefited greatly from enormous bribes—er, political contributions—from their crude oil cronies. Imagine further that Bush’s National Security Advisor—yes, the same clueless and malfeasant one who was sleeping on the job before 9/11, but later was promoted to Secretary of State because of her incompetence—had a Chevron oil tanker named after her: the Bahamian-registered, double-hulled, 129,000-ton “Condoleezza Rice.”115 Saturday Night Live could not make this stuff up. Aided by the Religious Right, big corporate polluters control the Bush administration’s environmental policies, which no longer are based on hard facts and scientific analysis. The NEPDG said nothing serious about global warming. Faith-based environmental nihilism is in vogue in Bush’s America, where bashing God’s environment has become a sign of rightwing religious fervor. The administration favors increased consumption of oil by the United States, and it counts on America’s military to remove all obstacles. The world looks on in horror. SIDEBAR: Bush and Consumption “We need an energy bill that encourages consumption.” —George W. Bush. Sept. 23, 2002 The West Wing of the White House should be renamed the “Waste Wing” in honor of oily “W” and his crude oil puppeteers. Bush’s role as Chief Waster greatly upsets allies and friends, who bear the cost of global warming, higher oil prices, a degrading environment, and increased terrorism worldwide. America must boot out the gluttonous GOP elephant and become the world leader in energy conservation, clean energy and alternative energy. America’s national security hangs in the balance. Bush’s energy program is better known as “Leave No Ayatollah Behind.” Increases in the price of crude generate enormous piles of cash for crude dictators, helping them remain in power and avoid democratic reform. Thomas Friedman, a rightwing columnist for The New York Times who supported Bush’s war on Iraq, is very critical of the Saudi educational system and culture which breed and encourage terrorists by teaching intolerance for other religions and cultures, as well as hatred for the West. Friedman wants “an energy policy that reduces our dependence on Saudi oil. I don’t want the difference between a good day and bad day to be whether Saudi Arabia reforms its education system.” He is particularly critical of Cheney: A few years ago, Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed those of us who advocate energy conservation as dreamy do-gooders. Had he spent the last three years using his bully pulpit to push for conservation and alternative energies, rather than dis115

It’s the oil tanker that is 129,000 tons, not Rice, and, contrary to some reports, Rice the Homo sapien was appointed Secretary of State, not Rice the oil tanker.

290

THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS missing them, we’d be a lot less dependent today on foreign oil. Oh, that is so naïve, says the oil crowd. Well, what would you call a Bush energy policy that keeps America dependent on a medieval monarchy with a king who has lost most of his faculties, where there is virtually no transparency about what’s happening, where corruption is rampant, where we have asked all Americans to leave and where the education system is so narrow that its own people are decrying it as a factory for extremism? Now that’s what I’d call naïve. I’d also call it reckless and dangerous.

By religiously opposing energy conservation, the Bush administration made the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil, which in turn greatly distorted and misguided its foreign policy. By helping prop up rightwing oil dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, which provides funding, arms and support to many terrorists groups, Bush and the GOP are helping finance both sides in the war on terrorism. Contrary to the Bible and common sense, the faith-based Bush administration is engaged in a war against God’s world. In Bush’s dictionary, “environment” and “conservation” are four-letter words. The Bush administration devotes more energy to deceptive marketing campaigns and slogans than it does to protecting America’s environment for future generations. For example, the so-called “Clear Skies Initiative” actually increased air pollution and degraded human health by weakening pollution laws. The so-called “Healthy Forests Initiative” is welfare for the logging industry, and it does not make forests healthy. Unfortunately for both America and the rest of the world, America’s top two leaders are Texas politicians with oil on the brain and oily money in their bank accounts. They favor the oil industry at every opportunity and refuse to address the reality of a world that will run short of oil. It is simply a matter of time before the rapidly increasing demand for oil outstrips the ability of oil-producing nations to squeeze oil from Mother Earth at a price that does not trigger global depression and additional oil-based conflicts. Of course, when it comes to the price of oil, the interests of consumers and oil producers and profiteers diverge 180 degrees. That’s one clue as to why the Bush administration sets Neanderthal energy policies. Bush’s oil cronies and multinational oil companies love it when the price of oil skyrockets. That’s when the good old times start rolling in oil producing areas of West Texas, including Bush’s hometown of Midland, and sales of Hummers and huge SUVs jump. Happy plump executives and directors in oil company boardrooms gleefully rake in the record compensation that they together set for themselves. In an oily love fest, ayatollahs and dictators in Iran and Saudi Arabia wear the same smiles as their oily counterparts in Texas. Notwithstanding record profits, Big Oil continues to receive billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies, thanks to the GOP Congress. Sometimes it received this largesse without even having to ask. In return, Big Oil is the biggest donor to the GOP and Bush’s campaigns. Compensation for oil company executives has gone through the roof, even faster than the price of gasoline. The average annual pay of oil company executives is more than $32 million, almost three times the average compensation of CEOs at the largest 350 U.S. corporations, which in turn is a multiple of CEO compensation at compara-


291

ble foreign companies. The three highest-paid oil company CEOs in 2005 each took home an average of more than $80 million in loot. When Lee Raymond, the chairman of Exxon, and other oil company executives were hauled before Congress in November 2005 to explain skyrocketing gasoline prices and record oil industry profits, Raymond and other oil executives said it was just a matter of supply and demand. “We’re all in this together, everywhere in the world,” Raymond testified. Well, not exactly—unless both rapists and their victims are viewed as being “all in this together.” Raymond retired at the end of 2005 with a retirement package worth $400 million, apparently the largest ever for an American public company. Raymond serves as chairman of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the rightwing neocon propaganda mill that helped shape the catastrophically failed foreign policies of the Bush administration. Raymond’s company, Exxon, actively opposes prudent environmental policies and is a leading exploiter and despoiler of God’s world. It may be just a coincidence that Raymond was president of Exxon at the time of the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster in Alaska in 1989 when 30 million gallons of crude oil were spilled into Prince William Sound.116 To commemorate Bush’s disastrous environmental actions, the infamous Exxon Valdez should be renamed the Exxon Valdez Bush in his honor. Exxon generates an enormous amount of disinformation regarding global warming. It is a major obstacle to energy independence for America, and its propaganda, money and political influence jeopardize America’s strategic security interests. But none dare call it treason. Phillip Cooney, the former chief of staff of the Bush White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, left his position in 2005 after The New York Times exposed his editing of scientific government reports so as to downplay the impact of human activity on global warming. Cooney, a political appointee with no scientific credentials, was quickly rehired by—guess who—Exxon, the world’s number one corporate enemy of God’s creation. The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March 2007 released documents showing hundreds of instances in which Cooney made changes, which, according to Committee Chair Henry Waxman, suggested a “systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change.” (These documents saw the light of day only after the GOP lost control of Congress in 2006.) Before his oily stint in the Bush administration, Cooney worked for the American Petroleum Institute, where as “climate team leader” he was paid royally to deny climate change. Cooney epitomizes the well-oiled revolving door between GOP-style government and Big Business, with countless political hacks going from oily position to oily position to oily position. There’s a rumor, which I’m now starting, that candidates for positions in the Bush administration, in addition to proving their rightwing Christianist credentials, must also prove their loyalty by pimping their mothers for a 55-gallon barrel of crude. 116

The infamous Exxon Valdez, now named “The Sea River Mediterranean,” operates under the flag of the Marshall Islands and is prohibited by law from entering Prince William Sound.


292

Here are several additional interesting data points—perhaps gentle signals from God—that should serve as bellwethers of things to come: • The fabulous Texas oil fields have seen their best days. By 2004 daily oil production in Texas had declined to about 360,000 barrels, about one-third of what it was in 1978, the last year in which Texas oil production broke 1,000,000 barrels a day. Fortunately for oil tycoons but not consumers, higher oil prices have helped offset the decline in oil production. Texas is rapidly becoming an empty oilcan. Texas Crude Oil Production

Crude Oil (millions of barrels)

1400

1972 - Peak Texas Oil

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year

•

•

•

The same applies to the rest of America. Serious oil production in Alaska’s North Slope started in 1978, the year after the completion of the 800-milelong trans-Alaska pipeline that moves oil from the North Slope to the icefree port of Valdez. By 1988 North Slope production had peaked at 2 million barrels per day. Since then it has steadily declined, and by 2006 it was at only 45% of its peak. It seems like only yesterday that the North Slope oil resources were discovered and the pipeline opened. Since the North Slope is over the hump and rapidly on its way to depletion, the Bush administration wants to also exploit and empty the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR.) One advantage of the GOP’s “burn it now” agenda is that future generations of Americans won’t have to worry about managing this wonderful natural resource—there will be nothing left to manage. U.S. crude oil production peaked in 1970 at more than 11 million barrels per day, and it has been on a decline ever since, notwithstanding the opening of Alaska’s North Slope in 1978.

CHAPTER 12 — THE GOP’S BANKRUPTCY OF AMERICA •

293

By the end of 2005, U.S. crude oil production had dropped to 4.86 million barrels per day, which is less than 45% of America’s peak production in 1970. • By 2005 America was producing less oil that it did in 1950, when its population was less than half its 2005 total. • The 1970 record oil production represented more than 40% of total world production, but it was still not enough to meet America’s appetite for oil— almost 15 million barrels per day in 1970. • Much is written about the definition and timing of “global peak oil,” and it is a question of when, not if. Given the long lead time needed to transition to meaningful conservation and alternative energy sources, global peak oil is effectively staring America in the face. • As many as 54 of the top 65 oil producing nations have already passed through, or are now experiencing, their “peak oil.” As previously noted, America passed through its peak oil in 1970, having used its limited oil resources earlier and faster than any other nation. • Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Russia head the short list of nations with huge oil reserves that have not yet hit their peak oil. With increasing speed each year, rudderless America, paralyzed by the do-nothing Bush administration, is sliding down a slippery crude oil slope, dissipating its wealth, strategic power, and ability to control its own future, while at the same time increasing the economic and strategic advantage of foreign powers unfriendly to America. That’s the sad story on the production side. What has happened on the demand side? • America continues to be the oil pig of the world, with enormous implications for U.S. policy and security. • With 5% of the world’s population, the United States consumes about 25% of the world’s oil. Consumption by the rest of the world, especially China and India, is rising even more rapidly. • In 1950 America consumed about 5 million barrels of oil daily, about equal to what it then produced. • In 1970, the year of America’s peak oil production, America consumed almost 15 million barrels of oil per day, about 4 million barrels more than it produced. • By the end of 2005, U.S. oil consumption had increased to about 21 million barrels per day, while U.S. production, as noted above, had dropped to 5 million barrels. America now has to import more than 75% of the oil it consumes. • By way of comparison, at the time of the 1973 oil crisis, during which Americans endured closed gas stations and gas lines blocks long, the United States imported less than one-third of its oil. America at that time was thus much less susceptible to the “oil weapon” than it is now under the Bush regime, which has made things worse with its “head in the sand” and “army in the sand” energy policies. During the 1973 energy crisis, the seven Arab nations in OPEC plus Egypt and Syria announced an oil embargo against the

294


nations (the United States, Western Europe and Japan) that supported Israel in the fourth Arab-Israeli war, also known as the “Yom Kippur War” and the “Ramadan War.” At the same time, OPEC took actions to greatly increase the price of oil. It later came to light that Egypt and Saudi Arabia secretly met and agreed before the Yom Kippur War to use the “oil weapon.” • Under Bush’s and the GOP’s watch, not only has the total amount of imported oil increased each year, the percentage of our oil consumption that is imported has also increased each year. Not fans of reality, the oil addicts in the Bush administration believe they can drill their way out of America’s energy hole. That is simply not possible. • In 2004 there were only 1,200 rigs actively exploring for oil and natural gas in the United States, a drop of almost three-quarters from the 1981 peak of 4,530 rigs. This drop occurred notwithstanding a huge increase in the price of oil and reflects the fact that almost all of America’s oil has already been discovered. • The United States has lots of oil wells, more than 500,000, but they on average don’t produce much—slightly more than 10 barrels of oil per day each. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has only 1,500 producing wells, but they average about 5,000 barrels per day (500 times the U.S. average.) The Bush regime and the GOP are like a pack of dogs adrift in a lifeboat that decides on the first day to eat all the dog food. Their energy policies have made America much more energy dependent than when Bush took office. America now imports much more oil than in 2001, with increased dependence on dictators and cartels. It is as if Bush decided to play Russian roulette with dictators, but after foolishly loading bullets into all six chambers of his six-shooter, Bush then says to Iranian President Ahmadinejad, “I’ll go first.” America must move away from both its fossil fuels and its fossil fools. In Part V of this book (“Tools of the Trade,” Chapters 13-18) we focus a bright light on many of the duplicitous and illegal tools used by the GOP to seize power and wage its War on Iraq and its War on America.

PART V Tools of the Trade

CHAPTER 13

An Outlaw Presidency—From Crimes Against Humanity to the Rape of the U.S. Constitution The George Orwell Party (GOP) at Work Naturally the common people don’t want war… But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. —Nazi Herman Goering, second in command of the Third Reich, during his Nuremberg War Crimes Trial in 1946. The Fourth Reich There is broad worldwide consensus that the Bush administration has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in its war on Iraq and its broader so-called global war on terrorism. Broadly-supported international criminal proceedings against Bush, Cheney and their chief neocon henchmen would already be underway but for the fact that America is, well, America, the world’s number one superpower. America’s traditional allies and friends rightly refused to drink the toxic Iraqi Kool-Aid brewed by the Bush League neocons, and they do not understand why tens of millions of Americans in the face of Bush’s imperialism, lying and tyranny— especially his war on Iraq and his assault on America’s civil liberties—behave like sheep going to the slaughter. They are appalled that Americans took so long to grasp the sad truth about their imperial incompetent president, the outlaw George W. Bush. Where is that America—the land of the free and the home of the brave—they once admired?

298


SIDEBAR: “Watch Us, Wiretap Us, Search Us, Jail Us … The High Price of American Gullibility” A growing number of prominent conservative and libertarian Americans also have sounded the alarm against the Bush regime’s illegal and unconstitutional spying on Americans and the gullibility of countless millions of Americans, especially conservatives and America’s media, who succumbed to emotional appeals to fear and false patriotism, and turned a blind eye to reason and reality. In a June 28, 2006, article in CounterPunch entitled, “Watch Us, Wiretap Us, Search Us, Jail Us … The High Price of American Gullibility,” Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and former Associate Editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page, writes: “In National Socialist Germany, by the time propaganda lost its grip, Germans were in the hands of a police state. It was too late to take corrective measures. Not even the military could correct the disastrous policies of the executive. In the end, Germany was destroyed. Does a similar fate await Americans?” The Bush administration since 9/11 has isolated America in unprecedented fashion precisely at that point in history when America most needs allies and multinational cooperation to fight stateless violence and terrorism. • According to a June 2006 poll conducted in Great Britain, France, Spain and Italy by the Harris Poll and the Financial Times—regarded by many as the world’s foremost English-language daily newspaper—the United States is viewed as the number one threat to world security. Incredibly, 36% of those polled in this survey of our allies identified America as the greatest threat, followed by Iran with 30% and China with 18%. • According to a 15-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey released June 13, 2006, positive views of the United States continued to decline, and majorities in most nations believe America will not achieve its objectives in Iraq. In Great Britain, which is America’s staunchest ally in Iraq, 60% say the Iraq war made the world more dangerous, compared with 30% who say it made the world safer. The Bush administration has engaged in a broad assault on what America’s friends have long admired most about America: the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; America as the brightest beacon of freedom and hope in a troubled world; and America’s huge inspirational role in leading competent democratic partnerships in times of conflict. Ironically, the Bush administration has rejected the main institutions of world order that generations of American leaders helped form and de facto led. Over several decades America was the chief architect and supporter of a host of international alliances, organizations and treaties having progressive purposes and ideals, including the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, GATT and the Geneva Conventions. The principal structures were birthed in abhorrence to

CHAPTER 13 — AN OUTLAW PRESIDENCY

299

twentieth century warmongering and totalitarianism, characteristics that now are associated with Bush’s regime and the neo-GOP. Secretary of State Colin Powell opposed the Bush administration’s efforts to gut America’s international treaty obligations and the Geneva Conventions, one of his many concerns being that captured American soldiers could be greatly endangered. It’s a fair conclusion—and a widespread belief among America’s allies and friends— that the Bush regime’s above-the-law attitude led directly to the torture abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere—including but not limited to waterboarding—and to a precipitous drop in America’s moral standing throughout the world. SIDEBAR: International Criminal Court America can improve its standing and influence in the world by joining the International Criminal Court (ICC)—the world’s first permanent and independent international criminal court—and working to expand the ICC’s enforcement powers. The ICC was born in 1998 when 120 nations voted to adopt the Rome Statute of the ICC treaty, and became effective in 2002 according to the Rome Statute’s terms when a minimum of 60 nations had formally ratified it.117 Only seven nations voted against the Rome Statute: the United States, Israel, the People’s Republic of China, Iraq, Qatar, Libya and Yemen. What a friendly, peace loving bunch! Although the United States signed the ICC treaty just prior to the treaty’s 2000 signature deadline, the United States never ratified it.118 Upon becoming president, Bush nullified the U.S. signature, withdrew U.S. support, and declared that the United States would not ratify the treaty. One concern was that American soldiers and members of Bush’s administration—including possibly Bush himself—could be brought before the ICC for trial. Many of America’s closest allies—satisfied with the many protections and exemptions available under the ICC—have urged the United States to also join. The worst case foreseen by America’s allies was that the United States would refuse to join and simply ignore the court. Unfortunately, imperial Bush went much further and launched an all-out campaign that was seen by many as an attempt to strangle the ICC at birth. Bush also threatened many third-world nations with various sanctions and punishments if they supported the ICC. Nations ratifying the treaty have granted the ICC authority to try its citizens for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Many assert that the nations most opposed to the ICC are the nations more likely to engage in these activities. Pro-torture officials and other war criminals in the Bush regime come to mind.

117

By mid-2005, 99 nations had ratified the treaty. A nation is not subject to the ICC unless and until it ratifies the treaty. 118 Desiring to negotiate an exemption for U.S. citizens participating in UN peacekeeping missions, the United States signed the ICC Statute just before the deadline in order to remain part of the negotiating process regarding ICC legal procedures.

300


The ICC—a complement to the national judicial systems of its members—steps in only if a nation’s legal system is unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute covered crimes. A principal concern of the ICC is to help protect powerless people— especially women and children—who are not adequately protected by any umbrella of justice. With U.S. ratification and support, the ICC could become the best hope for countless millions of victims of ethnic cleansing, rapes, torture and genocide. By obstructing the ICC, Bush has cast his lot with the “evil doers,” a term Bush frequently evokes in neocon propaganda promoting the so-called war on terrorism. One case in point is Darfur—for years Bush helped prevent the Darfur case from being referred to the ICC. Apart from the ICC, it appears likely that several senior Bush administration officials, including Bush himself, could be tried for various war crimes arising out of torture committed under their watch. Some of Bush’s most senior lawyers, including then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, worried about this very possibility before the Iraq invasion, as reflected in an internal White House memorandum dated January 25, 2002, signed by Gonzales. The problem facing the nasty nefarious neocons was how to neuter and circumvent the War Crimes Act—passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996—and the related Geneva Conventions. White House lawyers also apparently worried that they themselves could be tried for war crimes. In 2005 Bush rewarded Gonzales—his longtime crony and loyal lapdog—by naming him to be the Attorney General of the United States, the most important law enforcement official in America and the person in charge of over 100,000 employees in more than 50 divisions in the Department of Justice. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate confirmed Gonzales’ appointment as Attorney General notwithstanding unprecedented concern among America’s most respected senior military leaders. For example, in an open letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a group of 12 retired American military leaders—including admirals, generals and a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—expressed their deep concern about the detention operations Gonzales helped shape: “It is clear that these operations have fostered greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops around the world.” America’s Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions—which live in the soul of every graduate of America’s military academies—are just quaint niceties to Bush, Gonzales and the other civilian neocons. When the cause is just, America’s allies and friends are willing to fight the good fight shoulder to shoulder with America. But they reject any American suggestion that America is superior, more moral, more competent, and more entitled. In short, they reject the notion of American exceptionalism. They reject Bush’s Americancentric view of the world, which is inherently myopic. They reject his American chauvinism, jingoism and bullying. American competence—once the envy of the world—has taken an extraordinarily severe beating under Bush. Bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina,


301

Lebanon and Iran—the list is endless. America, America, wherefore art thou, America? As for Katrina and Iraq, the GOP would do better to, “Make Levee, Not War.” Other than the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, nothing would help more to restore America’s reputation, and bring more cheer and reassurance to America’s friends and allies, than the total repudiation of the neocons’ Project for the New American Century. Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Mao Tse-Tung’s The Little Red Book, and Marx’s Das Kapital, that nice little neocon “book” known as The Project for the New American Century must be tossed in the garbage can of history, along with its imperial practitioners. The Republican Party—the Cons—rubber stamped every madness of the Bush regime, thus making themselves an essential part of the problem. The GOPcontrolled do-nothing-good Congress abdicated its constitutional role of oversight of the executive branch, and became a willing co-conspirator in a continuing, systematic cover-up for the most corrupt and incompetent government in U.S. history. The Cons cannot be trusted to defend America’s democracy and constitution. They cannot be trusted to govern. Millions of traditionally conservative Republicans withdrew their support for the Bush administration and its policies, especially regarding his incompetent and duplicitous war on Iraq. The Project for the New American Century has even been rejected by some of its signers, including Francis Fukuyama, who wrote: “Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.”119 Former neocon Fukuyama also noted the obvious: “By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.” America must unequivocally reject The Project for the New American Century, and it must return to constitutional government. The only certain way to accomplish this is to impeach Bush and Cheney. Anything short of that is half-hearted and ineffective. The world cannot wait. In the last chapter of this book, we set forth three plans to help America “out of the wilderness,” including: Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan. Here are three additional small but important actions the United States should take to improve its credibility and effectiveness in the world: • America must fire the numerous incompetent Neanderthals that Bush appointed to the United Nations and high government positions. The departure of UN ambassador John Bolton shortly after the 2006 midterm elections was worth celebrating. The long list of other thugs who need to be booted out include: John Negroponte, the U.S. director of national intelligence, previously U.S. ambassador to Iraq, who as U.S. ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s performed shamefully regarding U.S.-backed death squads that killed tens of thousands of civilians during Reagan’s illegal secret war on Central America; and Elliott Abrams, Bush’s deputy national security advi119

“After Neoconservatism,” New York Times article by Fukuyama, Feb. 19, 2006.

302


sor, who also was instrumental in the 1980s in supporting the Central American death squads and was convicted of lying to Congress about the illegal Iran-Contra affair. • America must turn away from the Dark Side and once again base its foreign policy on reasoning and reality, recognizing that force multiplication results from friends and allies working willingly together to attain shared moral objectives. Success against terrorism requires mutual trust, shared values, and the cooperation of people and organizations worldwide. Unfortunately, senior officials in both the Bush White House and the Pentagon have virtually no understanding, and even less curiosity, regarding the varied cultures and peoples with whom they muck. As destroyers, not builders, these amateur carpenters have only sledgehammers, and everything they see is a nail. • America must stop appointing so many ambassadors and diplomats who cannot speak the principal language of the host nation. Virtually none of America’s ambassadors speak Arabic, making it impossible for America to communicate effectively with more than 200 million people in more than 20 nations whose first language is Arabic. One would expect, years after 9/11, that every American embassy in an Arabic-speaking nation would have several American Foreign Service personnel fluent in Arabic, but this is not the case. In the entire Foreign Service there are fewer than ten Foreign Service personnel who speak Arabic at a 4+ or 5 level of proficiency on the Foreign Service Proficiency Scale. Although teaching Arabic to Foreign Service professionals is helpful, Arabic is a very difficult language to learn, and the best solution is to recruit first and second generation Arabicspeaking Americans. However, Bush does not trust “such people.” He prefers instead to appoint culture-deaf cronies like Texan Karen Hughes, who shamefully fell on her face during her farcical, know-nothing tour of the Middle East in 2005 as Bush’s official mouthpiece, a job for which she had little more experience than Monica Lewinsky. As the laughing stock of the Middle East, and one of the last of Bush’s Texas Mafia to slither out of the White House, “heck-of-a-job” Hughes resigned in October 2007, thus ending her two-year immensely-damaging run as America’s undersecretary of state for public affairs. In December 2007 the Iraq Study Group reported that only six of the 1,000 workers in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad spoke Arabic fluently. The problem with the Bush administration is not simply that the ends justify the means. It is much more sinister than that. Both the ends and the means of Bush’s underworld are unlawful and un-American. In this chapter, we’ll discuss just a few of the un-American and unlawful means, although it is sometimes difficult to separate the ends from the means, as one dirty Con hand washes the other.

The Outlaw Bush—An Imperial Presidency Above the Law The Project for the New American Century is one huge evil, and the Bush administration’s assault on the U.S. Constitution is a second. Bush and Cheney married these two poisonous endeavors in order to put their evil schemes into hyperdrive. It was not enough that their party controlled all three branches of the U.S. Govern-


303

ment—the executive branch, both houses of Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court—and enjoyed the cheerleading support of America’s fourth estate, the Corporate Media. No, Bush and Cheney desired to be above the law—unfettered by oversight and accountability, and bathed in secrecy—and so they rewrote and mutilated the Constitution that stood in their way. The Bush regime uses the Constitution as toilet paper in the Waste Wing. Yes, “W” also stands for “Waste Wing.” In Bush-speak, it is: “The Constitution Don’t Matter.” Just as that nefarious neocon-conceived America must stand above and outside international law, so also must America’s King George III stand above and outside domestic law. He can do whatever he chooses at any time, unilaterally, in open or in secret, unhindered by such anachronistic niceties as the Constitution and the other two constitutional branches of government. Yes, the neocon wet dream works best when Bush—America’s number one outlaw—places himself above and outside the law. After all, even with the two other constitutional branches of government in friendly GOP control, at best they are an inconvenience, and, at worst, there’s the risk that a few Republicans might find enough backbone to permit investigations of some of the most egregious madness emanating from that Bush League lunatic asylum previously known as America’s White House. Privacy—a sense of minding your own business and allowing others to mind theirs, all without governmental interference—has been thrown on the trash heap of discarded American values. Without increasing America’s security, Bush and the Cons gleefully trampled freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. SIDEBAR: America’s Liar in Chief Speaks About Illegal Wiretaps Bush willfully violated, and continues to violate, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (which prohibits searches and seizures without judicial warrants based on probable cause), and other constitutional protections of American citizens, by directing the National Security Agency and other executive personnel to conduct illegal electronic surveillance or other illegal investigations of American citizens without a court order. Thousands of telephone calls by American citizens were illegally monitored without court order, and the full truth will never be known without a full investigation. This criminal behavior alone, without regard to numerous other impeachable offenses, demands the immediate impeachment of Bush. Conducting wiretaps (also known as “electronic surveillance”) without a court order was a central charge in the articles of impeachment brought against Richard Nixon in 1974, and the illegal wiretaps by Nixon led not only to his resignation but also to the passage of FISA in 1978, the violation of which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison on each count.

304


Our central focus here in this sidebar, however, is not so much on impeachment or impeachable offenses, but rather on Bush’s role as America’s Liar in Chief, and, in particular, the mind-boggling adolescent manner in which he went out of his way to lie to the American people about wiretaps, long before the public knew of the existence of his illegal wiretapping operation. Bush’s totally voluntary unnecessary lies about wiretaps are stunning. He started lying in Buffalo, New York, on April 14, 2004, and he lied later in other venues. No one had even asked him a question about his illegal wiretapping operation because no one outside his regime knew of its existence. Yet Bush went out of his way to lie. Perhaps remembering where he was speaking, Bush decided to “Buffalo” his audience, like a spoiled child lying to his teacher or parents. Perhaps he just wanted to have a little fun, like poking out the eyes of a baby bird, or—harking back to his youthful days in Midland, Texas—like putting firecrackers up the anus of frogs and blowing them up. Bush is just not wired right. He has the conscience of a cesspool. Here are just a few of Bush’s dumbfounding wiretap lies from Buffalo and elsewhere: • Bush lied: “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” (April 20, 2004, in Buffalo, New York.) • Bush lied when he asserted, “the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.” (July 14, 2004.) He knew then that his regime was engaged in a broad illegal spying operation. • Bush lied: “One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses.” (June 9, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio.) • Bush lied: “The Patriot Act helps us defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of the tools we’re talking about. And they are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States.” (July 20, 2005, in Baltimore, Maryland.)


305

The official White House Fact Sheet dated July 20, 2005, continued the campaign of lies: “The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single verified abuse.” In December 2005 The New York Times broke the story that the Bush administration had been violating FISA since 2002 by conducting illegal surveillance of American citizens without the knowledge of the FISA court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.) A few days later Judge James Robertson resigned from that court, apparently to protest the illegal operation. The most plausible explanation—you can bet on it—for the Bush regime’s circumvention of the FISA procedure is that it was wiretapping in situations it knew it could not obtain the FISA court’s approval, such as wiretapping the regime’s real and imagined enemies, including journalists, citizen activists, government employees and political opponents. The illegal wiretapping operation certainly had nothing to do with national security, although Bush apologists argued that the FISA process didn’t work well enough. But it did. Of the more than 18,000 wiretap warrants requested from the inception of FISA in 1978 through 2004, only five had been rejected, and at least four of these five were partially granted after being resubmitted. Also, the claim that sometimes the situation is so urgent that the government cannot afford the time to seek court approval rings hollow, since FISA has an emergency procedure that allows the government to immediately start a wiretap without a warrant, and then go the court within three days to seek approval after the fact. Nixon’s evil side was alive and on steroids in the Bush White House. Most of Bush’s assaults on Americans’ constitutional freedoms and civil liberties can be grouped into three broad categories: 1) While promoting fear, Bush pushed the Republican-controlled Congress to include as many draconian measures as possible in the so-called Patriot Act and other anti-civil rights legislation. 2) Bush acts unlawfully in secret—a la Nixon—in violation of Americans’ civil liberties, praying that his skullduggery will never see the light of day (two good examples being his secret warrantless surveillance of American citizens by the NSA, and the secret unconstitutional data mining regarding trillions of telephone records of tens of millions of Americans); and 3) Bush takes the unprecedented, unconstitutional position that both Congress and the courts are superfluous when the issue is the extent of his powers as unitary president—also know as unitary executive—especially during the socalled war on terrorism, which in fact is a perpetual non-war. The novel theory of the so-called unitary executive (i.e., unilateral executive) is a noxious tool trumpeted by the Bush White House that is intended to neuter the other

306


two constitutional branches of America’s democracy and to authorize virtually any action by Bush, America’s dictator wannabe. Although unitary executive sounds innocuous, under Bush’s radical unprecedented interpretation it is a nuclear bomb threat to the U.S. Constitution and America’s democracy. If American voters really understood the import of Bush’s actions, they would clamor for his head, as well as the head of every GOP Con who blindly genuflected before America’s King George the Mad. To be clear, unitary executive does not mean that Bush has joined the Unitarian Church. It has nothing to do with that, unless perhaps you wish to extend the religious humor by postulating that the term unitary executive—as immaculately conceived by Bush’s legal toadies—means that the three roles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost have been usurped by one evil person, a self-appointed king, an American president known in the Constitution-free underworld as Lucifer the Bush. Whew! One of the young acolytes during Reagan’s presidency who supported the novel notion of a unitary executive is a lawyer by the name of Samuel Alito, Jr., who unfortunately in 2006 was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court, a no-review position of power from which he will expand rightwing presidential powers at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, in addition to his major political role, which is promoting and expanding the freedom of corporations to do whatever they want, all at the expense of human freedoms and rights. Presidential signing statements, which are addenda attached by the president to laws passed by Congress, are a deceptive, below-the-radar tool used by Bush to promote the notion of a unitary president while emasculating Congress and the courts. Bush has used them more often than all other presidents combined, and he has used them in novel unconstitutional ways. Popularized during Reagan’s presidency by his Attorney General Ed Meese III, signing statements have been taken by Bush in unprecedented fashion to absurd and dangerous levels. Previous signing statements had been used infrequently and did not carry much weight, since they were intended to ask a reviewing court to perhaps take the president’s perspective into account in determining the intent of Congress in passing legislation. But Bush’s signing statements are not intended to provide minor interpretative gloss to legislation. Rather, they are a rogue attempt to assert the supremacy of the president over the legislative and judicial branches, making those two branches of government irrelevant when the issue is presidential authority. America’s founding fathers wisely recognized that a three-legged stool is both stable and strong, in contrast to a one-legged stool, which serves no beneficial purpose other than as a metaphor for the unstable Bush administration—a one-legged stool, like the deranged Bush regime, ultimately falls and fails. In contrast to the dubious signing statement, the presidential veto is a power granted to the president by the Constitution. If the president objects to a bill, he can veto it, and then Congress has the constitutional power to override his veto by a two-


307

thirds vote. Ironically, more than five years into his presidency, Bush had never vetoed a single bill.120 In comparison, by 2006 Bush had used signing statements with respect to more than 750 laws passed by Congress, an incredible total under any circumstances, but all the more incredible because Congress was controlled by the president’s own party. Yes, the score was more than 750-to-1, signing statements to vetoes. Bush’s style—the style of his entire regal life—is to ignore laws he doesn’t like, and he undoubtedly was advised that signing statements may be more effective than vetoes in accomplishing this. Signing statements offer several advantages over vetoes: 1) With a veto, the president has to accept or reject the entire bill, whereas with a signing statement, the president has the flexibility to say whatever he dreams up about each provision of a bill; 2) The veto, but not the signing statement, is subject to a two-thirds override by Congress; 3) The signing statement, although a public document, until recently was not covered by the media and was read by virtually no one; and 4) The signing statement allows the president to “have the last word.” Let’s digress for a moment to consider the interplay between signing statements and Bush’s AWOL financial stewardship. During Bush’s presidential watch, a core plank of the GOP’s party platform was “borrow, spend and waste.” Yet Bush never used a signing statement to counter this, and he never vetoed a spending bill during his first six years in office. Bush’s deceptive use of signing statements to gut the Constitution and usurp power was at work when Congress’ anti-torture bill was signed into law in late 2005. To the dismay of the world community including coalition partners, Bush strongly opposed the anti-torture legislation and, incredibly, even attempted to carve out an exception that would permit torture by the CIA, which was at the heart of the torture problem in the first place. However, it soon became clear that a veto-proof supermajority in Congress—as well as a huge majority of Americans—supported the legislation. Yes, torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, as well as torture throughout a Bush-friendly gulag of torture chambers hosted by friendly dictatorships in several third world countries, had cast a dark shadow. Thus Bush, with great fanfare at a photo op with key supporters of the anti-torture legislation, announced he would sign the bill, duplicitously giving the impression he opposed torture. But when Bush later signed the bill out of the limelight, he added a signing statement to it. Was it possible that Bush had dropped his support for torture and had become a supporter of human rights? No. His signing statement in effect claimed that his presidential powers—his King George III powers—reigned supreme over those of the other two branches of government, and that he would ignore the anti-torture law whenever he thought it might interfere with his role in supervising the unitary executive branch. 120

On July 19, 2006, Bush used his veto power for the first time when he vetoed an embryonic stem-cell research bill. Bush declared the vetoed bill “would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others.”

308


“He issues a signing statement that says he retains all of the inherent power that will permit him to go out and torture just the way they’ve gone ahead and tortured before,” said Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), describing the process as an “arrogance of power.” In this 21st century it is shocking that Bush and the GOP made torture a debatable topic. It is disheartening that there is even a question as to whether America should comply fully with the letter and spirit of the anti-torture provisions of U.S. law (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice) and international law (including: the Geneva Conventions; the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which became effective in 1987; and other agreements to which the United States is a party.) It is disturbing that the U.S. Senate had to even contemplate anti-torture legislation in 2005, and that senators opposing torture (including Ted Kennedy and John McCain, himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War) were threatened with a White House veto, which would have been the first veto of his presidency. All Americans should have been outraged. Christians especially should have been outraged. But things got even worse in 2006 with the passage of the U.S. Military Commissions Act, which the GOP pushed through just before the 2006 midterm elections. America’s bright beacon of liberty and human rights grew dimmer, and billions of people around the world could no longer see it at all. SIDEBAR: The 2006 Military Commissions Act: McCain Caves on Torture The 2006 U.S. Military Commissions Act (MCA) set a new low in GOP attacks on the U.S. Constitution and liberty in America. It was drafted and passed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, ostensibly to set up a new procedure for bringing terrorists and other “unlawful enemy combatants” to justice, but it greatly damaged America and is worse than the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798. The GOP rushed the legislation to signature right before the 2006 midterm elections so they could claim they were tough on terrorism. Notwithstanding its name, the MCA dealt with more than military commissions. The MCA gave the most incompetent and distrusted president in America’s history unprecedented and unilateral authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions and determine interrogation methods to be used. Bush became the Decider on torture. There is virtually no judicial check on the president’s power under the MCA to determine who is an “unlawful enemy combatant,” a broad category and status that does not even exist under international law. A dagger was thrust through the heart of habeas corpus. Alien torture victims have no right to bring claims for redress to any court. The person charged has no right to know the charges against him. Hearsay evidence is permitted.


309

Evidence and confessions resulting from torture are allowed, including torture done on behalf of America at rendition sites in countries such as Syria, Egypt and Uzbekistan. The accused has no right to effective legal counsel. Detainees can be imprisoned forever without charges being brought. Of the hundreds of prisoners held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, far fewer than 5% have even been charged with crimes. Just in case, the MCA gave criminals in the Bush regime retroactive immunity for war crimes already committed. If the worst dictatorial regimes in the world adopted similar schemes in their countries, they could then lawfully continue torture and other barbaric practices with impunity. McCain lied when he declared, “There’s no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.” McCain caved, along with the small group of anti-torture GOP senators he led, and the GOP-controlled Congress gave Bush everything he wanted, on every major point. At the same time, recruiters for terrorists worldwide got exactly what they wanted. With noble chest thumping, McCain for years had positioned himself as the leader who would prevent Bush and his GOP regime from torturing. But when the chips were down, McCain cried uncle and went AWOL. Protecting America’s Constitution and liberties took second seat to his upcoming presidential campaign. The image of McCain as a champion of human rights is a Con job. The reason for America to honor the Geneva Conventions and our own tradition of constitutional liberties is not because we believe terrorist groups will do the same. They won’t. No, we do it for ourselves. We do it for America and the kind of people we want to remain. We do it in order not to surrender the moral high ground to those groups who claim America is anti-Muslim and pitch militant jihad to potential new recruits. The draconian MCA confirms negative views of America, causing America to lose hearts and minds worldwide. Colin Powell summed up the problem succinctly in his letter opposing the MCA: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” He said the legislation “would add to those doubts” and furthermore “would put our own troops at risk.” Bush gutted America’s system of government—its constitutional separation of powers and system of checks and balances—by claiming that it is he, not Congress and not the courts, who will determine the limits, if any, on his powers. In the meantime, he does what he wants, ignoring or rewriting federal law whenever he wishes. He frequently acts completely contrary to federal law, knowing that even if lawsuits are filed, it will take a long time for them to wind their way through the judicial system, especially when the Bush White House obstructs the judicial process every inch of the way. In addition, Bush has virtually no appreciation or understanding of states’ rights and America’s unique system of federalism. Driven totally by narrow, Machiavellian politics—the ends justify the means—Bush asserts willy-nilly either that something

310


is a federal matter, or that it’s a matter to be left to the states, if it helps him win the immediate prize. To the chagrin of many principled conservatives, Bush inserts the federal government into areas traditionally reserved for the states, whenever the policy meets the demands of his donors. Bush is Mr. Big Government. Early on, America’s allies and friends accurately read Bush’s heart and concluded he was incompetent, morally corrupt, a disgrace to America, and a danger to the world. On November 4, 2004, the day after Bush’s reelection, the British woke to read the Daily Mirror’s front page headline: “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” Bush’s supporters of all stripes—including many GOP politicians destined to wear prison stripes—should ask themselves that question each morning when they look in the mirror. In addition to the twin evils of The Project for the New American Century and the assault on the U.S. Constitution, Bush and the GOP use a variety of other antidemocratic imperial tools to get Bush and other rightwing candidates elected. Assisted by Big Money and America’s fawning corporate media, these tools work well domestically for America’s rightwing regime. However, they do not work well outside the United States, where neither Bush nor Cheney would have a chance of being elected village dogcatcher, let alone a national leader, in any other democracy. America’s allies and friends see the diverse wonderful world outside the Bush Bubble occupied by America’s president, who from their perspective is a hugely dangerous simpleton from another planet. They detest his polices and don’t trust him and his administration. The nefarious tools used by Bush and the GOP contributed to this worldwide distrust and to the dismal failure of his coalition in Iraq, the Bush League of Nations. In the next five chapters, we’ll look at just a few of the other nefarious tools used by the Bush administration, the worst in American history, and the GOP, better known as the Cons, which has morphed into the most corrupt American political party ever.

CHAPTER 14

Fear Mongering Chickenhawk Lies, Lies and More Lies It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. —General Douglas MacArthur (speech on May 15, 1951) In the face of adversity, Bush and the Republican Party chose to promote fear, rather than inspire courage. They appealed to xenophobia. In every election cycle since 9/11 they mongered fear in order to intimidate and attract the most gullible and timid of America’s electorate. The Cons count on frightened people to be more accepting of lies and whatever mischief and skullduggery their bellicose leaders concoct. They created millions of bedwetting conservatives. Under GOP rule, the Land of the Free became the Land of the Afraid. The Cons are not interested in educating America about world affairs, since the more Americans know, the more likely they are to reject the Con agenda. According to a Roper poll of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 conducted in December 2005 and January 2006 for National Geographic: • six in 10 could not locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East, even though America had been at war there for almost three years; • 75% could not locate Israel on a map of the Middle East; • fewer than 30% believe it is important to know the locations of nations in the news; and • only 14% believe learning a foreign language is a necessary skill. The Cons recognize that fear and ignorance are partners, their partners. When it comes to fear mongering, Bush is the exact opposite of courageous American leaders such as President Franklin Roosevelt. Facing real dangers, including the GOP Great Depression and World War II, Roosevelt declared, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” America and its allies—united and led by Roosevelt—faced far greater evil than a gang of criminals armed with box cutters. But Chickenhawk Bush and his GOP chose fear in order to divide—and loot America. Roosevelt strived to unite America and its allies, to acknowledge and face the challenges head on, and to not be dispirited or weakened by fear. Unlike Bush,

312


Roosevelt was a world leader, widely respected for integrity and courage in the face of evil—and, unlike Bush, feared by America’s enemies. Bush’s principal fear, immediately following 9/11, might well have been that an angry nation was going to rightfully pin the tail of responsibility on him for not preventing 9/11. He probably thought, “Oh, no! They’re going to find out we ignored all the terrorist warnings and advice from our intelligence agencies and the Clinton administration. I hope there’s a Bush Family Pass big enough to cover my tail on this! I shouldn’t have taken all those vacations. Dang, I was AWOL again!” It was profoundly disappointing that Bush after 9/11 did not immediately challenge all Americans to show their bravery and patriotism by continuing their normal activities, including flying on U.S. airlines. Bush’s timidity in the aftermath of 9/11 cost the nation’s psyche and economy dearly, giving the 9/11 criminals a bigger victory than they ever could have imagined. Yes, thanks to Bush’s weak knees, America’s suffering was magnified. Many Americans stopped flying, and U.S. carriers, already experiencing a slowdown in air travel, were sent reeling. The United States later paid the carriers billions and billions of dollars with the goal of keeping them operating. Boeing also felt the pain, and over a period of about two years reduced the number of employees in its commercial aircraft unit from 90,000 to 45,000. Highly skilled manufacturing and engineering workers at Boeing lost their jobs, taking whatever employment they could find, including checking luggage in airport security at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Contrast the fear of Bush and bedwetting conservatives with the courage of Israel and its citizens in the face of deadly suicide bombings. What happens when a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several Israeli civilians in a restaurant? Do Israeli restaurants shut down? No. The Israeli people rally and, in an awesome display of gritty courage and patriotism, continue their daily activities as before without compromise. All bodies and body parts at the bombing site are handled with religious respect, the restaurant is restored and reopened as soon as possible, usually within 24 hours, and Israeli families return immediately to the restaurant to dine. Bush had the opportunity to lead America along such a path of courage, but he didn’t. He could have said something like, “Do not surrender to fear. Yes, be vigilant, but continue to live your lives as before. In particular, don’t cancel any travel plans for yourself or your family.” But he didn’t. Israelis in a similar situation would not expect or need such reassurances. Bush could have cited statistics showing that flying is much safer than alternative forms of transportation. For example, Boeing calculations show that it is 22 times safer to fly in a commercial aircraft than it is to drive, on a per-mile-traveled basis. As for total numbers, more people are killed in automobile accidents in the United States in an average three-month period than have been killed in U.S. commercial aircraft accidents in the last 40 years. Bush could have pointed out that the 276 crew and passengers killed on 9/11 do not appreciably change these numbers. Bush then

CHAPTER 14 — FEAR MONGERING

313

could have told Americans that it was their patriotic duty to fly even if it were more risky to fly than to drive, which it isn’t.121 Notwithstanding years of GOP propaganda to the contrary, Bush is a coward, and the GOP is a party that promotes cowardice. As Bush sat in that Florida classroom on 9/11, he looked like a frightened deer in the headlights. When he flew to Baghdad on Thanksgiving Day in 2003 for a surprise, in-a-protective-bubble, photo-op visit for a few hours with our troops, he not only insulted all Iraqis by not meeting with them or their leaders, but he also presented a cowardly image of the American presidency. He showed similar weakness and bad judgment regarding a brief surprise trip he made to Baghdad on June 13, 2006. By arriving totally unannounced in a nation that supposedly is sovereign, Bush insulted and weakened Iraq’s newly named prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The secrecy and extraordinary security surrounding his visit, together with the shortness of his visit, only five hours, spoke volumes about the real security situation on the ground in Iraq. Most of Bush’s cabinet did not even have advance notice of the trip. Bush oozed fear when he refused to testify alone before the 9/11 Commission in 2004, even though—as he demanded—the hearing was closed to the public and no recording was made. He insisted that Cheney attend with him. Almost all of Bush’s campaign stops and other so-called public appearances are in fact private appearances. They are staged, invitation-only, in-the-bubble events limited to supporters and cheerleaders, and any questions asked of him are friendly softball questions. He prefers to receive questions in advance before he gives one of his rare interviews. He is America’s fearful “Bubble President,” a joke to the world, and a black mark on American courage. On those rare occasions when he faces tough unscripted questions, his gaffes are legendary. Bush fearfully saw a terrorist behind every bush, and terrorists in return saw fear behind Bush every day. Ironically, strategic diplomatic and military blunders by Bush, as well as further terrorist attacks he caused, perversely helped the GOP’s campaign to cultivate fear. So when there’s another bombing, say in Madrid or Dallas, the GOP Dixie Chickenhawks can say, “See, we told you the world is a dangerous place. We need to stick with our tough president in these tough times.” Bush is like cocaine to his fearaddicted supporters—the more Bush screws up and misuses them, the more they think they need him. Clever new slogans are important tools to increase the fear level. Just throw some focus group nonsense on the wall and see if it sticks. The epithet “Islamofascism” was one that stuck for a while. Many rightwing politicians and talk show hosts seized upon the term to describe any Islamic group they wanted to disparage, but they might 121

The media help create a fearful perspective regarding air travel. Arnold Barnett, an MIT professor and expert in aviation safety, determined that the front pages stories of The New York Times for a two-year period (1988-89) ran 0.02 cancer stories for each 1,000 cancer deaths, 1.7 homicide stories for each 1,000 homicides, and 138 airplane crash stories for each 1,000 aircraft crash deaths.

314


just as well have called them Islamocommunists or Islamotexans. If these rightwing name callers want to be more accurate with their fascist lingo, they could look in the mirror and consider the words of the world’s number two fascist, Benito Mussolini, who said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Welcome to GOP America. Bush and the GOP perform a balancing act when it comes to manipulating fear. On one hand, they strive to keep the fear level high, and, on the other, they duplicitously try to take credit for making America safer. For example, in February 2004, then CIA director George Tenet stated that the world is at least as “fraught with danger for American interests” as it was a year earlier, notwithstanding the “major successes” claimed by the Bush administration, such as overthrowing and capturing Saddam Hussein and picking off numerous Saddam henchmen in the famous “deck of cards.” That goofy color-coded, terror-alert system was confusing from the beginning and never provided specific information that Americans could act upon. However, it was a clever political tool to manipulate fear. Big Media helped stoke the fires of fear by blindly passing along the useless information generated by the Bush administration. The alerts always sound like useless vague weather reports: “There are threats of terrorist thunderstorms somewhere in the world in the next 90 days.” All considered, it was “mission accomplished” for rightwing propaganda, since the American public did develop a heightened level of numb dumb fear. If Americans really wanted to use a color-coded system that does in fact reduce death and destruction, they would do better by simply paying more attention to the red, yellow and green colors of ordinary traffic lights when they drive. In another exercise of simplistic black-and-white thinking, the Bush administration overuses and misuses the word “terrorist” to refer to just about anyone who opposes its unilateralist military policies. The sentiment that “you’re either with us or against us” is just one of many famous examples of Bush’s defective thinking. It never occurred to the Bushies, for example, that Iraqis who wanted to see Saddam removed would also want to kick out American troops. Surprisingly, the Bush administration’s use of the word “terrorist” even extends to American teachers. When addressing a closed-door meeting with the nation’s governors, Bush’s mean-spirited Education Secretary Rod Paige compared America’s three million teachers to terrorists when he referred to the National Education Association as a terrorist organization. In 2004 the Senate Intelligence Committee reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it promised to report later—in the so-called “second phase” of its report—on whether the Bush administration pressured America’s intelligence agencies to distort and cherry pick the evidence, or whether Bush and his cronies flat out lied to Congress and America. However, GOP Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who chaired the intelligence committee, successfully stalled and killed the second phase through the congressional midterm elections of 2006. The deceptive campaign to promote fear for political gain still begs to be investigated. Colin Powell enjoyed a stellar military and diplomatic reputation in the international community before be joined Bush’s administration as Secretary of State. Many friends and allies were embarrassed for him and regretted his subsequent fall. Espe-


315

cially shameful was Powell’s fear-mongering presentation to the Security Council on February 5, 2003, during which he played the good soldier, doing the best he could with flimsy and bogus evidence—bobbing and weaving, lying and misleading, doing anything he could to make the case for war. In doing so, he acted like a defense attorney for a guilty criminal, not like America’s Secretary of State. However, defense attorneys operate in an adversarial system where they have the legal duty to be the best advocate for their clients, no matter how guilty. Powell, on the other hand, had a duty to be truthful. At some point, the good soldier has to recognize a higher duty than blind allegiance to a lying president. It will be interesting to read Powell’s memoirs some day, should he find the backbone to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He should have resigned in indignation rather than being a lying patsy for his commander in mischief. The Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress established a culture of lying that is unprecedented in American history. They lie because they know Americans would oppose their actions if the cold truth were on the table. Their ends always justify the means, one of which is chronic lying. When you decide to exploit 9/11 to wage war on a nation with zero responsibility for 9/11, you need to lie. Lies are a valued currency in the Bush administration. Never admit to a lie, and keep circulating the same counterfeit Confederate currency. The rules that apply to regular mortals, including the truth, do not apply to rightwing fundamentalists, whether they are Muslims or Christians. As for the donor class that supports Bush and his propaganda machine—the Super Rich and Big Business—they may not like the lies, but they love their tax cuts and corporate welfare. When it comes to Iraq, virtually the entire world, with the exception of Bush’s dwindling loyal base in the United States, knows Bush to be the most dangerous liar of our times. Bush’s Iraq war, based on lies, has caused far more deaths than Saddam would have caused in this period, and far more deaths than bin Laden and all the other Islamic fundamentalists have caused during the same period. More important, Bush’s invasion of Iraq, coupled with his inept planning and execution of the war, set the stage for greatly increased death and destruction in the future. Many of the Bush administration’s lies regarding Iraq have been well documented, notwithstanding the GOP’s efforts at every juncture to conceal the facts and obfuscate the truth. In spite of the stonewalling, the truth is slowly emerging, some of it coming from former members of Bush’s inner circle who decided to put patriotism and truth above rightwing lies and secrecy. The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq, a 2003 book by Christopher Scheer, Robert Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry, describes in persuasive detail the following five biggest lies of Bush: • First Lie: Al Qaeda’s Ties to Iraq • Second Lie: Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons • Third Lie: Iraq’s Nuclear Weapons • Fourth Lie: The War Will Be a “Cakewalk” • Fifth Lie: Iraq As a Democratic Model The book appeared in 2003 and thus does not include: (1) subsequently uncovered piles of evidence of lies; (2) piles of evidence still uncovered, and (3) the myriad of new Bush lies since 2003, including especially his lies about his unconstitu-

316


tional actions and other impeachable offences, including the unlawful surveillance of American citizens without probable cause and without a court order. When Bush and Cheney became fixated on that imagined grand prize—the invasion and control of Iraq—they were willing to say anything, and permit all those under them to say anything, to seize the prize. SIDEBAR: The Party That’s Strong on National Defense Over many years the GOP Cons have created out of thin air several favorite myths about themselves. One of these myths—that the Republican Party is fiscally responsible—is debunked in Chapter 12, “The GOP’s Bankruptcy of America,” where it is shown that the Democratic Party is the one party of fiscal responsibility. We turn now to another favorite rightwing myth, namely that it is the Cons, but not Democrats, who are strong on national defense. But “that dog don’t hunt.” It doesn’t now, and it never did. The most charitable thing you can say about Bush and his Cons is that they are incompetent on national defense. Just for fun, let’s look at some facts. Before doing so, however, we note that Democrats are naturally inclusive and love to debate issues in an inclusive, respectful, problem-solving manner, with the goal of setting the best policy for America, all of America. This is due to their DNA and also because they read the Bible, the whole Bible, not the holey Bible of the Cons. Democratic leaders prefer not to question the patriotism of other Americans or the testosterone levels of weak-kneed rightwing American males. However, if Democrats did, they could point out the following facts regarding the major wars that America has fought in the last century: • Under the leadership of the Democratic Party and Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, America and its allies won World War I. • Under the leadership of the Democratic Party and Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, America and its allies won World War II. It is noteworthy that under that same Democratic Party and that same Democratic president, America also won the war against the GOP Great Depression, which was inaugurated by President Hoover—a Republican, of course. • Under the leadership of the Democratic Party and Democratic President Harry Truman, America successfully resisted the communist attack that started the Korean War. Beginning with the decisive invasion known as the Battle of Inchon, they rolled back the commies. The Republican Party, under Republican Dwight Eisenhower, later threw in the towel by agreeing to a draw, and as a result North Korea has been enslaved ever since by one of the world’s most repressive regimes.


317

•

Ditto in Vietnam. America under the leadership of the Democratic Party had the guts to fight the Vietnamese commies, but Republican Nixon—who campaigned for election in 1968 with a bogus claim that he had a “secret plan” to end the war and win the peace—carried on the war for several more years without a plan for victory, during which time countless more lives were lost. Nixon finally raised the white flag in a peace treaty signed with North Vietnam in January 1973; Saigon fell to the communists on April 30, 1975, during the GOP’s watch; and America had lost its first war.122 Yes, America and France each lost a war in Vietnam, but the French, unlike Bush and the Cons, study history to learn from it. • Consider Afghanistan. Bush and the do-nothing-good GOP put America on the road to losing another war. • Ditto in Iraq, only worse. Does anyone believe Bush and the Cons have, or ever had, a “plan” to win in Iraq? Well, you see the truth. When it comes to war and national defense, the Democratic Party is tough and smart, and the Republican Party is weak and dumb—and deceitful. Democratic leadership is willing and able to assemble strong coalitions to fight in just causes. Con leadership is not. If the above facts were reversed, Bush and the Cons wouldn’t have to lie about their patriotism, bravery and support for America’s military. Bush and the Cons foolishly put America on the road to losing two more wars—a just war in Afghanistan that has been incompetently waged, and Bush’s unjust war on Iraq, which is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place by the wrong leader, and which is both genocide and a civil war. If Bush and his neo-Republican Party had been in charge at the time of Pearl Harbor—December 7, 1941—we’d all now be speaking German east of the Mississippi River, and Japanese to the west. Americans are willing to take and give casualties in war, provided they believe the war is just, and provided they believe their commander in chief is truthful and competent regarding the mission. But Bush and his team in the Bush League White House are neither. They try to govern by gonads, but they lost theirs long ago. An honest strong president would not have lied, or encouraged his advisors to lie, in order to justify preordained policies, but rather would have made decisions on the merits, with full debate, laying out the facts for the American people and explaining why he chose a particular course. George Tenet’s book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, provides additional evidence of the dysfunctional nature of Bush’s inner circle. Regarding the war cabinet meeting on December 21, 2002 (three months before the invasion of Iraq), in which Tenet famously uttered “slam dunk,” he writes that his words applied to the UN presentation being prepared, not to the intelligence. He writes that the 122

Between two and four million people died in the Vietnam War (1955-1975), also known as the Second Indochina War. The dead included 58,169 Americans, with an average age of 23.

318


meeting in the Oval Office was “essentially a marketing meeting.” Bush wanted a better slide show and even suggested that attorneys could help prepare a better pitch for war. The GOP tactic of creating Big Lies for a huge fearful gullible segment of America’s voters remains surprisingly effective. For example, in a Newsweek poll conducted in June 2007—more than four years after the invasion of Iraq—an incredible 41% of Americans polled answered “yes” to the question: “Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?” Americans who still believe the various false claims about Iraq—such as Saddam having WMDs in 2003, or Iraq being involved in 9/11, or Saddam being in bed with al Qaeda—have a terminal case of cognitive dissonance. Perhaps wanting to believe they were really right in supporting Bush’s war on Iraq, they are predisposed to believe anything. Rightwing bloggers, the rightwing media and the Bush White House are all too happy to continue to mislead them. None of this bodes well for the future of America’s democracy. A Harris Poll released July 21, 2006, found that an incredible 50% of Americans—74% of Republicans and 29% of Democrats—still believed the long since disproved claim that Saddam had illegal WMDs when Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. Bush is the most chronic and dangerous liar among all American presidents ever. The previous record holder, Richard Nixon, is a saint compared to Bush, and Nixon resigned in disgrace during impeachment proceedings. Well, how about Bill Clinton? During every day of his administration, Clinton was labeled a liar and accused of all sorts of fabricated crimes by America’s corporate rightwing Big Media and rightwing politicians, who calculated that if they repeated a lie enough, it could become truth. The nonstop tsunami of negative press coverage would lead one to conclude that Clinton was the first Washington politician ever to lie about some aspects of his private behavior. Yes, Clinton lied about sex, specifically rotten disgusting sex between consenting adults in the White House. Although the Cons would have waged their immoral vendetta against Clinton no matter what the facts—even if Clinton’s conduct had been as pure as that of Mother Theresa—the vendetta was helpfully fueled by sex, that titillating topic upon which so many old white males in the GOP are psychologically fixated. By the way, many people disagree with the characterization that it was “sex.” Many people, primarily younger folk, view Clinton’s physical bonding with Monica Lewinsky as not real sex, but simply pre-sex, rather more like an intimate handshake between good friends. Well, perhaps your author is too old-fashioned to understand these subtleties, but it certainly sounded like sex. In any case, let’s agree that Clinton lied about sex, and not quibble about whether it was sex or just pre-sex. Who cares? And what happened? The Cons used their control of both houses of Congress during Clinton’s administration to prosecute numerous politically motivated investigations—witch hunts without boundaries—against Clinton and his family, and ultimately they brought impeachment proceedings against him, all to the GOP’s great shame. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted in the smear directed by extreme rightwing Republican Kenneth Starr, who hated Clinton long before he


319

stepped into his position of trust, and, notwithstanding conflicts of interest, was appointed to the office of independent counsel by a partisan GOP-controlled threejudge panel intent on persecuting Clinton.123 The intense personal hatred for Clinton was especially shameful when it involved Con politicians claiming to be Christians, especially the many adulterers and fornicators among them, including leading GOP candidates for the presidency in 2008. Setting aside for the moment the big lies of Bush, where is the moral and legal consistency of the far right when it comes simply to Bush’s personal transgressions? Well, for every personal criminal violation or moral lapse by Bush during his adult life (including public drunkenness, drunk driving, automobile collisions, use of illegal drugs, foul language, fornication, adultery, illegal campaign donations, impregnation of someone not his wife, and bestiality),124 his rightwing supporters and the mainstream rightwing media gave him an inexhaustible supply of Bush Family Passes. Any progressive American family in North Dakota or Massachusetts would be ashamed if it had a family member with Bush’s rap sheet, and if the neighbors found out, the family would have to move to a red zone of Texas. That’s the law. But who really cares about Bush’s personal transgressions at this point? Well, in stark contrast with the lies of Clinton regarding pre-sex, the lies of Bush really do matter, since they include lies about: going to war; life and death; not properly equipping and supporting America’s troops in harm’s way; national security; the reputation and power of the United States in the world; the outing of CIA agents; treason; illegal spying on American citizens; and other abuses of the U.S. Constitution and the very fabric of America’s democracy. Any one of Bush’s lies about Iraq would lead, slam dunk, to his impeachment if there was a shred of moral and legal consistency on the far right. But there is not. Unfortunately for America’s democracy, the Cons controlled all branches of Government, and they gave Bush one pass after another. Sadly, it is Bush’s intellectual detachment and mental deficiencies that may offer him the best chance to escape accountability. His supporters occasionally argue, somewhat delicately, along the line that Bush is so detached that he doesn’t really know what’s going on. So, for example, if Bush really believes, or suspects, that today is Monday when it’s really Saturday, then it’s not a lie for him to say today is Monday. In effect, Bush’s incompetence, his stupidity, his utter lack of curiosity— call it what you wish—entitles him to a “stay in office” card for whatever he says or does. Bush applies the same low standard—no standard, really—to his closest advisors. Bush, a chronic distorter and liar, naturally accepts distortion and lies from his closest advisors, without ever holding them personally responsible for anything, provided only that they remain loyal to him. It should be no surprise that this loopy

123

The Office of the Independent Counsel expired in 1999. At least 70% of the items on this list are accurate, but it’s difficult to be certain because Bush and the media choose not to cover these things. “Bestiality” is just a joke intended to get you to read this footnote. Well, on second thought, even that (bestiality that is) may have happened since Bush is a member of Yale’s ultra-secret Skull and Bones Society. You know, it could have happened. Who knows? 124

320


“management style” has caused some of the most lethal blows to his presidency and legacy. During his entire tenure in the White House, Bush has never uttered words like the following: “Mr. Rumsfeld, you said A, B, C and D about Iraq, and none of them turned out to be true—none of them! It is my duty as president to hold you responsible. You’re fired!” To the contrary, Bush and his GOP rubber stampers focused more on spinning than winning the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq. Rumsfeld and Feith systematically introduced spinning and propaganda—better called treasonous lies—into the Pentagon, with the blessing of Bush and Cheney. In late 2001 the Pentagon covertly created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), with the purpose of broadening information warfare into nations allied with the United States. In February 2002 The New York Times and other major U.S. media reported the existence of the OSI, and it was only after intense public discussion of the OSI’s role and impact—including the undermining of the credibility of the Pentagon and other U.S. institutions caused by lying to the public—that Rumsfeld announced the decision to close the OSI. However, nine months later Rumsfeld bragged that the OSI was shut down in name only and that its activities would continue. The disclosure in 2007 of Rumsfeld’s “snowflake” messages to his staff and others further revealed and reinforced his manipulative nature. Rumsfeld sought to rally American support for the GOP’s failed war through the development of “bumper sticker statements.” He wrote of the need to “link Iraq to Iran” and to “keep elevating the threat.” He also made disparaging comments about Muslims. Let’s return for a moment to that embarrassing presentation by Colin Powell before the UN Security Council in February 2003 in which he presented the case for war against Iraq. Let’s not forget that then CIA Director George Tenet, who was on occasion a lackey to Bush’s inner circle and ultimately its scapegoat, also played a supporting role in that tragic UN farce. In order to provide reassuring visual support to those being duped, Tenet sat right behind Powell during Powell’s Security Council song and dance. Tenet apparently had trained himself to go along with the war party line. In his 2007 book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, in which Tenet downplays his own shortcomings, he writes about Powell’s UN speech: “It was a great presentation, but unfortunately the substance didn’t hold up. One by one, the various pillars of the speech, particularly on Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons programs, began to buckle. The secretary of state was subsequently hung out to dry in front of the world, and our nation’s credibility plummeted.” Although the Bush White House, especially Bush and Cheney, is the major reason for the decline in the CIA’s reputation and capabilities, Tenet must share some of the responsibility. He resigned in June 2004, and Bush rewarded his incompetence with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Tenet is on a long list of senior Bush League incompetents—including Rice and Wolfowitz—who received some of America’s highest civilian awards, or were promoted beyond their level of competence. As for Bush, his numerous personal weaknesses led him to become a willing occupant of that famous Bush Bubble and a president prone to manipulation by flatterers and liars. Our next chapter is “Puppetry in the White House.”

CHAPTER 15

Puppetry in the White House A Blind Man in a Roomful of Deaf People I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible? —George W. Bush, in a handwritten note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a UN world summit meeting, September 14, 2005 In April 2004, after many months of stonewalling and flip flopping, Bush and Cheney finally agreed to testify—or rather, chat—before the commission investigating 9/11, but only if the proceedings were subject to certain conditions. One truly bizarre condition was that Bush would appear only if he and Cheney appeared together. Can you imagine Richard Nixon refusing to testify before a commission unless his vice president, Spiro Agnew, appeared with him? Or consider Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush—certainly not the shiniest penny in the jar—can you imagine him refusing to appear unless Dan Quayle was there to hold his hand? Or consider Ronald Reagan. Or Bill Clinton—well, you get the idea. SIDEBAR: Spiro Agnew Note to younger readers: If you don’t recognize the name of Spiro Agnew, you should Google him and spend a few minutes learning about his infamous place in American history. This Republican vice president famously had a way with words, frequently using alliteration, such as describing the media as “nattering nabobs of negativism.” He also had a way with money, including taking cash bribes while in public office, which led to his resignation in disgrace. If you need a good topic for a paper for an American history class, you could consider writing about the parallels and differences between the Nixon/Agnew team and the Bush/Cheney duo. One obvious difference is that the Bush/Cheney financial schemes for their cronies are much bigger.

322


However, Bush and Cheney are a different duo, and they simply had to appear together. Some wags offered the explanation that a dummy cannot talk without his ventriloquist present. Some even suggested that Bush and Cheney are physically joined at that place on Bush’s body where ventriloquist Cheney inserts his hand. The other conditions demanded by Bush and Cheney were: (1) they would not answer questions about 9/11 under oath, (2) the proceedings would not be recorded, and (3) the proceedings would be private. This meant that the families of the more than 3,000 victims of 9/11 would never know what Bush said or didn’t say, and they would have no right to ask him a few questions. When it comes to standing up for traditional American values and working for all Americans, not just the privileged and the Super Rich, Bush lacks a backbone. He is the perfect puppet for Cheney and his band of neocons. Although Reagan eventually found the common sense and backbone to ignore the lunatic advice he was getting from the same neocons who recently ran America and its military into the ground, Bush continues to fall for their fairy tales hook line and sinker. Perhaps he is afraid to fire them, knowing they are likely to write embarrassing tell-all books about him and his fiasco of a presidency. It is instructive to consider how Cheney became vice president. Bush asked him to head the efforts to pick his vice presidential running mate. After fondling this task for several weeks, Cheney decided he would take the VP job himself, and Bush passively went along. It would be amusing to see the vetting sheet that Cheney prepared for candidate Cheney. Bush has numerous personal shortcomings that make him an ideal participant in puppetry. In the following pages, we will discuss just a few of these shortcomings:125 • intellectual laziness; • a lack of curiosity about the world; • a weak work ethic (also known as laziness); • inability to empathize with anyone less fortunate; • an AWOL backbone when it comes to personal sacrifice; • poor judgment; • inability to form public policy through a fact-based analytical framework; • allergy to personal responsibility; and • a warped set of personal values that place ideology over truth, and fealty over competence. America’s friends and allies are amazed that a person of Bush’s BB-gun caliber could garner 50% of the vote in an American presidential election. They are especially bewildered by that peculiar rightwing American notion that even the village idiots from time to time should have a village idiot in the White House representing them.

125

Numerous books have been written about Bush’s character defects and sordid life history, but that is not the purpose of this book. An encyclopedia set would be needed to do the subject justice.

CHAPTER 15 — PUPPETRY IN THE WHITE HOUSE

323

Intellectual Laziness and Lack of Curiosity About the World Bush’s legendary intellectual laziness is a major reason his foreign policy slate was blank when he walked into the White House. He had, and still has, a stunningly low level of curiosity about the world. When a leader cannot locate most nations on a map, his probability of success in a complex world is about equal to that of a monkey randomly flipping coins and randomly going about his monkey business. Diplomats around the world have been astonished by Bush’s ignorance, intellectual laziness and lack of curiosity regarding foreign affairs. Shocked that America has such a shallow man to lead it, they want America’s president to be better informed, to be willing to listen and learn, to be street smart and world wise, and to be an effective world leader. They are tired of Bush League name calling and juvenile taunting. They want an honest American leader who believes in diplomacy and has the backbone to meet America’s worst enemies face to face. According to Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, Bush’s father called his old buddy Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to America, in 1997 to tell him that his son needed a tutor because he was thinking about running for president. The younger Bush, then Governor of Texas, later told Bandar: “I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy.” Paul O’Neill, a Republican conservative hand-picked by Cheney and Bush to serve in Bush’s cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury, was stunned by Bush’s disinterest and lack of knowledge regarding policy issues. In his 2004 book, The Price of Loyalty, O’Neill said that “President Bush showed little interest in policy discussions in his first two years in the White House, leading Cabinet meetings ‘like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people.’” These comments are not those of a Bush hater, but are those of a conservative Republican who worked directly for Bush and was the most competent executive ever in Bush’s cabinet. O’Neill notes that Bush was so inscrutable that his closest advisors had to devise White House policy on “little more than hunches about what the president might think.’” Bush’s inability to think deeply about any issue made him putty in the hands of Cheney and the other neocons, who kept him in the dark like a mushroom and steered him at will in virtually any direction. In a cover story entitled, “Bush in the Bubble,” Newsweek described him as perhaps “the most isolated president in modern history.” When interviewed on 60 Minutes, O’Neill described his first working meeting with Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [Bush] on. And as the book said, I was surprised that it turned out to be me talking and the president just listening … As I recall it was mostly a monologue.” Bush’s speeches are prepared almost entirely by others with little or no input from America’s “Decider.” With practice he began to read his speeches better after 9/11. He has had a surprisingly small number of press conferences (a record low for recent administrations) because he does not think well on his feet, or at all. He prefers that questions be submitted in advance, which gives his handlers time to prepare answers for him. As for his “public meetings” on the road across America, with rare exception the audiences are handpicked to be friendly and supportive. This allows the president to

324


avoid hard questions, hard thinking and hard answers. Americans with dissenting views are excluded from these meetings, even though American taxpayers pay for the trips. In a systematic unconstitutional program that suppresses free speech, the Secret Service at taxpayer expense visits locations in advance and instructs local police to establish free speech zones—another Orwellian phrase—where people opposed to Bush and his policies are rounded up like cattle and quarantined away from the event. Keeping dissenters out of sight helps America’s media participate in rosy dissenter-free photo ops for Bush.

A Weak Work Ethic Especially during the early months of his administration, Bush prided himself on not working hard. He took a record number of days of presidential vacation in the several months from his inauguration until 9/11—he vacationed more than 40% of the time before 9/11—and frequently demonstrated to reporters his various ranch vacation activities, principally brush clearing and weed whacking. Yes, “W” stands for “weed whacking” (not to be confused with his avocation of “women whacking,” which he does in Washington.) Karl Rove thought he could create a regular workingman image for Bush if Bush had his own ranch. So in 1999 Bush bought his so-called “ranch” in Crawford, Texas, and had a big new house built, like a movie set for a media phony. At best the ranch is a mini-ranch or ranchette, but it is more accurately described as a farm. Bush and Rove use the word “ranch” because they believe ranchers are manlier than farmers. Of course, Bush is neither a rancher nor a farmer. As for being a rancher, the cattle you see on his ranch are not even his. Someone else owns them, pays for grazing rights, and actually knows how to take care of cattle. Bush himself wouldn’t dare get near either end of a bull or cow, unless he was wasted.126 Regrettably, Bush does not know how to ride a horse—or, presumably, even a cow, but who knows with certainty. You won’t find any of these facts in Karl Rove’s media guide for Bush, that popular work of fiction for gullible voters also known as Dummies for Bush. This revelation that Bush doesn’t know how to ride a horse could inspire Rove to claim that Bush really is a rodeo champion from way back. If so, America’s media would happily ride along. As for Bush perhaps being a farmer, that really stretches the imagination. Anyone from a farming state, such as your author, knows that farming takes far too much knowledge, risk, and hard work for people like Bush. Also, it’s a safe bet that Bush couldn’t tell the difference between wheat and a weed, unless the weed was marijuana. Yes, “W” also stands for “weed.”

Lacking in Empathy If Bush’s DNA had included even the tiniest bit of empathy for the people of Iraq, he would have realized that a reconstruction and development plan—a “plan to win the

126

Yes, “W” also stands for “wasted.”


325

peace”—was necessary, and that the neocon “bomb-em and fire-em” madness was, well, mad, in addition to being mean, unchristian and incredibly counterproductive. Unfortunately, Bush, like his father, has no ability to create good jobs—whether in America or Iraq—although he does know how to enrich the Super Rich, with whom he shares loads of DNA. A president with an ability to empathize with average workers in America and Iraq would not have become such a passive puppeteer for policies that have significantly harmed the vast majority of people in both countries. But Bush’s elitist upbringing and country club DNA prevent him from having any sympathy for either Joe Lunchpail in Baltimore or Mohammed Lunchpail in Baghdad. Here’s a revelation for President Bush. Americans and Iraqis want the same things: good honest jobs that allow them to support their families; medical care; safe vibrant communities in which to live and raise their children; education; a fair society that is not run by and for the privileged few; and the hope that the future will be better for their children.

An AWOL Backbone regarding Personal Sacrifice If Bush had had a distinguished career in America’s active military, or even an undistinguished career in the active military, he would not have been so easily manipulated by his neocon puppeteers, who themselves had no active military service. Bush did not realize or care how insular and incompetent his warrior wannabes were. Yes, “W” stands for “warrior wannabe.” With no appreciation for the complexities of war, Bush didn’t know what questions to ask, and he chose not to seek advice from military experts outside his tight clique of true believers. For example, when told that the case for WMD in Iraq was a “slam dunk,” Bush didn’t even have the intelligence to say, “OK, so within 24 hours show me a bunch of the compelling evidence. If it’s a slam dunk, that should be easy to do.” President Truman—and any other president—would have said, “Show me.” Bush didn’t. Bush had heard what he wanted to believe, and facts might get in the way if he asked questions, especially if he knew what questions to ask. The Bush family, like many other privileged Con families in America who supported the war on Iraq, believes that young men and women of other families should fight it. In practice, this means the war is being fought almost entirely by middle- and low-income American soldiers in the military and National Guard, all of whom deserve our prayers and greatest respect. Many of them enlisted due to economic need, but all of them share a sense of patriotism and shared sacrifice missing from America’s privileged class. During World War II the privileged class understood that a special responsibility came with their special privileged status. All four of President Franklin Roosevelt’s sons enlisted in America’s armed services after the outbreak of World War II and were decorated for bravery. Bush’s father served with honor and distinction during that same war. Unfortunately, the linkage between privilege and responsibility has been broken in America, and this is especially true with Bush’s extended family.

326


Bush and Cheney were draft evaders, and Bush also apparently went AWOL from the National Guard. Today no member of their extended families is in military service in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else. Only a handful of America’s leaders in Congress have sons or daughters in the military. As of the start of Bush’s second term, the only son or daughter of the 535 members of Congress who had served in Afghanistan or Iraq was Brooks Johnson, the eldest son of Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), who suffered a stroke in December 2006. While on active duty in the U.S. Army, Brooks Johnson served in Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. Nevertheless, GOP slime balls attacked Senator Johnson’s patriotism during his 2002 reelection campaign in South Dakota. It’s troublesome that none of the senior policy setters in Bush’s administration, including the Defense Department, have any immediate family members who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. With the exception of Colin Powell, none of the Bush policy makers were ever in the active armed services, and Powell himself, long before he was booted out of the White House, was neutered and isolated by Bush’s armchair civilians who willfully ignore the advice of America’s best military minds.

Poor Judgment / Lack of Analytical Framework Poor judgment has been a consistent hallmark of Bush’s personal and public life. A major contributing factor is that he apparently is devoid of any analytical framework for making rational decisions and optimal public policies. Although the extent to which Tony Blair voluntarily drank the neocon Kool-Aid on Iraq can be debated, it was reasonable for Blair to expect any American president, even Bush, to be reasonably competent and serious in setting about the serious business of war. In this assessment Blair was bitterly disappointed. His poodle-like stickiness to Bush cost him dearly with the British people, who from day one broadly opposed the Bush League war on Iraq. By the time Blair was forced into early retirement, his legacy had dropped to Grade W. The headline on the cover of the May 13-19, 2006, issue of The Economist summed it up nicely: “Axis of feeble: The closing of the Bush-Blair Era.” Until Bush, all American presidents in the last 50 years willingly sought information and advice from a broad array of experts and sources. Especially in critical policy areas where the president has little experience, the president needs to solicit the perspective of people with contrary views, including leaders of the other major political party, as well as foreign leaders. Bush does not have the smarts or emotional makeup to do this. He chose to remain “bubbled-in,” receiving ideologically driven direction from a stunningly small group of advisors who do not value critical thinking and who share a similar narrow worldview. They manipulate him and the agenda as they promote their preconceived, extreme rightwing, neocon ideology. They promote the agenda of the few, not what is best for America and the world. The decision making process in the Bush White House is run in reverse. The Bushies start with the answer and then conveniently plug in the “facts” and the “problem” later.


327

When it comes to war, Bush does not even understand the difference between strategy and tactics. As late as 2006, when asked about such niceties regarding Iraq, his public responses were borderline gibberish. The Bush regime determines and sells its war policies like a marketing firm promotes cigarettes. Regarding Iraq, it rejected the best minds, the best intelligence, and the best critical thinking. Bush’s handlers, especially Cheney, keep dissenting voices outside Bush’s Bubble. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Fortunately, disclosures by courageous whistle blowers, the ferreting out of the truth by both American and foreign patriots, and the growing list of revealing books written by Bush’s own people, expose the administration’s incompetence, arrogance, corruption and disregard for human life and the rule of law. The narrow groupthink in the White House results in a host of evils. In addition to misleading America and the world about Iraq, the Bush team began to believe many of its own lies. Bush, a weak leader surrounded by people who think and say the same things, mistakes this conformity for correctness, with catastrophic consequences for America and the world.

Denial of Responsibility—Denial is Not a River in Egypt The Bush administration is the first administration to run America without making any mistakes—at least they never take responsibility for any. Whatever the disaster, such as the quagmire and civil war they created in Iraq, they pretend all is as they foresaw. If mistakes were made, someone else must have made them. Senior White House officials are fortunate to have a boss who applies to them the same Teflon standard that he applies to himself: “The Buck Does Not Stop Here.” In return, Bush’s handlers continuously tell him how strong he is and how well everything is going. Of course, when you don’t have a plan with specific measurable objectives, anything and everything can be said to be “on plan.” Denial of responsibility is a necessary weapon for politicians who run on ideology and blind faith, rather than reason and reality. Living in a house of cards, these political hacks face the perpetual fear that acknowledging a mistake will expose their actions to the sunlight of fact-based analysis, leading to a collapse of support for their fraudulent schemes. Bush’s Teflon policy sends a horrible message to both friend and foe. Whether or not Bush was personally involved in some wrongdoing—say, for example, torture at the Abu Ghraib prison—it would help America if he said, “I take full responsibility on behalf of America and apologize for the mistakes made. They won’t happen again.” This would affirm American values and perhaps win some Muslim hearts and minds. Such acceptance of responsibility is helpful even when it has no legal significance. Consider the style of Pope John Paul II, who on several occasions apologized for horrendous sins of the Catholic Church over the years. On November 22, 2001, he even made his first “virtual” email apology when he apologized to victims of sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests. Observers may have thought: “Wow, the Pope is going to do hard time when he’s sentenced … thousands of years in prison.” Of course, it doesn’t work that way. Nevertheless, John Paul II’s apologies did help

328


change the church’s positions, in addition to perhaps giving some comfort to the church’s countless victims. It is odd that the Pope—God’s infallible representative on Earth—apologizes, but Bush—a regular mortal—does not. Perhaps Bush believes he alone is the infallible Super Pope with an exclusive channel to God. Bush’s hardcore supporters, especially rightwing Christians, are like a mother who refuses to see shortcomings in the child she wants to love and trust. She gives unconditional love, without responsibility and consequences. But love without responsibility and consequences is not love at all. Slowly but surely, more and more “Bush mothers” are awakening to the fact that this modern day Judas exploited them as he betrayed Christ and his message. SIDEBAR: A Real Christian Would Repent What is the single most important deeply personal action that Bush could take to help America in the so-called war on terrorism and to restore American respect and credibility among its allies and friends? It is for Bush to repent for his illegal and immoral war on Iraq. Christian theology and the Bible compel this repentance by Bush. A real Christian would do so. Unfortunately, pigs will fly before Bush takes even the first baby step on the road to Christian repentance, which is for him to admit his mistakes and say he’s sorry. But Bush simply saying “I’m sorry” would not be enough. True Christian repentance is much more than feeling remorseful about something. Rather, the Bible requires that a sinner who seeks repentance and the forgiveness of those wronged must make sincere efforts to turn his life around. Repentance requires appropriate efforts to right the wrong, to compensate those who have been wronged. It contemplates a radical change of attitudes and direction, with a sincere vow not to repeat the offences. Bush the Infallible is not even to first base when it comes to repentance. During the televised 2004 presidential debates, a woman in Missouri asked Bush to identify just three mistakes he had made while president, and he famously could not think of even one. Not one. Do not expect Bush to repent. After all, he is protected by the Bush Family Pass, which exempts him from consequences. Sadly, Bush will never receive on Earth even a tiny fraction of the punishment he deserves. But one can dream. Wouldn’t it be heroic for Bush to turn himself over to the Iraqi people for trial regarding his war crimes? Heaven and Earth would rejoice. Even a modest personal sacrifice—say a public tarring and feathering in Baghdad—would do much to help restore America’s credibility. So would his impeachment.


329

In blaming others for its own mistakes in Iraq, the Bush regime even blames America’s troops. While speaking about Iraq in Blackburn, England, on March 31, 2006, Condoleezza Rice would not admit to any strategic mistakes by America’s leaders, as she said, “I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them I am sure.” She spun it this way because she knows strategic decisions are made at the top, while tactical decisions are generally made down the chain of command. But the sad reality is that all of the key mistakes regarding Iraq were strategic mistakes, not tactical mistakes, and America’s civilian leadership—primarily Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld—made them.127 Once again, Rice had it exactly backwards. Iraq is Bush’s and the GOP’s Five Wrong War—the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, by the wrong leader, against the wrong enemy. Yes, “W” stands for “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.” Bush’s instinct to “blame it on the troops” was on display during a joint news conference with Tony Blair on May 25, 2006, at the White House. Regarding missteps and mistakes in Iraq, Bush and Blair were each asked “which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?” [Emphasis added]. After saying he had learned “some lessons about expressing” himself, Bush went on to say that the biggest mistake so far was Abu Ghraib. However, he then placed all the blame for Abu Ghraib on America’s troops, and none on himself or Cheney or Rumsfeld or any neocon in Washington—even though the question was about his mistakes. Bush then lied, “the people who committed those acts were brought to justice. They’ve been given a fair trial and tried and convicted.” That’s it? Incredible! Bush was asked about his own missteps and mistakes, and he goes out of his way to raise Abu Ghraib as the “biggest mistake” and then blame it only on low-level scapegoats. If Bush really wanted to identify those responsible for Abu Ghraib, he could look in the mirror, and he could also look at the lying faces of war criminals Rumsfeld and Cheney. When it comes to responsibility and supporting America’s troops, Bush has not a shred of personal integrity or decency. Blame the troops—incredible! On the other hand, America’s military personnel carried to success every tactical mission they were assigned in Iraq, no matter how difficult, and they prevailed in every single firefight. They took seriously their various oaths of service. Among the several military oaths is the following, which is taken by all personnel inducted into the U.S. armed forces: The Military Oath I, (name) , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

127 The Bush regime’s habit of blaming others brings to mind a classic line from Casablanca. In the airport scene at the end of the movie, Captain Louis Renault proclaims: “Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects.”

330


Unlike Bush—who violated his oath of office—America’s finest with rare exception honorably fulfilled their oaths of military service.

Ideology Over Truth—Fealty Over Competence Bush and his neocons are quite loyal to those who faithfully stick with the Con program and mouth the party line, and they savage truth tellers who deviate from the neocon scripture. They place no value on differing viewpoints and conflicting facts. Incompetent ass kissers and yes men have job security. Dissenters, especially the most competent and honest, are weeded out because they are “disloyal.” Axing dissenters is a favorite weapon of politicians driven by ideology and blind faith. Whether it’s Bush’s Washington or Saddam’s Baghdad, only the “loyal” can be counted on to safeguard fascist policies. Cult leaders eliminate members who question the cult’s Kool-Aid. Saddam surrounded himself with a circle of fearful suck-ups. They learned to tell him what he wanted to hear. In early 2003, just before the U.S. invasion, they told him the United States would not invade, because that is what he wanted to hear. During that same period, Bush’s key neocon advisors told him that the war would be a “cakewalk,” which is what he wanted to hear. Like Saddam, Bush rewards those who “loyally” tell him the lies he wants to hear, and the rest are toast. Bush’s top economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired in 2002, before the Iraq war, because he was an intelligent independent thinker who refused to docilely support the neocon fable regarding the projected cost of the war. He made the mistake of honestly giving his best analysis, which was that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. (Lindsey had apparently forgotten to take his GOP hallucinatory medication that morning.) Since the Bush neocons did not want to hear a number higher than their low-ball figure of $60 billion,128 Lindsey was fired. Paul O’Neill, one of those rare individuals in the Bush administration who successfully and honestly ran a public company, was fired for giving his candid views as Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury. One “mistake” O’Neill made was truthfully telling Cheney that America was headed towards a financial crisis and that the huge deficits and tax cuts threatened the U.S. economy. Cheney told him, “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter,” and fired him in December 2002. SIDEBAR: The GOP Needs a Real French Guillotine Bush rewards and promotes incompetent cronies, provided they remain loyal. Fortunately, there is a growing conga line of former Bush loyalists who have repented and told their truth after leaving Bush’s sinking ship.

128

Surprise! The Bush neocons were low on their estimate. The direct costs alone will exceed $1 trillion dollars before the United States leaves the mess behind. The indirect cost— including especially the toll of human lives—will be a multiple of that. Priceless.


331

Competent truth tellers who stray from the party line are routinely and figuratively “guillotined.” Bush and his henchmen need to purchase the official French model of the guillotine, the one that actually severs the head from the body, thus preventing the victim from telling the truth. Since Bush treats his own people like this, it is not surprising that he mistreats foreigners. Enemies such as North Korea and longtime allies such as France are all targets for Bush’s infamous petulance and snide comments. Kill the messenger of good news and truth. If Christ returned tomorrow morning to deliver his message of peace and compassion, the Bush regime by sundown would award Halliburton a profitable no-competitive-bid contract for a cross and nails. Drop old cronies and supporters like hot potatoes if they become an embarrassment. Bush becomes touchy and defensive when asked about such relationships, rather than taking the high road and truthfully giving his perspective, which might help restore his shattered credibility. After all, he couldn’t possibly have personal knowledge of all the nefarious activities of his regime and his friends. But truth telling is as foreign to Bush as French, and thus bad. SIDEBAR: Chalabi Who? Iraqi leader Ahmed Chalabi sat in a photo-op seat of honor behind first lady Laura Bush during Bush’s State of the Union speech to Congress in January 2004. Unfortunately for Bush, the neocons’ long-term romance and bribery of Chalabi soon hit a rocky stretch. When a reporter a few months later started to ask Bush a general question that was not even directed at Bush’s personal role in Chalabi-gate, Bush became unnecessarily defensive. Rather than taking the opportunity to clarify Chalabi’s disastrous fraudulent relationship with his regime, Bush sought cover for himself by assuming his familiar “What do I know?” posture. Q: “Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that’s fallen out of favor within your administration. I’m wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly …” A: “Chalabi?” Q: “Yes, with Chalabi.” A: “My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven’t had any extensive conversations with him.” (This exchange occurred on June 1, 2004, when Bush spoke in the Rose Garden regarding Iraq’s interim government.)

332


Chalabi was the darling of the neocons, who marketed him as the “George Washington of Iraq” and groomed him to be the America-pliant leader of Iraq, even though he had not lived in Iraq for decades and had virtually no support within Iraq. The United States paid him tens of millions of dollars over several years to provide made-as-instructed “intelligence” to support the case for the invasion of Iraq. According to the Government Accountability Office, the United States paid Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress more than $33 million from March 2000 to May 2004. In a February 2004 interview with London’s Daily Telegraph, Chalabi, then a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, bragged about the impact of the false WMD information his organization provided. “We are heroes in error,” he said during his Baghdad interview. “As far as we’re concerned, we’re been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat.” The Bush neocons turned against Chalabi later in 2004 only after he started criticizing Bush’s Iraq strategy. Among the most disturbing allegations regarding Chalabi is that he sent classified U.S. information to Iran, including disclosure that U.S. intelligence had broken Iran’s secret codes, thus compromising the ability of America’s intelligence agencies to decipher intercepted Iranian communications. Since Chalabi was not cleared to receive classified information, the obvious question was whether someone in the Bush administration betrayed the United States by unlawfully passing the classified information to Chalabi. According to a June 2004 report by Jim Stewart of CBS News, counterintelligence agents in the FBI focused on the highest levels of the Pentagon in trying to determine who leaked the information. Lie detector tests were given to a small number of civilian Pentagon employees, according to The New York Times. The fact that Iran’s code had been broken was known only to a small number of key officials. Incredibly, this is just one more investigation that the Bush administration is not interested in pursuing, and the self-neutered U.S. press quickly lost interest. At that time—June 2004—Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s National Security Adviser, promised a thorough FBI investigation of the Iranian leak. However, neither the FBI nor any other counter-intelligence agency has even bothered to interview Chalabi. Instead, 17 months later, in November 2005—in another flip flop—the Bush administration invited prime suspect Chalabi to visit the White House and meet with several senior officials, including Vice President Cheney and five cabinet members, including Rumsfeld and Rice. While in Washington for this royal treatment, Chalabi also gave a triumphant speech to the American Enterprise Institute, that infamous neocon-infested White House partner in warmongering. In the next chapter we turn our attention to America’s corporate media and their shameful role regarding the Iraq war and the GOP’s assault on America’s democracy.

CHAPTER 16

Control and Bullying of the Media America’s Corporate Media—Right, But Not Correct To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people. —Theodore Roosevelt Even Mickey Mouse, that lovable Disney creature, was afraid of the Bush family Cons and their famous retribution. If Mickey exercised his first amendment rights and “squeaked up,” he knew that Bush’s little brother Jeb would likely come mouse hunting with a big, taxing, State of Florida mousetrap. All loyal Mickey Mouse fans would mourn his loss, but the Bush family would not shed a single tear, not even a small mouse tear. What are you talking about? The Walt Disney film studio refused to allow its Miramax unit to distribute Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 because it links Bush to prominent Saudis, including Osama bin Laden’s family, and is critical of Bush’s inactions and actions before and after 9/11. Miramax, under contract with Moore, had invested in the film and agreed to distribute it. However, Disney blocked the film’s distribution, an action challenged by its Miramax unit. Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, revealed that Michael Eisner, Disney’s chief executive officer, had asked him to pull out of the Miramax deal because of concerns that the critical film could jeopardize Disney’s tax breaks in Florida, where Jeb Bush was governor. Would the crooked Jeb Bush really squash that lovable mouse? Is there no limit to the Bush family’s depravity? Disney, however, does not need the Bush family to help it promote the GOP agenda. Disney and the ABC television network, which is part of the Disney corporate empire, are ready, willing and able to do that on their own. The Path to 9/11 is a good example of this institutional Big Media bias. On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the ABC television network aired The Path to 9/11, a two-part, commercial-free, rightwing propaganda miniseries about 9/11, loosely based on the 9/11 Commission Final Report. ABC initially tried to pass it off as a balanced truthful documentary. It wasn’t. The film received enormous pre-broadcast publicity not only because of ABC’s extensive advertising campaign, but also because ABC selectively sent advance

334


viewing copies to many conservative commentators, bloggers, groups, and political talk show hosts—but not to progressive organizations or individuals. The conservative media machine happily promoted the film as if it were God’s truth. A good clue as to the movie’s political bias is the fact that Rush Limbaugh, who boasted he was a “personal friend” of the writer, promoted the movie on his broadcasts. The office of former President Clinton, however, was denied viewing copies, as were others progressives such as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Promoting its propaganda as a “public service,” ABC even directly pushed it to schools across America. The only member of the 9/11 Commission who consulted for the project was its Republican co-chair, Thomas Kean. ABC paid $40 million for this politically slanted movie, which was produced by the right and for the right’s agenda. Because of numerous pre-broadcast complaints, ABC modified some scenes and included a milk toast disclaimer in the movie, acknowledging that it was a “dramatization.” However, outside the United States, it still marketed the hatchet job as the “Official True Story.”

Mainstream Media that Kowtows to the Bush Administration For too long America’s mainstream corporate media kowtowed to Bush and the Con agenda. This was especially true following 9/11, which created a heightened sense of American patriotism that Bush immediately exploited. Journalists were afraid of being labeled unpatriotic by his rightwing wingnuts, and yellow journalism became popular in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Warmongering squashed freedom of speech and reason. Critical reporters could expect retaliation by the Bush administration and lots of hate mail. Voices of peace were among the first victims of Bush’s war on Iraq. America’s journalists by and large uncritically accepted and amplified the mountain of distortions and lies used by the Bush administration to sell its Iraq war to the American people. More than two years after the invasion of Iraq, 70% of Bush’s supporters still believed the United States had actually found WMDs in Iraq. A large majority still believed Saddam was behind 9/11 and worked hand in hand with bin Laden! The White House controls the press in many subtle and not so subtle ways. For example, Bush propagandists and shills in the media such as Fox News expect and receive special access and privileges. As the Bush regime’s principal propaganda organ, Fox News is America’s Bushevik version of Pravda. The de facto merger of the Bush White House and Fox/Pravda News became complete in April 2006 when Bush picked Fox pundit Tony “Snowjob” Snow to become his new White House press secretary. Although America’s domestic press by and large gave Bush a continuous pass regarding Iraq, thousands of journalists, both American and foreign, have courageously risked their lives in Iraq doing their job. On May 29, 2006, Memorial Day, a three-person CBS News crew was hit by a car bomb in the Karada section of Baghdad. Correspondent Kimberly Dozier was critically injured, and James Brolan and Paul Douglas, both British citizens, died in the attack. The explosion also killed an American soldier and an Iraqi interpreter and wounded six American soldiers. The

CHAPTER 16 — CONTROL AND BULLYING OF THE MEDIA

335

journalists were doing a Memorial Day story about the life of soldiers in Baghdad and were embedded with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division. Reporters Without Borders reported in March 2006 that 86 journalists and media assistants had been killed in Iraq in the first three years of the war. By comparison, about 63 journalists were killed in Vietnam during twenty years of war. If one had followed only America’s mainstream media, one would have concluded that Bush had been blessed with a flawless set of character traits and leadership skills that began to corrode only after the Iraq war was about nine months old. Unfortunately, it was only after the pile of lies got so big that the mainstream media started to raise long overdue questions about Bush and his regime. Only then did a small portion of America’s press start to fulfill its independent, fair and balanced role. Bush’s image has been carefully crafted over many years. Countless buckets of whitewash, fumigants and makeup were used to create a bogus portrait of an honest person, a compassionate conservative, and a moral leader who is strong on defense and supportive of democracy and religious freedom. America’s media shamefully helped put the lipstick on that pig. Unfortunately, it required years of Bush League mismanagement and several hundred thousand dead in Iraq for a majority of Americans to realize that a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Bush’s image—like that of the Marlboro Man—was the product of media manipulation. Advertisers know that the endless repetition of slogans like “compassionate conservative” cause them to become truth. The Bush team understood this, and Corporate Media pretended they didn’t. However, America eventually realized that Bush’s phony image—like that of the Marlboro Man—could not forever mask the cancer within.

Media Concentration Every American should be alarmed by this disturbing fact: Six huge media conglomerates now own more than 90% of America’s mass media. These six huge conglomerates are: Time Warner; Bertelsmann (of Germany); Disney; General Electric; News Corporation (owned by Rupert Murdoch and usually called News Corp); and Viacom (formerly CBS). When we say America’s “mass media,” we are not talking about just radio and television, but rather all mass media, including the Internet, cable, publishing and movies, as well as radio and television. Each of the six conglomerates owns a constellation of interconnected companies sprinkled throughout the various segments of the mass media world. You would need a huge scorecard or a computer to keep track of everything. It is likely that not one American in a million could draw a detailed map of this huge Big Business oligopoly that dominates America’s media. For example, let’s consider just one of the six giants, Time Warner. Time Warner controls: CNN; Time Warner Cable; many magazines, including Time, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, Money, People and MAD; The WB television network; several cable channels including TNT, Cartoon Network, TBS Superstation, Turner Classic Movies, Cinemax and HBO; television networks including The WB; AOL and AOL’s Web Properties Group which includes MapQuest, Netscape, a network of weblogs,

336


Mirabilis (ICQ), CompuServe and Advertising.com; Timelife music and books; movie studios including Warner Bros. and Cinemax; the Atlanta Braves major league baseball team; Castle Rock Entertainment (a production company); and DC Comics. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the electromagnetic spectrum used by radio was viewed as public property. The U.S. government granted licenses for spectrum frequencies to private companies and individuals provided they broadcast in the public interest. Large radio networks like ABC lobbied the government to impose a significant charge on each license, which had the desired effect of pricing amateur and small broadcasters out of the market, including those who were already broadcasting. A principal purpose of FCC regulations over several decades was to limit the percentage of each geographical market that could be licensed by a single company. These anti-monopoly regulations made sense and served the public interest well for several decades—that is, until the Cons and Big Media jumped into bed together and began screwing America’s democracy. Big Media and the Republican Party over the last two decades pushed various deregulation schemes, all of which were wolves in sheep’s clothing. Well, the media war is over, and Big Media, Big Money and Big Brother have won. America’s democracy has lost. Here are some of the lowlights: • The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was deceptively advertised as pro-competition, resulted in a tsunami wave of mergers involving huge companies. • By 2003 the ownership limits on single companies had been emasculated by the GOP-dominated FCC and its chairman, Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell. (We’ll discuss this more later.) • Stations using America’s airwaves no longer have to be run in the public interest. • Stations no longer have to provide equal time to opposing views. Big Media now control the vast majority of news disseminated to the American public. The structure of America’s media imposes a Big Business bias in news reporting. Funding from Big Business advertisers also plays a role in this bias. To increase profits, budgets for investigative reporting and honest journalism are cut, replaced by the easy regurgitation of propaganda from official government sources and Big Business. Small independent news sources are ignored and discredited. Entertainment and news are commingled because it is profitable and easy—versus tough professional reporting, which is hard. News is dummy downed, and talking points substitute for substantive coverage and debate. Stories created and paid for by Big Business are frequently aired as news, without indicating their source. Don’t expect much from the FCC investigation of these so-called “video news releases,” or VNRs, which are public relations videos paid for by Big Business and crafted to look like objective TV reporting. VNRs are also called “fake news” in the industry. Big Media have countless conflicts of interest involving the constellation of companies they control. Largely ignoring these conflicts, they protect and promote their various business interests in the news stories they select, and in what is reported


337

in each story. They cross promote their business interests in their various media properties. They avoid offending Big Business advertisers. In 2004 Forbes magazine calculated that more than one-third of the 40 wealthiest Americans derived most of their income from media and media-related businesses. Number of Corporations That Control a Majority of U.S. Media: (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, music, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies) 60 50

50

40 29

30

23 14

20

10

10

6

5

0 1980

1985

1990

Year

1995

2000

2005

The information in this graph is from Ben Bagdikian’s book, The Media Monopoly, which has gone through six editions. As early as 1983 Bagdikian was labeled an alarmist for pointing out that 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all U.S. news media. He later accurately predicted that America’s news media would eventually be dominated by only about half a dozen huge corporate conglomerates, as he watched the monopolization trend with growing concern. By 2000, the year Bagdikian published the sixth edition of his book, the number of controlling media giants had in fact dropped to six. His new 2004 book, The New Media Monopoly, which expanded the broad definition of media to include the Internet, shows that a majority of the U.S. media market is controlled by only five humongous corporations. These five for-profit giants are: Time Warner; Disney; News Corporation (owned by Murdoch); Bertelsmann (of Germany); and Viacom. General Electric follows closely in sixth place. A great source for links and resources on media reform is the Media Reform Information Center (www.corporations.org/media/). In pursuing greater profits, the large media corporations have a vested interest in influencing legislation affecting their business, in particular doing whatever they can to limit free speech and to eliminate barriers to their expansion and concentration. They have a tremendous amount of influence with politicians of both major parties, but they are especially in the pockets of the Cons who get the lion’s share of both illegal and perfectly legal money. Big Media offer massive campaign contributions,

338


media access and favorable reporting. There are now far more Big Media lobbyists than there are members of the U.S. Congress, and none of them work for you. Big Media were an un-elected partner in the Con-controlled Congress. Big Media not only buy the legislation they want, but in unprecedented fashion they also frequently write the legislation. Writing your own laws is a huge advantage, especially when the legislation is complex, as media legislation is. This also saves the time of lazy corrupt Con legislators and their staffers. The large media conglomerates have a natural structural bias to support rightwing politicians who support Big Business over other broader public interests, such as consumers, labor, the environment, human rights, and fair balance in the media. Birds of a feather flock together. Vultures flock together. Big Media have a natural bias to support Big Business and Big Money over middle- and low-income workers. They have an incentive to not say or do anything that might offend politicians who write legislation affecting them. At the same time, Big Media have the money—and the mass media, of course—to punish politicians who oppose them. Europeans especially are staggered by the decline of democracy in America. Money buys anything and everything in America, including the mass media upon which a healthy democracy depends. It buys Congress and the White House.129 It buys elections. It buys journalists. In short, money—really Big Money, not the chump change of the bottom 99% of Americans—has purchased and perverted America’s democracy. One tragic offspring is the Bush administration. Honesty, integrity and responsibility are gone. America’s capitalism—as in m-o-n-e-y— outranks human values and individual rights. Everything is measured in money, and everything is for sale, especially politicians, and the price is incredibly cheap. This may be Right, but it is not right. There is a growing demand for progressive media to balance the oligopoly of rightwing media, especially in radio and television. Although the profit incentive may cause Big Media to offer more progressive alternatives to their pervasive rightwing rant, it’s a safe bet that most of Big Media will continue to engage in a minimalist strategy regarding balance and the progressive message, doing just enough to allow them to claim they are fair and unbiased. Unfortunately, nascent progressive talk alternatives—such as Air America Radio, which offers Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow and Al Franken (before he left to run for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota)—do not own any media. They only provide content to the media conglomerates that own the airwaves, and are thus at their mercy. Amy Goodman (Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!) and Ed Schultz are also strong progressive voices. America’s allies and friends are extremely skeptical of the rightwing, Big Business bias in America’s media. They are amazed that the Big Lie—“the media is liberal”—gets any traction in America. America’s Big Media are owned and controlled by Big Conglomerates and Big Money, not by the poor, the unemployed or the 129

Perhaps this scene from Casablanca was written with GOP corruption in mind: Captain Louis Renault: Rick, there are many exit visas sold in this café, but we know that you’ve never sold one. That is the reason we permit you to remain open. Rick Blaine: Oh? I thought it was because I let you win at roulette. Captain Louis Renault: That is another reason.


339

homeless, not by lower or middle class workers, not by people of color or other minorities, not by women, not by America’s small businessmen and businesswomen, not by victims of war, and not by America’s finest who are making the sacrifice in Iraq and elsewhere. America’s media were culpable in the run-up to Bush’s War on Iraq. America’s allies are shocked by the decline in America’s press and the extent to which it fearfully regurgitates rightwing government propaganda. A 2005 survey showed that America had dropped to 27th place on a list of nations with the freest press. The biggest mistake of the progressive movement is its failure to invest the time and money to develop an information distribution system than is comparable in clout to that of America’s extreme right, including the Religious Right and hate radio. SIDEBAR: Rightwing Rant Michael Savage, popular rightwing radio talk host, May 12, 2004, on the Savage Nation: I tell you right now—the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don’t even care which one. They’d like an indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon. … I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity … It’s the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings. Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don’t think smallpox and a blanket is good enough incidentally. … Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I’d like to see done to these people.

Rush Limbaugh, another popular rightwing propagandist, May 12, 2004, on the Rush Limbaugh Show, commenting on the victims at Abu Ghraib prison: They are the ones who are sick. They’re the ones who are perverted. They are the ones who are dangerous. They are the ones who are subhuman. They are the ones who are human debris, not the United States of America and not our soldiers and not our prison guards.

Rightwing Rupert Murdoch is a principal shareholder and the chairman and managing director of News Corporation, which owns rightwing Fox News. Murdoch, the Australian-born son of Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1985 because only Americans could own American television stations. He has been fabulously successful in expanding his global media empire, spreading rightwing propaganda in America, and cross marketing his various cross-media companies. • The Economist reported in 1999 that Murdoch had paid no net corporate tax over the previous 11 years even though he had made $2.1 billion in profits over that period. Based on its examination of available accounts, The

340


Economist further noted that Murdoch would normally have been expected to pay $350 million in corporate taxes during that period. • If you are a warmonger lusting to invade a nation that had zero to do with 9/11, it helps to have a knuckle dragger like Rupert Murdoch on your side. During the run-up to Bush’s Iraq war, all 175 Murdoch-controlled newspapers worldwide supported the war in editorials. Perhaps you mistakenly assumed each newspaper’s editorial board would make its own informed thoughtful decision. But, no, this is Big Media, the antithesis of democracy. Australian-born Murdoch is Exhibit A for the case that America needs better border security. • In 1995 Murdoch funded and started The Weekly Standard, the neocon magazine that had much to do with Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Its founder William Kristol is the chairman of The Project for the New American Century. Kristol and neocon Robert Kagan wrote, four years before 9/11, the infamous November 17, 1997, cover story for The Weekly Standard entitled, “Saddam Must Go.” • The Weekly Standard does not practice objective journalism, but rather is a shill for rightwing causes, whatever the objective reality. In an interview with JournalismJobs.com published in May 2003, Weekly Standard senior writer Matt Labash described how it works: “We come with a strong point of view, and people like point of view journalism. … We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.” Progressives by nature relish diverse opinions and try to find the best solutions to problems. They typically do not want to hear a one-sided rant that might mirror the rightwing rant of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News. The progressive mind doesn’t want to hear propaganda; it uses facts and objective reality to determine its conclusions. The small amount of progressive programming that exists serves the greater public good and is centrist for America. A plethora of rightwing radio shows dominate political talk radio. Even when driving through a predominantly Democratic city like Los Angeles, you will find four or more major rightwing rant radio stations simultaneously striving to outdo each other in hatred and bigotry as they compete for gullible minds, and you’ll be lucky to find even one liberal or progressive station. A major factor is media consolidation by Big Media. Rightwing rant by Big Media supplanted local programming and local control. A handful of national rightwing voices provided by Big Sewage replaced local hosts, local callers and local issues. According to A.C. Nielsen ratings, the top four talk radio programs—all rightwing—are those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck. A survey in 2006 placed two other rightwingers (not-a-real-doctor Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Laura Ingraham) in the top five (behind Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage.) The corporate media in both America and in pseudo-democratic Russia have engaged in self-censorship in their investigation and coverage of policies of the central


341

government. Two examples regarding war coverage are Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, and Vladimir Putin’s handling of the war in Chechnya. In both countries, the press abdicated its essential democratic role, largely out of fear but also out of laziness and institutional bias. Commentators and so-called investigative journalists in America’s mainstream Big Media almost uniformly got the Iraq war wrong. A few later apologized, but it is difficult to find even one regurgitator of Bush League propaganda whose career suffered as a result.

Rush Limbaugh and American Forces Network American taxpayer dollars are used to fund a rightwing, pro-Iraq war, pro-GOP message to more than one million uniformed radio listeners in the U.S. military in more than 150 countries. Funded by the U.S. government and operated by the Defense Department, the American Forces Network (a brand name used by the United States Armed Forces Radio and Television Service) pushes rightwing propaganda, including that of Rush Limbaugh, over the airwaves on a daily basis to our armed forces around the world. Prior to December 2005, no long-form political talk show other than Limbaugh’s enjoyed this special privilege.130 At that time—after almost three years of war in Iraq—the American Forces Network finally added Al Franken and Ed Schultz (along with another conservative, Sean Hannity) to the radio programs it provides to its affiliates. It took a lot of progressive effort and congressional action for government to make even this simple change. In June 2004 Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced an amendment to a defense authorization bill that required the American Forces Network to meet its stated goal of providing political balance in its public affairs and news programming. Although the amendment passed the Senate unanimously, it did not become law. The rightwing bias of our American Forces Network sends a wrong message to our troops, as well as to other listeners around the world. Listeners could fairly conclude that our troops were fighting to promote rightwing media and rightwing causes. This bias makes it more difficult for America to win the hearts and minds of people throughout the world. Limbaugh’s comments about the prisoner abuses in Iraq are especially troublesome because they put our troops at greater risk in Iraq. Limbaugh dismisses all the abuses as just so much fraternity fun or Skull and Bones Society initiation fun. Although it is a big joke to him, it is not to Iraqis and to American troops whose jobs he makes more difficult. In September 2007 Limbaugh labeled American soldiers who disagree with the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.” By so insulting American soldiers and their service, he does America a disservice and deserves to be kicked off taxpayer-funded American Forces Network. A survey of U.S. troops in Iraq conducted in Iraq in the first two months of 2006 by Le Moyne College and Zogby International shows that the troops were greatly 130

Armed Forces Radio did allow a few other shows with different formats, the most prominent of these with a political message being rightwingers Laura Schlessinger and Focus on the Family’s James Dobson.

342


misinformed as to the reasons why America went to war in Iraq. The political manipulation of American Forces Network is part of the problem. An astounding 85% of our troops said America’s mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks.” On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, in a rare moment of truth, Bush himself finally admitted that Saddam had no role in 9/11. Nevertheless, he and supporters of his regime continue to use 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence in order to mislead the listener. Bush and the GOP do not support the troops—they lie to them. The same survey also showed that an astounding 77% of America’s troops in Iraq also thought that the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq,” which is another complete fabrication. America’s rightwing media deserve much of the credit for this “misunderstanding.” The point bears repeating: Bush and the GOP do not support the troops—they lie to them. The Bush administration and America’s military leadership have a duty to correct misinformation regarding Iraq and to tell the troops the truth. They must clearly articulate the mission in Iraq, something they have never done. American Forces Network must also shoulder its share of responsibility for America’s troops being misinformed. Our troops are entitled to the truth and an apology. They are also entitled to a balanced mix of politics. They deserve a choice. They deserve the truth.

Clear Channel Communications Founded in 1972 and based in San Antonio, Texas, Clear Channel Communications benefited greatly from the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which greatly deregulated radio stations by eliminating the national ownership limits applicable to radio stations and greatly reducing the local market ownership limits. Prior to this 1996 legislation, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the United States. Also effectively discarded was the long-established principle that the public airways should be used for the broader public good. America’s Big Media were on the prowl. This deregulation led to tremendous consolidation in the U.S. radio market, with effective power over the exercise of free speech being increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few humongous politically motivated conglomerates. Leading the charge in radio, Clear Channel grew rapidly by making two huge acquisitions of communication companies. It now owns more radio stations in the United States than any other entity—more than 1,200—which is more than 10% of all stations in the United States, and about five times the number of its nearest competitor. Clear Channel has a dominant audience share in the vast majority of 112 major markets. It also owns TV stations and outdoor advertising, and, as discussed later, it also handles the vast majority of ticket sales for concerts and clubs in the United States—about 70% in 2001. Clear Channel’s chief executive officer, Lowry Mays, told senators that he believes the radio industry would not be harmed if all radio stations in the United States were owned by only four or five large companies. One of the most troublesome aspects about the Clear Channel behemoth is its extreme rightwing political agenda when it comes to the Bush family and news report-


343

ing. Clear Channel organized most of the so-called “Rally For America” pro-war demonstrations in support of Bush’s war in Iraq. The Clear Channel network also airs several rightwing radio programs (such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh) that offer nonstop support for Bush and the rightwing agenda. Limbaugh’s show is syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, which is owned by Clear Channel. Of course, it is only a coincidence that Bush and Clear Channel’s top management have close financial ties. Tom Hicks, the vice chairman of Clear Channel, purchased the Texas Rangers in a sweetheart deal that turned Bush into a multimillionaire. Also, when Hicks was chairman of the board of the University of Texas’ endowment management company, he (along with Clear Channel’s Lowry Mays, who also sat on the same board) placed a large portion of the university’s endowment under the management of companies connected to the Bush family and the Republican Party. In another remarkable coincidence, the GOP-controlled FCC pushed further deregulation favoring Clear Channel’s interests. The Con Party has been working hard to merge Big Government and Big Business, which is the classic definition of fascism. One hand washes the other. It’s a two-way street of favors and big money, and its victims include a democratic free press and middle- and lower-income Americans. Another instructive lesson was provided when Clear Channel pulled the plug on Howard Stern’s radio show just two days after he announced that he had become an “Anybody But Bush” voter. Clear Channel, strong dope pushers for anything Bush, wanted America to believe it axed Stern because of his vulgarity. It’s quite remarkable that after many years Clear Channel suddenly realized Howard Stern was vulgar! Well, what happened is that Stern saw the truth about Bush and had a sudden change of political heart. Previously described as “a pro-Bush celeb” by Fox News, Stern made his “Anybody But Bush” announcement to the world on February 23, 2004. This followed a week’s vacation during which Stern read Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them—a Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Clear Channel suspended Stern just two days later, on February 25. When it comes to freedom of speech, ownership has its privileges. “As soon as I came out against Bush, that’s when my rights to free speech were taken away. It had nothing to do with indecency.” (Howard Stern, March 19, 2004.) All Americans—whatever their political views and whatever they think of Howard Stern’s show (which is vulgar)—should be outraged by Clear Channel’s censorship and assault on the First Amendment. All Americans should be concerned about media consolidation and the control of our national airways by the few. Perhaps the profit incentive will cause rightwing media conglomerates like Clear Channel to eventually offer an array of progressive alternatives, but don’t count on it. One modest positive sign is that Clear Channel by 2006 had started to change some of its AM radio stations to a progressive talk format, including making some room for upstart progressive Air America Radio. Air America, however, does not own any media. As previously noted, it just provides content to the conglomerates that do, and is thus at their mercy. In any case, your support of progressive programming like Air America and its advertisers is important.

344


Clear Channel and Minot, North Dakota Ownership in the radio industry has become very concentrated in the United States, especially in small and mid-sized markets in America’s heartland, and Clear Channel leads this concentration. A notorious example of this antidemocratic trend is Minot, North Dakota, where Clear Channel owns six of the eight commercial radio stations. That’s correct—it owns six of the eight stations. In the early morning of January 18, 2002, a train loaded with 10,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia derailed in Minot, resulting in a dangerous toxic spill and cloud. Hundreds of people became ill, and one death was reported. Local authorities, wanting to warn Minot residents to stay indoors and keep away from the spill, telephoned seven Minot radio stations, six of which are owned by Clear Channel, but no one answered the calls. As the citizens of Minot discovered, you cannot count on absentee-owner, conglomerate-run radio stations to be there when an emergency strikes. They aren’t there. SIDEBAR: “Just For Fun” If you’re a small business owner in Minot, North Dakota, and would like to advertise your business on local radio, just drop in on the local production and advertising sales offices of each of your local radio stations. Yes, get to know your business neighbors—offer them some of that lefse and hospitality for which North Dakota is famous. Try to talk with the people who put together the local programming, including the local news. It will take you only a few minutes to visit all six Clear Channel stations—since they all have the same local address! Here’s the Minot Chamber of Commerce listing for the six Clear Channel stations: Clear Channel Communications Address: KIZZ / KZPR / KRRZ / KMXA / KYYX / KCJB 1000 20th Ave. SW PO Box 10 Minot, ND 58702-0010 Phone no: 852-4646 Fax no: 852-1390 For extra credit—assuming you want to buy some radio advertising—try to negotiate with your six Clear Channel radio stations at that one location, playing each one against the others, to get competitive rates. Good luck. Clear Channel has a well-deserved reputation for cutting costs with little regard to the impact on news reporting, especially local reporting. It is a poor substitute for


345

diverse, full-service, locally owned stations. Senator Dorgan (D-ND) expressed his concern in 2003: “The public airwaves are extraordinarily valuable and we have licensed them to be used by companies, and over time the usage has changed very substantially. I think the public is not getting the kind of benefit from it that they used to get.”131 Clear Channel strives to create a phony “local feel” to its programming. Using a technique called voice tracking, prerecorded DJ programs out of a central office (say, Los Angeles) can be customized for each local market, making it sound as if the DJ is a local resident. In fact, the DJ may never have visited your town. He simply has to read localized scripts for your town that are then spliced into the same music pabulum that is distributed to countless locations across the country. In addition to its 1,200 radio stations, Clear Channel also controls about 70% of live events promoted in the United States and hundreds of thousands of billboards. Rolling Stone reported that Clear Channel sold more tickets in the first six months of 2003 than its 49 biggest competitors combined. According to numerous bands, Clear Channel ruined the concert business and caused ticket prices to skyrocket. It wiped out competitors, and through its play lists and other methods it controls what music the public hears and which artists will be successful. Media concentration has a chilling effect on free speech, even throwaway comments by popular musicians. On March 10, 2003, just 10 days before Bush’s invasion of Iraq, lead singer Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks between songs told a London concert audience, “Just so you know … we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.”132 Radio stations and conglomerates including Clear Channel—not Dixie Chicks fans—led a boycott of these wonderful Texas ladies, and many country music stations immediately removed their music from their play lists. In this era of media consolidation and censorship, the decision came down from the top, and DJs who wanted to play Dixie Chicks music couldn’t. At the time of “the comment,” the Dixie Chicks had the No. 1 country music single and were the most popular female group in history. But the Con backlash orchestrated by Big Media drove them from the country music charts. They received death threats, and, reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s, crowds joyfully destroyed Dixie Chicks CDs. The Big Media backlash created an odd stream of self-censorship and fear-based behavior. In 2003 the American Red Cross refused a $1 million donation from the Dixie Chicks, and later declared, “the controversy made it impossible to associate with the Dixie Chicks.” Big Media like Clear Channel support rightwing speech, not free speech. In a rare trifecta of hate, Rev. Jerry Falwell sarcastically called the Dixie Chicks three “French hens,” thus simultaneously slamming free speech, three strong American women, and America’s longest-term ally. Just for the record, your author would be ashamed if Bush hailed from North Dakota, Massachusetts or California, three home states that he loves. He’s glad Bush is 131

From National Public Radio’s “On the Media.” Ironically, Natalie Maines made her remark at a London theatre called the Shepherd’s Bush Empire. 132

346


from a red zone of Texas. He’s ashamed Bush is from America. He’s ashamed Cheney is from planet Earth. The Dixie Chicks rock! Lovers of free speech and great music definitely should buy Dixie Chicks music, especially their fantastic 2006 album, Taking the Long Way. Their CDs make wonderful gifts for intelligent people. The Dixie Chicks will do fine. They would rather be appreciated by one million intelligent lovers of good music who believe women too have a right to free speech, than to have ten million nitwit fans who worship a warmongering American president who shreds the U.S. Constitution.

2003 FCC Rules to Increase Media Concentration In June 2003 the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 along party lines to further deregulate the media by adopting new rules that would allow TV networks to own local TV stations that reach 45% of the national audience (up from 35%). The new rules would also end a decades-old ban preventing a company owning a newspaper from also owning a television or radio station in the same market. The FCC action, supported by Bush, was a big victory for several large media companies that lobbied for the new rules—and a loss for just about everyone else. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) called the action “dumb and dangerous,” noting that the new rules would result in a news system with many stations, but with just “one ventriloquist.” He also said, “The airwaves belong to the people. The FCC ignores that requirement and advances corporate interests at the expense of the public’s interest.” FCC Chairman Michael Powell, the son of Bush’s former Secretary of State Colin Powell, received a lot of criticism for the new rules, which is understandable because they were opposed by a wide variety of organizations and interests across the political spectrum, including Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), consumer groups, the National Rifle Association, religious and civil rights groups, and Common Cause. The only significant support for the new rules came from the handful of huge media conglomerates that already dominate America’s media. Unfortunately, the Con Party and the Con-controlled FCC both have a habit of doing Big Media’s bidding. Senator Lott said that local news will “further deteriorate” if the big networks are allowed to purchase more TV stations. Referring to the big TV networks, he noted, “They’re all run by the same crazy people.” The opposition was so widespread and deep that Congress, after great effort and despite Bush’s threatened veto, successfully blocked the new rules—a rare loss for the media conglomerates. “It’s extremely rare to be able to reverse a regulatory decision that gives away the store to the big boys,” said Representative David Obey (DWI). Unfortunately, Big Media know from experience how to keep pushing, and they generally get what they want through campaign contributions and under-the-radar backroom lobbying in Washington. Even in the rare case where the public gets stirred up and apparently scores a victory about an FCC decision favoring Big Media—as was the case with these sweeping new FCC rules (where almost 3 million


347

citizens sent letters protesting the rules)—Big Media count on the public’s interest to wane, and it generally does. In 2004, in an apparent victory for the public interest, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia ruled that the FCC had not sufficiently justified its June 2003 rules that weakened the ownership restrictions, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case. However, in the meantime, Big Media still won when the GOP Congress came up with a “compromise” that allows TV networks to increase their local ownership reach to 39%, which is less than the 45% they wanted, but more than the previous cap of 35%. Plus they’ll be back for more.

Fox/Pravda News Here is some valuable advice: If you want to be misinformed about news and politics, you definitely should tune in to Fox News. If you desire a brain filled with mush and propaganda for Bush and extreme rightwing Con causes, you can count on Fox. This advice is intuitively obvious to the independent thinker who compares the news reporting of the major television news networks. In addition, there is overwhelming unbiased evidence, including the study discussed below, supporting this advice. SIDEBAR: Fox News—Unfair and Unbalanced In 2003 The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) conducted seven different polls regarding the Iraq war. During the course of the polls the investigators discovered that “a substantial portion of the American public had a number of misperceptions that were demonstrably false, or were at odds with the dominant view in the intelligence community.” This investigative poll is entitled “Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War.” In the run-up to the war with Iraq and shortly thereafter, significant portions of the public incorrectly believed that: 1) Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks; 2) Evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda had been found; 3) Weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the war; 4) Iraq actually used weapons of mass destruction during the war; and 5) World public opinion approved of the United States going to war with Iraq. The investigators noted, “While, in most cases only a minority has any particular misperception, a large majority has at least one key misperception.” Their findings raised several questions, including: • How have these misperceptions related to support for the decision to go to war and subsequently? • Do these misperceptions vary according to whether the American public gets its news from print media or a particular television network?


348

Both of these questions are critical for our democracy and a free press. To explore the misperception results more fully, the investigators repeated three key perception questions in three polls conducted from June to September 2003. The three questions were the questions that found the most egregious misperceptions, namely: • Evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda has been found. • Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. • World public opinion favored the United States going to war with Iraq. The investigators found that the misperceptions “played a key role in generating and maintaining approval for the decision to go to war.”

Support for Iraq War and Cumulative Effect of Misperceptions Support for war among those who have: no misperceptions only 1 misperception

23%

53%

only 2 misperceptions all 3 misperceptions

78%

86%

The investigators also found: “Misperceptions were not limited to a small minority that had repeated misperceptions. A majority of 60% had at least one of these three unambiguous misperceptions, and only 30% had no misperceptions. (Another 10% just had the more modest misperception that world public opinion was evenly balanced between support and opposition to the Iraq war.) Thirty-two percent had just one of the misperceptions (and no more), 20% had two of the misperceptions and just 8% had all three of the misperceptions.” So how does this relate to Fox News? The three polls also included detailed questions as to the individual respondent’s primary source of news (newspapers and magazines, or TV and radio—and, in the case of TV and radio, which network.) Regarding news sources, the investigators summarized their findings as follows: Variations in Misperceptions According to Source of News:


349

The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.

Frequency of Misperceptions: Evidence of al-Qaeda Links, WMD Found, World Public Opinion Favorable Respondents with one or more misperception: Fox

80%

CBS

71% 61%

ABC NBC

55%

CNN

55%

Print M edia PBS-NPR

47% 23%

Well, there you have it, something you already knew: If you want to be misled and misinformed about key issues such as the Bush administration going to war on lies and false pretenses, just tune in to Fox News. If you are a rightwing warmongering leader who wants to wage an illegal, immoral, unjust war on an oil-rich nation, but lack any justification for war other than your own greed and imperial fantasies, then you can count on Fox News to spin and spread whatever lies you need. The study also considered whether misperceptions were derived from a failure to pay attention to the news. Surprisingly, it found that “overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions.” However, “among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions.” “The Memo” is one effective tool used by Fox News executives to help ensure that their news organization stays “on message” in supporting the Republican Party and Bush. Management distributes the Memo electronically each morning, discussing what stories should be covered and how they should be covered. Although right-

350


wing hatchets really don’t need this direction, Fox newsroom personnel consider it the Bible and are reluctant to offend management. Fox News supported the election of Bush in countless creative ways. We’ll note just one. It concerns Fox polling and Fox’s duplicitous promotion of Ralph Nader’s third party presidential candidacy in 2004 in order to help Bush (by encouraging independent and progressive voters to waste their votes on Nader.) Along the way Fox denied that Nader would take more votes away from Kerry than from Bush. In a study of 37 polls regarding this issue, only one poll found that Nader took more votes away from Bush than Kerry. Guess which organization ran this poll? Yes, it was Fox News, the Bush League shill that masquerades as a news organization. Fox News’ slogan should be, “Right, But Not Correct.”

David Brock and Media Matters For America Please sit in a stable chair before you read the following shocking revelation—a few lying rightwing ideologues actually do have a conscience. Typically the few who are conscience-afflicted are able to suppress it through years of practiced rage and mindless repetition of slogans, lies and talking points. However, in a few rare cases, the conscience surfaces, the ideologue’s brain and heart get turned on, and the ideologue sees the light. A good example is David Brock, the former lying, rightwing, scandal-creating, paid mouthpiece for the ultra-right, ultra-wrong American Spectator. Among his more notorious hatchet jobs is his 1993 book, The Real Anita Hill, which became a bestseller when rightwing talk radio promoted it for free. Brock spent years smearing liberal and progressive opponents of the far right—inventing muck at will—until his conscience said, “That’s enough!” Brock now runs a website called Media Matters For America (mediamatters.org) whose central purpose is to monitor and correct, in real time, lies and information from the conservative media, which is a full-time job. It remains to be seen whether other rightwingers such as Rush Limbaugh also have a conscience, and if so, whether the suppressed conscience is strong enough to overcome the years of bigotry and lies. That seems unlikely for Limbaugh, but hope springs eternal. Rush must go to bed each night, crying, “If only Bush and all the other Con cons were liberals … think of all the real dirt I could work with … I wouldn’t have to make it up. [sobbing]” No wonder Rush abuses drugs. Please pray for Limbaugh to find a conscience, leave the Forces of Darkness behind, and join the correct side.133 In abdicating its traditional watchdog role and putting on its colorful skimpy cheerleading outfits, America’s rightwing corporate media helped inspire and fuel the worst criminal and unethical tendencies of the many bad actors in the Bush regime. Even treason became acceptable, which is one of the topics of the next chapter.

133

The following is for Casablanca fans. Here are the last lines of the movie: Victor Laszlo: Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win. Rick Blaine (who finally joins the fight against the Nazis): Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

CHAPTER 17

Treason, Electoral Fraud—Anything to Maintain Power The Most Insidious of Traitors Though those that are betrayed do feel the treason sharply, yet the traitor stands in worse case of woe. —William Shakespeare The “most insidious of traitors”—these are the strong words that George Bush’s father, President George H. W. Bush, used to describe anyone who intentionally discloses the identity of an American CIA agent. Unfortunately, this description applies to those high-level officials in his son’s administration—including former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage—who illegally disclosed to journalists that Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was an operative for the CIA. The “most insidious of traitors” label likely applies to Rove and Cheney, and very possibly to George W. Bush himself. At a minimum, they failed to cooperate in the investigation and were part of the cover-up. At a minimum, the Bush administration repeated and exploited the disclosure of Plame’s identity in order to attack a war critic and divert attention from their lying campaign to market their war on Iraq. The traitors in the Bush administration outed CIA agent Plame in order to attack her husband, Ambassador Wilson, a patriotic American who told the truth about Bush’s infamous sixteen-word statement in his 2003 State of the Union address— “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”—and to deter others from criticizing the administration. What had inflamed the White House traitors was the July 6, 2003, op-ed piece, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” that Wilson had written for The New York Times (published July 6, 2003). The CIA requested an investigation of the unlawful leak of Plame’s CIA identity, and Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel to head the investigation after attorney general John Ashcroft reluctantly recused himself from the case due to conflicts of interest. The White House, however, delayed and stonewalled the investigation with the hope of keeping the truth buried until after the November 2004 elections, which it successfully did.

352


In October 2005 Lewis “Scooter” Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to the FBI, and he resigned as Cheney’s chief of staff. On March 6, 2007, he was convicted on four of the counts. Although Fitzgerald alleged that at least two officials in the Bush administration told reporters about Plame’s CIA employment, Fitzgerald said following Libby’s conviction that he didn’t expect anyone else to be charged in the case. Obstruction of justice prevented him from formulating charges against anyone else. Still pending is a civil lawsuit brought by Joseph and Valerie Wilson against Libby, Cheney, Rove and Armitage. At a minimum, Bush and Cheney have material information as to the individuals who illegally blew CIA agent Plame’s cover. They have a higher duty to voluntarily step forward and let the American people learn what they knew. But Bush is part of the cover-up and stonewalling. He has not ordered his staff to disclose everything they know about the case. He refuses to say what he knows. Bush had said that he would fire anyone involved in the leaking of Plame’s identity. He should immediately give the bad news to Rove and Cheney, who were both involved in the leak. He should also immediately look in the mirror. Speaking for the president, Bush’s press secretary Scott McClellan on September 30, 2003, said, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.” On October 6, 2003, Bush called the leak a “criminal action.” At a June 10, 2004, press conference, Bush was asked if he would stand by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame’s name, and he replied, “Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.” Bush has not lived up to this pledge and is part of the cover-up. In a May 12, 2006, court filing, Fitzgerald declared that it was Vice President Cheney who had told defendant Libby that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. But Cheney is still on the job. Fitzgerald referred to a copy of Wilson’s New York Times op-ed article “bearing handwritten notations by the vice president.” Cheney’s handwritten notes were made eight days before Plame’s identity was publicly exposed. Bush also said during the same June 10, 2004, press conference, “I haven’t talked to the Vice President about this matter.” This undoubtedly was a bald-faced lie. After Ambassador Wilson wrote his op-ed piece, the Bush administration looked for ways to punish or discredit him. Attacking him directly was difficult because Wilson has had a stellar record of patriotic service to his country over more than two decades while serving in both Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, appointed Wilson to be acting ambassador to Iraq prior to Gulf War I, a military action that Wilson supported. On the eve of that war, shortly after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, Wilson personally confronted Saddam in Baghdad, helped to free and evacuate over 120 American hostages, sheltered several hundred Americans at the embassy compound, and helped evacuate thousands of foreign citizens from Kuwait. President George H. W. Bush appreciated Wilson’s courageous service and in 1991 called him a “True American Hero.” Bush senior also said, “Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our

CHAPTER 17 — TREASON, ELECTORAL FRAUD –AN YTHING TO MAINTAIN POWER

353

tense dealings with the government of Iraq. … The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job.” In February 2002 Wilson traveled to Niger—at the CIA’s request—to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger for an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. This was an important question, and the CIA picked Wilson because he had the right background for the job. (Wilson had served as a U.S. State Department officer in Niger in the 1970s, was the U.S. ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s, and later had numerous contacts with Niger when he served as the National Security Council’s senior director for Africa—all in addition to his exemplary service as acting ambassador to Iraq.) Wilson investigated the claim and concluded there was no valid basis for it. Two other investigators came to the same conclusion. Wilson was later understandingly shocked when he heard Bush repeat the bogus claim in his 2003 State of the Union address. Wilson subsequently wrote his New York Times op-ed piece, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” setting forth the facts about his trip and his findings. As a lesson to others, senior White House officials decided to harm Wilson in any way they could. The vicious “revenge and intimidation” recipe they cooked up was the unthinkable—they contacted several Washington reporters and illegally revealed to them that Wilson’s wife was a covert CIA operative. Robert Novak, a rightwing columnist and shill for the Bush administration, reported the leak in his column, and, in the process, apparently aided and abetted the Bush team’s criminality. Several reporters contacted Wilson, and he was told that the White House was “coming after you.” Chris Matthews, another commentator, passed along a direct quote from Karl Rove: “Wilson’s wife is fair game.” Wilson sets forth the truth in his book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity: A Diplomat’s Memoir. In it he reveals the dangers to the United States created and fed by the White House’s team of war-hungry officials, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, as well as Bush himself. The conspiracy to attack him also damaged national security. Wilson believes that the Bush administration has turned on its head everything that Wilson worked for during 25 years of service—including democracy in the world and the rule of law—and that the United States must now work hard to regain its status as a world leader. Bush’s inept unilateral foreign policies, grounded in the lies of zealous ideologues, have created countless terrorists and made the world much more dangerous for the United States.

354


SIDEBAR: The Niger Forgeries—Lies Kept Alive Let’s digress from the main topic—the treachery of the Bush White House in punishing a truth teller by outing his covert CIA wife—and focus on the forged Niger documents at the center of this illicit affair and their manipulation by the neocons to provide propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although the Plame affair has “impeachment” stamped on it, it unfortunately took the spotlight off the underlying Niger scandal, which history will regard as one of the most evil of the many Bush regime campaigns of lies, propaganda and impeachable offenses. Much has been written about the Niger scandal, but the whole truth may never be known. One of the best accounts is an article in the June 2006 issue of Vanity Fair by Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud. The article is entitled, “The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed,” and its lead summary reads: The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful “black propaganda” campaign with links to the White House.

Vanity Fair interviewed many former intelligence and military analysts in the CIA, the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. Some referred to the Niger documents as “black propaganda,” “black ops,” a “disinformation operation,” or “a classic psy-ops (psychological-operations) campaign.” The article notes, “But whatever term they use, at least nine of these officials believe that the Niger documents were part of a covert operation to deliberately mislead the American public.” The officials are: 1) Milt Bearden, a 30-year CIA veteran who was a station chief in Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria and Germany; 2) Colonel W. Patrick Lang, who served as the DIA’s defense intelligence officer for the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism; 3) Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell; 4) Melvin Goodman, a former division chief and senior analyst at the CIA and the State Department; 5) Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years; 6) Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who served in the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia division in 2002 and 2003; 7) Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who was deputy director of the State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993; 8) former CIA official Philip Giraldi; 9) Vincent Cannistraro, former operations chief in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. Here are salient points about the Niger caper:


355

The most important of the fake Niger documents was a two-page memo dated July 27, 2000, that supposedly was sent to the president of Niger regarding the sale of 500 metric tons of yellowcake uranium to Iraq by Niger. • The forged documents contained several errors and appeared to be the work of amateurs. For example, a letter of October 10, 2000, was purportedly signed by Niger’s minister of foreign affairs, Allele Habibou, but he had not occupied that office in more than a decade. Another letter dated July 30, 1999, referred to agreements that did not exist until a year later. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was able to determine in a few hours that the documents were fake. • Old documents from the 1980s, including documents from the Italian foreign intelligence service (the SISMI), were apparently mixed with forged documents to give the forged documents credibility. The Italian weekly La Repubblica reported in October 2005 that official stamps and letterhead stolen from the Niger embassy in Rome during a January 2001 burglary were used to prepare the forged documents. Although no one has proven who forged the documents, it was helpful to the caper that Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s rightwing prime minister, was eager to ingratiate himself with the Bush administration and help push the case for war in Iraq. • There were many other problems with the Niger claim. The French who controlled the mining operations thought it absurd to think that 500 tons of yellowcake uranium could be transported without them knowing about it. • Even if Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa, as Bush claimed, the yellowcake uranium was just a raw material and many years away from constituting a nuclear threat. Also, Iraq already had a stockpile dating back to the Reagan years that could have been used. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes, “The reports made no sense on the face of it. … Most of us knew the Iraqis already had yellowcake. It is a sophisticated process to change it into a very refined state and they didn’t have the technology.” • It has not been proven that officials in the Bush administration were complicit in any fashion in actually forging the documents. But whether or not complicit, the Bush neocons relentlessly used the forged documents to press their campaign for war. • Whatever its successes and failures, the CIA became the Bush administration’s principal scapegoat for the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush and the neocons positioned Iraq as an “intelligence failure” by others, rather than a strategic and leadership failure by themselves, which it was and always will be. • Congressional Republicans, including Senator Pat Roberts and other intelligence committee members, cooperated in the campaign to blame the CIA and protect the White House. The Niger affair is evidence that the CIA was blamed, and subsequently gutted, not because its analysts were wrong but rather because they were right. Their sin was being truthful, rather than lying and telling the Bush White House what it wanted to hear.

356 •

•

•

•

•

•


Unger offers this perspective: “For more than two years it has been widely reported that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of intelligence failures. But in fact it is far more likely that the Iraq war started because of an extraordinary intelligence success—specifically, an astoundingly effective campaign of disinformation, or black propaganda, which led the White House, the Pentagon, Britain’s M.I.6 intelligence service, and thousands of outlets in the American media to promote the falsehood that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear-weapons program posed a grave risk to the United States.” Although intelligence officials disagree as to why the Niger documents were forged, many intelligence officers believe a simpler explanation. “They needed this for the case to go to war,” says senior analyst Melvin Goodman, a former division chief at the CIA and State Department. “It serves no other purpose.” During a period of two years, the Niger documents were recycled and re-spun though various channels in several countries including Italy, Britain, France, Niger and the United States, and arrived at the CIA at least three times. Numerous reports and comments along the way helped create the illusion that multiple independent sources were corroborating the story. But there was no such corroboration. In fact, the story was repeatedly rejected. Nevertheless, the Republican Party, the Cons, kept the fairy tale alive. In August 2002 the White House Iraq Group (WHIG, also called the White House Information Group) was set up by the Republican Party to market the war through its friends in the media. Karl Rove chaired it, which is a clue that skullduggery was afoot. WHIG’s well-resourced campaign featured horrific images of various WMDs, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the Niger caper was an important element in that campaign of fear and deception. During the orchestrated campaign to market the war, the Bush administration especially adored the threat of a “mushroom cloud” as an effective tool to promote fear. Test marketing of the pitch started on September 8, 2002, when Condoleezza Rice told CNN that they “didn’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” This fear-mongering pitch proved so popular in the mainstream corporate media that Bush, Cheney and others immediately began using a similar theme. By the time the war started, the Bush regime’s lies had convinced 90% of Americans that Saddam was developing WMDs and was an imminent threat. Michael Ledeen is one of the neocons mentioned most frequently in connection with the Niger affair. He is a central figure at the extreme rightwing American Enterprise Institute, which helped shape Bush’s foreign policy and provided more than 20 neocon officials to the Bush Administration. Ledeen also played a key role in the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s, helping to set up the illegal armsfor-hostages deal with Iran, the biggest scandal during Reagan’s administration. Ledeen was a fiery orator for the neocon warmongers during several years leading up to the Iraq invasion.

CHAPTER 17 — TREASON, ELECTORAL FRAUD –AN YTHING TO MAINTAIN POWER •

•

•

•

•

357

Ledeen wanted to wage war in, or destabilize, the Middle East—not just in Iraq, but also in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. In 2002 he wrote, “One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.” “Faster, please” became his catch phrase that he frequently used in his columns for the conservative National Review, and it is frequently referenced by other neocons. He argued that the United States must be “imperious, ruthless, and relentless” until there has been a “total surrender” by the Muslim world. Along with a host of other neocon wingnuts, Ledeen had the ear of the White House and the GOP. The Pentagon’s new Office of Special Plans (OSP) run by neocon Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith apparently helped introduce the forged documents to the White House. The OSP was set up by the Bush neocons to circumvent the CIA and State Department and to create and develop alternative sources of “intelligence” that would support the desired war against Iraq. The OSP was adept at cherry picking “intelligence” both from the real world and its own alternative universe. As for the identity of the culprits behind the forgery, the OSP and the Italian SISMI are frequently mentioned as prime candidates. Michael Ledeen effectively served as a liaison between the two groups, and he also had special access to the Bush White House and the National Security Council, including Cheney, Rice and Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs. One reason the full truth about the Niger affair remains in the dark is that the Con-controlled Congress refused to investigate the Bush administration. By abdicating its constitutional oversight responsibilities, the GOP became part of the criminal conspiracy. Fitzgerald’s limited investigation regarding the Plame affair focused on the leak, not on the forged documents, not on why they were created and by whom, and not on their misuse by the Bush White House. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, in a letter of March 14, 2003, to the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, requested an investigation because “the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.” However, the Republican committee chair, Pat Roberts of Kansas, declined to co-sign the letter. In late 2002 and early 2003 the Niger uranium deal repeatedly appeared as a popular talking point in various media. In coordinated fashion, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and other warmongers kept alive the myth that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. Finally, the Pentagon asked the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which oversees the various agencies in the U.S. intelligence community, to review the matter. In a January 2003 memo that went to Bush and his team, the NIC answered clearly that “the Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest.” That should have been the final nail in the coffin. (That was actually about the tenth final nail in the coffin.) But the GOP neocons would not take reality for an answer.

358 •

• •

•

•

•


A week after Bush’s State of the Union address, the Bush administration reluctantly sent copies of the Niger documents to the IAEA with, incredibly, a note saying, “We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims.” One month later, on March 7, 2003, the Director General of the IAEA reported to the Security Council that the documents were fake. Nevertheless, on Meet the Press on March 16, 2003, Cheney said the IAEA was wrong, adding, “And we believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” Unbelievable. Three days later, on March 19 the Bush warmongers eagerly pulled the trigger, and Bush’s bloody quagmire in Iraq began. “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” Or more accurately: “Liar, liar, Iraq’s on fire.” On at least 14 occasions before Bush’s infamous State of the Union speech, serious doubts about the forged Niger documents were raised by analysts in the State Department, the CIA, and other governmental agencies. On each occasion they were turned aside by Bush officials who wanted to use the documents. “They were just relentless,” says Larry Wilkerson, who helped prepare Colin Powell’s UN presentation, “You would take it out and they would stick it back in. That was their favorite bureaucratic technique—ruthless relentlessness.” Not interested in the truth, the Bush neocons never took no for an answer. “That was their favorite technique,” says Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Powell, “stick that baby in there 47 times and on the 47th time it will stay. At every level of the decision-making process you had to have your ax out, ready to chop their fingers off. Sooner or later you would miss one and it would get in there.” Even before ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Niger reports had already been discredited several times, including by the French, by the CIA in both Italy and the United States, by the State Department on at least two occasions, by Pentagon analysts, by the American ambassador to Niger, and by the consortium that ran the uranium mines in Niger. Another example of the Bush warmongers’ antipathy towards any reality-based intelligence that disagreed with their worldview was their reaction to a major intelligence coup of the CIA—namely, the successful “turning” of Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, which took place just prior to the war. According to Tyler Drumheller, the CIA’s chief of operations in Europe until his 2005 retirement, the Bush White House was initially ecstatic that Saddam’s inner circle had been penetrated, but that reaction changed dramatically when Sabri told the CIA that Iraq had no WMD program. Drumheller, who headed the operations that penetrated Saddam’s inner circle, told 60 Minutes (April 23, 2006) that he was taken aback by what happened: “The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they’re no longer interested. And we said, ‘Well, what about the intel?’ And they said, ‘Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change.’” Drumheller told 60 Minutes, “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”


359

America’s democracy and constitutional form of government demand the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney. They slimed America, and impeachment is a modest price for them to pay. No other action would help more to restore worldwide confidence in America and the rule of law.

Electoral Fraud Electoral fraud has a solid tradition in American politics, and many books have been written about its impact on America’s democracy. The states of Texas, Florida, Illinois and Ohio occupy prominent positions of notoriety. For over a century after the Civil War, Southern whites worked diligently to deny blacks the right to vote, and many still do. They are now called Republicans—Cons for short. During the 2000 non-recount presidential election in Florida, the Republican Party sent goons to Florida to intimidate election officials, and the Florida Secretary of State, Republican Katherine Harris, stopped the recount—just two of many undemocratic steps along Bush’s sordid trail to the White House. In Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell and other GOP elected officials over the years abused the public trust by introducing numerous irregularities into the voting system, which systematically reduce the voting rights of poor people and minorities. For years GOP officials have suppressed the legitimate voting rights of blacks and other minorities under the guise of reducing “voter fraud”—a nonexistent problem, but one of the GOP’s favorite Orwellian terms. After the purging of the nine U.S. Attorneys by Bush’s Justice Department in December 2006, it came to light that America’s heretofore independent prosecutors had been illegally pressured to bring more “voter fraud” cases—i.e., cases to disenfranchise as many blacks and other eligible progressive voters as possible—and cases against Democrats. Although the focus of the U.S. Attorneys scandal is on the several prosecutors who were fired, there also needs to be investigation regarding the prosecutors who were retained. How many of them succumbed to unlawful outside pressure to carry out a GOP political agenda, including especially the targeting of Democratic candidates and the suppression of black votes in the swing states identified by Rove. Bush destroyed the Justice Department’s long history of protecting voting rights of traditionally disenfranchised minorities by appointing rightwing ideologues dedicated to denying the ballot to groups of Americans likely to vote Democratic, especially poor people and racial minorities. His anti-voting rights appointments even include the head of the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, John Tanner, who could not even restrain himself from making racist and bigoted comments about minorities. In every election during Bush’s watch, zealous ideologues in the Bush White House and their extreme supporters have done whatever it takes to keep Bush and other Cons in office. In the process, they have driven voter distrust to new levels. “A black man voting for the Republicans makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” These words of wisdom are from the father of J. C. Watts, the former Republican Representative (1995-2003) from Oklahoma who was then the only black GOP member of Congress. The recent push to broaden the use of electronic voting machines created the real possibility for rightwing extremists to nullify the vote and again deliver the White

360


House, as well as the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, to the Republican Party. A study by MIT and California after the 2000 election concluded that between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 votes were not counted due to defective equipment and confusing paper ballots. To try to solve the problems, the federal government passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), which authorized $3.8 billion in federal funds primarily to replace punch card and lever voting machines. One effect of this “pro-voting” act was to put the wolf in charge of the henhouse. Under the GOP’s skillful mismanagement of HAVA, another key part of America’s democracy was privatized—or pirate-ized—by rightwing corporate interests. Once again, “privatization” meant GOP fraud. Although HAVA provided substantial funds for states to upgrade their voting machines to new computerized electronic voting machines, the legislation only increased controversy regarding fraud in America’s elections. The principal vendors of the new electronic devices are Diebold,134 Sequoia Voting Systems, and ES&S, which control about 90% of the market for these electronic machines and have questionable ties to the GOP and rightwing causes, in addition to being involved in a host of civil and criminal legal proceedings. Testing of their systems by independent third parties (versus vendors testing their own systems) has identified significant security risks and vulnerabilities. Fraudulent assertions by the vendors regarding their machines have not helped matters, and many lawsuits have been filed. The case of Diebold is instructive. Both Diebold, which is one of the largest suppliers of electronic voting machines, and its chief executive officer, Walden O’Dell, are extremely partisan rightwing Republican supporters. Between 2000 and 2002, Diebold donated at least $195,000 to the Republican Party. In 2003 O’Dell even attended an election strategy meeting at Bush’s Texas ranch for wealthy Bush contributors—the so-called Pioneers and Rangers—who each had raised at least $100,000 for Bush’s reelection. O’Dell later wrote a fundraising letter for Bush in which he stated that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” Having been caught red-handed, O’Dell later said it was a “huge mistake” to have expressed support for Bush in the letter, given that he is the head of an electronic voting machine company. In reality, his only “huge mistake” was getting caught. In any case, there was no shortage of GOP operatives willing to do whatever it took to get Bush reelected, including electoral fraud, and they succeeded. O’Dell actively raised lots of money for the Ohio Republican Party. Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, favored Ohio awarding a contract to Diebold to supply touch-screen voting machines for most of Ohio. In April 2004 the California Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley, decertified all electronic touch-screen voting machines in California, citing security problems and deceitful practices by Diebold. Shelley forwarded evidence to California’s attorney general supporting possible criminal and civil charges against Diebold for fraud. In October 2004 the State of California ordered that 15,000 new Diebold voting ma134

In August 2007 Diebold changed the name of its election systems subsidiary to Premier Election Solutions.


361

chines would not be used in the November 2004 presidential election, citing major flaws with the machines and “absolutely deplorable behavior” by Diebold. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in September 2004 announced plans to sue Diebold for fraud regarding Diebold’s aggressive marketing and fraudulent claims regarding its equipment. Diebold settled the matter three months later by agreeing to pay $2.6 million and implement certain reforms. In August 2007 California Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified several electronic voting systems including Diebold, following a “top-to-bottom review” of voting machines previously certified for use in California. There have been numerous other complaints and actions against Diebold in other states. There have also been numerous studies showing that the Diebold machines are poorly designed, weak from a security point of view, and prone to computer hacking. One of the many problems is that the machines don’t provide a verifiable paper record of the votes, making recounts impossible. Another major problem is that the vendors do not want to disclose their machines’ software including source code. Voting machine vendors typically pay the testing labs, which presents an obvious conflict of interest, and at least one leading testing lab was unable to meet federal testing standards. At a minimum, the U.S. government should select and pay the testing labs for their services. The serious problems with electronic voting machines and the rightwing companies that design them have given rise to the term “black box voting,” which has been defined as follows: Black box voting: “Any voting system in which the mechanism for recording and/or tabulating the vote is hidden from the voter, and/or the mechanism lacks a tangible record of the vote cast.” (www.blackboxvoting.org) When it comes to electoral fraud, however, Diebold and the other vendors of electronic voting machines constitute only a small piece of a much larger rotten pie. Electoral fraud occurs in many other areas of the electoral process, including: • obstacles to voter registration • improper purging of voter registration rolls • voter suppression, including voter “caging”—a favorite illegal tactic of the GOP to deny the vote to the poor, minorities, college students and other citizens likely to vote Democratic • ballot stuffing, ghost voting, and “overcounting” (with votes counted exceeding voter signatures in election poll books) • weaknesses in other voting machines, not just electronic voting machines • absentee ballots • provisional ballots • obstacles to recounts • and, of course, the financing of election campaigns In words attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” Many Republican leaders know that God is on their side in the war against poor people, minorities and others who they believe are not qualified to vote. The Cons are much more comfortable with “one dollar, one vote” than with “one person, one

362


vote.” For them, “one black, one-tenth vote” and “one poor person, one-tenth vote” might be an acceptable compromise. Let’s just call it “black tithe” vote counting— Southern style, Confederate style, GOP style. Although black Americans constitute about 12% of the population, more than 50% of the “spoiled” (i.e., uncounted) ballots in the 2000 presidential election (1.0 million ballots out of a total of 1.9 million) were submitted by blacks. Ballots can get “spoiled” in many ways. For example, optical reading machines reject ballots that have stray marks that cannot be read properly. However, the main reason why a disproportionate percentage of black votes get spoiled is not that blacks don’t know how to mark ballots as well as whites, but rather is because of the intentional design of the system. This is intelligent design, GOP style. Consider how this can work to the advantage of officials who do not want black votes counted. Greg Palast, investigative reporter for the British Broadcasting Corporation and author of Best Democracy Money Can Buy, reports one scenario in Florida. Gadsden County in Florida has both the highest percentage of black voters in Florida and the highest rate of uncounted votes, about 12%. The voters in Gadsden County who submitted spoiled ballots in 2000 never knew their votes were not counted. However, in nearby predominantly white Leon County, each voter placed his or her ballot directly in the optical scanner and was informed on the spot if the ballot was spoiled. If the ballot was spoiled, the voter received another ballot and could correct the problem, and therefore the spoilage rate in Leon County was virtually zero. The net impact is huge: in predominantly black Gadsden County, if you made a mistake, your vote was not counted and you never even knew it, whereas in predominantly white Leon County, if you made a mistake, you received another ballot, and your vote was counted. The risk of electoral fraud continues to be very high in Florida where Jeb Bush, the president’s brother, was governor, and GOP operatives in the style of Katherine Harris run the system. One problem is the increasing use of voting machines that leave no paper trail. In a state where voting fraud is as common as oranges, many parties have requested that the state permit independent auditors to review the integrity of the new machines. However, Governor Bush refused, saying he had “every confidence” in the state agencies in charge. What he really had was confidence in the ability of his handpicked bureaucrats to make sure that any mistakes made would be in the favor of the GOP. Blacks have been the victims of Jim Crow election laws and fraud in Florida for over 150 years, including during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Consider the so-called “felon list,” which in both 2000 and 2004 was an election fraud issue in Florida, where felons do not have the right to vote. After the 2000 election it was determined that thousands of Florida voters were denied the right to vote when their names were erroneously placed on a felons list, with black voters being disproportionately affected by the “mistake.” In 2004 Florida paid Accenture to prepare a similar list to be used to purge the voter lists for the 2004 elections. This time around many people asked for copies of the list, but Governor Bush’s office refused, with subsequent events showing clearly why. It took a court order for the list to be made public. The Miami Herald discovered that over 2,000 people were im-


363

properly placed on the “cannot vote” list. Later the Sarasota Herald-Tribune discovered that there were only 61 Hispanics on the list of 47,000 who couldn’t vote. The net effect was that lots of blacks who had the right to vote and tend to vote Democratic were going to be denied that right, while thousands of Hispanic felons who did not have the right to vote and tend to vote Republican were going to be given that right. Caught with their pants down and their hands in the voters’ shorts, Republican officials first denied that there was any problem, and then they later changed their story to say it was just a mistake. Regarding election “mistakes” and the use of suspect electronic voting machines, Paul Krugman, columnist for The New York Times, hit the nail on the head: Let’s not be coy. Jeb Bush says he won’t allow an independent examination of voting machines because he has ‘every confidence’ in his handpicked election officials. Yet those officials have a history of slipshod performance on other matters related to voting and somehow their errors always end up favoring Republicans. Why should anyone trust their verdict on the integrity of voting machines, when another convenient mistake could deliver a Republican victory in a high-stakes national election?

Americans who believe in democracy and fair elections should be appalled at the GOP’s track record. The “just a mistake” defense is reminiscent of the “innocent billing mistakes” made by Halliburton and other public-trough companies. Halliburton’s huge billing “mistakes” don’t go randomly in either direction—say, with 50% being overcharges, and 50% being undercharges—but, instead, their “mistakes” almost always favor Halliburton. What a coincidence! Similarly, voting “mistakes” in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere virtually always go against blacks and poor people. Just as Halliburton is in the business of systematically overcharging the U.S. government, the GOP is in the business of systematically undermining the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Constitution and America’s democracy. All Americans of faith should pray that America’s children, grandchildren, and countless generations of unborn American citizens will never ever have to live and suffer under a government that is even one tenth as corrupt as the GOP government that humped America during the reign of George W. Bush. We will focus on more of that corruption in the next chapter, “Corruption in America and Iraq—GOP Style.”

CHAPTER 18

Corruption in America and Iraq—GOP Style Profiles in Corruption I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it. —Dwight D. Eisenhower It is not a coincidence that the GOP corruption and incompetence rampant in America parallel the corruption and incompetence rampant in Bush’s Iraq. Plague-infected rats spread their disease wherever they scurry and feed. We’ll begin this chapter by focusing some sunlight on just a few of the biggest GOP rats in the U.S. Congress. This is a difficult task at best, partly because there are so many of them, and largely because this pack of vermin is skilled at covering its tracks.

Profiles in Corruption: The Modern GOP A party and its leaders who do not believe in government should not be entrusted with the reins of government. Crooks belong in jail, not in Congress. The GOP-controlled Congress during Bush’s reign was the most corrupt in the last century. The infamous 109th GOP Congress of Crooks and Creeps richly deserves its place in history as the worst ever. GOP now means “Grease Our Palms.” As of early 2007 at least four GOP members of the infamous 109th had already gone to prison or resigned under a cloud of criminal corruption. Unfortunately, they are merely the tip of a GOP iceberg of sewage. The GOP congressional leaders carried to the extreme Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment—“Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican”—as they systematically protected the scoundrels and criminals in their midst. Reagan’s 11th Commandment became synonymous with obstruction of justice. Well, America’s democracy demands that much ill be spoken about the GOP crooks and scoundrels in the U.S. Congress. We’ll cover just a few—about a dirty dozen—of America’s favorites in the next few pages.

366


Tom DeLay: GOP Representative (1984-2006) from the extreme right fringe of Texas; GOP House Majority Leader (2003-06.) DeLay resigned in June 2006 while under indictment in Texas, and after winning the Republican primary. He was the first legislative leader ever to be indicted. As a frontrunner in the race for America’s favorite crook and creep in Congress, DeLay has too many sins and ethics violations to list here. Nicknamed “The Hammer” and “The Exterminator,” he helped midwife the K Street Project. Two of his former political aides, Michael Scanlon and Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges relating to the Abramoff scandal, as did Abramoff himself, and other DeLay associates are under indictment. After the House ethics committee began to investigate DeLay’s corruption, the GOP leadership replaced several GOP committee members with DeLay allies light on integrity, and GOP rules were changed to keep DeLay as majority leader. However, notwithstanding heroic efforts, the GOP leadership could not protect the crook from everything. Bob Ney: GOP Representative (1995-2006) from Ohio. Another in a long crooked line of GOP leaders, Ney pleaded guilty in 2006 to various corruption charges in connection with the Abramoff lobbying scandal, and in early 2007 he was sentenced to prison for 30 months. Ney withdrew from his reelection race in August 2006, pleaded guilty to criminal corruption charges in October, finally resigned his congressional seat on the eve of the 2006 midterm election (which was won in a landslide by Democrat Jack Space), and was sentenced to prison in early 2007. The Abramoff investigation focused on several former and current GOP legislators, and Ney was the first congressman to plead guilty. As of early 2007, at least four lobbyists, including Neil Volz, Ney’s chief of staff, had pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Another former chief of staff, William Heaton, pleaded guilty to corruption charges in February 2007. Heaton’s plea agreement revealed that he helped Ney stash some of his ill-gotten loot from a trip to Britain in his congressional office safe, and that he would open the safe for Ney whenever cash was needed. Heaton, a former congressional page, became Ney’s chief of staff at age 23. At Wikipedia you can easily locate a photo of various GOP crooks and petty thieves, including Abramoff and Ney, at St. Andrews in Scotland during happier days. As chairman of the House Administration Committee, Ney ordered that French fries be relabeled “freedom fries” on House menus. He was a leader of GOP-style diplomacy. Randy “Duke” Cunningham: GOP Representative (1991 to 2005) from California. Cunningham resigned from Congress in late 2005 after pleading guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, tax evasion, mail fraud and wire fraud. He admitted accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes for steering defense contracts to favored contractors. In March 2006 he was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 in restitution. He is expected to be released in 2013. In January 2007 the Bush Justice Department forced the resignation of Carol C. Lam, the United States Attorney who led the criminal prosecution of Cunningham and was in charge of an important continuing investigation of other wrongdoers. Lam had been nominated by Bush and approved by the U.S. Senate in 2002.

CHAPTER 18 — CORRUPTION IN AMERICA AND IRAQ – GOP STYLE

367

SIDEBAR: Assault on U.S. Attorneys—The Corruption of American Justice In addition to purging Carol C. Lam, the U.S. Attorney who led the successful criminal prosecution of Duke Cunningham, the Bush regime in early 2007 also axed at least eight other U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. At the time of her termination, U.S. Attorney Lam was leading a massive investigation into public corruption that extended well beyond Abramoff and the successful Cunningham conviction, and reportedly included high officials in the Pentagon, the Congress, and perhaps the White House. Former CIA Executive Director Kyle “Dusty” Foggo resigned in May 2006 shortly after The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Attorney’s office in San Diego—Lam’s office—was investigating whether Foggo illegally influenced the awarding of CIA contracts. The San Diego investigators were trying to determine if defense contractors who bribed Cunningham had similar success with other congressmen. In early 2007 federal prosecutors issued subpoenas regarding influence peddling and special-interest earmarks to three House committees—armed services, appropriations and intelligence—after GOP leadership refused to release the information voluntarily. Thanks to the outrage spawned by the sacking of Lam and other U.S. Attorneys, at least some of the prosecutorial efforts continued. In November 2007 Brent Wilkes was convicted of 13 felonies for bribing Cunningham in exchange for tens of millions of dollars in government contracts. It was even alleged that Wilkes set up a prostitution ring to provide prostitutes to Cunningham on demand. U.S. Attorneys are supposed to be highly qualified, highly respected and fiercely independent. For good reason, they must be nonpartisan. By tradition, they are appointed by the president, are subject to confirmation by the Senate, and are not removed unless there is fraud or other serious cause. The Bush administration shattered that tradition by firing U.S. Attorneys across the country for political reasons under a cloud of secrecy, and then appointing interim U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation under a provision sneakily slipped into amendments to the Patriot Act. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ office tried to cover its misdeeds by lying about the reasons for the terminations. Gonzales selectively lost his memory. However, as the conspiracy began to unravel, it became crystal clear that the terminations were not due to poor job performance. America’s system of federal criminal law enforcement, which lives and dies by its integrity and independence, had been undermined. Have no doubt about it. America is living through the biggest scandals in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the morale of the department is at an alltime low. Many books should be written about this malevolent and malignant period of nonstop GOP corruption that strikes at the heart of American jurisprudence and government. The U.S. Attorneys scandal is just one chapter, albeit an extremely important chapter, in the Bush regime’s despicable legacy of corruption and unconstitutional governance.

368


The principal incubators of the deadly disease are Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzales. The corrupt campaign by the Bush White House to politicize America’s government extended even to the Department of Justice, and it will take years and many investigations for the entire truth to be uncovered. The disease was nurtured and spread by numerous GOP congressmen who had grown accustomed to acting without ethical or legal boundaries. The notion of a “permanent GOP majority” undoubtedly further emboldened GOP politicians who had arrived in Washington with less than a full tank of ethics. Here are just a few of the important threads in the broader U.S. Attorneys scandal: • H. E. “Bud” Cummins, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, was fired for the purpose of replacing him with an aide to Karl Rove, Timothy Griffin, who formerly was a political director for the Republican National Committee and an “opposition researcher” for Rove. On February 6, 2007, a senior Justice Department official, Paul McNulty, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Cummins had been dismissed without specific cause in order to give the position to the lawyer closely tied to the Bush White House. McNulty agreed in his testimony that Cummins had done nothing wrong to justify his removal. Cummins told the Senate committee that the deputy attorney general’s top aide, Mike Elston, had threatened him if he “went public.” • Although the focus has been on the terminated U.S. Attorneys, why was the Bush regime apparently happy with the ones it didn’t fire? Expect the criminal investigation and resignation of other U.S. Attorneys around the country. • In Missouri, Bradley Schlozman was appointed to replace U.S. Attorney Todd Graves who had been forced out as part of a complex scheme to help the GOP win a pivotal U.S. Senate seat in Missouri in 2006. If the GOP scheme had been successful—the GOP lost the Senate race anyway in a very close election—the GOP would have retained control of the Senate (and the Senate’s constitutional oversight role would still be in cold storage.) Graves has been termed the “ninth” U.S. Attorney in the unfolding scandal. • Monica Goodling, the former Director of Public Affairs under Gonzales, is one of several Department of Justice employees near the center of the storm. Along with others, she apparently was involved in planning the U.S. Attorney dismissals, as well as subsequent efforts to obstruct justice and limit the damage. She invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to testify before Congress. Subsequently, the House Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2007, granted her immunity (which was approved by the U.S. District Court) and authorized a subpoena. Time will tell whether Goodling will truthfully tell what she knows, or instead will put loyalty ahead of truth and the best interests of America, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Constitution.

CHAPTER 18 — CORRUPTION IN AMERICA AND IRAQ – GOP STYLE •

369

Goodling received her undergraduate degree in 1995 from Messiah College and her law degree in 1999 from Regent University Law School, which is ranked in the lowest tier of American law schools. Regent University was founded by Pat Robertson, who also serves as its chancellor. When the Bush regime put conservative credentials and appropriate religiosity ahead of relevant experience and academic achievement in its hiring decisions, the number of Regent graduates working in the federal government soared. Regent proudly claims that about 150 of its graduates have served in the Bush administration. The school’s name was changed to Regent University in 1990 to acknowledge the sovereignty of God. • Two GOP politicians from New Mexico, Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather Wilson, each telephoned then U.S. Attorney David Iglesias right before the November 2006 election, improperly asking about the investigation of a Democratic politician. As noted above, Iglesias was later fired. • At least two of the terminated U.S. Attorneys (David Iglesias in New Mexico and John McKay in Washington State) believe Rove was behind the firings and that criminal charges could be brought against high-level personnel in the Department of Justice. “I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of this,” McKay told Seattle Times journalists. “This is going to get worse, not better.” Other U.S. Attorneys stepped forward with similar testimony. By the way, none of this testimony is partisan—Bush appointed all of the terminated U.S. Attorneys, and, as far as we know, all are Republicans. Attorney General Gonzales and several of his subordinates disgraced themselves and the Department of Justice. In addition to obstructing justice, they took outrageous Alice-in-Wonderland positions on numerous critical issues, including torture and wiretaps, and misused both the Patriot Act and national security letters. Their assault on U.S. Attorneys and the integrity of criminal law enforcement is just one chapter in this sad history. No one should be surprised that Gonzales became the worst Attorney General ever. After all, he worked for many years as the consigliere for the Confederate politico who became the worst American president ever. Gonzales finally resigned and slithered out of town in September 2007, just ahead of the posse. Under pressure from both parties to resign, this lying political hack and war criminal should have been impeached, but—thanks to lethargic efforts of the Democratic leadership in Congress—Gonzo escaped this just remedy. Full investigation of Gonzales’ crimes must nevertheless be aggressively pursued, even though Bush is likely to pardon him in order to silence this key Bush regime accomplice and enabler. Gonzales caused unprecedented damage to the U.S. Department of Justice and the rule of law. He ran the department as a political tool of the White House, thus jeopardizing pending and future criminal prosecutions. Department morale plunged, and many career prosecutors quit. Although it isn’t on the list of “Gonzo’s 10 Worst Crimes,” Gonzales’ visit to a hospital on March 10, 2004, to take advantage of extremely sick and hospitalized John Ashcroft (then Attorney General) would provide good grist for a television series showcasing personal depravity.

370


As for the difficult job of extracting the truth from the Bush regime, White House counsel Fred Fielding in March 2007 offered the following “generous” compromise to the Senate Judiciary Committee. White House staff members Rove, William Kelley, Scott Jennings and Harriet Miers would testify before the committee, but only if: • the testimonies are given in a private closed-door session, • no transcript of the meeting is kept, and • those testifying are not under oath. Senator Patrick Leahy replied: “I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome .... Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day. Testimony should be on the record, and under oath.” Impeachment of the Bush regime is long overdue. Mark Foley: GOP Representative (1995-2006) from Florida. Foley resigned his House seat in September 2006 following publicity about his hitting on underage (and overage) male congressional pages, including sending numerous sexually explicit instant messages. Using that favorite dodge of GOP sinners, Foley cited an alcohol problem and checked himself into a rehab center. GOP leaders responsible for the page program and other GOP leaders including Speaker Dennis Hastert did nothing to stop Foley’s predatory tendencies and were eventually tainted by the scandal they covered up. Perhaps they relied upon Foley’s frequent promises “to turn over a new page.” Don Sherwood: GOP Representative (1999-2007) from Pennsylvania. Another proud member of the “party of values,” Sherwood was defeated in the 2006 midterm elections. It didn’t help his reelection bid that he had recently settled a lawsuit by a mistress who claimed that he repeatedly assaulted her, including repeatedly choking and attempting to strangle her at his D.C. apartment. Sherwood denied any extramarital affair when reports of the abuse surfaced, but he later admitted a five-year liaison. A host of GOP politicians, including strong-on-family-values George W. Bush and Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, supported Sherwood’s losing reelection campaign. (In a landslide, Santorum also lost his 2006 bid for reelection.) Richard Pombo: GOP Representative (1993-2007) from California. Pombo lost his reelection bid in 2006, largely because of a host of allegations of corruption, nepotism, misuse of government resources, and other sleazy activity. As one of many House members reportedly under investigation in the Abramoff corruption and influence peddling scandal, including the Indian lobbying scandal, Pombo apparently took about $500,000 from Abramoff, more than that received by any other congressman. Bragging about the pork he brought home to his district probably didn’t


371

help Pombo’s reelection campaign, and neither did his incredibly awful record on the environment. Curt Weldon: GOP Representative (1987-2007) from Pennsylvania. Weldon lost his race for reelection in November 2006 by 12 percentage points, amid numerous media reports that the Justice Department and the FBI were investigating whether he unlawfully used his political influence to help one of his daughters secure lucrative consulting and lobbying contracts with foreign firms, including a Russian company called Itera International Energy Corporation. In October 2006 it was reported that the FBI raided the daughter’s home, as well as several locations of associates of Weldon, searching for evidence, and that a grand jury proceeding had begun. The Los Angeles Times reported almost two years earlier, on February 20, 2004 (in a lengthy article entitled, “Lucrative Deals for a Daughter of Politics—Karen Weldon, whose dad is a Pennsylvania congressman, is a lobbyist for three foreign clients who need his help, and get it”), that all three known clients of the daughter’s firm (a partnership called Solutions North America, or SNA, which she formed two years earlier when she was 28 years old) had connections to Weldon. For example, here is a summary of the Itera timeline: On September 24, 2002, Weldon co-hosted an event at the Library of Congress to honor Itera’s chairman; two days later, Weldon gave a congressional floor speech praising Itera; and four days later, on September 30, his daughter’s firm received a $500,000 annual contract from Itera. The other two lucrative contracts obtained by Weldon’s daughter were with: (1) another Russian firm, Saratov Aviation, which, after Congressman Weldon and his daughter visited Saratov’s plant in Russia, signed a contract to pay her $20,000 per month plus a 10% commission, and (2) Dragomir and Bogoljub Karic, associates of Slobodan Milosevic, who paid $240,000 to the daughter’s firm in March 2003. American intelligence officials had warned the congressman that the Karics were too close to Milosovic, who is infamous for the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslav federation. The foregoing only scratches the surface of the various lobbying scandals associated with Curt Weldon. John Doolittle: GOP Representative (since 1991) from California. Doolittle barely won reelection in 2006 with less than 50% of the vote, whereas he had won previous elections with about 65% of the vote. He won notwithstanding his connections to Abramoff and various corruption and ethics issues, including payments made to his wife relating to his campaign fundraising and political action committees. Doolittle is the subject of a federal investigation regarding his Abramoff relationship and has hired criminal defense attorneys. In April 2007 Doolittle gave up his seat on the House Committee on Appropriations after FBI agents searched his home in Northern Virginia. On the day of the FBI raid, Doolittle’s former chief of staff, Kevin Ring, who had left Doolittle to work with Abramoff, resigned from a law firm in Washington. In September 2007 three aides to Doolittle—including his chief of staff, Ron Rogers, and his deputy chief of staff, Dan Blankenburg—were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in an investigation of ties Doolittle and his wife had to lobbyist Abramoff.

372


Rick Renzi: GOP Representative (since 2003) from Arizona. Renzi is facing a slew of allegations of corruption, including a land-swap deal and legislation he sponsored that benefited his father’s company, ManTech International Corporation. His father, a retired major general in the U.S. Army, is Senior Executive Vice President of ManTech and also President of ManTech’s Defense Systems Group. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in a 2006 report named Renzi as one of the “20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress.” He is under investigation, and the FBI raided his family business on April 19, 2007. Shortly thereafter, Renzi resigned from the House Intelligence Committee, and on August 23, 2007, he announced he would not seek reelection in 2008. Renzi is also connected to the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal. Paul Charlton, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, in September 2006 opened a preliminary investigation into some of Renzi’s activities, and almost immediately Charlton was added to a hit list of U.S. Attorneys to be purged. On September 13 Attorney General Gonzales’ chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, wrote to White House Counsel Harriet Miers that Charlton was someone they “should now consider pushing out,” and on December 7 the White House demanded his resignation without explanation. Charlton is a highly regarded professional and had consistently ranked among the best performing federal prosecutors. David Vitter: GOP Senator (since 2005) and GOP Representative (1999-2005) from Louisiana. Serial john and adulterer David Vitter replaced disgraced “family values” GOP Congressman Bob Livingston in Louisiana’s 1st district after Livingston resigned (in 1999) following his own adultery scandal, and who—serial adulterer Livingston, that is—in turn, as GOP Speaker-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives, had been slated to replace disgraced serial adulterer “family values” GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and who—serial adulterer Gingrich that is—in turn had resigned in a self-inflicted cloud of GOP hypocrisy. Whew! Vitter’s photograph should appear next to the definition of hypocrite in the dictionary, although he has countless other GOP leaders competing for this dubious honor. After being identified in July 2007 as a client of “D.C. Madam” Deborah Jean Palfrey’s prostitution service in Washington, Vitter publicly acknowledged “a very serious sin in my past,” went into seclusion for a week, and thereafter refused to talk about it. Vitter noted that he had “asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife”—that’s apparently enough for the GOP “family values” crowd in the U.S. Senate, which readily swallowed his explanation and welcomed him back with a standing ovation, even though prostitution is a crime and typically debases the paid participant. Many commentators correctly predicted that the GOP leadership—in sharp contrast with the way it handled Senator Larry Craig’s scandal (see next paragraph)—would not call for Vitter’s resignation from the U.S. Senate, for the simple reason that upon such a resignation the Governor of Louisiana—a Democrat—would appoint a replacement for Vitter until a special election could be held. In March 2007—just four months before Vitter’s latest scandal erupted—serial adulterer Vitter announced his support for serial adulterer Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential campaign, with Vitter serving as Giuliani’s southern regional chair. Vitter is one of the most sanctimonious Bible thumpers and rightwing nuts in Congress. One wonders how much longer American voters and America’s Big Media will allow the GOP to beat the “family values” drum.


373

Larry Craig: GOP Senator (since 1991) and GOP Representative (1981-1991) from Idaho. On June 11, 2007, Senator Larry “family values” Craig was arrested for lewd conduct in a men’s toilet at the Minneapolis airport, and on August 8 he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and paid a $575 fine. After the Washington newspaper Roll Call on August 27 disclosed these events, Craig found himself on the proverbial hot toilet seat. At his “I am not gay, I never have been gay” news conference on August 28—and perhaps thinking he was auditioning for Saturday Night Live—Craig prefaced his prepared comments by thanking everyone present “for coming out today.” Indignant that they had been left out of the stall—well, out of the loop—GOP leaders quickly tried to flush Craig down the toilet, but Craig’s “wide stance” made that more difficult than expected—Craig soon reneged on his announced intention to resign from the Senate at the end of the month. The GOP and especially its Christian Reich cut their teeth bashing the GLBT community—while teaching self-hate and self-denial to millions of young Americans—and many of the GOP’s most venomous bashers are closeted self-haters and hypocrites. Let’s be clear. The issue here is not sex—it’s hypocrisy. The more your GOP politician or preacher talks about family values, the faster you should count the spoons. As for Craig, for some reason this “family values” senator stepped down from his senior position in the “family values” campaign of Mitt Romney—just as Florida State Representative Bob “Blow Job” Allen resigned his “family values” position as co-chair of John McCain’s presidential campaign in Florida. On the board of directors of the National Rifle Association since 1983, Craig is not a “straight shooter.” By the way, the controversy surrounding Craig goes back at least to the congressional page scandals of 1982—yes, page scandals have persisted for decades, without rectification, notwithstanding frequent GOP promises to “turn over a new page.” Other GOP Crooks: Alas, there are numerous other Republicans in Congress who deserve to be added to the foregoing list. Regarding just the Abramoff scandal, at least two dozen more GOPers have ties to Abramoff’s web of influence-peddling associates. In addition, many GOP staffers and associates—too many to name here— have already been convicted of corruption charges. Alas, it’s a safe bet that other GOP scandals will emerge before the ink is dry on the pages of this book. Therefore, dear readers, here’s some space for you to jot down your “Top Five” favorites not previously mentioned: My Favorite GOP Congressional Crooks, Criminals and Hypocrites: 1) ____________________________________________________ 2) ____________________________________________________ 3) ____________________________________________________ 4) ____________________________________________________ 5) ____________________________________________________ If you’re from the great state of Alaska—a place dear to your author’s heart ever since he worked in Alaska during a summer many years ago—you’ll probably want

374


to include at least two-thirds of Alaska’s entire congressional delegation—GOP Senator Ted Stevens and GOP Representative Don Young—on your list of “Favorite GOP Crooks, Criminals and Hypocrites.” The GOP Congress holds the record for highest “Grime Rate”—which is short for “GOP Crime Rate”—among all demographic groups in America. Only multimillionaire rightwing Christian media evangelists give GOP congressmen a serious run for their money—or your money, for that matter. If the 109th GOP Congress of Crooks and Creeps had its own zip code, it would have the highest crime rate in America, and the dollars involved would be orders of magnitude greater than that stolen in total by all of America’s run of the mill criminals. The best way to lower the crime rate—and the Grime Rate—in the city of Washington and in America is to stop electing GOP politicians. But the problem is not just a few bad apples like Bush and the congressional rogues mentioned above. The problem is the Republican Party itself, which has lost its way and is rotten to the core. America finally began to wake up in 2006 when it ended GOP control of both houses of Congress.

The GOP’s Destruction of America’s Constitutional Democracy Never has Washington been so controlled by Big Money. By carrying the banner of the Super Rich and huge corporations Bush and the Cons raised record amounts of campaign funds. One hand washes the other. In the Cons’ Washington, legislation is frequently drafted without any public input other than that of lobbyists for big business and the Super Rich. Large corporations have far more lobbyists in Washington than Congress has staff members. When Profiles in Corruption is written about the Bush regime and its cronies, it will be an encyclopedia set, not a single volume. In sharp contrast, John F. Kennedy, who wrote the inspirational Profiles in Courage, never suffered an approval rating below 56%, notwithstanding the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Kennedy, a Catholic, represented all the people, not just Catholics. For good reason, the GOP Congress operating during Bush’s administration was known as a “do nothing Congress.” It refused to hold even one comprehensive hearing into the wartime failures of the Bush administration. Abandoning facts and critical thinking, the GOP Congress blindly supported Bush’s “stay the course” plan of waste, fraud and failure in Iraq. The GOP refused to investigate anything that might embarrass Bush, the GOP, or their well-heeled masters. For example, between 1997 and 2002, the GOP-controlled House Government Reform Committee issued more than 1,052 subpoenas regarding alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party, but as of late 2005 the committee had issued only three subpoenas to the Bush administration, and none of the three related to Iraq. (Two subpoenas went to the Energy Department regarding nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one went to the Defense Department regarding Hurricane Katrina documents.) Although the acts of corruption by individual members of Congress are despicable, the GOP collectively did several orders of magnitude greater damage to America and the U.S. Constitution by rubber stamping every madness of the Bush administration and by abdicating its constitutional oversight role regarding war and the execu-


375

tive branch. The GOP became a de facto coconspirator in a systematic cover-up for the most corrupt and incompetent government in U.S. history. The Cons simply cannot be trusted to govern for the greater good. They cannot be trusted to defend America against threats, both domestic and foreign. They cannot be trusted to respect and protect America’s Constitution and democracy. U.S. troops stand out as the one bright exception in a sea of American and Iraqi corruption in Iraq. Iraqis widely regard U.S. troops as highly competent, trustworthy and dedicated professionals, even though the vast majority of Iraqis want America to remove its forces. In sharp contrast, the Bush administration and its private bloodsucking profiteers, as well as Iraqi politicians and Iraqi security forces, are widely viewed as incompetent and corrupt, seeking only what is best for themselves. America desperately needs an independent Truman-style commission to root out waste, corruption, incompetence and war profiteering in America’s war efforts. Such a commission would attempt to make government and contractors accountable to taxpayers. Truman, a Democrat, headed what became known as the Truman Commission in World War II during the Democratic administration of Franklin Roosevelt, and his respected nonpartisan efforts helped the war cause and America’s troops, in addition to propelling him on a path to the White House. In contrast, the Republican Party has blocked all attempts to create a Trumanstyle commission, or any kind of commission, regarding corruption in the conduct of America’s current wars. For example, in May 2005 the GOP-controlled House voted 224-196 along party lines to prevent such a commission. The first congressional hearings regarding fraud and corruption in Iraq began only after the Democratic Congress took control in January 2007. Only then did the true extent of the Bush administration’s corruption and utter incompetence begin to emerge. For example, the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to account for billions of dollars in cash shipped to Iraq shortly after the 2003 invasion. In 2005 the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that America’s provisional authority in Iraq, which was run by Paul Bremer, could not account for more than $8 billion of Iraqi oil revenues previously held by the United States. But the curiously uncurious Republican Congress sat on its hands. The awful truth began to surface only after the new Democratic Congress starting investigations in early 2007. What did happen to the 363 tons of cash from the Federal Reserve Bank that had been flown to Iraq on 484 pallets in 2003? Investigators reported that one huge outlay of $500 million in cash was explained in the coalition authority’s books with only a one-word entry, “security.” That’s it, just one word explaining what happened to $500 million dollars in cash blowin’ in the wind. There is no documentation for it or for another ten huge disbursements ranging from $120 million to $900 million each. According to the investigators, Bremer’s provisional authority gave about $12 billion in cash to questionable Iraqi authorities and other recipients, with much of the cash being stuffed in duffle bags and doled out of the back of pickups. When you try to visualize $12 billion, you might try to imagine 12,000 stacks of $1,000,000 each, all in crisp new U.S. $100 bills.

376


It’s a safe bet that a big chunk of the cash was used to fund militants who killed Iraqis and American soldiers. The GOP’s recent rise to power began in 1994 when it seized control of the House under the banner of its Contract with America, better termed its Contract on America. The many signing GOP congressmen promised term limits of 12 years for themselves, but many ignored this promise 12 years later during the 2006 midterm elections. Running on “values” in 1994, the GOP promptly forgot and broke their campaign promises and became the Carpenters of Corruption, proceeding over the next dozen years to turn America’s government into a cesspool where the sleazy profited and traditional American values died. The 1994 GOP gang had complained endlessly about the amount of pork passed by the preceding Democratic Congress, but the new GOP—the “Gang Of Porkers”— promptly took pork to the moon, as part of its broader campaign to turn Washington into a public trough for generous lobbyists, the wealthy and favored corporate interests. An October 2004 article in the Boston Globe pointed out that congressional conference committees, which reconcile differences between Senate and House versions of legislation and which were given greatly expanded powers, added a record 3,407 pork barrel projects to the year’s federal budget. In comparison, the joint panel added just 47 such projects in 1994, the last year Congress was controlled by the Democratic Party. Pork projects, including an explosion of earmarks, are snuck into legislation at the last minute, without identifying the politicians pushing the particular pork, and they are not debated beforehand. Far more damaging, the GOP leadership fundamentally changed the way Congress did business, and in the process made America’s democracy a laughingstock. The GOP leadership controlled everything. Time for debate in Congress was cut drastically. Congress set records for fewest days in session. Amendments on the floor were rarely permitted. Legislators intentionally were not given time to read favored special-interest legislation being rammed through. For example, members of Congress were given only one day to read the Medicare bill that exceeded 400 pages. Democrats were largely excluded from conference committee meetings that previously had been bipartisan. Major pieces of legislation were drafted in private sessions that excluded Democrats. “Debate” meant the minority party would be told after the fact what the GOP had decided. “Reaching across the aisle” meant the minority party should bend over and reach for the KY jelly. The legislative process was changed and manipulated to ensure that the GOP leadership alone controlled what bills reached the floor. Even legislation supported by a bipartisan majority of the House did not reach the floor unless the GOP kingpins wanted it there. If Bush opposed certain legislation, the GOP leadership would ensure that no vote took place, even if a bipartisan majority in the House supported the legislation. Legislation was decided in backrooms before it reached the floor for “debate” and vote. Favored lobbyists were given unprecedented access and control, and they frequently wrote their own laws, which saved the time of lazy corrupt GOP congressmen and their staffers. Secrecy ruled. The legislative process was defiled.


377

The GOP dimmed the lights and closed the doors on open government. America became a Banana Republic run by Banana Republicans. Huge defense appropriation bills were railroaded through with the time for consideration and debate cut to a small fraction of what was previously customary. Defense profiteers and the GOP donor class were protected and pampered with special access. Legislators of both parties complained that they didn’t really know what they were voting for or against. SIDEBAR: Hurricane Katrina—A Costly Lesson in GOP Corruption and Incompetence The chickens came home to roost when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in late August 2005. Political hacks in FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) who had been selected because of their political loyalty and ideology, not their expertise and experience, failed the citizens of the Gulf Coast, especially the residents of New Orleans and coastal Louisiana and Mississippi. It addition to illuminating the incompetence of the Bush administration, Katrina exposed the underbelly of GOP economic policies that favor the Super Rich and punish America’s middle- and lower-income workers, especially Americans of color most in need. Yes, racism is alive and well in Bush’s America. Although most Confederate Party members are not racists, the Confederate Party can claim the loyalty of a huge supermajority of those voters who are. America’s friends shook their heads in amazement as they watched Bush turn off the power on America’s once-bright beacon of justice and opportunity. Katrina shocked America’s friends, especially because America for many decades had ably and generously answered the call throughout the world in times of natural disaster. But Bush and “his people” saw Katrina as an opportunity to establish a pork barrel at FEMA and push through unrelated legislation for their own benefit. The battered Gulf Coast needed a government that could fix things, but Bush’s people knew only how to fix contracts. The following is what two Republicans said about FEMA’s Katrina performance, as reported by The New York Times on June 27, 2006. “This started off as a disasterrelief program, but it turned into a cash cow,” said Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX), then chairman of a House panel investigating Katrina waste and fraud. “The blatant fraud, the audacity of the schemes, the scale of the waste—it is just breathtaking,” declared Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Seeing Bush’s response to Katrina, Americans began wondering more about homeland security too, especially since Bush claimed that America’s security was his administration’s “number one job.” Now, that is scary. You can bet the farm that mountains of additional evidence of raw greed and incompetence will surface in the years ahead—like puss oozing from a gangrene wound—as more and more of Bush’s own appointees and other U.S. employees find the courage to tell their truths.

378


Consider the Department of Homeland Security. Under Bush, it has a workforce with terrible morale, ranking 29th out of 30 in a 2005 survey of employee satisfaction, including 29th in both “effective leadership” and “teamwork.” Another major-league eye opener came on December 5, 2005, in the form of a final “report card” from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission regarding the dismal performance of the Bush administration and GOP Congress in implementing the commission’s counter-terrorism recommendations. The report card included 5 F’s, 12 D’s, two “incompletes,” and only one A (an A minus.) The Bush administration opposed the creation of the commission in the first place, and acquiesced only because of intense pressure from the families of 9/11 victims. Its failure to implement the commission’s recommendations and protect the American people should not have surprised anyone.

GOP Corruption and Incompetence Exported to Iraq The corruption and incompetence of the GOP Congress contributed directly to both the Iraq war and its corrupt and incompetent execution. A Congress of just average integrity and competence would almost certainly have prevented the Iraq war. But the do-nothing-good GOP Congress supported every White House madness, helped fuel fear, and “debated” only two days before rubber stamping the Iraq war. Also, a Congress of just average integrity and competence would have fulfilled, or at least tried to fulfill, its constitutional obligation to oversee the executive branch and the conduct of the Iraq war. But the GOP Congress refused to hold even one oversight hearing regarding the rampant waste and fraud in Iraq, thus allowing Iraq to become a magnet for corrupt contractors and incompetent political appointees. It allowed Iraq to descend into that hell known as Bush’s Iraq. Given the passage of time, it is most unlikely that justice will ever be served regarding the fraud and corruption in Iraq, even if the investigations that began only after the GOP lost control of Congress in 2006 are permitted to run their course. There is the risk that the American public as well as its Democratic leaders will grow weary of the onslaught of sleaze uncovered and just want to forget and move on. That would be a tragic mistake. Here are some examples of the Bush League mess in Iraq: • The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) run by Paul Bremer was a freewheeling government of corruption and incompetence, two areas in which Iraqi politicians and bureaucrats needed no encouragement. The CPA hired employees based on political correctness, not experience and expertise. Young and clueless rightwingers from America were on the loose. • Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for The Washington Post, revealed in his 2006 book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, that job applicants who wanted to help run post-invasion Iraq were even asked for their opinions of Roe v. Wade and for whom they voted in America’s 2000 presidential election. This is both illegal and un-American.

CHAPTER 18 — CORRUPTION IN AMERICA AND IRAQ – GOP STYLE •

•

•

•

•

• • •

379

Most of $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds was wasted. The Bush government’s refusal to prosecute American firms accused of corruption turned Iraq into a “free fraud zone,” according to Frank Willis, a senior advisor to the CPA when it ran Iraq into the ground. In early 2005 Willis compared Iraq to the “wild west,” and said prophetically that the “corruption will only get worse.” And it did, GOP style. Oil smuggling and other types of corruption are “a second insurgency” in Iraq reported Stuart Bowen, Jr., a GOP appointee who served as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) and was responsible for auditing Iraq’s reconstruction efforts since 2004. In late 2006 he agreed with the assessment that corruption had gotten so bad that it threatened the survival of the Iraqi state. Bowen is not a leftie out to get Bush. To the contrary, he is a GOP lawyer who campaigned for Bush and was in the army of GOP lawyers who helped Bush steal the election in Florida in 2000. Incredibly, the GOP-controlled Congress passed legislation, signed by Bush in October 2006, that included a provision to eliminate Bowen’s oversight position by killing his oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Over objections of Democratic minority members, GOP members of the House Armed Services Committee slipped the sneaky provision into a massive military authorization bill at the last minute. After all, oversight is not compatible with war profiteering. Fortunately, public indignation and the realities of the 2006 midterm elections helped to reverse the travesty, and Bowen stayed on the job. Bowen made the mistake of trying to do an honest professional job in Iraq, with a focus on reducing corruption and improving the efficiency of reconstruction efforts. Because his periodic reports embarrassed the Bush administration and GOP-connected firms like Halliburton, Bechtel, DynCorp and Parsons, Bowen in effect pinned a bull’s eye on his own back, and GOP operatives were more than eager to insert a dagger. “It appears to me that the administration wants to silence the messenger that is giving us information about waste and fraud in Iraq,” said Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), who later became Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Asking the GOP Senate and GOP House of Representatives to investigate the Bush regime was like asking Vito and Michael Corleone to investigate the Mafia. Here’s how it works. Let’s say you’re a Republican in Congress. And let’s say you’re a crook. Oops, sorry, that’s redundant. Just kidding. Yes, there are many GOP members of Congress who technically are not crooks. However—not kidding—whether crooks or not, they aided the looting of both America and Iraq by not doing their jobs, by actively preventing the legislative branch from doing its job, by rubber stamping every action of their GOP leaders and the Bush White House—whether moral or immoral, whether legal or illegal—including both the decision to wage war on Iraq and its incompetent execution, including bankrupting


380

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

America by not paying for one penny of the war’s cost, and including the shredding of the U.S. Constitution. The Bush League corruption and incompetence gave comfort to America’s enemies, helping to fund Iraqi insurgents in countless ways. Even American weapons were not adequately safeguarded. Bowen’s office reported that 14,000 weapons paid for by the United States could not be accounted for. In violation of U.S. law, no record of serial numbers was kept for more than 96% of the weapons distributed, thus making it impossible to determine the source of stolen weapons later recovered by U.S. forces. Later, in August 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced that the Pentagon could not account for 30% of the weapons distributed in Iraq during the previous three years. The GAO estimated that 110,000 AK-47s and 80,000 pistols were included in the missing weapons. It is widely believed that many of these weapons are being used against American troops in Iraq. Although Bush and the GOP did not create the preexisting religious, tribal and ethnic tensions in Iraq, these unknowing, uncaring, irresponsible fools eagerly put the match to the powder keg, and their relentless incompetence just added fuel to the resulting fiery holocaust. Iraqis rightly expected so much more from America, but our Bush League government let them down. Bush’s America is not the America of our fathers, or the America that Bush inherited when he became president. However much Bush and the GOP screwed America, they screwed the Iraqi people a thousand times more—without ever killing in Iraq a single criminal responsible for 9/11. Not one. Americans cannot imagine the horror unleashed by Bush’s and the GOP’s War on Iraq. Companies like Cheney’s Halliburton and KBR needed no encouragement to commit fraud, but the Bush administration and the GOP Congress nevertheless helped them. No-competitive-bid contracts encouraged war profiteering, as did contracts that encouraged waste and fraud by guaranteeing a profit equal to a percentage of total cost. Because “perfectly legal” crony deals virtually ensured fat contracts with fat profits, the thousands of contractors who milked the system had no compelling reason to commit outright fraud, but many did so anyway. Greed has no limits. The Bush administration divided Iraq into “no competition” sectors and gave the work to nine large U.S. companies. Most of their contracts were awarded on a cost-plus basis, thus reducing the risk and jacking up the profits. It became the antithesis of “free enterprise”—the new GOP paradigm was “freebie enterprise.” “GOP” now stands for “Gang of Plunderers.” Many thousands of contractors feed at the GOP public trough in Iraq. No one knows the exact number.


381

SIDEBAR: Creation of Massive Patronage System Loyal to the GOP Upon assuming power in 2001 the Bush administration immediately embarked on a political mission to replace America’s civil service system based on expertise with a massive patronage system based on political ideology and loyalty to the Republican Party. The Heritage Foundation, a rightwing “think tank,” helped provide the framing for the new corrupt structure. Everything was driven by divisive politics. Professional expertise took second seat to political hacks. Truth took second seat to ideology. Witness the U.S. intelligence function. Witness the military, yes, incredibly, even the military. One key Bush initiative was to outsource as much federal work as possible to private contractors who could be counted on to fund the GOP and its cronies. While talking about the benefits of bringing competition to the game, the Bush administration did the opposite. The New York Times reported in early 2007 that “fewer than half of all ‘contract actions’—new contracts and payments against existing contracts—are now subject to full and open competition,” a big drop from 79% in 2001. To be clear, the GOP’s intent was not to increase competition in order to drive better performance and lower costs. The goal was to reduce competition, or to eliminate competition entirely, in order to steer fat contracts and fat profits to politically loyal corporations and executives in a vast, morally corrupt, patronage system. The result is that the Bush administration sabotaged the performance and cost effectiveness of America’s government in both: (1) the work provided by America’s civil service professionals, and (2) the work provided by outside contractors. The cancer spread both domestically and internationally. Witness Katrina. Witness Iraq. •

•

In spite of blatant conflicts of interest, the Bush administration hired CACI International (which was notorious for supplying private interrogators to Abu Ghraib) to handle cases of fraud and incompetence by private contractors in Iraq. This was like hiring Jack the Ripper to investigate sexual predator cases. Rubbing salt in the wounds, CACI charged $104 an hour, according to The New York Times. With clumsy assistance from America’s occupation authority, the new Iraqi government became one of the most corrupt in the world. By 2006 Iraq had dropped to a tie for second worst in an international index that measures corruption (kickbacks, embezzlement, bribery, etc.) in 163 nations. Only Haiti had a worse score in this survey conducted by Transparency International in Germany, which combined the results of 12 surveys of country experts and businessmen over a two-year period. Primary victims of this corruption are the poor. The chairwoman of Transparency International, Huguette Labelle, noted that the misappropriation of government funds “feeds a vicious circle, where those with access to funds or bribes take what they

382


can, because they can, locking the poor in poverty.” Her words sound like the GOP’s mission statement for the world. • The United States dropped three places to 20th place in the same corruption index, hardly a coincidence, since America’s Republican Party and the Iraqi successor to Saddam’s Republican Guard operate like Republican Siamese twins. • A GlobeScan poll of 26,000 people in 25 nations, released in January 2007, showed a sharp deterioration during the previous two years in global opinion of America’s foreign policy. Almost half of those polled believe America played a mainly negative role in the world. Almost 75% disapproved of Bush’s policies regarding Iraq. • By early 2007 Iraqis were receiving about 7 hours of electricity per day, with the average in Baghdad being only 4.4 hours, much less than that under Saddam’s rule. Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, reported to Congress in January 2007 that, despite more than $4 billion in U.S. funds being allocated to the problem, Iraq’s nationwide electricity output had fallen below the prewar level of 4,200 megawatts. How did the Bush administration respond to this embarrassing fact? The State Department cagily eliminated the prewar electricity output line from its standard weekly report on Iraq’s electricity production, thus eliminating the unfavorable comparison. Spin is everything. • Iraq’s drinking water suffered greatly during Bush’s reign. By 2007 only 4.6 million of Iraq’s 26 million people had access to safe drinking water. In 2007 there was a new outbreak of cholera in Iraq. • Congress initially granted $18 billion for Iraq’s reconstruction, but almost all of it was wasted. You may recall images of contractors playing football with bundles of new $100 bills. • Thousands of members of the Mahdi Army and other militias who attack American troops are paid a monthly salary with funds diverted from the Iraqi government. • Although Americans are largely kept in the dark, the Iraqi people experience first hand the Bush League corruption and incompetence, as well as that of Iraq’s government. A poll conducted in late 2006 by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies found that “about 90% of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today.” • Although it took several years, a substantial majority of the American public eventually became fed up with Bush’s incompetence and deceit regarding Iraq. They lost faith in him and his plans for Iraq. A late 2006 CNN poll found that only 11% of Americans supported his so-called surge plan to send thousands more American troops to Baghdad. As for the rest of Bush’s feeble coalition in Iraq, the Bush League of Nations, not a single member offered even one additional soldier to the surge—they in fact “de-surged.” Bush’s Golden Rule is: “He who has the gold makes the rules.” And they do. Never have the Super Rich done better in America, even though the nation is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.


383

Bush destroyed America’s tradition that all citizens should contribute and sacrifice when America is at war. Personally an expert on government freebies and exemptions from sacrifice, Bush not only gave the Super Rich an exemption from pain during this time of war, he also gave them hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks. War is profitable for Bush’s Chosen People. Thanks to Bush, the GOP’s “Two Americas” plan, which was started by Reagan, continues to work miracles. The Bush administration, the Bush family and their cronies are experts at public trough dining. In Bush’s America, personal success is far less dependent upon education and hard work than it is upon family connections, cronyism and pulling government strings. Bush’s entire life, especially his business career, is living proof that Affirmative Action for the Privileged works. Our British allies know that “W” stands for “wonga,” which is British schoolboy slang for money, lots of money. There are countless huge companies that rely upon cronyism and government connections for success. Most of their activities are perfectly legal, which is understandable since the U.S. Congress works for them. Many of these companies reek of the revolving door syndrome. Consider The Carlyle Group, a fabulously successful private company that has done very well in government business. It has had a political Who’s Who on its payroll, including the likes of a former American president (George H. W. Bush),135 a former British prime minister, various U.S. secretaries of defense, state, and treasury, senior CIA and SEC officials, and so forth. Carlyle is an important conduit and door opener for anyone wanting to do serious business with the U.S. Government, especially defense work. Imagine running a legitimate small or mid-sized company that is trying to compete in federal contracting against firms connected to Carlyle. With the GOP in charge, connections count more than excellent products and services at competitive prices. Foreign businessmen and government officials could logically conclude that Carlyle is part of the U.S. Government or acting for it. Its offices are conveniently located on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington about halfway between the Capitol building and the White House. Members of bin Laden’s family were investors in Carlyle until the embarrassment of 9/11 caused them to liquidate their investment. Bush the Father kept his position with Carlyle until late 2003 when the sunlight of public scrutiny caused him to leave. Bush the Son also has had connections to Carlyle. We mention Carlyle here in passing simply to highlight the cronyism, conflicts of interests, abuse of America’s taxpayers, and greed that characterize the leeches attached to America’s government and its operations in Iraq. One excellent book that focuses on Carlyle is The Iron Triangle—Inside the Secret World of The Carlyle Group, by Dan Briody. Bush believes with all his heart and soul that The Carlyle Group represents the way America should be run. After all, it has worked well for his family for decades. 135

In sharp contrast, Jimmy Carter, a Christian who believes in family values, works for organizations such as Habitat For Humanity.

384


Bush has no sympathy for low- and middle-income working Americans who are too lazy or too dumb to snatch the low-hanging gold apples like his family does.136 We conclude this chapter with a sidebar about W’s younger brother Neil, who does not get the attention he deserves. SIDEBAR: All in the Bush Family: Valuables over Values Neil Bush, the son of one president and the brother of another, has led a life of crony capitalism, taking advantage of his family name and America, and costing American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Nevertheless, the extent of his shady business and political activities appear limited when compared to those of his more prominent relatives. Perhaps Neil’s success has been limited because he does not receive the massive favorable publicity that the American media routinely heap upon other members of his extended family. In fact, he gets little coverage at all. This is unfair—America’s rightwing royalty is entitled to better treatment from Big Media. After all, Neil does share the same lust for valuables that preoccupies his extended family. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, let’s check in on Neil and see how he’s doing. To Neil Bush’s credit, he has wisely learned to rely upon family and political connections for “success” rather than business skills he doesn’t have. The only business skill he does appear to have is one he shares with his brother Dubya—the ability to run businesses into the ground. You perhaps last heard about Neil in the 1980s in connection with Silverado Savings and Loan in Denver, Colorado. At age 30 and with no relevant business experience,137 Neil was appointed to the board of directors of Silverado. He and his cronies then looted Silverado, and although dimwitted Neil personally ended up with little of the loot, the total cost to U.S. taxpayers was $1.3 billion. That’s not a typo—it’s $1.3 billion, not $1.3 million. That’s more than four times the total worldwide annual budget of the U.S. Peace Corps. You may wonder how this $1.3 billion loss at the Denver S&L compares with the total amount stolen by criminals in all bank robberies in the state of Colorado in one year. Well, Neil wins “hands down,” or rather, “hands up.” The Silverado loss was hundreds of times greater than the total annual haul by all bank robbers in Colorado.

136

Bush’s two-decades long college career of drinking, drugging and partying ended after he had several walks in 1985 with Billy Graham, who was visiting the family in Kennebunkport, Maine. Bush must be thinking, “Why aren’t them average lunch-pail Americans … you know, the lazy poor and coloreds … I mean, the blacks and browns and greens … smart enough to use Billy like I do?” 137 Neil undoubtedly had some experience in cashing checks and spending money he never earned, and perhaps he knew something about trust accounts. This all could be important in the banking business.


385

Thinking bigger, you might then compare Neil Bush’s accomplishment with all the bank robberies in the entire United States for one entire year. Again, Neil wins, “hands up.” Stunningly, it’s not even close. According to FBI statistics, in 2001 a bank robbery occurred approximately every 52 minutes in the United States, and the total annual net loss was $70 million. This means that the out-of-pocket cost to U.S. taxpayers of the looting and bankruptcy of federally-insured Silverado by Neil Bush and his cronies was more than 18 times the total amount stolen by all bank robbers in the United States in an entire year! And some people say Neil doesn’t know jack about business. In retrospect, the FBI could have saved American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars through better 24-hour surveillance tactics, say, by permanently handcuffing two of its agents to Neil Bush and to each of his cronies. Rather than focusing relentlessly on smalltime bank robbers, the FBI should reassign a few professionals—say, 90% of its thousands of law enforcement officers who now work on bank robberies—to investigate and police the Bush family and its extended gang of GOP cronies and white collar criminals. Law enforcement should work where the big criminals work. It should fish where the big fish swim. By the way, the average “take” for robberies in America is about $1,000 per robbery, with convenience store robberies coming in at about $400 to $600, less than one-tenth the average take from a bank robbery (which is about $5,000 to $7,000.) Street muggings average only about $50.138 If you’re a bank bandit or convenience store robber, or even a lowly mugger, you might be thinking, “Hey, I’m in the wrong gang. I should marry into the Bush crime family and enjoy some of those Bush family valuables.” Well, be careful what you wish for. Neil went through an ugly divorce in 2003, and the messy divorce papers disclosed just some of the trials and tribulations of being born into the Bush family, or worse yet, marrying into this crime family. One of the more outrageous revelations in Neil Bush’s divorce papers is his morally corrupt business deal in 2002 with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing, a company backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of Jiang Zemin, the former president and dictator of communist China. Under this deal, Neil would receive $2 million in company stock over five years, even though Neil has no skills relating to the company’s business. In questioning Neil about this surprisingly lucrative deal, the divorce attorney for his former wife asked Neil, “You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors, do you?” Neil replied, “That’s correct.”

138 It’s data like this that may have caused Neil to focus wisely on banking. A mugger would have to do a mugging 49 times every minute, 24 hours every day, for an entire year to get to $1.3 billion! Perhaps Neil took and perfected the advice of the famous bank robber Willie Sutton. According to banking legend, when Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied, “because that’s where the money is.” Likewise, GOP cronies and thieves go to Congress because that’s where the money is.


386

Just for fun, you might try to make an easy couple of million dollars in stock by writing to the headquarters of Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation in Mainland China and asking for the same deal that Neil Bush got. Perhaps you should lie and tell them you are a member of the Communist Party, or second best, the Republican Party. Here’s the address: Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation 818 Guo Shou Jing Road Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park Shanghai, 201203 People’s Republic of China Address in Chinese: 中国上海张江高科技区郭守敬路 818 号 Disclaimer: The “Neil Bush Deal” may be limited to people who have at least as much experience in semiconductors as Neil Bush. But don’t worry—this won’t disqualify you, or anyone else. Neil also admitted that during his marriage he had sex with several prostitutes while on business in Asia. He said the women would just knock on his hotel room door, come in, and have sex with him. Since they never asked for money, he never paid them, and he thus didn’t know if they were prostitutes. My goodness, didn’t he even tip them? Whatever happened to Texan etiquette and Southern hospitality? These salacious items about Bush family values are just some tidbits from Neil’s divorce papers, and they came to light only because of the divorce. Well, that’s enough about Neil Bush. No, wait—let’s include a few more nasty nuggets, just for fun. Neil Bush has lots of crony ties with other unusual or bizarre people—all rich people, of course. As a member of the Bush clan, he is attracted to sleazy deals like a moth to a flame. He toured Asia with Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the Korean billionaire and self-proclaimed Messiah of the Korea-based Unification Church. Bush’s parents, Barbara and George Bush, also have substantial ties to Moon and have received millions of dollars from him for speaking engagements and other “services.” Moon is the self-proclaimed Messiah of the world and has supported many dictators and fascist leaders. He claims he helped Hitler and Stalin be “reborn as new persons.” Moon claims that he, not Jesus, is the hope of the entire world. Why do the Bush family and the Cons love him? Because valuables trump values—money trumps Christ. Moon has a large financial empire including ownership of the Washington Times, which should not be confused with the Washington Post or the New York Times. The Washington Times masquerades as a newspaper and can be relied upon to create extreme rightwing propaganda supporting the Cons and the Bush regime. Moon covers the huge operating losses of the newspaper, which total more than one billion dollars since its inception in 1982.


387

Moon’s bizarre teachings and activities, including his inroads into the Bush family and the Bush White House, are too numerous to attempt to summarize here. He and his “Moonies” are a special danger to gullible young people. But the Bush family loves Moon, and Bush the Father even referred to Moon as a “man of vision.” If you are not very familiar with Rev. Sun Myung Moon, please spend a few minutes Googling Moon and Bush. To raise money for his software company, Ignite!—the so-called learning systems company—Neil Bush traveled around Russia with the infamous Boris Berezovsky, a shady Russian who sought asylum in London to avoid arrest by Russian authorities for fraud and conspiracy. Bush also obtained several million dollars for Ignite! from United Arab Emirates investors eager to ingratiate themselves with the brother of America’s president. Incidentally, Neil’s company obtained lucrative No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Texas, Florida and other states. In 2005 Barbara Bush, the former first lady, made a tax-deductible donation to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund in an undisclosed amount, and, oddly, specifically instructed that the funds be spent with Ignite!, the educational software company owned by her son Neil. What a nifty way to give a tax-deductible allowance to your adult child! Is there no shame in this family? Well, it must be tough being a Bush and living with the family lies. One of the most devious of the lies—which appears prominently in the political campaign of any Bush family member—is that this first family of sleaze somehow stands for appropriate family values in America. Well, don’t let them speak for you. Don’t let them try to teach you anything about values. The Bush family stands for family valuables for themselves and the Super Rich at the expense of everyone else. Remember that when George W. Bush says family “values,” the synapses in his brain are just misfiring again, and he really means family “valuables”—that is, valuables for his family. Being weak on the real issues that matter most to America, Bush and the GOP simply pick family values as a wedge issue. This is profoundly outrageous. Like we said, if any progressive family in North Dakota or Massachusetts somehow got infected with the family values of the Bush family, and the neighbors found out, the family would have to leave the state in shame in the middle of the night and move to a red zone in Texas. That’s the law. So don’t let the Bush family or any other Cons try to teach you or your children about proper family values. Just remember the official motto of the Bush family and its party: “Rich in Valuables, Poor in Values.”

PART VI Out of the Wilderness

CHAPTER 19

Out of the Wilderness—Three Plans Blessed Are the Peacemakers Gimli: “Never thought I’d die fighting side by side with an elf.” Legolas: “What about side by side with a friend?” Gimli: “Aye. I could do that.” —Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Set forth in this final chapter are the following three plans, which together constitute a way forward for America: I. Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan II. Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan III. A 6-Point Plan to Support America’s Troops America has been slowly waking up to the nightmare of Bush’s reign of terror and wars of error. It took years for America to acknowledge the truth that has been so obvious to the rest of the world—that Bush is America’s worst president ever, and that he has waged an imperial, incompetent and unchristian foreign policy. Roll the calendar back to 2000 and imagine a candidate for president discussing international affairs and promising you that, as America’s president, he would: • allow 9/11, the worst terrorist attacks in history on American soil, to occur on his watch, while ignoring the flashing red warning lights and taking record vacation time (taking only five years to beat Reagan’s eight-year record); • destroy the huge global goodwill towards America following the 9/11 attacks; • be unable, perhaps unwilling, to kill or capture the criminal ringleader of the terrorist attacks; • spin a web of deceptions and lies in order to invade Iraq, a nation that: (a) was not an imminent threat to the United States or any other nation, and (b) had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or bin Laden or the Taliban or al Qaeda;


392 •

cause the death of several hundred thousand Iraqis, not one of whom was involved in the 9/11 attacks or had any advance knowledge of them; • become the world’s number one war criminal; • through faith-based incompetence, implement policies to spawn more terrorists than all other sources of terrorism in the world combined; • in the rightwing style of bin Laden, assert that he is directed by God; • by thus hijacking God, absolve himself of the responsibility to deal with reality and truth; • determine conclusions and policies first, and then manufacture facts “to fit” the conclusions and policies, counting on America’s cheerleading corporate media to function as stenographers, not professional journalists; • become hated by the vast majority of the citizenry in every predominantly Muslim nation—where his stated mission would be to win hearts and minds—while achieving a favorable rating only a fraction of bin Laden’s; • increase America’s trade deficit to record highs, allowing creditor nations like Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China to buy huge chunks of American assets and seize control of America’s financial future; • make America more dependent than ever on foreign oil; • bankrupt America; • insult America’s allies and friends, and renege on treaties and other commitments; • create unprecedented worldwide animosity towards the White House and America; • stay the failed course in a failed immoral war of his own creation; and • disrespect and wreck America’s military. The world views Bush as an uninformed incompetent who is clueless as to the job of president of the United States of America. They have “read his heart.” They see nothing in his entire life experience to suggest he is qualified to make decisions regarding war or to lead America’s troops. There see nothing in his words or deeds to suggest he has the slightest interest in learning how to lead. America’s traditional allies and friends yearn for America to make a 180-degree turn from the Dark Side and return to America’s core strengths and progressive values, which were highly respected throughout the world before Bush’s Reign of Error and Terror. America’s allies and friends want America to rediscover its moral footing, to reverse the catastrophic decline in its effectiveness and trustworthiness, and to once again join the world community as a partner—the leader among leaders, not a dictator without followers. They want America to regain its sanity. They want America to have a leader who is a visionary, not a leader who has visions. They want to trust America again. It will take an incredibly intense effort to restore the goodwill towards America—inherited and squandered by Bush—that existed before and following the 9/11 attacks. Bush and his Confederate Party have repeatedly proven themselves intellectually and morally incapable of doing this.

CHAPTER 19 — OUT OF THE WILDERNESS – THREE PLANS

393

I. Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”—Moshe Dayan (1915-1981) 1. Immediately withdraw from Iraq.139 140 • Declare victory for America’s troops, who removed Saddam’s regime from power, destroyed Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs, and carried out every order. • Declare defeat for Bush, the rubberstamping GOP and the neocons, who lied to America, America’s troops and the world. • Immediately withdraw all American forces from Iraq.141 • Immediately also withdraw from Iraq all of America’s private mercenary armies, an action which is as important as withdrawing America’s troops. • If necessary, be prepared to be part of a UN or NATO force imposing a nofly zone in Northern Iraq to protect Iraq’s Kurds. • Immediately stop the construction of the huge American “embassy” complex—21 buildings on 104 acres—in the Green Zone in Baghdad, which is many times larger and more expensive than any other embassy in the world and has so inflamed Iraqis.142 2. Bury the imperial plans of the Bush League neocons, especially The Project for the New American Century. • Repudiate the neocon dream of a puppet regime in Iraq, a permanent platform from which the neocons intended, and still intend, to exert imperial military and economic power throughout the oil-rich Middle East.

139

See Chapter 5 for a list of ten reasons why the United States must immediately withdraw from Iraq. 140 The second-best alternative to withdrawal is for the United States to request immediately an Iraqi referendum in which the citizens of Iraq would democratically decide the fate of the foreign occupation, including its scale and duration, and including the opportunity to set a firm date for complete military withdrawal by the United States and its Bush League partners. Although the ideal time for this referendum (2003 or 2004) has long since passed, it could still— for the first time since the 2003 invasion—show right intentions and improve America’s shattered credibility. 141 Assuming the United States retains an embassy in Baghdad and normal diplomatic and intergovernmental relations with Iraq, the United States would, of course, retain in Iraq appropriate security forces for its embassy and other personnel, on a scale consistent with its security policies governing the protection of its diplomats and other personnel elsewhere in the world. 142 The complex is more an imperial citadel than an embassy. Designed by the heartless and mindless for the GOP’s Pirates of the Citadel, it is totally inappropriate for an America that wants to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. During the construction of the complex, the American embassy was located on a temporary basis in Saddam’s Republican Palace. It thus may be fitting to name the new embassy complex the Republican’s Republican Palace.


394 •

• •

Repudiate the neocon plan to have up to 14 permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.143 Do not enter into treaties to occupy bases in any nation in the Middle East without the overwhelming approval of the people of the host nation in each case. Immediately shut down the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons. Immediately disband the Bush League of Nations, the so-called Coalition of the Willing in Iraq. The few remaining “members”—who for all practical purposes have already “cut and run”—will gratefully make their own decisions as to withdrawal of their remaining token forces.144

3. Win in Afghanistan—At Least Try • Strategically re-deploy up to 25,000 additional American troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, doubling the U.S. military presence there, but only if: • the American troops in Afghanistan are under UN or NATO command; • the total number of American troops does not constitute more than one-third of the total international forces in Afghanistan under UN or NATO command; • the deployment is requested by the Afghani government and approved by a supermajority of Afghanistan’s citizens; and • the deployment is part of a comprehensive development-focused peace plan for Afghanistan and the region approved by Afghanistan and all concerned parties. • The overriding principles are that: • Afghanistan, purportedly a sovereign nation, must determine its own future; and • the United Nations and NATO are the best bodies to lead international peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. • Strategically re-deploy some troops to nearby locations, principally Kuwait and Qatar, consistent with the advice of America’s senior military leaders. • Greatly reduce America’s military footprint in the Middle East. • The majority of the 160,000 troops in Iraq would return home. 4. Work with Iraq, the United Nations, the Arab League, Iraq’s neighbors (including the non-Arab nations of Iran and Turkey) and other interested parties, to try to create an International Peacekeeping Force (IPF) in Iraq that would replace the Bush League of Nations.

143

Even Bush family mouthpiece James Baker recognizes that these bases are counterproductive to America’s interests. “Any appearance of a permanent occupation will both undermine domestic support here in the United States and play directly into the hands of those in the Middle East who — however wrongly — suspect us of imperial design,” Baker says. 144 Even Bush’s staunchest ally, Great Britain (previously led by Tony Blair, the other “half” of the Bush/Blair Axis of Feeble), had already cut and run by withdrawing more than 80% of its forces by 2007, with more withdrawals planned.

CHAPTER 19 — OUT OF THE WILDERNESS – THREE PLANS • • •

• •

•

395

Recognize that creating a viable IPF in Iraq will be difficult at best, perhaps impossible. The IPF should be under UN command if possible, but definitely not under U.S. command. Offer to pay up to 50% of the IPF’s costs over a period of ten years, but only if the IPF is requested and approved by the Iraqi government and approved by: (a) a supermajority vote of Iraq’s population, and (b) a majority vote of each of Iraq’s three major constituencies: Sunnis, Shia and Kurds. In any case, America’s withdrawal from Iraq is not contingent on the IPF being approved or put in place. If a viable sufficiently muscular IPF is not created—which is likely if too many nations decide not to help clean up Bush’s and the GOP’s mess—then the United States is not obligated to make any payments. A limited number of American troops could serve in the IPF in Iraq, provided: • they are under UN command, not U.S. command; and • the American forces do not constitute more than 10% of the total UN blue helmet force. The overriding principles are that: • the United Nations is the proper and best authority to run the peacekeeping efforts; and • Iraq, purportedly a sovereign nation, must determine its own future, including deciding whether it wants an IPF in Iraq.

5. Working primarily with the United Nations, the Arab League and Iraq’s neighbors, encourage the Iraqi government to come to a national agreement of reconciliation that recognizes minority rights, provides for power sharing with minority populations in order to mitigate the tyranny of the majority, and provides for the sharing of Iraq’s oil revenues on the basis of population or some other acceptable basis. • Recognize that under no scenario is it possible or desirable for the United States to control the outcome, and that continued Bush League mucking only worsens all possible scenarios, all of which are ugly. Ultimately it is up to the Iraqi people to make the necessary compromises and reach an agreement of reconciliation. • Stop the Bush League hypocrisy of mouthing platitudes about Iraqi “freedom” and “democracy”—intended for gullible consumption in America but counterproductive in Iraq—while at the same time manipulating and dictating results in Iraq. Stop the lying. 6. Repentance and Reparations • The United States should immediately apologize to the United Nations and NATO for America’s Bush League policies regarding Iraq and those two organizations. The apology should include the total repudiation of all neocon imperial goals.


396 • •

• • •

•

• •

•

The United States should thank the United Nations for its vote following 9/11 to support U.S. military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It should request even more support for Afghanistan. The United States should thank NATO for its unwavering support following 9/11, including invoking Article 5 of the NATO Treaty to treat 9/11 as an attack against each and every NATO member. It should thank NATO for its work in Afghanistan and request even more support for that nation. Bush should personally apologize and repent. The United States should immediately acknowledge the mistakes that were made in its name, and apologize to the Iraqi people. The United States should pay up to $1 billion per month—which is much less than 10% of what the Bush regime squanders in Iraq—through the United Nations for the security and reconstruction of Iraq, provided these funds are matched, dollar-for-dollar, by other nations. The United Nations and the Iraqi government would jointly manage the reconstruction efforts, with U.S. firms receiving no preferential treatment. The Bush League policy of awarding no-bid and no-audit contracts to rightwing politically connected war profiteers like Halliburton would end. The reconstruction plans would be subject to the approval of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. If a particular Iraqi province fails to approve the plan by a majority vote, then that province would not participate in the plan and would receive no U.S. funds. Iraq should be empowered and encouraged to set policies that maximize the creation of jobs for Iraqis, not foreign contractors who are paid a multiple of the market rate for Iraqis. The United States must establish a U.S. commission independent of the White House and Congress, but with congressional oversight, to work with the United Nations to ensure that comprehensive accounting and auditing controls are established. Its principal goal would be to eliminate the fraud, profiteering and mismanagement that are the hallmark of GOP and Bush League efforts in Iraq to date. The United States would retain comprehensive accounting and auditing authority regarding U.S. funds. With proper controls, the corruption in the UN and Iraqi managed programs would be only a small fraction of the corruption under GOP and Bush League mismanagement. The United States should immediately cancel all debts owed it by Iraq.

7. Impeach Bush and Cheney. (See Appendix A, “A Doubleheader: Impeach Bush and Cheney Now.”) 8. Immediately after they leave office—whether or not impeachment is successful— Bush and Cheney should be arrested, indicted and tried for their war crimes and other criminal acts.

CHAPTER 19 — OUT OF THE WILDERNESS – THREE PLANS

397

II. Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man or one party or one nation. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”—Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) 1. The United States must respect the rule of law, both U.S. law and international law, and abide by its treaty obligations. • The United States must unequivocally endorse the just war principles. • The United States must unequivocally repudiate torture and endorse the Geneva Conventions regarding torture. This clear unequivocal statement must come straight from Congress and the president. • The United States must repeal the 2006 U.S. Military Commissions Act. • The United States must immediately join the International Criminal Court. • The United States must support and accept the jurisdiction of the World Court. • The United States must support and stop undermining the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). Specifically, America must: (1) begin working effectively again with Russia to safeguard and destroy Russia’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons and nuclear material; (2) stop testing and developing “better” nukes; (3) stop undermining the NPT by unilaterally and illegally cutting separate deals with nations such as India, and by ignoring the obligation of the United States and the other nuclear powers to work together to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles of nuclear weapons; (4) stop acting as the world’s number one nuclear proliferator; and (5) immediately and dramatically cut America’s stockpile of nukes to a number that still ensures unquestioned American deterrence. 2. America must rejoin the world community as a leader, not a dictator. • America must reject the illegal, immoral and counterproductive Bush Doctrine of “preemptive intervention,” which gives America the right to attack any nation and kill its citizens anytime it wishes, without just cause and without a congressional declaration of war. This rejection will: (a) help restore America’s moral position in the world; (b) help restore a proper constitutional balance of power between America’s legislative and executive branches; and (c) not diminish America’s right of self defense under international law. • America must abandon and completely repudiate forever all of the neocons’ imperial goals, which have their noxious roots in The Project for the New American Century. • Recognizing that force multiplication results from friends and allies willingly working together to attain shared objectives, America must make major league efforts to rebuild bridges with its friends and allies. • America must follow the Five Pillars of a Strong Coalition proposed in this book. • America must dump the “war on terrorism” slogan that means nothing and justifies everything. Rather than relying on slogans to drive and defend U.S.


398

•

military policy, America must define each of its military initiatives with specificity as to target, objective and justification. It must stop the use of partisan slogans masquerading as policy. America must join and lead the world community in addressing global warming. The best first step is for America to sign and embrace the Kyoto Protocol, which has been signed by more than 160 nations.

3. America must support and help lead international peace efforts. • America must stop bashing—and once again support, improve and lead— key world organizations, including the United Nations and NATO. • America must endorse, support and help expand the UN’s role as the world’s preeminent vehicle to resolve international crises. • America should pay up to an additional $1 billion per year to strengthen the UN’s peacekeeping missions, provided these funds are matched, dollar-fordollar, in additional funds by other nations. • America must abrogate its ineffective counterproductive Bush League role as the world’s self-appointed cop, and help the United Nations meet its charter obligations to maintain peace. In doing so, the United States will be able to dramatically strengthen its military at the same time it reduces its military spending. • America must end the Bush League bashing and misuse of neutral international assistance organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders). 4. America must engage the world community in nation building, with the goal of justice and freedom for all the citizens of each nation, not just the freedom of ruling elites and multinational corporations to have their way. • America should greatly expand the humanitarian capabilities and capacity of its military. This would include an expanded fleet of hospital ships, search and rescue teams, and quick response teams, which could act immediately in the event of major natural disaster anywhere in the world. • A Tithe For Peace: By 2012 America should devote an amount equal to 10% of its annual defense budget to worldwide peaceful initiatives and organizations such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Peace Corps, a permanent “Marshall Plan” for third world countries, anti-HIV/AIDS programs for sub-Saharan Africa, and UN assistance organizations. • Making the United States Number One: By 2012 America should achieve the intermediate goal of making America the number one nation in the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to international nonmilitary aid.145

145

As of 2004 the United States was dead last among the developed nations, spending less than 0.15% of its gross domestic product on such aid.

CHAPTER 19 — OUT OF THE WILDERNESS – THREE PLANS • •

399

America must use consistent verifiable metrics to measure the effectiveness of its nonmilitary humanitarian assistance, and the assistance programs must be free of religious and racial bias. America must adopt a human rights scorecard that tracks freedom, justice and human rights. This human rights scorecard would replace Bush’s and the GOP’s corporate rights scorecard that measures only the freedom of corporate cronies and Big Business to have their way in the world, to the detriment of the least, the last, and the lost.146

5. Israel and Palestine. • America should ask and empower Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to represent America in an international effort to restart a peace process involving Israel, the Palestinians and their neighbors, with the goal of a permanent lasting peace mutually agreeable to the nations of Israel and Palestine. 6. Impeach Bush and Cheney. (See Appendix A, “A Doubleheader: Impeach Bush and Cheney Now.”) 7. Immediately after they leave office—whether or not impeachment is successful— Bush and Cheney should be arrested, indicted and tried for their war crimes and other criminal acts.

III. A 6-Point Plan to Support America’s Troops “The Bush regime has no respect for America’s foot soldiers. Why should it care for the footless ones?”—Jim Swanson 1. The best way for America to support its troops is to adopt the two plans set forth above: • Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan • Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan 2. America must support its veterans as well as its active forces, together with their families. • America must greatly increase education and job training support for its veterans. • America must reverse Bush’s and the GOP’s budget cuts for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). • America should pay $1 million to the family of each American soldier who dies in Bush’s wars. The total amount so paid for all American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 through 2007 would be about $4 billion, which is much less than the amount Bush spends in two weeks in Iraq.

146

The Bush administration and the GOP avoid using the term “human rights” because it refers to the rights of humans, preferring instead in Orwellian fashion to use the more ambiguous word “liberty,” which in Bushspeak connotes the liberty of huge corporations to pillage and profit without restraint.


400 • •

When the cause is just and our troops are sent into harm’s way, the American people must demand that the commander in chief have a viable plan and the troops have everything they need to achieve the mission. America must kill or capture bin Laden, the criminal who was 100% responsible for 9/11 (compared to zero percent responsibility for Saddam or any other Iraqi, whether dead or alive.)

3. America must never again fight a war to gain domestic political advantage, or for the privileged, the chosen few and the president’s political base. • When America goes to war, everyone, including the rich, must share the sacrifice, and the president must specify how it is shared. • America must restore accountability and auditing to government military contracting, and stop putting the interests of war profiteers ahead of our troops. • The rationale for war must be overwhelmingly clear and based on facts, analysis and broad public debate, not partisan politics. The lying must stop. • There must be comprehensive investigation of all aspects of the war in Iraq, including any and all malfeasance of the Bush administration, both in the run-up to the war and in the conduct of the war, and including government contracting. 4. America must restore integrity and accountability to the U.S. military chain of command. • America must renounce the shifting of blame for Abu Ghraib and other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to low-level scapegoats in America’s military, and must establish and empower independent investigations that lead to accountability and punishment as high in the chain of command as warranted, which in the case of Abu Ghraib is very high. • America must discipline its military leaders and other personnel who jeopardize America’s foreign policy interests and the lives of America’s troops by carrying a Crusader banner against other religions. America must eradicate the bullying rightwing evangelism at the Air Force Academy and elsewhere in America’s military. • America must greatly reduce or eliminate the use of mercenaries to fight America’s wars, since they are not employees of the United States, are not directly in the U.S. military chain of command, and are not subject to the rules of engagement and Code of Conduct that apply to America’s armed forces. 5. Impeach Bush and Cheney. (See Appendix A, “A Doubleheader: Impeach Bush and Cheney Now.”) 6. Immediately after they leave office—whether or not impeachment is successful— Bush and Cheney should be arrested, indicted and tried for their war crimes and other criminal acts.

APPENDIX A

A Doubleheader: Impeach Bush and Cheney Now The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crises, maintain their neutrality. —Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy Although impeachment is a remedy generally not favored by most Americans, never in America’s history has there been a more compelling case for impeachment than during the reign of George Bush and Dick Cheney. The U.S. House of Representatives must immediately start the impeachment process against Bush and Cheney by conducting full and public investigations of their crimes and misdeeds. America’s founding fathers created the constitutional remedy of impeachment for exactly the type of situation in which America finds itself. Our founding fathers may well be turning over in their graves, distressed that the impeachment process against Bush and Cheney was not started long ago. Impeachment is not a harsh remedy, especially given the circumstances. Bush and Cheney will simply be removed from office, taking their incompetence and corruption with them. They will not be tortured. They will serve no time in prison. There will be no probation. They will pay no fines. They will not be required to perform public service or make restitution to any of their many victims. They will retain all their cushy retirement benefits including medical care and generous pensions. They will be free to make millions of dollars hitting the circuit of their loyal cronies and supporters. They will simply be fired from their jobs. Although the criminal rap sheet for Bush and Cheney is long and grim, these two criminals will never pay for their crimes, and their countless victims, both past and future, can never be made whole. Although impeachment is but a token payment for those victims, it is an incredibly important action that must be taken. The purpose of this impeachment is not to punish Bush and Cheney, but to restore America’s democracy and moral standing in the world. The case for impeachment is overwhelming, even though the GOP-controlled House of Representatives and Senate steadfastly ignored their oversight obligations under the U.S. Constitution, impeding and stonewalling any serious investigation of the misdeeds of Bush and Cheney. Thus the full extent of their culpability is not yet known, and much may never be known.

402


The Bush White House is a huge infected elephant that has not had medical care or a bowel movement in several years. It will take a long time to clean out all the disease and crap, and much of the stench will linger forever. Even in the unlikely case that what is known is not the tip of a much larger iceberg of corruption and malfeasance, that which is already known is so compelling that anything short of impeachment jeopardizes America’s democracy and its constitutional form of government. Serious constitutional investigations became possible only when the 2006 midterm elections in November 2006 broke the GOP’s death grip on Congress and America’s democracy. Many of the same Republicans who supported and lusted for the impeachment of Clinton for lying about pre-sex with Monica Lewinsky refused to take any action with regards to Bush and Cheney, whose lies, crimes and misdeeds are at least one thousand times worse than Clinton’s, and, in sharp contrast to Clinton’s, cost countless lives and diminished America’s democracy and security. For good reason the American public never supported the GOP’s politically motivated impeachment of Clinton. In contrast, a growing majority of Americans supports the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the number continues to rise as additional evidence of their malfeasance comes to light. An October/November 2005 poll by Zogby International, a well-respected nonpartisan polling company that was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, found that a majority (53%) of Americans favored the impeachment of Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq. (He did lie, and he continues to lie). The 53% agreed with the statement: “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.” Two years later, an increasing majority of Americans believed, correctly, that Bush and Cheney lied about the reasons for their war on Iraq. Of course, lying about the Iraq war is only one of several justifications for impeaching Bush and Cheney, and a growing majority of Americans favor impeaching Bush and Cheney for some or all of these other reasons. Here in abbreviated form is a list of charges (further discussed below) that should be included in formal Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney: • the warrantless surveillance and wiretapping of American citizens; • authorizing torture, rendition, war crimes, and the creation of a Soviet-style gulag of illegal secret prisons in several countries; • invading and occupying Iraq in violation of international and U.S. law, and misleading and lying to Congress, America’s allies and the American people about the reasons for this illegal and counterproductive war; • incompetence, negligence and recklessness rising to the level of impeachable misconduct relating to: (1) the just but unfinished war in Afghanistan; (2) the unjust war in Iraq; (3) the feeble efforts to punish bin Laden and others responsible for 9/11; and, possibly, (4) the events leading up to 9/11; • illegally leaking classified information for partisan political purposes; • the outing of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame in retaliation against her husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson;

APPENDIX A — A DOUBLEHEADER: IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW 403 • •

•

• • • •

authorizing or permitting relatives of bin Laden to flee the United States shortly after 9/11, and obstructing justice, and conspiring to obstruct justice, regarding investigations of the events leading up to 9/11; disregard and contempt for the U.S. Constitution, the Congress, the constitutional separation of powers, the rule of law, and their oaths of office, including the novel assertion and unprecedented seizing of unconstitutional executive powers, and the willful violation of U.S. law, international law, and U.S. treaty obligations; NOTE: We leave room below for the reader to insert his or her favorite impeachable offenses of Bush and Cheney, and any additional impeachable offenses that, after the publication of this book, see the light of day thanks to whistleblowers within the Bush administration and other patriots who have the courage to step forward and tell the truth about America’s worst president, worst vice president, and most corrupt administration ever: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________

Impeachment Procedure Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution also broadly sets forth the procedural framework for the impeachment proceeding. Here’s a summary: 1) The House Judiciary Committee first decides whether there should be an impeachment inquiry. If the Judiciary Committee wishes to proceed, it passes a committee resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry. 2) The entire House debates the Judiciary Committee request and, if it wishes the inquiry to go forward, it adopts a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to proceed with the inquiry. This requires a majority vote of the entire House. 3) The House Judiciary Committee then conducts a formal impeachment inquiry by gathering evidence, conducting hearings, calling witnesses, and so forth, as it deems appropriate. At the end of its inquiry it prepares Articles of Impeachment, which are subject to a majority vote of the committee, and forwards them to the entire House. 4) The entire House then debates the Articles of Impeachment and passes or rejects each Article of Impeachment by majority vote. 5) If one or more Articles of Impeachment are approved, the president is technically said to be “impeached,” and the proceeding moves to the Senate for trial. 6) Based on the Articles of Impeachment received from the House, the Senate conducts an impeachment trial, with all 100 senators serving as the jury and

404


the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The senators meet in private session to debate their verdict, and they then vote in open session on their verdict. A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required for conviction and removal from office. 7) Under the chain of succession determined by the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, the vice president automatically becomes president when the president is removed. Since the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments, the accused has no right of appeal to any federal court. Technically, the term “impeachment” is quite narrow and refers only to the House of Representatives passing, by majority vote, one or more Articles of Impeachment, regardless of the outcome of any subsequent trial in the Senate. As noted above, by adopting Articles of Impeachment, the House is said to have “impeached” the president. This is somewhat analogous to being indicted for a crime, and a trial in the Senate is still required. However, the term “impeachment” is most commonly used in a much broader sense to describe the entire process starting with the impeachment inquiry initiated and conducted by the House of Representatives and ending with an impeachment trial in the Senate. We use the term in this broader sense in this book. More detailed impeachment charges are set forth in the Articles of Impeachment below:

Articles of Impeachment [NOTE: The Articles of Impeachment set forth below charge only George W. Bush. Similar Articles of Impeachment apply to Dick Cheney and should be prosecuted at the same time.] In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has: • participated in a conspiracy directed from the Bush White House to lie to and mislead the U.S. Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq, including misleading statements and lies about Iraq’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability, the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), connections between 9/11 and Iraq, connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, and the imminent threat of Iraq to the United States and other nations. • waged war on Iraq in violation of U.S. law and international law, including the United Nations charter, and in violation of Congress’ authority to determine the necessity of war, by means of lying to Congress about the reasons for war, including making false statements to Congress in violation of the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, the violation of which is a felony, which false statements include the president’s formal written letter and report dated March 18, 2003, that he submitted to Congress, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by Congress in October 2002.

APPENDIX A — A DOUBLEHEADER: IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW 405 •

•

•

•

•

• •

147

incompetently, negligently and recklessly engaged in misconduct so extreme that it rises to the level of criminal and impeachable misconduct, relating to: 1) the planning and conduct of the just but unfinished war in Afghanistan; 2) the planning and conduct of his unjust war in Iraq; 3) the feeble efforts to punish bin Laden and others responsible for 9/11; and 4) the events leading up to 9/11. authorized, sanctioned, and engaged in conspiracy and cover-up regarding war crimes, torture, rendition (including sending people overseas to be tortured), and the creation of a Soviet-style gulag of illegal secret prisons in several countries, in violation of U.S. law including the War Crimes Act of 1996 (which provides for punishments including the death penalty), and international law including the Geneva Conventions and international treaties. At a minimum, he sanctioned torture and other unlawful conduct, conspired to protect abusers from prosecution, and allowed torture and other unlawful conduct to continue. repeatedly violated, and continues to violate, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and other constitutional protections of American citizens, by directing the National Security Agency and other executive personnel to conduct illegal electronic surveillance or other illegal investigations of American citizens without a court order.147 obstructed justice, and conspired to obstruct justice, regarding the preceding charge, by repeatedly lying to the American people and Congress about his violations of FISA and the Constitution, including violations of the constitutional rights of American citizens under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits searches and seizures without judicial warrants based on probable cause. obstructed justice, and conspired to obstruct justice, by opposing, and failing to fully cooperate with, investigations into the events leading up to 9/11, and by authorizing, or failing to prevent, the flight of relatives of bin Laden from the United States shortly after 9/11. illegally leaked classified information for partisan political purposes. violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which protects the identity of undercover intelligence agents, in authorizing the outing of

Thousands of telephone calls by American citizens were illegally monitored without court order, and the full truth will never be known without a full investigation. Conducting wiretaps (also known as “electronic surveillance”) without a court order was a central charge in the articles of impeachment brought against Richard Nixon in 1974, and the illegal wiretaps by Nixon led not only to his resignation but also to the passage of FISA in 1978, the violation of which is a felony.

406


Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative, and/or engaging in a conspiracy to cover up the same. • fashioned out of thin air and claimed the novel dictatorial power of the president at any time to openly or secretly imprison American citizens whom he alone determines or simply asserts may be a threat to America, without any right of the seized to have legal representation or any other due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution. Under the dictatorial powers claimed by Bush, American citizens can be arrested at any time, and simply disappear into a Bush-styled gulag without a trace for the rest of their lives, without being informed of the charges against them, and without any notification of their families. • claimed the novel power as commander in chief to violate the new antitorture law passed by Congress in 2005. • disregarded and showed contempt for, and continues to disregard and show contempt for, the Constitution, the Congress, the constitutional separation of powers, the rule of law, and his presidential oath of office, and engaged in the willful systematic abuse of his executive powers, including the novel assertion and unprecedented seizing of unconstitutional executive powers, and the willful systematic violation of both U.S. law and international law, including the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and treaty obligations. • subverted, and continues to subvert, America’s democracy by claiming that executive privilege and national security place him above the law and give him not only the power to do virtually anything he wishes, whether or not legal and whether or not constitutional, but also the power to keep his actions secret from both the American people and Congress. In all of this, George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Bush and Cheney threaten America’s Constitution and its democracy. Their claim to unbridled power echoes that of disgraced Richard Nixon, who in 1977 infamously asserted, “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Impeach Bush and Cheney now!

Index 60 Minutes, 323, 358 700 Club, 209 AARP sellout of Medicare, 248–49 Abbas, Mahmoud, 182 Abbasid Caliph, 140 ABC, 122, 189, 333, 334, 336, 349 Abdullah, King, 106 Abizaid, John, 82, 139 abortion, 170, 178, 189, 229 Abramoff scandals. See Abramoff, Jack Abramoff, Jack, 159, 366, 367, 370, 371, 373 Abrams, Elliott, 11, 86, 301 Abu Ghraib, 110, 136, 154, 299, 307, 327, 329, 339, 381, 394, 400 Accenture, 362 Advertising.com, 336 Afghanistan, v, 5, 6, 9, 22, 23, 39, 41–49, 57, 60, 61, 79, 83, 85, 95, 113, 116, 124, 129, 163, 227, 281, 300, 301, 317, 326, 391, 399, 402, 405 and 8-Point Plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, 393–96 coalition deaths by year in, 44 Iran's offer to fight with U.S. in, 47–48 opium production in, 42–43 Special Forces removed from, 44 Africa, 108, 188, 351, 353, 355 AfterDowningStreet.org, 402 Age of Endarkenment, 175 Age of Enlightenment, 175 Agency for International Development, U.S. (USAID), 398 Agnew, Spiro, 6, 321 agnostics, 212 Agustsson, Helgi, 137 AIDS, 150, 188, 189, 398 Air America Radio, 338, 343 Air Force Academy, 400 Air Force, U.S., 79 Al Ghavraf oil fields, 138 al Qaeda, 5, 7, 31, 41, 42, 41–44, 58, 85, 106, 119, 132, 145, 182, 315, 318, 342, 347, 348, 391, 396, 404 Al-Aksa Mosque, 208 Alaska, 283, 291, 292–93, 373 Albania, 113, 124

Albright, Madeleine, 334 Alcoa, 237 Alcott, Amos Bronson, 265 Alexander Strategy Group, 159 Algeria, 107 Al-Haram al-Sharif, 208 Alice in Wonderland, 270, 369 Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), 308 aliens, 252 Alito, Samuel, 306 Allah, 68, 179, 288 Allawi, Ayad, 54, 74 Allen, Bob, 373 American Civil War, 217, 218, 359 American Enterprise Institute, 291, 332, 356 American exceptionalism, 69, 300 American Forces Network, 215, 341, 342 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), 66 American Petroleum Institute, 291 American Red Cross, 345 American Revolutionary War, 34, 43, 72, 109, 217 American Spectator, 350 amillennialism, 197, 199 Amin, Idi, 150 Amman, 80 Amnesty International, 110, 152 Anbar province, 80 Angola, 108, 125, 135 Antarctica, 61, 108 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 51 Anti-Christ, 195, 198, 199 Antideficiency Act, 245 anti-Semitism, 65, 207 Anzar, Jose Maria, 145 AOL, 335 Apocalypse, 205 Four Horsemen of the, 60 Apostles, 205 Arab League, 78, 394, 395 Arabic, 44, 192, 302 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), 292 Are We Living in the End Times? (LaHaye & Jenkins), 201

408 Argentina, 278 Arizona, 372 Arkansas, 368 Armageddon, vii, 5, 68, 96, 147, 168, 177, 195, 198–200, 240, 270 Armed Forces Radio. See American Forces Network Armenia, 113, 126, 128 Armenian Christians, 148 Armitage, Richard, 11, 31, 351, 352 Army, U.S., 156, 160 Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney, 404–6 Ashcroft, John, 31, 202, 351, 369 Assad, Hafez al-, 107 Assyrian Christians in Iraq, 79 asymmetrical warfare, 75 At the Center of the Storm (Tenet), 317, 320 atheists, 196, 212 Athens, Greece, 123 Atlanta Braves, 336 Attorneys, U.S.. See U.S. Attorneys Australia, 92, 100, 110, 126, 140, 247, 339, 340 Austria, iii, 152 Axis of Evil, 19, 37, 44, 47, 57, 144 Axis of Feeble, 93, 326, 394 Azerbaijan, 113, 128 Aznar, Jose Maria, 145 Baath Party, 84 de-Baathification, 53, 75, 84 Babil Province, 207 baby boomers, 238, 240 Babylon, 196, 206, 208 Camp Babylon at, 207 Babylonia, Kingdom of, 207 Bagabandi, Natsagiyn, 140 Bagdikian, Ben, 337 Baghdad, 206, 220, 313, 328 and sacking by the Mongols, 140 Bahrain, 106, 152 Baker, James, 394 Baker-Cutler Commission, 35 Bandar bin Sultan. See bin Sultan, Bandar Bangladesh, 102 Bank Millennium (Poland), 142 bank robbers, 185, 278 and Neil Bush, 384, 385 bankruptcy, vii, 84, 226, 240, 248, 251, 379, 385 of America by GOP, 265–94

INDEX Baptists, 171, 187, 213, 215 Barbour, Haley, 244 Barnett, Arnold, 313 Barroso, Durão, 143 Bartlett, Bruce, 248 Bashir, Omar el-, 150 Basque separatists (ETA), 145 Basra, 134, 135 Bates, John, 287 Battle Ready (Zinni, Clancy & Koltz), 85 Bauer, Gary, 175 Bay of Pigs, 374 BDO Seidman, 286 Bearden, Milt, 354 Beatitudes, 177 Bechtel, 52, 379 Beck, Glenn, 340 bedwetting conservatives, 20, 56, 311, 312 Beijing, 146 Beirut bombing, 151 and Reagan's 9/11, 16 Belgium, 152 Berezovsky, Boris, 387 Berger, Oscar, 135 Berlusconi, Silvio, 137, 355 Bertelsmann, 335, 337 Best Democracy Money Can Buy (Palast), 362 Bible, 175, 181, 185, 193, 197, 206, 209, 372 and Holy Bible vs. Holey Bible, 178, 213, 316 and repentance, 328 Eighth Commandment of, 213 prophets of the, 185 Bible Belt, 219 Big Four accounting firms, 285 Big Pharma, 244–48 Bill of Rights, 10, 212, 219, 298, 303 bin Laden, Osama, iv, 7, 8, 12, 16, 22, 32, 41, 42, 49, 58, 60, 68, 70, 106, 108, 193, 225, 254, 300, 333, 383, 391, 392, 400, 402, 403, 405 and comparison with Bush, 190–93 and no connections to Saddam, 58–61 post-9/11 evacuation of relatives of, 71 bin Sultan, Bandar, 323 birth tax, 278 black box voting, 361 Black Nobility, 169 Black Sea, 128, 143

INDEX Black Watch soldiers (Britain), 134 Black, J. Cofer, 7, 8 Blackwater, 55, 78, 154, 158–59, 162 and its Fiasco in Fallujah, 155, 154–55 as the "whores of war", 159 Blackwater (Scahill), 158 Blackwell, Kenneth, 359, 360 Blaine, Rick, 59, 71, 128, 338, 350 Blair, Tony, 64, 93, 96, 106, 114, 116, 123, 132, 145, 326, 329, 394 Blankenburg, Dan, 371 Blix, Hans, 59 Bob Jones University, 201 Boeing, 312 Bolton, John, 11, 301 Bondevik, Kjell Magne, 141 Bonn Agreement, 41 Bosnia & Herzegovina, 113, 128, 326 cost of peacekeeping in, 48 Boston Globe, 376 Bowen, Debra, 361 Bowen, Jr., Stuart, 379, 380, 382 Boykin, William, 194 Brahimi, Lakhdar, 21 Brandel, Jan, 287 Brazil, 102 Bremer, Paul, 6, 21, 53, 54, 55, 74, 79, 150, 157, 375, 378 100 Orders of, 52–55, 84 Briody, Dan, 383 Britain. See Great Britain British Army, 64 British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC), 362 British Museum, 207 Brock, David, 350 Brokeback Mountain, 191 Brokeback Mountain II, 193 Brolan, James, 334 Brown, Bob, 127 Brown, Gordon, 134 Bubble of American Supremacy (Soros), 19 Buchanan, Pat, 65, 108 Buddhism, 195 Buffalo, New York, 304 Buffet, Warren, 236 Buffoon in a Bubble, 137 Bulgaria, 100, 110, 114, 124, 128, 135 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 280 Bush administration, 65 allowing genocide in Darfur, 98–99 and billions in cash missing, 375

409 and bin Laden’s clan leaving U.S., 9, 70 and GOP corruption in Iraq, 378–84 and illegal wiretaps, 298, 303–5 and lack of personal sacrifice, 325–26 and Niger forgeries, 354–58 and obstructing the ICC, 299–300 and outing of agent Plame, 351–53 and selling out the Kurds, 149 and slow response to 9/11, 44 and the pottery barn rule, 121 and the Vilnius Group, 125 and U.S. Attorneys scandal, 367–70 as wrong role model for Iraq, 78 denial of responsibility by, 327–30 disrespect of NATO by, 116–17 energy policies of, 286–94 environmental policies of, 286–94 going AWOL in Afghanistan, 47 groupthink by, 5, 59, 85, 327 immoral budgets of, 173–74 neocons in, 11 Office of Drug Control Policy in, 43 patronage system of, 381 war crimes of, 297–302 Bush family motto, 214, 387 Bush League of Nations, i, iii, v, vi, vii, 10, 28, 58, 69, 82, 85, 91–98, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 182, 192, 194, 220, 225, 226, 253, 273, 288, 326, 341, 378, 380, 382, 394, See also Coalition of the Willing and 10 reasons why U.S. must withdraw from Iraq, 117–22 and coalition deaths by nation, 114–15 and coalition deaths by quarter, 115– 16 and NATO, 116–17 and troops contributed by country, 110–14 Arab and Muslim opposition to, 106– 10 Gulf War I coalition compared to, 103–6 members of, 123–52 Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance of, 135 other names for, 99–101 propaganda about, 101–3 bush league, definitions of, i Bush, Barbara, 386, 387

410 Bush, George H. W., vii, 10, 18, 42, 48, 103, 109, 110, 147, 148, 208, 217, 254, 268, 321, 323, 351, 352, 383, 386 Bush, George W., 268, 346, 356, 357, 368, 369 and 25 years of college living, 12 and 9/11—his luckiest day, 8 and arming Iraqi insurgents, 254 and banners he carries, vi, vii, 176, 188, 191, 213, 230, 269, 374 and baseball, i and blaming the troops, 329 and Bush Terrorist Decks, 33 and Chalabi, 331–32 and Clear Channel, 343 and comparison with bin Laden, 190– 93 and education—Leave No Rich Child Behind, 252–53 and explosion in national debt, 273–81 and explosion in trade deficits, 282–84 and extraordinary rendition, 307–9 and God, 180–86 and his Five Wrong War on Iraq, 329 and his inability to empathize, 324–25 and ideology over truth and competence, 330–32 and increasing poverty, 258–63 and lack of personal sacrifice, 325–26 and lies about wiretapping, 304–5 and need to repent, 328 and no appetite for nation building, 6 and no interest in foreign affairs, 14 and obstructing 9/11 investigations, 8 and outing of agent Plame, 351–53 and Pioneers/Rangers, 360 and Pseudo Christianity, 192 and signing statements, 306–8 and unemployment in Iraq and America, 253–58 approval rating of, 281 Articles of Impeachment against, 404– 6 as America’s King George III, iv, 34, 97, 114, 217, 303 as America's King George the Mad, 306 as America's Liar in Chief, 304 as the Bubble President, 313 as the Decider, 14, 91, 204, 308, 323 bankruptcy of America by, 265–94

INDEX Bush Family Pass for, 3, 9, 192, 221, 319 Bushisms of, 14 cut-and-run plan of, 55 denial of responsibility by, 327–30 earns grade F in Afghanistan, 51 ended Israeli-Palestinian peace process, 68 entering groupthink chamber, 12, 97 flip flopping in Iraq by, 83–84 impeachment of, 401–6 intellectual detachment of, 319 intellectual laziness of, 323–24 lies of, 237 meeting Saddam in Hell, 220–22 My Pet Goat read by, 3 on a crusade, 4–5 on Mission Accomplished, 23 participating in a conspiracy, 119 personal exit strategy of, 226 personal shortcomings of, 12, 322 poor judgment of, 326–27 preemptive intervention doctrine of, 96, 397 quotes by, 3, 4, 22, 36, 41, 60, 64, 91, 95, 117, 122, 225, 231, 239, 242, 252, 253, 258, 289, 321, 323 squandering historic opportunity, 4 State of the Union address of, 47, 75, 216, 254, 331, 351, 353, 358 tax cuts of, 235 visit to Mongolia by, 141 weak work ethic of, 324 Bush, Jeb, 11, 188, 333, 362, 363 Bush, Laura, 75, 331 Bush, Neil, 384–87 and prostitutes, 386 Bush, Reggie, 108 Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, 387 Bush's poodle. See Blair, Tony Byrd, Robert, 97, 99 CACI International, 381 Caesar, 172 cakewalk in Iraq, iv, 18, 117, 122, 315 Cal State Fullerton, viii California, 247, 287, 345, 360, 366, 370, 371 Calvin College, 189 Calvin, John, 199, 205 Cameroon, 135 Camp Babylon, 207 Camp David, 259

INDEX Campaign For Working Families, 175 Canada, 59, 113, 152, 250 reimportation of prescription drugs from, 247–48 Cannistraro, Vincent, 354 Cardoso, Fernando, 221 Carlyle Group, 154, 383–84 Carnegie Endowment, 59 Carter Center, 187 Carter, Jimmy, 10, 188, 267, 383, 399 should lead Middle East peace process, 66–68 Carter, Rosalynn, 187 Cartoon Network, 335 Casablanca (the movie), 59, 71, 128, 222, 287, 329, 338, 350 Casey, George, 82 Caspian Sea, 61, 128 Castle Rock Entertainment, 336 Castro, Fidel, 188 Catholic Church, 196, 205, 327 Catholics, 179, 180, 200, 201, 213, 374 CBOS governmental polling agency, 142 CBS, 335, 349 CBS News, 71, 332, 334 Census Bureau, 259, 260 CENTCOM, 85 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 56 Center for Strategic International Studies, 82 Central America, 74, 135, 136, 301 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 7, 11, 18, 44, 54, 314, 319, 320, 367, 383, 402, 406 and extraordinary rendition, 307–9 and Niger forgeries, 354–58 and outing of agent Plame, 351–53 and torture in Uzbekistan, 151–52 Chaffee, Lincoln, 273 Chalabi, Ahmed, 53, 62, 77, 84, 136, 331–32 as darling of the neocons, 331–32 Free Iraqi Forces of, 136 Chaldean Catholics in Iraq, 79 Chandrasekaran, Rajiv, 378 Charlton, Paul, 372 Chaudhry, Lakshmi, 315 Chavez, Hugo, 30, 187 Chechnya, 341 Chen, Shui-bian, 146

411 Cheney, Dick, iv, vii, 3, 6, 11, 18, 19, 31, 60, 62, 64, 72, 84, 101, 133, 154, 156, 161, 182, 185, 221, 222, 227, 272, 289, 297, 301, 320, 326, 327, 329, 330, 346, 356, 357, 359, 368, 380 and energy task force, 286–89 and Niger forgeries, 354–58 and outing of agent Plame, 351–53 and picking himself to be VP, 322 Articles of Impeachment against, 404– 6 impeachment of, 401–6 participating in a conspiracy, 119 Cheney, Lynne, 227 Cheney, Mary, 227 Cherokee Indians, 339 Chevron, 289 Chicago Sun-Times, 4 Chicanos, 186 chickenhawks, 33, 56, 311 Chile, 135 China, 6, 36, 37, 44, 48, 102, 140, 277, 293, 298, 299, 385, 386, 392 number of foreign military bases, 57 Christ, 181, 197, 331 Second Coming of, 200 Third Coming of, 200 Christian Broadcasting Company, 214 Christian Coalition of America, 189 Christian Freedom International, 158 Christian Peacemaker Teams, 220 Christian Right. See Religious Right Cimoszewicz, Wlodzimierz, 142 Cinemax, 335 Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics, 372 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 215, 363 civilian contractor. See mercenaries Clancy, Tom, 85 Clark, Wesley, 85 Clarke, Richard, 70 Clear Channel Communications, 341–42 and Minot, North Dakota, 344–46 Clear Skies Initiative, 290 Clinton, Bill, 10, 19, 42, 48, 66, 70, 71, 97, 109, 124, 125, 132, 174, 199, 237, 256, 261, 268, 272, 275, 318, 321, 334, 399, 402 and A+ grade in fiscal trust, 261–63 and declining poverty, 259 and jobs creation, 256 and pre-sex, 261–63 and warning Bush about bin Laden, 7

412 and welfare reform, 66–68 GOP's witch hunt against, 319 rejection of the neocons by, 15 should lead Middle East peace process, 66–68 Clinton, Hillary, 199, 268 CNN, 180, 335, 349, 356, 382 Coalition, 123 Coalition of the Billing, 99 Coalition of the Shilling, 100 Coalition of the Silly, 100, 127 Coalition of the Sinning, 101 Coalition of the Unwilling, 99 Coalition of the UN-willing, 99 Coalition of the Unwilling to be Maimed, 100 Coalition of the Unwilling to be Named, 100 Coalition of the Wanting, 101 Coalition of the Welfare States, 99 Coalition of the Willies, 99 Coalition of the Willing, v, 58, 91, 92, 94, 99–101, 129, 145, 146, 394, See Bush League of Nations Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), 7, 52, 54, 72, 76, 79, 93, 157, 158, 378, 379 100 Orders of, 52–55 Code of Conduct (U.S. Military), 400 Code of Military Justice, 157, 300, 308, 329, 400 cognitive dissonance, 318 Cold War, iv, 18, 19, 29, 30 Collins, Susan, 273, 377 Colonel Sanders, 359 Colorado, 384 Columbia, 129 Commerce Department, 288 Committee of 300, 169 Common Cause, 346 Communist Party, 386 Compassion Capital Fund, 173 compassionate conservative, 99, 217, 335 Comptroller General of the U.S., 279, 280 Compuserve, 336 Confederacy, 207 Confederate Party, 24, 25, 78, 108, 185, 186, 218, 273, 377, 392 Congress, U.S., iv, 8, 12, 13, 15, 33, 37, 55, 60, 63, 65, 68, 75, 79, 119, 156, 157, 158, 159, 173, 174, 189, 208, 225, 227, 232, 238, 241, 242, 244,

INDEX 252, 255, 261, 269, 270, 279, 285, 287, 290, 291, 300, 303, 305, 306, 307, 318, 326, 338, 346, 347, 357, 374, 375, 376, 396, 397, 402, 404, 406, See also specific committees and 109th GOP Congress of Crooks and Creeps, 365–74 and Big Pharma legislation, 244–48 and corruption in Iraq, 378–84 and the K Street Project, 231–32 Congressional Budget Office, 261, 275 Congressional Quarterly, 33, 105 Conrad, Kent, 273 Conservative Party (Canada), 113 conservative, definition of, 265 conservatives. See neocons Constitution, U.S., iv, viii, 34, 52, 77, 81, 178, 184, 205, 212, 219, 226, 227, 270, 281, 297, 298, 302, 319, 324, 329, 357, 363, 367, 401, 404, 406 and Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney, 404–6 and destruction of constitutional democracy by GOP, 374–78 and separation of church and state, 169–76 and torture, 299–300, 307–9 and unitary executive, 305–8 and wiretaps, 298, 303–5 First Amendment of, 173, 343 Fourth Amendment of, 303, 405 impeachment procedure of, 403–4 Nineteenth Amendment of, 218 Twenty-fifth Amendment of, 404 Cooney, Phillip, 176, 291 Coral Ridge Ministries, 214 Corleone, Vito and Michael, 379 corporatism. See fascism Costa Rica, 100, 129 Costco, 256 Council for National Policy, 202 Council on Environmental Quality, 291 CounterPunch, 298 Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit), U.S., 347 COW, the coalition that milks U.S., 99 Craig, Larry, 372, 373 Crawford, Texas, 324 creation science, 175 creationism, 181, 201 crimes against humanity, 297, 299 Croatia, 124, 125, 129 Crocker, Ryan, 63

INDEX Cross, Tim, 135 Cuba. See also Guantanamo Bay number of foreign military bases, 57 Culture of Corruption, 55, 178 culture of death. See culture of life culture of life, 178, 180 Cummins, H.E., 368 Cunningham, Randy, 159, 366, 367 Curveball, 62 Czech Republic, 113, 130 Czechoslovakia, 143 Daily Mail, 64 Daily Mirror, 310 Daily Telegraph, 332 Dallas, 286 Dallas Cowboys, 217 Damascus, 80 Daniel, Book of, 198 Dannatt, Richard, 64, 65 Dante Alighieri, 401 Darby, John, 204 Darfur, 98–99, 300 Darwin, Charles, 181 Das Kapital, 301 David, Kingdom of, 208 Davis, Jefferson, 218 Dayan, Moshe, 393 DC Comics, 336 Dearborn, Michigan, 73 death squads, 74, 81, 120, 130, 136, 301 death tax. See estate tax Debt Reduction Act of 1993, 269 Deck of Cards, 33 Defence Weekly (Jane's), 130 defense contractors, 159, 366, 367 Defense Department, 12, 36, 37, 79, 160, 276, 326, 353, 374 American Forces Network of, 215, 341 inspector general of, 158 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), 354 Defense Policy Board, 86 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 262 deficits, vii, 24, 174, 178, 226, 232, 233, 235, 238, 240, 241, 243, 258, 265–84, 285, 330, 392 DeLay, Tom, 82, 159, 232, 245, 259, 366 Democratic Congress and start of investigations, 374–78 Democratic National Convention, 261 Democratic Party, 215, 217, 265, 340, 374

413 national defense strength of, 316–17 Democrats, 181, 186 Denmark, 100, 110, 130 deregulation, 163, 229, 241, 242, 287, 336, 342, 343 Designated Pagan Driver, 200 Diebold, 360–61 Disney, 333, 335, 337 Dispensationalism, 204 Divine Comedy (Dante), 401 Dixie Chickenhawks, 313 Dixie Chicks, 61, 345, 346 Dobson, James, 158, 172, 196, 215, 341 Dome of the Rock, 208 Domenici, Pete, 369 Dominican Republic, 100, 101, 110, 130, 131, 146 Dominionists, 214 Donahue, Phil, 92 Doolittle, John, 371 Dorgan, Byron, 247, 345, 346 Douglas, Paul, 334 Dow Jones Industrial Average, 202 Dowd, Matthew, 85 Downing Street Memo, 64 Dozier, Kimberly, 334 drinking water, 72, 381 Drumheller, Tyler, 358 Dubai, 160 Dummies for Bush, 324 DynCorp, 154, 379 Dzurinda, Mikulas, 144 earmarks, vii, 174, 367, 376, See also pork earthly people, 204 Eastern Europe, 154 Eastern European Task Force, U.S., 143 Eastern Michigan University, 288 Eastern Orthodox Church, 205 eBay, 79 Ebert, Roger, 4 Economic Policy Institute, 255 Economist, 326, 340 Edgar Bergen and Charley McCarthy, 8 Egypt, 48, 67, 102, 106, 107, 108, 293, 294, 309 Eighth Commandment, 213 Einstein, Albert, 241, 278 Eisenhower, Dwight, 10, 270, 316, 365 Eisner, Michael, 333 El Salvador, 110, 131, 146 electoral fraud, 359–63

414 electricity, 72, 78, 242, 382 Elston, Mike, 368 Emancipation Proclamation, 217 Emanuel, Ari, 333 embassy (U.S.) in Baghdad. See Green Zone End Times, 5, 68, 96, 168, 194, 195–209, 213 Energy Department, 374 energy policies, 286–94 energy task force. See National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) England, 204, See Great Britain Enron, 78, 163, 231, 242, 286, 287 environmental policies, 176, 189, 286–94 environmentalists, 186 Episcopalians, 192 equal time, 336 Eritrea, 108, 131 Ernst & Young, 286 ES&S, 360 eschatology, 68, 195, 203 estate tax, 229, 235, 236, 237, 241, 285 Estonia, 113, 124, 131 Ethiopia, iii, 102, 108, 131 ethnic cleansing, 52, 79, 120, 124, 300, 371 Euphrates River, 155 Europe, 98, 116, 252, 338 European Union, 133, 137, 149 evolution, 169, 175, 181 extraordinary rendition, 151, 309, 307–9, 402, 405 Extreme Religious Right (ERR), 169–70 Exxon, 291 Exxon Valdez, 291 Fahrenheit 9/11 (Moore), 3, 333 faith-based initiatives, 173, 212, 262 Fallujah, 84, 107, 134, 154 False Statements Accountability Act, 404 Falwell, Jerry, 170, 172, 175, 180, 196, 345 families of 9/11 victims, 322 family farms, 236 family valuables, 385, 387 family values, 214, 218, 372, 373, 386, 387 FARC rebel forces, 129 fascism, 69, 137, 167, 297, 330, 386 definition of, 314, 343 Fathers of the Church, 205 Federal Advisory Committee Act, 287

INDEX federal budget deficits. See deficits Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 70, 332, 352, 371, 372, 385 and tracking of GOP crooks, 385 Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 187, 336, 343 media concentration rules of, 346–47 federal debt. See national debt Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 216, 244, 377–78 Federal Reserve Bank, 277, 375 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 280 Feith, Douglas, 72, 86, 320, 357 Fico, Robert, 144 Fielding, Fred, 370 Fiji, 127, 152, 162 Final Judgment, 195, 199 Financial Times, 298 Finland, 152 First Great Awakening, 205 First Temple, 208 FISA Court. See Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) fiscal burden. See Government Accountability Office Fitzgerald, Patrick, 351–52, 357 Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq (Scheer, Scheer & Chaudhry), 315 Five Pillars of a Strong Coalition, 28–29, 41, 397 Five Wrong War, 329 Flight 77, 159 Florida, 214, 288, 333, 359, 362, 370, 373, 379, 387 Focus on the Family, 158, 215 Foggo, Kyle, 367 Foley, Mark, 370 Forbes, 250, 337 Forbes 400 Richest Americans, 257 Forbes, Steve, 11 Ford, Gerald, 10, 267 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 303–5, 405 Foreign Service, 123, 302 Fort Knox, 266 Fortune, 335 Forza Italia, 137 Foster, Richard, 244 Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, 60 fourth estate, 303 Fourth Reich, 297

INDEX Fox News, 11, 23, 103, 334, 339, 340, 343, 347–50 Fox, Tom, 220 France, 11, 16, 102, 109, 110, 152, 186, 214, 298, 317, 331, 356 number of foreign military bases, 57 Francke, Rend Rahim, 79 Franken, Al, 254, 338, 341, 343 Franks, Tommy, 72 Free Iraqi Forces, 136 free speech zones, 324 freebie enterprise system, 261, 380 freedom fries, 116, 149, 366 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 183 French guillotine, 330 Friedman, Thomas, 289 Fritz, Johann, 101 Fukuyama, Francis, 301 fundamentalism, 20, 171, 172, 173, 176, 178, 180, 185, 190 Future of Iraq project, 72 Gabon, 353 Gadsden County (Florida), 362 Gallop poll, 73 Garrido, Augie, viii Gates, Bill, 236 Gates, Sr., Bill, 236 Gaul, 109 gay marriage, 189, 226, 227–28 Gaza, 66, 209, 230 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 298 General Electric, 92, 335, 337 Genesis, Book of, 207 Geneva Conventions, 27, 28, 119, 157, 206, 298, 299, 300, 308, 309, 397, 405, 406 genocide, 52, 81, 98–99, 120, 121, 128, 143, 148, 150, 183, 299, 317 George III, King, 34, 217 George, Boy, 136 Georgia, 110, 131 Germany, iii, 11, 22, 84, 102, 298, 335, 337, 345, 381 Get Smart "cone of silence", 157 Get-Out-of-Jail card, 203 Gibran, Kahlil, 153 Gilded Age, 272 Gimli, 214, 391 Gingrich, Newt, 240, 372 Giraldi, Philip, 354 Giuliani, Rudy, 372

415 GLBT rights, 219, 373 global peak oil. See peak oil global warming, 189, 289, 291 Global/World Corruption Report, 83 GlobeScan, 382 Glorious Appearing (LaHaye & Jenkins), 202 God, vii, 37, 69, 72, 168, 170, 171, 172, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 191, 194, 195, 198, 201, 203, 206, 209, 214, 230, 261, 290, 291, 328, 369, 372, 392 and Bush, 180–86 God Bless America, 69 God Bless France, 69 God Bless Iraq, 69 God's Politics (Wallis), 213 Goering, Herman, 297 Golden Mosque in Samarra, 75 Goldwater, Barry, 171, 270 Goliath, 281 Gonzales, Alberto, 151, 157, 300 and U.S. Attorneys scandal, 367–70 Goodling, Monica, 368, 369 Goodman, Amy, 338 Goodman, Melvin, 354, 356 GOP Crime Rate (Grime Rate), 374 GOP stands for Gang of Pharisees, 179, 196 Gang of Pigs, 232 Gang of Plunderers, 380 Gang Of Porkers, 376 George Orwell Party, 297 Grease Our Palms, 365 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 10, 17, 18 Gore, Al, 71, 234 Government Accountability Office (GAO), 73, 245, 279, 280, 287, 332, 380 Total Burden calculated by, 279–81 Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing, 385, 386 Graham, Billy, 207, 384 Grand Old Party (GOP). See Republican Party (GOP) Graves, Todd, 368 Great Britain, 4, 81, 92, 93, 94, 96, 100, 103, 109, 110, 114, 126, 129, 142, 144, 148, 153, 155, 204, 298, 351, 356, 394 and the Bush League, 132–35 de-surging troop levels of, 134

416 Great Depression, ii, vii, 24, 254, 311, 316 Great Depression II, 24, 226, 240 Great Disappointment, 205 Great Disappointment Redux, 205 great tribulation. See tribulation Greece, 152 Green Berets, 162 Green Party (Australia), 127 Green Zone, 121, 161, 393 Greenspan, Alan, 234, 238, 240 Griffin, Timothy, 368 gross domestic product (GDP), 240, 260, 398 Guantanamo Bay, 44, 154, 307, 309, 394 Guardian, 51, 207 Guatemala, 135 gulag, 37, 154, 307, 402, 405, 406 Gulf Coast, 183 Gulf War I, 42, 58, 85, 103, 106, 109, 126, 129, 147, 148, 162, 352 Gun, Katharine, 135 guns versus butter, 36–39 Gyurcsany, Ferenc, 136 Ha'aretz (Israel), 182 habeas corpus, 212, 308 Habibou, Allele, 355 Habitat For Humanity, 187, 383 Hadley, Stephen, 357 Hagel, Chuck, 15 Haifa, Israel, 198 Haiti, 83, 381 Halliburton, 6, 38, 52, 54, 61, 78, 99, 141, 142, 149, 154, 156, 193, 217, 231, 331, 363, 379, 380, 396 moving to Dubai, 160–61 Hamah (Syria), 107 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 308 Hanging Gardens of Babylon, 207 Hannity, Sean, 340, 341 hard power, soft power and stupid power, 29 Harkin, Tom, 341 Harper, Stephen, 113 Harris Poll, 298, 318 Harris, Katherine, 359, 362 Hartmann, Thom, 338 Hastert, Dennis, 370 Hawaii, 140, 147 HBO, 335 Health and Human Services Department, 245, 246, 263

INDEX health care and health insurance, 249–52 Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), 244, 245 Healthy Forests Initiative, 290 Heaton, William, 366 heavenly people, 204 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 360 Helvenston, Katy, 159 Herbert, Bob, 244 Heritage Foundation, 129, 381 Herod the Great, 208, 217 Hezbollah, 244 Hicks, Tom, 343 high crimes and misdemeanors, 11, 29, 403 Hightower, Jim, 59 Hilla, Iraq, 207 hippies, 204, 205, 227 Hirohito, Emperor, iii Hispanics, 251, 363 Hitler, Adolph, iii, 301, 386 Hoffer, Eric, 179 Hollywood, 186 Holy Ghost, 109, 268, 306 Holy Spirit, 205 Homeland Security Department, 276, 378 Honduras, 100, 101, 110, 131, 136, 146, 301 Hood, Robin, 259 Hoods, Robbing (GOP), 259 Hoover, Herbert, 254, 316 House of bin Laden, 191 House of Bush, 191 House of Bush, House of Saud (Unger), 70, 354 House of Representatives, U.S., 10, 186, 266, 379, 401 Administration Committee of, 366 Appropriations Committee of, 271, 371 Armed Services Committee of, 379 Budget Committee of, 238 Government Reform Committee of, 374 impeachment procedure of, 403–4 Intelligence Committee of, 372 Judiciary Committee of, 368, 403 Oversight and Government Reform Committee of, 160, 291, 379 Speaker of, 372 House of Saud, 191 Houston, 160

INDEX Howard, John, 127 Hughes, Karen, 302 human rights, 20, 48, 101, 110, 119, 150, 152, 155, 157, 208, 212, 272, 307, 308, 338, 399 Human Rights Watch, 110, 152 Hummer, 204, 290 Hungary, 110, 136 Hunter, Joel, 189 Hurricane Katrina, 162, 216, 244, 300, 374, 377–78 Hussein, Saddam, 10, 23, 30, 33, 34, 58– 64, 74, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 87, 106, 109, 119, 120, 129, 130, 131, 132, 136, 139, 148, 150, 180, 182, 192, 222, 225, 254, 285, 314, 315, 318, 330, 332, 340, 342, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 358, 382, 393, 400, 404 and his Republican Guard, 154 and lack of connections to al Qaeda or Taliban, 58–61 meeting Bush in Hell, 220–22 Hydra, 32 icasualties.org, 116 Iceland, 136 Icelandic Defense Force, 137 Idaho, 373 Iglesias, David, 369 Ignite!, 387 Illinois, 247, 359 illuminati, 169 impeachment, iv, viii, 13, 70, 95, 182, 301, 303, 318, 319, 354, 369, 396, 399, 400 and Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney, 404–6 procedure for, 403–4 Imperial Hubris (Scheuer), 44 Imperial Life in the Emerald City (Chandrasekaran), 378 Imposter (Bartlett), 248 improvised explosive devices (IED), 73, 79 India, 70, 102, 293, 397 Indian Ocean tsunami, 38 Indonesia, 102, 107 Ingraham, Laura, 340 integration of the military, 218 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 405 intelligent design, 288 intelligent design voting schemes, 362

417 interest on national debt, 271, 274, 275– 76, 278 Interfaith Alliance, 213 Internal Revenue Code, 231 Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 229, 284, 285, 286 National Research Program of, 284 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 76, 355, 358 International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), 155 International Criminal Court (ICC), 299– 300, 397 international law, ii, 27, 28, 51, 72, 97, 119, 154, 158, 208, 303, 308, 397, 403, 404, 405, 406 International Monetary Fund, 282 International Peacekeeping Force, 45, 394, 395 International Plan, 7-Point, 397–99 International Press Institute, 101 Internet, 335, 337 Iowa, 80 Iran, v, vi, vii, 23, 33, 37, 44, 47, 70, 73, 75, 78, 81, 98, 102, 107, 128, 135, 148, 171, 172, 222, 290, 293, 294, 298, 301, 302, 320, 332, 356, 357, 394 number of foreign military bases, 57 offer to fight Taliban with U.S., 47–48 Iran-Contra Affair, 302, 356 Iraq, iii, 37, 293, 299, 300, 317, 324 100 Orders of Paul Bremer in, 52–55 9/11 equivalents suffered in, 52, 168 and 2004 Olympics soccer match, 143 and 8-Point Plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, 393–96 and GOP corruption, 378–84 anti-American sentiment in, 72 Bush's and GOP’s Five Wrong War on, 329 cakewalk in, iv, 18, 117, 122, 315 Camp Babylon in, 207 Christians fleeing, 172 civil war in, 16, 53, 55, 74, 81, 154 debts outstanding to, 396 failure to secure munitions in, 73 firing of soldiers in, 73 Health Ministry of, 80 Lancet survey in, 51, 168 looting of, 76 Migration Ministry of, 173 Ministry of Education of, 80

418 Ministry of the Interior of, 120 number of foreign military bases, 57 Oil Ministry of, 78, 206 One-Percent Solution for, 55–57 PIPA polls regarding, 347–49 public corruption in, 83 stockpiles of weapons in, 73 ten reasons why U.S. must withdraw from, 117–22 U.S. embassy complex in, 121, 302, 352, 393 U.S. military bases in, 180 U.S. weapons killing Americans in, 37 unemployment in, 253–58 Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, 382 Iraq Study Group, 302 Iraq Syndrome, 25 Iraqi Governing Council, 79, 83, 332 Iraqi Kurdistan, 148 Iraqi Museum, 206 Iraqi National Congress, 136, 332 Ireland, 152 Iron Triangle (Briody), 383 Iscariot, Judas, 187 Islam, 4, 5, 16, 37, 46, 47, 58, 68, 69, 73, 77, 78, 107, 108, 117, 121, 158, 168, 172, 185, 191, 193, 194, 195, 198, 202, 208, See also Muslims Islamic Jihad, 67 Islamofascists, 186, 313 Israel, 20, 47, 65, 66, 67, 106, 108, 196, 202, 206, 207, 208, 294, 299, 311, 312, 399 Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 7, 66–68 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, 67 Italy, iii, 110, 114, 137, 142, 298, 355, 356 Itera International Energy Corp., 371 Iwo Jima, 16 Jaafari, Ibrahim, al-, 74 Jack the Ripper, 381 Jackson, Mike, 135 Janjaweed, 98 Japan, iii, 22, 102, 110, 137, 294 Self Defense Forces of, 137 Jefferson, Thomas, 171, 195 Jeffords, Jim, 273 Jenkens & Gilchrist, 286 Jenkins, Jerry, 201 Jennings, Scott, 370 Jerry Falwell Ministries, 175

INDEX Jerusalem, 66, 208 Jesus, 20, 69, 76, 79, 167, 170, 177, 182, 185, 189, 194, 198, 201, 203, 205, 211, 215, 216, 217, 229, 259, 272, 386 and separation of church and state, 172 discussing gay marriage with Pat Robertson, 227–28 Jewish Anti-Defamation League, 181 Jews, 179, 184, 186, 196, 207, 209 Jiang Mianheng, 385 Jiang Zemin, 385 Jim Crow election laws, 362 Joel, the prophet, 209 John Paul II, 180, 327 John, Book of, 181, 185, 272 Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 51 Johnson, Brooks, 326 Johnson, Larry, 354 Johnson, Lyndon, 10, 215, 219, 243 Johnson, Tim, 326 Johnston, David Cay, 232, 235, 236, 261, 286 Joint Chiefs of Staff, 300 Joint Resolution on Iraq, 404 Jones, Walter, 174 Jordan, 48, 67, 76, 80, 129, 152 JournalismJobs.com, 340 Judicial Watch, 287, 288 just war principles, 25, 27–28, 29, 42, 43, 58, 59, 95, 103, 119, 168, 217, 349, 397, 402 regarding Afghanistan, 41 Justice Department, 300 and disenfranchisement of blacks, 359 and electoral fraud, 359–63 and U.S. Attorneys scandal, 367–70 K Street Project, 53, 159, 231–32, 232, 366 Kagan, Robert, 340 Kansas, 56, 314 for sale, 283 Karbala, 128 Karic, Bogoljub, 371 Karic, Dragomir, 371 Karimov, Islam, 151 Karzai, Hamid, 41, 43, 46, 47 as the "Mayor of Kabul", 46 Kashmir, 38 Katrina. See Hurricane Katrina Kaufman, Gerald, 96 Kay, David, 62

INDEX Kazakhstan, 113, 138, 150 KBR, 154, 161, 380 Kean, Thomas, 334 Kelley, William, 370 Kellogg, Brown and Root. See Halliburton Kemakeza, Allan, 144 Kennebunkport, Maine, 384 Kennedy School of Government, 29, 35 Kennedy, D. James, 214 Kennedy, John F., 10, 19, 215, 374 Kennedy, Ted, 308 Kerry, John, 85, 188, 350 Khalilzad, Zalmay, 11 Khan, Genghis, 140 Khan, Hulagu, 140 Khartoum, 98 Kiesling, John Brady, 123 Kirkuk, 80 Knights of Columbus, 180 Koizumi, Junichiro, 137 Koltz, Tony, 85 Koran, 172, 191, 200 Korea, 386 Korean War, 126, 316 Kosovo, 124, 326 cost of peacekeeping in, 48 Kotlikoff, Laurence, 280, 281 KPMG, 285, 286 Krauthammer, Charles, i Kristof, Nicholas, 278 Kristol, William, 11, 340 Krugman, Paul, 257, 363 Kuchma, Leonid, 150 Kuo, David, 173 Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), 148 Kurdistan, 148 Kurds, 74, 81, 118, 119, 120, 149, 393, 395 and Bush regime selling out the, 149 Kut, 139 Kuwait, 100, 103, 106, 109, 128, 139, 149, 352, 394 Kwasniewski, Aleksander, 143 Kwiatkowski, Karen, 354 Kyoto Protocol, 398 La Repubblica, 355 Labash, Matt, 340 Labelle, Huguette, 381 Labor Day, 260 Labour Party (Britain), 96, 133 LaHaye, Tim, 201

419 Lam, Carol, 366, 367 Lancet survey, 51, 168 Lang, W. Patrick, 354 Laszlo, Victor, 350 Late Great Planet Earth (Lindsay), 202 Latham, Mark, 127 Latvia, 113, 124, 139 Lay, Ken, 287 Le Monde, 5 Le Moyne College, 182, 341 League of Nations, xx–xxiii Leahy, Patrick, 160, 370 Leave No Rich Child Behind, 252–53 Leavitt, Michael, 263 Lebanon, 244, 301, 357 and Reagan's 9/11—October 23, 1983, 16 Ledeen, Michael, 356, 357 lefse, 344 Left Behind (LaHaye & Jenkins), 201 Legolas, 391 Leon County (Florida), 362 Lesar, David, 160 Lewinsky, Monica, ii, 302, 318, 402 Lewis, Sinclair, 167 Liasson, Mara, 240 Libby, I. Lewis, 11, 62, 86, 352–53 Library of Congress, 371 Libya, 299 Liechtenstein, 152 Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken), 343 Likud Party, 65 Limbaugh, Rush, 334, 339, 340, 343, 350 and Armed Forces Network, 341–42 Lincoln, Abraham, 172, 217, 218 Lindsay, Hal, 202 Lindsey, Lawrence, 330 Lithuania, 113, 124, 139 Little League Baseball, i Little Red Book, 301 Livingston, Bob, 372 Livingstone, Ken, 133 lobbyists. See K Street Project lockbox, Social Security, 231, 234, 235, 237, 238 Lockyer, Bill, 361 London, 345 London protest, 132 Lord Mayor of London's banquet, 132 Lord of the Rings, 214 Return of the King, 391

420 Los Angeles, 340, 345 Los Angeles Times, 371 Lott, Trent, 346 Louisiana, 247, 288, 372, 377 Loya Jirga, 41, 42, 46 Luke, Book of, 177, 201 Lunchpail, Joe and Judy, 95, 233, 234, 239, 241, 255, 260, 284, 325 Luther, Martin, 199, 205 Lutherans, 213 Luxembourg, 152 M.I.6 intelligence service, 356 MacArthur, Douglas, 311 Macedonia, 113, 124, 139 Machiavellian, iii, 10, 309 MAD, 335 Maddow, Rachel, 338 Madrid, 313 Madrid bombing, 135, 145 Mafia, 100, 158, 232, 302, 379 Mahdi Army, 81, 382 Main Street, 53 Maine, 247, 273 Maines, Natalie, 345 Malaysia, 107 Maliki, Nouri, al-, 74, 313 Manchuria, iii Mandaean religion in Iraq, 79 ManTech International Corporation, 372 Mao Tse-Tung, 301 MapQuest, 335 Margarian, Andranik, 126 mark of the beast (666), 195 Mark, Book of, 172, 201 Marlboro Man, 335 Marshall Islands, 100, 140, 291 Martin, Paul, 113 Marx, Karl, 301 Massachusetts, 31, 34, 60, 61, 186, 200, 217, 219, 247, 319, 345, 387 Match.com, 198 Matthew, Book of, 172, 181, 198, 201, 217 Matthews, Chris, 353 Mays, Lowry, 342, 343 Mazar-e-Sharif, 47 McCain, John, 270, 308, 373 and caving on torture, 308–9 McCaul, Michael, 377 McClellan, Scott, 352 McGovern, Ray, 354, 355 McGuire, William, 250

INDEX McKay, John, 369 McNulty, Paul, 368 McVeigh, Timothy, 59 Médecins Sans Frontières, 47, 398 media concentration, 335–41, 346–47 Media Matters For America, 350 Media Monopoly (Bagdikian), 337 Media Reform Information Center, 337 Medicaid, vii, 238, 243–49, 270 Medicare, vii, 163, 219, 238, 243–49, 270, 272, 276, 278, 279, 281, 376 Medicare D Prescription Drug Plan, 246 Mediterranean Sea, 149 Meese III, Ed, 306 Meet the Press, 358 Megiddo, 198 Mein Kampf, 301 mercenaries, 152, 163, 393, 400 and Abu Ghraib, 154 Mesopotamia, 207 Messiah College, 369 Mess-opotamia, 206 Methodist Church of South Africa, 211 Methodists, 68, 199, 213 Mexico, 102, 113 Miami Herald, 362 Michigan University, 288 Micronesia, 100, 140 Middle East, vi, 12, 20, 47, 66, 70, 77, 79, 107, 119, 194, 196, 198, 202, 203, 206, 208, 209, 228, 302, 311, 357, 393, 394 peace process in, 66–68 Midland, Texas, 193, 290, 304 mid-tribulation rapture, 197 Miers, Harriet, 370, 372 Military Commissions Act (MCA), 308– 9, 397 Military Oath, 329 military spending, 17, 36–37, 398 millennialism, 195, 198–99 Miller, William, 205 Millerites, 205 Milosevic, Slobodan, 124, 371 minimum wage, 219, 255, 256, 259, 262, 263 Minnesota, 247, 338 Minot Chamber of Commerce, 344 Minot, North Dakota, 344 Mirabilis (ICQ), 336 Miramax, 333 misogynists, 218

INDEX Mississippi, 244, 246, 377 Missouri, 328, 368 MIT, 282, 313, 360 Mitty, Walter, 94 Mohammed, Khalid Shaikh, 47 Moldova, 101, 113, 140 Money, 335 Mongolia, 100, 110, 140–41 Moon, Sun Myung, 386, 387 Moore, Michael, 333 Moral Majority, 170, 202 Mormon, Book of, 200 Mormons, 179, 196, 204 Morocco, 106, 107 Mother Earth, 290 Mother Theresa, 318 Mouse, Mickey, 333 Moynihan, Daniel, 234 MPRI, 155 MSNBC, 92 Mubarek, Hosni, 108 Mueller, Robert, 357 mujahideen, 44 Mukasey, Michael, 151 Multi-National Division Central South, 142 Multi-National Division South East, 135 Multi-National Force in Iraq (MNF-I), 93, 101, 103, 141 Murdoch, Keith Arthur, 339 Murdoch, Rupert, 335, 337, 339, 340 Murray, Craig, 152 Museveni, Yoweri, 150 Muslim Brotherhood, 46, 107 Muslims, vi, 5, 16, 44, 49, 67, 68, 72, 77, 91, 107, 108, 121, 124, 127, 133, 139, 146, 151, 158, 173, 175, 179, 184, 190, 191, 194, 196, 202, 220, 228, 230, 244, 288, 320, 357, See also Islam and opposition to Iraq coalition, 106– 10 Mussolini, Benito, iii, 314 Nader, Ralph, 350 Najaf, 84, 128 Namibia, 162 Nasiriya, 138 Nation, 159 national debt, vii, 24, 235, 238, 266, 273– 81 National Education Association, 314

421 National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), 286–89 National Geographic, 311 National Guard, 38, 82, 325, 326 National Intelligence Council, 73, 357 national lottery, 235, 271 National Public Radio (NPR), 240, 345, 349 National Review, 357 National Rifle Association, 346, 373 National Security Agency (NSA), 85, 125, 129, 135, 303, 305, 405 National Security Council, 357 NATO, iv, v, 12, 13, 28, 45, 58, 78, 91, 116, 124, 128, 131, 136, 139, 143, 147, 177, 298, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398 disrespect by Bush for, 117 efforts in Afghanistan by, 45–46 invoking Article 5, 5 Nazarbayev, Nursultan, 138 NBC, 92, 349 NCAA World Series, i, viii Nebraska, 255, 283 Negroponte, John, 301 neocons, iii, iv, v, 5, 9–12, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 43, 44, 52, 56, 72, 75, 83, 87, 94, 97, 99, 103, 123, 136, 149, 160, 167, 169, 172, 178, 209, 222, 225, 253, 297, 300, 301, 323, 330, 340, 393, 397 and Ahmed Chalabi, 331–32 and disrespect for NATO, 116–17 and Niger forgeries, 354–58 and OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation), 57–65 and unipolar moment, 12 and war on terrorism slogan, 20–23 as chickenhawks, 19 failing in Afghanistan, 47 groupthink by, 10, 11, 19, 29, 87 propaganda campaign by, 12–15 rejection by Reagan and Clinton, 15– 20 neoconservatives. See neocons Netherlands, 76, 110, 141 Netscape, 335 New Age, 175, 186, 197, 203, 204, 213 New Colossus, 214 New Deal, 218 New England, 273 New England Patriots, 217 New Hampshire, 247 New Media Monopoly (Bagdikian), 337

422 New Mexico, 369 New Orleans, 216, 377 New Testament, 195 new world order, 12, 169, 186 New York City Police Department, 49 New York Times, 3, 12, 33, 58, 65, 71, 76, 99, 108, 201, 232, 244, 257, 259, 261, 278, 285, 289, 291, 305, 313, 320, 332, 351, 352, 353, 363, 377, 381, 386 New Zealand, 113, 141, 147 News Corporation, 335, 337, 339 Newsweek, 323 Newsweek poll, 318 Ney, Bob, 116, 366 Nicaragua, 113, 131, 141, 146 Nichols, Terry, 59 Nielsen ratings, 340 Niger, 353 and Niger forgeries, 354–58 uranium purchases from, 351–58 Nigeria, 102 Nixon, Richard, 10, 207, 266, 303, 305, 317, 318, 321, 405, 406 and New York City, 6 No Child Left Behind, 174, 252, 253, 387 Nobel Peace Prize, 47, 67, 75 Noble Sanctuary (Jerusalem), 208 No-Fly Zone, 148 Norquist, Grover, 240 North Carolina, 158 North Dakota, 31, 60, 196, 233, 247, 319, 344, 345, 387 North Korea, 7, 37, 144, 331 number of foreign military bases, 57 North Slope oil production, 292 North Vietnam, 317 Norway, 113, 141 Novak, Robert, 353 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 397 nuclear weapons, 315, 339 nuclear weapons policies, 34–35 Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, 297 Nye, Joseph, 29, 30, 36 Obama, Barack, 189 Obey, David, 346 O'Dell, Walden, 360 Odom, William, 85 Office of Special Plans, 18, 62, 65, 357 Office of Strategic Influence, 320 Ohio, 227, 359, 360, 366 oil crisis of 1973, 293 oil embargo of 1973, 293

INDEX oil production and peak oil, 292–93 of Alaska, 292–93 of Texas, 292 Oklahoma City bombing, 59 Old Europe, 98 Old South, 215 Olympics, 267 Omaha, Nebraska, i Oman, 106, 152 one world government, 169 O'Neill, Paul, 237, 271, 272, 278, 323, 330 One-Percent Solution for Iraq, 55–57 OPEC, 78, 293, 294 Operation Iraqi Freedom, 57, 147 Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), 57 Operation TELIC, 135 opium production, 42–43 O'Reilly, Bill, 340 Orwell, George, 103, 216, 297, 324, 359, 399 and George Orwell Party (GOP), 297 Osama bin Forgotten, 22 outsourcing, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 285, 381 Oxford English Dictionary, i Pacific Ocean, 140, 141 Pacific Trust Territory, U.S., 140 Pacifica Radio, 338 Paige, Rod, 314 Pakistan, 38, 42, 44, 46, 69, 70, 102, 108, 135 Palast, Greg, 362 Palau, 100, 141 coconuts as weapons of, 141 Palestinians, 5, 7, 66, 69, 182, 196, 208, 209, 312, 399 and role of Clinton and Carter in peace process, 66–68 Palfrey, Deborah Jean, 372 Panama, 100, 141 Paris Room, 221, 222 Parsons, 379 Pascal, George, 190 Passion Play, 187 Path to 9/11, 333 Patriot Act, 304, 305, 367, 369 Patterns of Global Terrorism, 31 Paul, Apostle, 211 Pax Americana, 10, 12 Pax Romana, 10

INDEX Peace Corps, U.S., 32, 274, 384, 398 peak oil, 57, 292–93 Pearl Harbor, 22, 281 Pennsylvania, 370, 371 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 24, 242 Pentagon, 12, 18, 62, 65, 71, 72, 73, 82, 85, 86, 155, 157, 159, 160, 194, 302, 320, 332, 354, 357, 358, 367, 380 People, 335 People's Republic of China. See China PEPFAR (President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief), 188 Perfectly Legal (Johnston), 232, 286 PerfectWave, 159 Perle, Richard, 15, 64, 86 Perot, Ross, 256 Persian Gulf nations, 105 Petraeus, David, 63 Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 298 Pharisees, 179, 187, 227, 228, 258 Philippines, 102, 113, 142 Pilate, Pontius, 187 Pinochet, 162 pirate-ization. See privatization PKK (Kurdish Workers Party), 148 Plame, Valerie, 11, 62, 351–53, 354, 357, 402, 406 Plan of Attack (Woodward), 72 Plymouth Brethren, 204 Poe, Heather, 227 Poland, iii, 92, 93, 110, 114, 126, 142, 207 Polish Multi-National Force, 126 Politics of Truth (Wilson), 353 Pombo, Richard, 370 Popular Party (Spain), 145 pork, vii, 160, 232, 246, 269, 270, 376, 377 Portugal, 100, 113, 143 post-millennialism, 197, 199 post-tribulation rapture, 197 Potter, Harry, 186 pottery barn rule, 121 poverty, 258–63 Powell Doctrine, 86, 93 Powell, Colin, 14, 62, 64, 100, 123, 125, 133, 299, 309, 314, 315, 320, 326, 336, 346, 354, 358 Powell, Michael, 336, 346 Pravda, 334, 347 Pravda Prize, 3

423 preemptive intervention doctrine, 96, 397 Premier Election Solutions. See Diebold Premiere Radio Networks, 343 pre-millennialism, 197, 199 Presbyterians, 213 pre-sex, 318 Presidential Daily Briefing, 7, 8 Presidential Medal of Freedom, 320 Pre-Trib Perspectives, 201 pre-tribulation rapture, 197 Pre-Tribulation Research Center, 201 Price of Loyalty (O'Neill), 271, 323 Prince William Sound, 291 Prince, Erik, 158 private military contractors. See mercenaries privatization, 229, 231, 241, 242, 287, 360 Prodi, Romano, 137 profile in courage, 123 Profiles in Corruption, 374 and Republican Party, 365–74 Profiles in Courage (Kennedy), 374 Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), 118–21, 347 progressive moral values, 24, 215–20 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), 11–12, 87, 122, 167, 220, 301, 302, 310, 340, 393, 397 propaganda, iii, 11, 12–15, 28, 34, 63, 87, 91, 92, 94, 100, 101–3, 104, 106, 129, 137, 139, 142, 144, 191, 214, 219, 225, 232, 235, 245, 291, 298, 311, 320, 333, 334, 339, 341, 354, 386 Protestants, 196, 199, 205 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), 349 Pulitzer Prize, 232 Purpose Driven Life (Warren), 189 Putin, Vladimir, 341 Qatar, 106, 152, 299, 394 Quayle, Dan, 321 Rabin, Yitzhak, 209 Ramadan War, 294 Rand Corporation, 48 rapture, 5, 168, 195, 197–98, 276 the secret rapture, 198, 199–206 Rapture Index, 202 Rapture Trap (Thigpen), 200 Rapture-Ready.com, 202 Raymond, Lee, 291 Reagan, 279

424 Reagan, Ronald, 10, 85, 178, 248, 298, 306, 321, 322, 330, 355, 356, 383, 391 11th Commandment of, 365 8 worst budget deficits by, 267 and deficits don't matter, 270, 271, 272 and growth in national debt, 235 and gutting of Social Security, 231–42 and his 9/11—October 23, 1983, 16, 151 and Iran-Contra Affair, 301 and Ronald Reagan Memorial National Debt, 274 as big spender and big borrower, 274 bankruptcy of America by, 265–94 cutting and running by, 17 death squads supported by, 74 explosion in national debt by, 273–81 Grade F budget deficits of, 266–68 launching war on middle class, 282 Legacy of Debt of, 274 rejection of the neocons by, 15–19 turned U.S. into largest debtor nation, 274, 282–84 voodoo economics of, 233, 243, 267, 268 Reagan-Bush I-Bush II National Debt, 274–75 Real Anita Hill (Brock), 350 red heifer, 195 Reed, Ralph, 196 referendum, 74, 393 Refugees International, 80 Regent University, 369 Regent University Law School, 369 reimportation of prescription drugs, 247– 48 Religious Reich, 169, 214, 228 Religious Right, vi, vii, 69, 158, 176–80, 188, 190, 195, 199, 201, 211, 212, 213, 218, 219, 227, 228, 229, 262, 289, 339 and oppressors as victims, 186–87 and separation of church and state, 169–76 throwing raw red meat to, 5 Religious Wrong, 163, 167, 169, 209, 227 Renault, Capt. Louis, 60, 128, 287, 329, 338 rendition. See extraordinary rendition Renzi, Rick, 372 repentance, v, 328, 395

INDEX Reporters Without Borders, 335 Republican National Committee, 368 Republican Party (GOP), iv, 8, 13, 29, 49, 56, 65, 66, 78, 91, 96, 110, 116, 162, 167, 171, 173, 174, 187, 199, 216, 218, 240, 244, 251, 301, 310, 316, 342, 343, 349, 356, 386, See also Abramoff, Jack (Abramoff scandals) aka the Banana Republican Party, 266 and assault on health care and insurance, 249–52 and Chalabi, 331–32 and deficits, 265–84 and destruction of America's constitutional democracy, 374–78 and education—Leave No Rich Child Behind, 252–53 and electoral fraud, 359–63 and energy policy—Leave No Ayatollah Behind, 289 and exploding trade deficits, 282–84 and explosion in national debt, 281 and extraordinary rendition, 307–9 and family values. See family values and freezing the minimum wage, 255 and GOP corruption in Iraq, 378–84 and ideology over truth and competence, 330–32 and increasing poverty, 258–63 and its 25-year war on America's middle class, 282–84 and its Contract on America, 376 and its Five Wrong War on Iraq, 329 and its huge birth tax, 278 and media concentration, 347 and price fixing and pork for Big Pharma, 244–48 and Profiles in Corruption, 365–74 and racial bigotry, 215 and Restaurant of Puke, 55 and tax shelters—kleptomania for the Super Rich, 284–86 and the K Street Project, 231–32 and U.S. Attorneys scandal, 367–70 and unemployment in Iraq and America, 253–58 and upside down Christianity, 176–80 and weakness on national defense, 316–17 and witch hunt against Clinton, 318– 19 as the consumptive party, 276

INDEX bankruptcy of America by, 265–94 control and bullying of media by, 333– 50 energy policies of, 286–94 environmental policies of, 286–94 gutting Social Security by, 231–42 immoral budgets of, 185 reneging on term limits by, 376 Republican Party convention, 144 Restaurant of Puke, 55 Reuters, 142 Revelation, Book of, 60, 194, 195, 198, 199, 203 Rhode Island, 273 Rhodes, Randi, 338 Rice, Condoleezza, 7, 8, 60, 64, 68, 75, 289, 320, 321, 329, 332, 353, 356, 357 and tutoring Bush, 14 promotion to secretary of state of, 4–5 Ring, Kevin, 371 Ritter, Scott, 132 Riyadh, 106, 191, 192 Roberts, Ivor, 132 Roberts, Pat, 314, 355, 357 Roberts, Paul Craig, 298 Robertson, James, 305 Robertson, Pat, 172, 179, 180, 196, 201, 209, 214, 220, 369 discussing gay marriage with Jesus, 227–28 Robertson, Pharisee Phat, 227–28 Rockefeller, Jay, 357 Rodman, Peter, 11 Roe v. Wade, 378 Rogers, Ron, 371 Rohrabacher, Dana, 146 Roll Call, 373 Rolling Stone, 345 Roman Empire, 10, 167, 187, 211 Romania, 110, 124, 143 Romans, 10, 208 Rome, 211, 355 Rome Statute, 299 Romney, Mitt, 373 Ronald Reagan Memorial National Debt, 274 Roosevelt, Franklin, 10, 22, 23, 216, 218, 242, 254, 311, 312, 316, 325, 375, 397 Roosevelt, Theodore, 333 Rop, Anton, 144 Roper poll, 311

425 Rove, Karl, 103, 189, 216, 221, 241, 273, 324, 351–53, 356, 359, 368, 369, 370 roving wiretaps. See wiretaps Rudy, Tony, 366 rule of law, 327, 353, 359, 369, 397, 403, 406 Rumsfeld, Donald, 11, 14, 15, 32, 47, 60, 64, 72, 73, 79, 84, 86, 103, 135, 139, 221, 308, 320, 159–60, 329, 332, 353, 357 declaring war on the Pentagon, 159–60 Rush Limbaugh Show, 339 Russia, 35, 36, 102, 128, 140, 293, 340, 371, 387, 397 number of foreign military bases, 57 Ruth, Babe, 97 Rwanda, 99, 100, 108, 113, 143 Ryan, Jim, 146 Sabri, Naji, 358 Saca, Elias Antonio, 131 Saddleback Valley Community Church, 189 Sadr, Muqtada, al-, 74, 81, 84 Saigan, 317 Saint Augustine, 205 sales tax, 239 Salt Lake Tribune, 263 Samawa, 138 Sambo, 108 Sampson, D. Kyle, 372 San Jose Mercury News, i, 32 Santorum, Rick, 178, 370 Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 363 Saratov Aviation, 371 Satan, 16, 194, 198, 199 Saturday Night Live, 289, 373 Saudi Arabia, vi, 46, 48, 60, 69, 70, 106, 107, 152, 171, 172, 191, 230, 277, 288, 290, 293, 294, 323, 357, 392 and its educational system, 289 and post 9/11 exit of bin Laden clan, 70 Savage Nation, 339 Savage, Michael, 339, 340, 343 savings and loan crisis, 241 savings rate, 276 Sayyaf, Rasul, 46 Scahill, Jeremy, 158 Scalia, Antonin, 288 Scanlon, Michael, 366 Scheer, Christopher, 315 Scheer, Robert, 315

426 Scheuer, Michael, 44, 49 Schiavo, Terri, 226 Schlessinger, Laura, 340, 341 Schlozman, Bradley, 368 Schmitz, Joseph, 158 Schroeder, Gerhard, 116 Schultz, Ed, 338, 341 Schumer, Chuck, 71 Schwarzkopf, Norman, 85 Scofield Reference Bible, 204 Scotland, 366 Scowcroft, Brent, 85 Sea River Mediterranean, 291 Seattle Times, 369 Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 312 Second Coming of Christ, 68, 168, 182, 195, 197, 199, 200, 203, 205, 206, 208 Second Gilded Age, 272 Second Great Awakening, 205 Second Temple, 208 Secret Service, 324 Security Council. See United Nations, Security Council of Senate, U.S., iv, 10, 97, 171, 186, 266, 300, 308, 338, 366, 368, 370, 372, 379, 401 Armed Services Committee of, 82 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee of, 377 impeachment procedure of, 403–4 Intelligence Committee of, 314 Judiciary Committee of, 300, 368, 370 resolution of, 125, 129, 139, 142, 144 separation of church and state, vii, 24, 77, 169–76, 196, 201, 211, 212, 220 and Thomas Jefferson, 171 separation of powers, 287, 288, 309, 403, 406 September 11, 2001, attacks (9/11). See also separate topics America united behind Bush after, 281 and 9/11 Commission, 7, 8, 47, 313, 321, 333, 334, 378 and 9/11 equivalents in Iraq, 52, 168 and slow response to, 44 and the neocons, 9–12 blaming Saddam for, 342 Bush asleep at the wheel before, 6–9 Bush on crusade after, 4–5 fascist exploitation of, 69 strong U.S. fiscal position on, 277 timidity of Bush after, 312

INDEX world behind U.S. after, 5–6 Sequoia Voting Systems, 360 Serbia, 124 Sermon on the Mount, 177 Seven Wonders of the World, 207 Shakespeare, William, 351 Sharon, Ariel, 65, 209 Shelley, Kevin, 360 Shepherd's Bush Empire, 345 Sherwood, Don, 370 Shias. See Shiites Shiites, 10, 33, 48, 77, 80, 81, 118, 119, 120, 128, 135, 172, 395 Shinseki, Eric, 85, 86, 93 Shultz, George, 17 Sierra Club, 287, 288 signing statements, 306–8 Silverado Savings and Loan, 384 Singapore, 100, 113, 143 SISMI (Italy), 355, 357 Sistani, Grand Ayatollah Ali, 74–75, 79 Sitwell, Edith, 216 Sixty Minutes, 85 Skull and Bones Society, 192, 319, 341 Slate, 99 Slovakia, 113, 124, 143 Slovenia, 124, 125, 144 Smith, Nick, 245 Snow, Tony, 334 Snowe, Olympia, 247, 273 Social Security, vii, 163, 178, 218, 219, 243, 254, 255, 266, 270, 272, 276, 278, 279, 281 feeding the Super Rich by gutting, 231–42 Sodom and Gomorrah, 219 Soft Power (Nye), 29, 36 Sojourners, 213 Solomon Islands, 100, 144 Solomon, King, 208 Solutions North America (SNA), 371 Somalia, 126, 194 Soros, George, 19, 236 South Africa, 125, 162, 211 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of, 211 South Carolina, 270 South Dakota, 326 South Korea, 110, 144, 326 South Pacific, 147 Southern Baptists in America, 37, 68, 119

INDEX Soviet Union, iv, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 30, 46, 104, 124, 136, 143 Soviet Republics of, 138 Space, Jack, 366 Spain, 94, 110, 114, 130, 131, 135, 136, 141, 145–46, 298 and the Madrid bombing, 145 Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, 76, 375, 379, 382 Sports Illustrated, 335 St. Andrews (Scotland), 366 Stalin, Josef, 361, 386 Star Wars, 35 Starr, Kenneth, 268, 287, 318 starve the beast, 239, 240 State Department, 31, 62, 126, 129, 130, 141, 152, 354, 356, 357, 358, 382 Intelligence and Research Bureau of, 72 State of Denial (Woodward), 7, 8, 323 states' rights, 253, 309 Statue of Liberty, 24, 110, 214 Stein, Jeff, 33 stem cells, 178, 307 Stern, Howard, 343 Stevens, Ted, 374 Stewart, Jim, 332 Stewart, Jon, 21, 94 stock option backdating scandal, 250 Stockman, David, 233 Storey, Peter, 211 student loan program, 163, 173, 253 subpoenas, 367, 371, 374 Sudan, 98, 150 Sunday Times (London), 64 Sunni Axis, 48 Sunni Triangle, 134 Sunnis, 33, 48, 74, 80, 81, 84, 118, 119, 120, 151, 395 supply-side economics, 233, 237, 271, 274 Supreme Court, U.S., viii, 10, 96, 186, 194, 235, 266, 288, 303, 306, 308, 347 Chief Justice of, 404 surge in troops, 55, 63, 122, 130, 134, 135, 151, 153, 161, 382 Sutton, Willie, 385 Swaggart, Jimmy, 196 Sweden, 59, 152 Syria, v, 80, 105, 106, 107, 148, 293, 309, 357 Taiwan, 146

427 Tajikistan, 44 Taking the Long Way (Dixie Chicks), 346 Taliban, vii, 5, 22, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 58, 60, 61, 167, 179, 391 Iran’s offer to fight the, 47–48 opium production banned by, 42–43 Tamerlane, 140 Tanner, John, 359 Taszar airbase, 136 Tauzin, Billy, 245 tax lobbyists, 241 tax shelters, 284–86 TBS Superstation, 335 Team B, 18 Telecommunications Act of 1934, 336 Telecommunications Act of 1996, 336, 342 Temple Mount, 208 Tempting Faith (Kuo), 173 Tenet, George, 7, 8, 314, 317, 320 Terrorist University, 73 Texas, 19, 60, 61, 83, 97, 107, 128, 151, 160, 192, 203, 221, 227, 228, 259, 268, 287, 290, 302, 319, 324, 342, 345, 346, 359, 360, 366, 386, 387 crude oil production of, 292 Republican Guard Party of, 78 Texas Air National Guard, 56 Texas Longhorns, viii Texas Rangers, 96, 343 Thailand, 102, 110, 146 Thanksgiving no French fries or turkey for, 149 Thatcher, Margaret, 17 theocons, 178, 191 Thessalonians, I, Book of, 197, 200 Thigpen, Paul, 200 Third Coming of Christ, 200 Third Reich, 297 Third Temple, 208 Thomas, Clarence, 288 Thurow, Lester, 282 Tiberius, Emperor, 217 Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy, 201 Time, 335 Time Warner, 335, 337 Timelife, 336 TNT, 335 Tonga, 113, 147 Tora Bora, 43 torture, 37, 78, 80, 110, 151–52, 157, 183, 202, 299–300, 307–9, 327, 369, 397,

428 401, 402, 405, 406, See also extraordinary rendition Total Burden. See Government Accountability Office (GAO) trade deficits, 282–84 Transparency International, 381 Treasury Department, 156, 266, 269 tribulation, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203, 204 Triumph of Politics, Why the Reagan Revolution Failed (Stockman), 233 Truman Commission, 375 Truman, Harry, 10, 15, 18, 19, 218, 219, 316, 325 Turkey, 102, 105, 139, 147–49, 394 and selling out the Kurds, 148–49 Turkmen, 148 Turkmenistan, 44 Turner Classic Movies, 335 Tutsis, 143 U.S. Attorneys, 352, 372 and corruption by Bush regime, 367– 70 and pressure to disenfranchise blacks, 359 Uganda, 100, 108, 150 Ukraine, 110, 114, 150 Ultra Plus Brigade, 130, 131, 135, 136, 141, 146 unemployment in Iraq and America, 253–58 Unger, Craig, 354, 356 Unification Church, 386 Uniform Code of Military Justice. See Code of Military Justice unipolar moment, 12 Unitarian Church, 306 unitary executive, 52, 305, 306, 307 United Arab Emirates, 106, 152, 160, 387 United Kingdom. See Great Britain United Nations, i, iii, iv, v, 5, 10, 12, 13, 28, 41, 47, 51, 55, 58, 62, 78, 80, 91, 93, 96, 99, 101, 107, 109, 117, 125, 127, 135, 138, 140, 141, 169, 177, 298, 301, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398, 404 and Convention against Torture, 308 Charter of, 97, 119 Food and Agriculture Organization of, 37 High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) of, 80, 81

INDEX International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan, 45, 46 Office on Drugs and Crime of, 42 peacekeepers of, 131 Security Council of, i, 10, 45, 59, 62, 93, 103, 104, 108, 125, 129, 135, 315, 320, 358 weapons inspector of, 132 United States. See also specific topics 1973 oil embargo against, 294 and 6-Point Plan to Support America's Troops, 399–400 and 7-Point International Plan, 397–99 and 8-Point Plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, 393–96 and explosion in national debt, 273–81 and League of Nations, xx–xxiii and number of troops in Iraq, 110 and soldiers for peace, 38 and ten reasons why U.S. must withdraw from Iraq, 117–22 and the Bush League, 150 bankruptcy of, 265–94 Education Department of, 201 financial pledges to Afghanistan by, 47 military spending of, 36–37, 398 number of foreign military bases, 37, 57 poverty in, 258–63 unemployment in, 258 weapons inspection team of, 59 United States of Europe, 98 UnitedHealth Group, 250 University of Texas, viii, 343 unlawful enemy combatant. See Military Commissions Act (MCA) UNOCAL, 61 uranium from Africa, 351, 353–55, 357, 358 US News and World Report, 62 USA Today, 79 USS Cole, 44 Utah, 252 Uzbekistan, 44, 151, 309 and extraordinary rendition for Bush regime, 151–52 V10. See Vilnius Group Valdez, Alaska, 292 value-added tax (VAT), 252 Vanity Fair, 354

INDEX Venezuela, 30, 187 Vermont, 273 Veterans Affairs Department (VA), 246, 250, 399 veto, 255, 268, 306, 307, 308, 346 Viacom, 335, 337 video news releases (VNR), 336 Vietnam, 95, 102, 170, 317 number of foreign military bases, 57 Vietnam Syndrome, 25 Vietnam War, 6, 19, 56, 120, 126, 308, 317, 335 Vikings, 137 Vilnius Group, 124–25, 144 Vilnius, Lithuania, 124 Virginia, 214, 253 Virginia Tech massacre, 52, 168 Vitter, David, 372 Vive la France, 16, 149 voice tracking, 345 Voinovich, George, 277 Volcker, Paul, 236 Volz, Neil, 366 voodoo economics, 233, 243, 267, 268, 276, 277 voter fraud, 359 voting rights for women, 218 Vulcans. See neocons W (George W. Bush) stands for the Worst, 193 the Wrong, 208 wacko, iii, 229 wackocity, 204 Wahhabi Wannabe, 192 Wal-Mart and Wal-Martization of America, 257 War on America, vi War on the World, vi warrior wannabe, 325 Waste Wing, 289, 303 wasted, 324 wasting away, 277 weak and willowy, 103 weakling, 19 Weakness through War, 17 wedge issues, 185 wedgies, 185 weed, 324 weed whacking, 324 welfare for the wealthy and wicked, 259 Whew!, 186

429 whupping, 182 wiggling walleyed, v willowy, 101 witless, 14 Witless Without Wardrobe (www), 85 wobbly, 43 wolves, 272 women whacking, 324 wonga, 383 worker whacking, 260 worse, 104 Wrong Wicked Warmongering (www), 36 Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong (Five Wrong War on Iraq), 329 W-Scale for wackocity, 204 Wahhabi fundamentalism, 46, 192, 277 Wailing Wall, 208 Walker, David, 280 Wall Street, 53, 241 Wall Street Journal, 237, 271, 298, 367 Wallis, Jim, 213 Wal-Mart, 236, 282 crummy benefits and wages at, 256–57 Wal-Martization of America, 155 Walton family, 236, 257, 284 Walton, John, 257 Walton, Sam, 257 war crimes, 46, 58, 151, 297–302, 309, 328, 329, 369, 396, 399, 400, 402, 405 War Crimes Act of 1996, 300, 405 War on Christmas, 212 war on terrorism, vi, 29, 31, 32, 35, 43, 44, 49, 58, 66, 69, 70, 121, 160, 277, 290, 297, 305, 320, 328, 397 the slogan that means nothing, 20–23 War on the World, vi Warner Bros., 336 Warren, Rick, 189 Warsaw Pact, 128, 143 Washington Post, 3, 63, 137, 260, 378, 386 Washington Times, 386 Washington, D.C., 86, 160, 231, 276, 372, 374, 383 Washington, George, 43 Washington, State of, 369 waterboarding, 151, 299 Watergate, 6 Watts, J. C., 359 Waxman, Henry, 160, 291, 379 WB television network, 335

430 weapons of mass deception, 202 weapons of mass destruction (WMD), 34, 35, 58, 59, 62, 64, 65, 72, 81, 119, 125, 132, 183, 204, 314, 318, 325, 332, 334, 347, 356, 358, 393, 404 Webster, Noah, i wedge issues, 226–30 Weekly Standard, 11, 340 Weinberg, Steven, 190 Weldon, Curt, 371 Weldon, Karen, 371 welfare reform, 66–68 Wesley, John, 199, 205 What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD), 69, 76, 258 White House Fact Sheet, 305 White House Iraq Group (WHIG), 356 Whitewater Independent Counsel, 287 Wikipedia, 14, 366 Wilkerson, Larry, 354, 358 Wilkes, Brent, 159, 367 Will, George, 274 Willis, Frank, 379 Wilson, Heather, 369 Wilson, Joseph, 351–53, 358, 402 Wilson, Woodrow, ii, 123, 316 wiretaps, 298, 303–5, 369, 402, 405 Wisconsin, 247

INDEX Wolfowitz, Paul, 11, 15, 18, 62, 64, 65, 72, 86, 138, 320, 353 and Defense Planning Guidance, 12 Woodward, Bob, 7, 8, 64, 72, 323 World Court, 397 World Trade Center, 3 World Trade Organization (WTO), 298 World War I, ii, 126, 273, 316 World War II, iii, 22, 72, 137, 147, 218, 261, 273, 311, 316, 325, 375 xenophobia, 311 Yale University, 192 yellowcake uranium, 354, 355 Yemen, 107, 299 Yom Kippur War, 294 Young Earth Creationists, 175 Young, C.W. Bill, 271 Young, Don, 374 Yucca Mountain, 374 Yugoslavia, 128, 371 Yushchenko, Viktor, 150 Zahn, Paula, 180 Zapatero, Jose Luis Rodriguez, 145 Zinni, Anthony, 85–87 Zoellick, Robert, 11 Zogby International, 182, 341, 402 Zoroastrianism, 198

About the Author James Swanson served for two years in the U.S. Peace Corps in Morocco, a Muslim nation in North Africa. He is appalled at the rise of the Christian Reich’s upsidedown version of Christianity—Pro-War and Pro-Rich—and Bush’s and the GOP’s War on Iraq and War on America. Raised in the Lutheran tradition in North Dakota and now a longtime Methodist in California, he is ashamed that George W. Bush is a fellow Methodist and that Dick “Shooter” Cheney is a fellow Earthling. Swanson holds MBA and JD degrees from Stanford University and an SB degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He and Michael Baird are co-authors of Engineering Your Start-Up: A Guide for the High-Tech Entrepreneur (second edition.)

The Bush League Of Nations: The Coalition Of The Unwilling, The Bullied And The Bribed: The Gop's War On Iraq And America

Historical Dictionary of the League of Nations

The League of War Monsters

The League Of War Monsters

The Secret History of the Iraq War

Iran, Iraq, and the Legacies of War

The Origin, Structure & Working of the League of Nations

The League Of The Miami

The Sioux: The Dakota and Lakota Nations (Peoples of America)

The War Against Iraq

The War Against Iraq

The Iraq War

The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace

The Iraq Effect: The Middle East After the Iraq War

The League of Spies

The League of Spies

The League of Spi

The choice of war: the Iraq War and the just war tradition

The League Of Death

The Lord of the Nations

Children Of The Bush

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

The Geology of Iraq

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

The Routledge Handbook of War and Society: Iraq and Afghanistan

Bullied- The Complete Series (Bullied; Revenge; Witch; War)

The Iraq War and International Law

Allies At War: America, Europe and the Crisis Over Iraq

The Geology of Iraq

The Bush League Of Nations: The Coalition Of The Unwilling, The Bullied And The Bribed: The Gop's War On Iraq And America

Historical Dictionary of the League of Nations

The League of War Monsters

The League Of War Monsters

The Secret History of the Iraq War

Iran, Iraq, and the Legacies of War

The Origin, Structure & Working of the League of Nations

The League Of The Miami

The Sioux: The Dakota and Lakota Nations (Peoples of America)

The War Against Iraq

The War Against Iraq

The Iraq War

The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace

The Iraq Effect: The Middle East After the Iraq War

The League of Spies

The League of Spies

The League of Spi

The choice of war: the Iraq War and the just war tradition

The League Of Death

The Lord of the Nations

Children Of The Bush

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

The Geology of Iraq

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

The Routledge Handbook of War and Society: Iraq and Afghanistan

Bullied- The Complete Series (Bullied; Revenge; Witch; War)

The Iraq War and International Law

Allies At War: America, Europe and the Crisis Over Iraq

The Geology of Iraq

Recommend Documents