Separation of Church and State: American Sharia

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, had dinner last week with Sayyid Iyad Jamaleddine, who is a “liberal” Iraqi Shiite cleric. Jamelddine brought along a guest– Sayyid Hussein Khomeini, the grandson of the famous Ayatollah who led the overthrow of the American-supported government of Iran.

Jamaleddine is in favour of separation of church and state. He wants a secular constitution that takes power away from the clerics and gives it only to elected officials.

George Bush, on the other hand, wants to bring the church back into the government. He wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He wants to make abortion illegal. He wants faith-based organizations to receive government funding. He wants the 10 Commandments posted at the front of every classroom. He wants to appoint justices to the Supreme Court based on whether they hold the religious belief that the instant sperm meets egg, a human soul is created.

Jamaleddine observes, about Islam, that “The state dominated religion, not the other way around. It used religion for its own ends.” That sounds almost like getting elected with the devoted support of the Christian right so you can pass a huge tax break for the rich, ratchet up the war machinery, and gut environmental regulations. It’s almost like you could count on people to vote for you because you represent “family values” while simultaneously enacting economic policies that undermine the integrity of the family.

It looks to me like this. George Bush supports freedom and liberty as long as it’s his religion that is free and liberated.

Kennedy vs George W. Bush

Did you ever think you might get nostalgic for Ronald Reagan?

Not that I have anything but contempt for the Reagan administration. It was the most Hooveresque of governments, conspicuous in it’s cheery optimism and fanfare, and utterly devoid of compelling policy or leadership. But there was one thing Reagan had that Bush does not have: a sense of getting there, or moving along, of seeing ahead to something brighter and more satisfying than what we have.

Neither of them, of course, can hold a light to John F. Kennedy, who started the space program, the Peace Corps, and, reluctantly, provided federal support for the nascent civil rights movement. I say “reluctantly” not because Kennedy hesitated to support the goals of the civil rights movement, but because he felt it may be too early to engage in confrontation with the racists citizens and governments of the deep south.

Kennedy put the screws to the mob in a way never seen before or since, through his brother, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, who had to kick J. Edgar Hoover’s butt to get him moving on the issue. (The FBI famously denied that “organized crime” even existed.)

Kennedy articulated a vision of a future life that would be better for all Americans, more prosperous, but also richer and more satisfying. It was Kennedy that brought culture to the White House, inviting world-renowned artists, musicians, and writers. It was Kennedy who solidified American support for West Germany in the face of increasing belligerence from the Soviets. And it was clear that Kennedy was increasingly dubious of American involvement in Viet Nam at the time of his death– Johnson’s first official act was to rescind a Kennedy memorandum reducing the number of “advisors” there.

It’s not entirely an act of communal nostalgia when polls repeatedly show that Kennedy remains the most popular president of the 20th century. Conservatives sometimes like to claim that Kennedy’s policies were not all that “liberal”. That tells you how badly they wish he’d been one of “them”.

Now we have George W. Bush. Let’s compare.

First of all, Kennedy actually served in the military, on a PT boat, with obvious distinction. Bush didn’t even bother to serve out his National Guard deferment.

Both Kennedy and Bush were pushed into political careers and supported by their wealthy fathers.

When Kennedy screwed up. by permitting a weird CIA scheme to invade Cuba to go ahead (planned by the Eisenhower administration) — the Bay of Pigs disaster– he owned up to it immediately and apologized to the American public and took steps to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. Bush still won’t release the official report on why intelligence agencies–including the CIA– weren’t able to prevent the WTC attacks.

When confronted by pervasive, organized criminal activity, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was relentless. He used every means at his disposal to attack the Mafia head on, deporting many of their leaders, and making numerous arrests and getting convictions. When confronted with pervasive, organized criminal fraud, George Bush Jr. looked the other way, and appointed one of their own to the government body entrusted with regulating stocks and commodities trading.

John Kennedy–reluctantly– federalized the National Guard and stood up for the civil rights of black students in segregationist schools and universities in the deep south. George Bush has been busy whittling away at our civil liberties from his first moment in office, but especially since 9/11. His administration has boldly asserted a policy of treating an entire race– Arabs– as criminal suspects.

John and Jackie Kennedy invited the leading lights of literature, poetry, painting, and music to the White House and celebrated achievements in the arts. When one of Laura Bush’s invited writers indicated he might not be in support of the war on Iraq, he was summarily uninvited.

Kennedy was articulate and smart and witty. George Bush Jr. can barely get through a single sentence without mangling a three-syllable word. You might have noticed he doesn’t seem as verbally clumsy lately as he used to be: his staff have learned to avoid three-syllable words.

When the Soviets began installing medium range offensive missiles in Cuba, Kennedy carefully and shrewdly managed to persuade the Soviets to withdraw them, without creating any new, simmering grievances. The confrontation was followed with the first negotiations for a nuclear test-ban treaty.

George Bush wants to put lasers in the sky to shoot down all the missiles that will come– and they will come, by god, in George’s world. In only three years, Bush has created or aggravated a thousand festering wounds.

Kennedy believed the role of government was to make life better for the average citizen. His space program reflected the dreams of Americans with vision, to initiate the exploration of space, the quest for new knowledge. George Bush Jr. wants the average American to be fearful, and he wants to require all students to pass standardized tests, that will reflect, of course, the lowest common denominator. And, of course, he sees space as a great location for those lasers.

Kennedy saw that the oil companies were receiving outlandish tax breaks on their oil revenues and tried to make the tax system fairer for the average American. George Bush wants to give the oil industry, and all big corporations, more of those tax breaks.

When confronted by terrorism, George Bush fled the White House in his private jet, until he could be sure he was safe, and then made macho speeches behind his bulletproof glass.

When confronted by threats of violence against him personally in the South, Kennedy traveled to Dallas to give a speech and tour the city in an open convertible.

Okay– well, we know how that ended.


Did you know that Richard Nixon was in Dallas on the day of the assassination?  And that Gerald Ford, future president, was on the Warren Commission that investigated the Kennedy Assassination?

Iraq’s Debt

The New York Times reports that Iraq owes various entities about 60 to 80 billion dollars.

Who owes that money?

Iraq has been run by a dictator for 30 years. Saddam Hussein was never elected to power by free and fair elections. The vast majority of the citizens of Iraq had absolutely no voice in the government’s decision to borrow money. And what was the money borrowed for? Probably to buy weapons. Why did Saddam need weapons? To crush his own people.

So who owes the world 60 to 80 billion dollars? Saddam Hussein, that’s who. And when Saddam Hussein came to these banks and government institutions to ask if he could borrow some money and the banks said, how do we know you’ll pay it back, he answered, the people of my country willingly undertake to cover all of my debts, and the banks reply: but Mr. Hussein, you were not elected! And he didn’t get his money. Right?

So if you’re Russia or Citibank or France or Halliburton (which did more than $40 million of business with Iraq only a few years ago) or whoever the hell is owed that money, I guess you just sigh and say to yourself, “darn– if only Saddam hadn’t been deposed! Now we lost our money.”

Ha ha ha.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I’ll tell you what we are going to do. We are going to make the people of Iraq pay Saddam’s debt. It’s only fair. They live there. What would banks and credit agencies do if people didn’t repay their debts? They would become irresponsible parasites who cheat us out of our money and they would never learn the value of good hard day’s work. Almost like stock analysts.

Or a billion barrels of oil.

I hope you think I’m joking but I’m not. Iraq’s predicament is no different from that of many third world countries. Some asshole rises to power by killing his opponents and bullying citizens into helpless submission. He imprisons, tortures, and murders his own people with impunity. They live in terror of being arrested by his secret police. Then he goes to Citibank. Does Citibank say, “gee, that would be a risky loan– what if he is deposed and the people don’t want to pay for his palaces, his air force, his missiles, and his tanks? I’ll lose my money.”

No. Citibank says, “we can always count on the IMF and the World Bank and the United States government to enforce these loans!

And so it is.

Bamiyan

A few years ago, the world watched in horror and disgust and contempt as the Taliban, those freaky arch-Victorians of the Islamic imperium of Afghanistan, destroyed the massive sandstone carvings of Buddha in the side of a mountain in Bamiyan.

The statues were not remarkable artistically, but they were deeply significant for historical and cultural reasons. (Sorry if you do think they’re beautiful– I don’t. They look like something a bunch of monks without great artistic talent would create.) In the seventh century AD, there were over 5,000 Buddhist monks living in the caves around the statues. Islamic Arab tribes drove the Buddhists out by the ninth century– they didn’t destroy the statues, though.

That would be barbaric.

The destruction of them by the Taliban was an act of mindless, philistine thuggery that astounded the world. If one was not, until then, convinced of the barbarity of the Taliban, this one act did it.

The Taliban repressed women, of course, and was famously intolerant of freedom of expression, diversity, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, or any kind of fun whatsoever. But those statues were just sitting there, harmlessly, impressively (175 metres high). It takes a peculiarly vindictive and petty and malicious mindset to destroy something like that.

In 2003, the Americans invaded Iraq. The marines that arrived first in Baghdad immediately secured the oil ministry buildings and guarded them diligently during the first weeks of the occupation. Down the road, the Baghdad Museum featuring an absolutely priceless collection of some of the world’s most important antiquities sat there, unguarded.

The Americans stood by as Iraqis of unknown affiliation or devotion destroyed and looted the museum. The marines did nothing. They didn’t even seem to care.

It is not that the Americans were unaware of the significance of the collection. Well, maybe they were. But they certainly knew that cultured and educated people in the U.S. and elsewhere regarded the collection as invaluable and irreplaceable. Experts from around the world had made efforts to ensure that the Americans didn’t bomb it by mistake, and had taken measures to protect the collection once they occupied Baghdad. The Americans said, “yeah, yeah, fine, we’ll take care of it.” Then they didn’t.

The Washington Times uncovered a March 26 memo that showed that the Pentagon had communicated, to the coalition commanders, a list of important sites to be protected during the war. The Baghdad museum was number 2 on the list. Somebody in the Pentagon had a brain.

The world should never forget or forgive Donald Rumsveld for sloughing off the destruction of the Baghdad museum as just “so many vases”. It was a wonderful moment, if you think shocking revelations of the deep-seated idiocy are “wonderful”. He really didn’t care. He really didn’t grasp the significance of the collection. He really could not imagine why anyone would worry about the loss of these absolutely unique examples of the art and expression of mankind’s earliest civilizations.

That’s fine, really. Nobody cares if some asshole called Donald Rumsveld sits in his cave somewhere picking his teeth while contemplating the eternal symmetry and beauty of a plum pit.

But George Bush, during his election campaign, never once informed the voters that, given the opportunity, he’d appoint people who would happily stand by and do nothing while priceless antiquities are looted and destroyed. Donald Rumsveld surprised us.

Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA), goes around the world berating governments for supporting local film industries at the expense of Hollywood productions. He wonders why anyone would bother with indigenous film, when they can have as many copies of “Ernest Saves Christmas” and “Dumb and Dumber” as they want.

Bush should hire him. He belongs in this White House working with Mr. Rumsveld. They can both be put in charge of the world’s priceless antiquities.

Do you think any of these leaders of the free world care about the beauty of the rain forest, or a pristine wilderness area, or coastal wetlands, or a medieval cathedral, or a rare endangered species, or live theatre or the ballet, or opera, or Mozart’s birthplace, or humpbacked whales, or snowy owls, or Dostoevsky’s manuscripts, or Shakespeare’s original theatre, or a Scottish castle, or the Great Wall of China, or mummies, or cuneiform tablets, or anything at all, other than the stock market and McDonalds and Disneyland?

Think again. When they come to your neighborhood promising the delights of democracy and free enterprise, get ready for drive-thru’s and golden arches.

If you never knew it before, you know now that George Bush and Rumsveld and Perle and Cheney are to culture and history and civilization what McDonald’s is to gourmet cooking.

Inhuman Future

Today’s New York Times reports that the United States is planning to expand it’s military presence throughout the world by adding new air bases in countries in Eastern Europe and Asia, and that they expect to have permanent air-bases in Iraq.

The exact words are: Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq.

The article is not clear about what “expects” means. The writer quotes unnamed “senior officials” in the Bush Administration.

That’s really amazing, considering that Iraq does not have a legitimate government at the moment. Is this a hint that the new Iraq government will not be quite as independent of U.S. control as is claimed? Why wouldn’t they say that they would ask permission of the new Iraqi government, once it is constituted, to locate air-bases on their soil?

But the scariest thing about all of this is the fact that the United States is projecting a future world in which it’s armed forces can sweep into any locality on a moment’s notice to “protect American interests”.

As the lone superpower, you could wish for a sense of graciousness and reasoned indulgence from the United States. We are bigger and far more powerful than any other country on earth. We will do what we need to do to maintain peace and good order. No– we will ensure that the vital interests of the United States are protected around the globe. That’s the not the same as peace and good order. It’s the same as colonial patriarchy.

But I think there is something even worse than that. It is the feeling that this administration really believes that the world is filled with untold horrors awaiting Americans in the near future and that we must project formidable military strength to ensure that powerful enemies will not be able to strike us without swift and devastating consequences.

The vision of this administration is a not a future in which our enemies have been vanquished and peace and good order prevail. It is a future in which we create more and more enemies and they continue to strike us and we continue to lash back. That’s because we project a world in which we continue to consume a hugely disproportionate amount of the world’s natural resources and this will arouse greed and envy in other nations and they will want to fight for their share and we will have to fight back. In other words, we are not going to be working with other people in the future: we know we’ll be working against them.

Until Christ returns. And that’s that.

Put your hand up if that’s the vision of the future you voted for when you punched your chad in Florida three years ago.

The Permanent State of Crisis

The Republicans in Congress have just given themselves away.

They want to make the new Arbitrary Search and Seizure Act permanent.

Permanent.

Forever.

The current legislation, the so-called Patriot Act, which was passed as an emergency response to the World Trade Centre attacks, expires in two years (in 2005). If you were a reasonable person, would you think that the crisis is going to continue beyond two years? Well, it might, if George Walker Bush is still in office. He’s obviously incompetent. Let’s be fair and judge the man only by the results: according to the Bush Administration itself, we are not safer. Get out there and buy some duct tape. Let’s lock some people up without due process. Let’s prevent Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins from appearing at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

But a reasonable person might be justified in asking if two more years is not enough to have made the world safe for Enron.

Permanent. Forever.

Why? Why would a lawmaker decide that we should make these draconian, unconstitutional laws permanent?

It’s really quite simple. And it’s now clear. Because the goal is not really to make the world safe. The goal is to keep all citizens in a perpetual state of fear, while the treasury of the United States Government is looted (with tax cuts for the rich), world markets are made safe for genetically modified foods and patented pharmaceutical products, and serious dissidents are arrested and locked up. The goal is to sustain the incredible level of spending on military toys by convincing most Americans that the world is full of deadly threats that we must be prepared to face.

The goal is to keep in power the petty, small-minded, paranoid white men of the Bush Administration, until they have completed their real agenda.


Hero: Senator Russ Feingold

The co-sponsor (with John McCain) of campaign finance reform, stood all alone in opposition to the “Patriot” Act. My only question is, when does he run for president? And if he does, will Joe Lieberman do to him, in the primaries, what another “good”, “decent” man, George Bush, did to John McCain in North Carolina?

[2022-04-28 Update: he didn’t have to.  Feingold was defeated in 2010 by Ron Johnson 52 to 47%.]

Colin Powell’s Big Lie

According to Colin Powell, the tape that was recently released by Osama Bin Laden and broadcast on the Al Jazeera network, “proves” that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are linked.

Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman, was less coy. Forgetting, perhaps, that one of the initial reasons for America’s inevitable invasion of Iraq was its links to the terrorist organization, Fleischer said that the tape showed that Al Qaeda and Saddam were “linking up” (New York Times, February 12, 2003). Ooops. I meant “had linked up”.

These guys have spun out of control here. They are beginning to believe their own propaganda. If, like me, you read the text of the tape first and then saw Colin Powell, you wondered what the hell he was talking about. If, like most Americans, you heard Powell speak first, and never read the transcript, you thought, what’s with those crazy French? Don’t they realize we have proof?

George Tenet of the CIA is somewhat more circumspect. I think he is embarrassed, but, like Powell, has had his arm twisted and has decided he’d rather ride in circles whooping and wheezing with this posse of yahoos than exit quietly out the back door. A few years from now, he’ll need to make some money and you don’t get $50K a speech if you can’t talk about something exciting like plotting the extra-judicial killing of a foreign leader or terrorist.

The scale of the Bush administration’s mendacity has become breathtaking. This government does not “feel it’s way” carefully, with scrutiny and foresight. It acts like it believes it is receiving direct messages from the Almighty on stone tablets that are carefully dusted for anthrax before being smashed over the heads of the Democrats.

How does this play out in 2004? I’m old enough to know better than to think too wishfully. I suspect that Bush will shortly crash and burn– the economy is not perking up and probably won’t perk up until after the war. The war is obviously scheduled for political reasons this year, so it can be done with and celebrated in early 2004, but late enough so that the inevitable debacle afterwards– regional instability, new terrorist attacks, Osama thumbing his nose– won’t happen until after the 2004 elections.

I made the mistake before of believing that U.S. military victory would not come easy. I now tend to think that it will, indeed, come very easily. That’s why Bush has chosen Iraq to bear the brunt of his Mosaic complex. It has no air force. It has no real defense. Bush and Powell keep raving about the “threats” from Iraq as if Iraq had any kind of military strength, but that is essential to their political survival: if Americans see that they are the bully and Iraq is the 90 pound weakling, the medal ceremonies and flag-waving afterwards won’t have much resonance.

The Evidence Comes After the Verdict

One of the many problems with George Bush’s position on Iraq is so embedded in the entire debate that I doubt most people even pay it much thought it any more.

Bush announced that Saddam Hussein was evil and must be deposed and Iraq must be invaded right from the get go. He didn’t say, we have some concerns about Iraq’s adherence to the U.N. disarmament pact. He didn’t say, let’s investigate the issue and communicate our concerns to the world community and to Iraq so that groundwork for a solution can be laid. He didn’t say, here’s the proof. He said, guilty. Let’s invade. He said that more than a year ago.

The U.N. decided to be silly and weigh all the evidence first, as well as the real issue– regardless of Iraq’s alleged infractions, is a military invasion and a war the best way to handle the problem? Is there a downside? Has the U.S. jerked Iraq around, by supporting them against Iran, encouraging them to invade Kuwait, then invading and defeating them and inciting rebel groups to rise against Saddam, only to ensure that he remained in power in the name of stability?

The fact is, the U.S. changed the rules half way through the game.

Most people could see some common sense in a policy of containment. It actually appears to have been working. And most people can see the sense in a line in the sand: if you invade Kuwait, or Iran, or Turkey, or whatever, or you sponsor terrorists, we will take this or that action. In fact, I’m in favor of a clear policy like that, with clear, direct consequences. No negotiations, no extensions, no exceptions. All that is required is for all sides to understand the policy. And of course for a little something called “evidence”.

But when the U.S. blows off North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs, it is clear that there is no policy at all. But that’s been clear all along. Bush wants to whack Iraq, and it was only at Powell’s insistence that he even bothered notifying the U.N. The deck is stacked, however.

Some pundits claim that Powell’s presentation to the U.N. means that Iraq now has “the burden of proof”. Is there a bigger piece of bullshit out there in pundit-land right now? The burden of proof never shifts. It has always been the burden of the United States to show that Iraq’s actions justify war. The absurd insistence that Iraq must prove that they don’t have weapons of mass destruction is surely the emperor’s new clothes of this era. How can you prove that you don’t have something? For some reason, commentators like the New York Times’ William Safire see no absurdity here. That’s how crazy this whole Bush administration is.

You know what I suspect is actually happening here.

1. The Pentagon with it’s $300 billion a year in weapons of mass destruction is always itching for war. It’s in the nature of things. Carpenters want to make things, architects want to design things, actors want to act, Generals want to kill. They look at the world and see all kinds of things that need killing. They look at their chests and see all kinds of space for medals. They look at their billions of dollars worth of bombs and ordnance and jets and submarines, and want to blow things up. It’s human nature. You don’t invest that scale of resources into tools that you really don’t want to use. And military men, of course, see violence and intimidation and plain military might as the solution to everything, just as diplomats see negotiation as the solution to everything, and mothers see an all-knowing beneficent authority as the solution to everything.

2. The Clinton administration was unresponsive, by and large, to the generals’ constant clattering for action, action, action. I’ll bet they had meetings in the situation room in the White House where the generals simply listed hot-spot after hot-spot and begged for authority to act. And Clinton probably said, calm down boys, we’ll try some diplomatic channels first and see if we can get the two sides talking.

3. Enter George Bush. He has a couple of meetings with the generals. They say the same thing they said to Clinton– like, hey, Iraq scares us, lets go over and whack them. He’s a bad guy. And Bush went, he is? By golly, I didn’t know that. Where is Iraq? Why don’t the Iraqians elect a new leader? In short, the generals realized they had an enormously sympathetic, paranoid ear for their ravings and continued to build their case, and reinforce it, and exaggerate it, and accumulate every scrap of evidence they could muster in support of their case. Still, with Powell in State, they weren’t quite able to get the action they wanted until….

4. 9/11. A bunch of Saudis, likely indirectly financed by the Saudi Arabian government which pays off Islamic fundamentalists to go screw up other country’s regimes, attack the WTC. Now the generals sense their opening. There is a mushy, irrational, uneasy shift from Osama, whom they let slip away, to Saddam, whom they are able to locate in the vicinity of Yasser Arafat. Let’s whack him. If he hasn’t already done something evil, he probably will.

5. At this point, the Bush administration is not in analysis mode. They are in prosecutorial mode, and you know how that works.

But I think the world intuitively understands this. The U.N. speeches are not about making a case. They are about twisting arms and bullying for a case that the U.S. does not believe needs to be made. The fundamental arrogance of the U.S. is that they believe that if they prove that Saddam Hussein is willing to resist their ultimatums, that alone is enough to justify a full-scale invasion and the deaths of 250,000 people. They really believe they are “good”, that God has imbued President Bush with the authority to make sophisticated moral judgments about different cultures and histories, and that Jesus is returning soon anyway.

The mocking tone of recent New York Times editorials on the issue make it plain– we’re now into calling the French and Germans weenies and wimps. And how dare they label genetically modified food when the always trustworthy American corporations have determined that this process does no harm whatsoever?

Obviously, these people are serious about weighing all points of view.

Woodward the Intern

Bob Woodward– he of “All the President’s Men” fame– used to be a journalist. He’ll probably be honored forever for his celebrated expose– with Carl Bernstein– of the Watergate scandal.

He probably doesn’t know why.

He is now an iconographer of the worst sort. He belongs to the Barbara Walters school of pseudo-journalists who think that it is better to write fawning little laudatory tracts from the inside, than incisive, perceptive, important news from the outside.

Bob Woodward is in. He is invited to join President Bush and Cheney and the whole gang in the White House for an “insider” look at the presidency of George W. That’s like getting an “insider” account of the 9/11 bombings from Osama Bin Laden– if he really even had anything to do with it.*

The Bush administration, which, believe it or not, still has few holdovers from the Nixon era, must love the irony of it all, tee hee. Just imagine– one of the most famous journalists on the planet, known primarily for his role in bringing down the Nixon White House, gives his imprimatur of approval to a president that is as far to the right of Nixon as McGovern was to his left.

If George W. Bush had any real character, of course, he would have invited a reporter with acuity and objectivity, to see that he really is, ahem, doing a good job. Democrats sometimes like to do this, because, after all, they are the party of tolerance and diversity. That’s why Clinton had David Gergen on his staff for a while. That’s why President Bartlett on West Wing brought in Ainsley as Sam Seaborne’s nemesis for a while. (Why is it that you just know that a similar show with a Republican president and republican sensibilities would never bring in a liberal to ensure diversity of opinion? Because they believe they’re always right, that’s why.)

Instead, Bush, having established to his satisfaction that Woodward was politically sympathetic, and eager to please, invited the little toady, a naïve little fawn, an intern, for heaven’s sake, into the oval office for what can only be described as journalistic fellatio. Woodward’s stained dress is his “casual” and coy references to files marked “Top Secret” left within his view, and the flattering portrait of the president and his staff as personable, patriotic, and steely-eyed with determination to do something noble, be it whacking the Iraqi’s or giving billions of dollars in tax rebates to the rich.

I don’t mind Woodward fawning over Bush and writing pornographic iconography (pornography of the political mind). I do mind him continuing to pass himself off as a journalist on CNN and other talk shows, and acting as if he has any kind of objectivity left.

Woodward, take off the dress. It’s time to go home.


* I know some people will think it is pretty strange when I say “if he even had anything to do with it”. I’ll repeat it: if he even had anything to do with it.

If you are at all familiar with Nazi history, you know about the concept of the big lie. The idea is that any idea, no matter how ridiculous, can be sold to the general population as unquestionable truth by simply repeating it over and over again, no matter what anyone says.

That is what has happened with Osama Bin Laden. He is absolutely regarded as the mastermind behind 9/11 even though no proof has ever been adduced to that effect. Without a doubt, he approved of the attack. Without a doubt, he hates the United States. Without a doubt, he supports terrorist activities against Israel and the United States, and Western Civilization altogether.

But that is not proof that he orchestrated or financed or designed the attack on the World Trade Centre, and it bothers me, even if it doesn’t bother anyone else, that he would be hanged on the spot in the U.S. if he was ever found there and no one would mind at all

Legitimacy and Chavez

Asked whether the administration now recognizes Mr. Chávez as Venezuela’s legitimate president, one administration official replied, “He was democratically elected,” then added, “Legitimacy is something that is conferred not just by a majority of the voters, however.”  re. Chavez, a “Senior Administration Official”, NY Times, April 16, 2002

Ah, Democracy and Freedom. America’s greatest virtues, at home, if not abroad.

This is an official of the Bush Administration declaring that just because President Chavez, was elected by a majority of voters doesn’t mean he has “legitimacy”. Shades of Salvatore Allende and Kissinger’s famous remark about those irresponsible Chilean voters!

It’s not new for Republican politicians to define democracy primarily as something that benefits big American vested interests. It would not be enough, for example, for Cuba to hold free elections. The problem is, a la Kissinger, that the people might very well elect the “wrong” leader– Castro. Even some pretty hard-edged American foreign policy “experts” know that in a free election, Cuba might well elect Castro. So it’s not democracy that we want. What we want is another crony to American corporate interests.

We want our casinos and bordellos back.

Jeb Bush, George’s brother, is governor of Florida. Bush barely won Florida in the last election. Florida has a sizeable Cuban expatriate population. These are people who fled Cuba because they hated Castro.

2 + 2 = 4.