The Politics Page

art by Ruben Salazar

"It appears the only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is oil."
- Peter Drekmeier, activist

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."  
 Thomas Paine
il Mackay
This section of our website was begun October 2003 because it seemed important, for example, to pass along to you some of the third- party political difficulties facing any real alternative to the U.S. Demopublican/Republicrat one-party system.

Articles:

Carlyle Empire
by Eric Leser, Le Monde
The biggest private investor in the world is Carlyle, deeply entrenched in the weapons' sector

Double Standards
Bill Clinton and the ìAnybody But Bushî Movement

Election a 'win-win situation' for secretive Bonesmen  -  Kerry and Bush = Skull and Bones Society

Jump down to George W. Bush's resume.

Double Standards
Bill Clinton and the ìAnybody But Bushî Movement

from Question Everything (syndicated to Alternative Press Review online)

If the democrats take power this November they will probably continue the same policies as Bush.  We know this because Clinton did basically the same thing when he was in office.  To think otherwise is to ignore history and the democrat's records.  The "Anybody but Bush" (ABB) movement is founded on a basically irrational hatred of Bush that completely ignores the record of the democrats the last time they were in power.  The ABB movement practices a double standard: when republicans do something itís wrong but when democrats do the same thing itís okay (or didnít happen at all).  In party politics it is always the other partyís fault, never the systemís fault.  If a democrat were in office and implemented the same policies Bush has most of the ABBers would support him.  We know this because Clinton implemented many of the same policies ABBers criticize Bush for yet they didnít develop the same kind of hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush.  Most outright supported Clinton and the minority who didnít support him did not develop the kind of irrational hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush.

There are major continuities between Clintonís policies and Bushís policies, even if their rhetoric is different.  These continuities also illustrate the flaw in thinking that putting a democrat back in office will be a big change for the better.  The last time a democrat was in office he did pretty much the same thing the current occupant is doing, so given that the current nominee doesn't disavow Clinton thereís no reason to think the next democrat in the White House will be much different.

Bushís environmental record isnít very good, but neither was Clintonís.  During the 1992 election campaign Clinton and Gore promised to shut down the East Liverpool incinerator, which spews toxic chemicals into the air a quarter of a mile away from an elementary school, but once elected they refused to do so.  The Clinton administrationís enforcement of the endangered species act was lax and he weakened it through several means, including the ìno surprisesî and ìsafe harborsî policies.  Funding of mass transit continued to decline under his administration.

Clinton ended the ban on production and importation of PCBs, stopped the phase out of Methyl Bromide (a toxic pesticide and ozone layer depleter), supported the weakening of the safe drinking water act (by allowing increased levels of arsenic and lead in drinking water), signed the Salvage Rider law (which cut down thousands of acres of healthy forests), signed the Panama declaration (which weakened protection for marine mammals including dolphins and whales), supported international distribution of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, supported mountain top removal strip mining, continued subsidizing the sugar industry in Florida (which poisons the Everglades & diverts water away from wildlife that needs it), and lowered grazing fees on public land.  Clinton also supported the World Trade Organization (WTO), which weakened or removed environmental protections, including the weakening of the clean air act and the removal of part of the Endangered Species act's protection of sea turtles.  In 1996 former Sierra Club President David Brower wrote, "President Clinton has done more to harm the environment and to weaken environmental regulations in three years than presidents Bush and Reagan did in 12 years."

Many in the ABB movement attack Bush for reducing civil liberties through things like the PATRIOT act.  Yet, almost all democrats in congress vote for the patriot act and Bill Clinton supported many measures that reduced civil liberties and expanded the police state.  He signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the forerunner to the PATRIOT act.  It allowed the INS to deport immigrants based on secret evidence, made it a crime to support the lawful activities of any group the state department labeled a ìterrorist organization,î and eliminated federal constitutional review of state death penalty cases (making the execution of innocent people more likely).  Much of the PATRIOT act consists of things that Clinton was unable to pass during his term.

Clinton encouraged the militarization of the police, including a program to put 100,000 more cops on the street.  This lead to political repression, seen at Seattle, and more recent actions as well as a general increase in police brutality, such as the police torture of Abner Louima and the 1999 murder of Amadou Diallo (who was shot 41 times by police claiming they thought his wallet was a gun).  Clinton supported Internet censorship, signing the Communications Decency Act - which the Supreme Court fortunately struck down on first amendment grounds.  When he ran for election in 1992 Clinton pledged to free political prisoner Leonard Peltier, but he was still in prison when Clinton left office.  The rate of capital punishment increased under Clinton, as did the rate of incarceration.  Clintonís expansion of the prison system, due mainly to the ìwar on drugs,î caused the United States to imprison more people than any other country in the world, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population.  All of this was done at a time when crime rates were decreasing.

Democrats attack Bush over the poor state of the economy, but the economy actually started going downhill at the very end of Clinton's administration, in late 2000.  The stock bubble of the 1990s caused the recession and it occurred while Clinton was in office.  Clinton's boom was founded on corporate fraud from the likes of Enron and WorldCom.  The corporate crime wave occurred mainly while Clinton was in office, whose administration was just as complicit as Bush.  It was just exposed while Bush was in office.  The reason most Democratic leaders haven't attacked Bush over this is because they're just as much in bed with these criminals as the Republicans.  Most of the benefits from Clinton's boom went to the wealthier sections of society.  Economic inequality increased under Clinton, just as it has under Bush.  None of this excuses the Bush's handling of the economy, his administration's response to the recession it inherited from Clinton has been awful, but there are strong continuities with the Clinton administration.

Liberals often criticize Bush over his tax cuts for the rich and generally waging a class war in favor of the rich, but Clinton did the same thing.  Clinton reduced the capital gains tax rate in 1997.  This disproportionately benefits the rich, since a large percentage of their income comes from capital gains but most Americans make little or nothing from capital gains.  Corporate welfare (subsidies and tax loopholes for the rich & big business) greatly increased under Clinton's administration, in his second term alone corporate welfare rose by over 30%.  Clinton also attacked the poor by, among other things, abolishing the Aid to Families with Dependant Children program ("welfare reform").  The increase in poverty under Bush is, in part, due to this class war against the poor by Clinton, which undermined the social safety net.  After winning election in 1992 Clinton made Lawrence Summers an official in his administration and later appointed Summers his last Treasury Secretary in 1999.  Before Clinton was elected, in 1991, Summers, then chief economist for the World Bank, issued a memo reading:

"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? ... I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. ... I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted ... The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."

Some democrats attack Bush over outsourcing, but Clinton supported NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and "free trade" generally, which caused outsourcing to go from a trickle to the current flood.  Under Clinton the budget for the federally funded Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) increased by over 30%.  OPIC gives loans and guarantees to companies intended to encourage investment in "developing" countries, which tends to encourage outsourcing.  For example, Kimberly Clark transferred 600 jobs to other countries as a result of this funding and Levi Strauss transferred 100 jobs overseas for the same reason.  In other words, the government gives loans to companies, through OPIC, to ship American jobs overseas and Clinton increased OPIC's budget from under $100 million to $3 billion.  Under Clinton 14% of OPIC's loans went to Citibank.  Robert Ruben, one of Clinton's Treasury Secretaries, became director of Citibank after leaving office.  Under Bush OPIC's budget decreased to $800 million.  The problem with outsourcing is not that it "steals American jobs," as nationalists argue, but that it replaces relatively high paying jobs with lower paying jobs, causing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  Clinton's policies were even more pro-outsourcing than Bush's.

Bush's policies on the media tend to favor the concentration of the media into a few large corporations.  So did Clinton's policies.  He signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which encouraged media monopolization at least as much as Bush.

Bush has a poor record on gay rights, but Clinton's record (if not his rhetoric) wasn't much better, as shown by his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act and his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

On abortion, Clinton signed an order banning any American funds to pay for abortions overseas.  Bush only expanded this to include cutting off funds to any group that offers abortion as an alternative.  Under Clinton the number of abortion providers dropped to the lowest in 30 years.  A large number of counties donít have abortion providers.  This effectively denies many women the choice to have an abortion since if there is no abortion provider around then you obviously canít choose to have an abortion.

Clintonís foreign policy could best be described as ìcruise missile imperialism.î  ABBers attack Bush for his alleged unilateral ìgo it aloneî foreign policy and for invading Iraq on false pretenses.  Both were largely a continuation of Clintonís policies.

Clinton increased funding for the military.  He also bombed more countries than any other peacetime president, including Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.  In 1998 he bombed alleged terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (which were built by the CIA for Islamic terrorists in the 1980s) supposedly being used by Osama Bin Laden and a factory in Sudan Clinton alleged was producing chemical weapons for Bin Laden.  No proof that this factory was producing chemical weapons was ever provided and it was later proven that the plant was actually a medicine factory.  This probably resulted in thousands of deaths (there was no investigation so we canít know the exact number) because the source of medicine for many Sudanese was cut off.

When Bush invaded Iraq, he went to the UN and attempt to get international support and UN approval to invade Iraq.  He failed to get that support and invaded anyway but he at least tried to get UN approval.  When Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 he didnít even try to get UN approval, he just bypassed it completely in favor of a unilateral assault.  Nineteen nations, all of NATO, technically signed up to the war but the US (with UK assistance) took the lead role and did most of the fighting, just like Bushís ìcoalitionî in Iraq.  Most of the world was against the war, there were even small riots in front of US embassies.  Unlike the Iraq war, the US did have the support of West European governments, but the rest of the world was against it (some were extremely upset).  One of the administrationís slogans was ìmultilateral when we can, unilateral when we must,î which is virtually the same as Bushís policy.

In Yugoslavia the government was fighting a war with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which advocated independence for the Kosovo province of Yugoslavia.  The official pretext for Clintonís bombing of Yugoslavia was that it refused to sign up to the Rambouillet peace accords and was committing ìethnic cleansingî (genocide) in Kosovo as part of the war.  These pretexts were disproved, just as the pretexts for the Iraq war were disproved.  Clinton intentionally sabotaged the peace negotiations between the KLA and Yugoslavia, which the US mediated, by inserting the infamous ìAppendix Bî into the Rambouillet accords, requiring Yugoslavia to allow NATO ìpeacekeeperî troops to occupy the entire country (not just Kosovo).  Obviously, Yugoslavia is not going to agree to just let the US take the whole country over.

During the war all sorts of allegations were thrown around about hundreds of thousands of Kosovars being massacred, rape camps being set up, mass graves littering the province and so on.   NATOís own investigations, after the war was over, failed to find any proof of these accusations.  There were atrocities, as in almost every war, but nothing even remotely approaching genocide.  NATOís bombings killed more people than the so-called ìethnic cleansingî which allegedly motivated it.  Just as there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was no ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.  Furthermore, the CIA later admitted that it began supporting the KLA even before the bombing started.  In other words, Clinton intentionally instigated the whole conflict, using the KLA as a proxy army to attack Yugoslavia and create a situation where he would have an excuse to bomb the country.

Clintonís policy towards Iraq set the stage for the invasion of Iraq.  In 1998 Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Iraq official US policy.  Clinton waged a terrorist car bombing campaign against Iraq, whose targets included school buses, and attempted to overthrow the Iraqi government via coup.  Madeline Albright, who later became Clintonís secretary of state, said in a May 1996 interview on ì60 Minutesî that she thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions on Iraq was ìworth the price.î

Clinton repeatedly bombed Iraq throughout his term.  In 1998 Iraq stopped cooperating with weapons inspectors, claiming they were being used by the US as spies.  Clinton had the inspectors withdrawn and launched Operation Desert Fox, a major bombing campaign against Iraq much larger than his previous bombings of Iraq.  Afterwards the US continued bombing Iraq on an almost daily basis until the invasion.  A later UN investigation found that Iraqís allegations were true; the US was using the inspectors to spy on Iraq.  Bush merely escalated Clintonís aggression against Iraq from a low intensity war to a full-fledged invasion, an escalation that probably would not have been possible had Clinton not been laying siege to Iraq for his entire term.  Clintonís bombings of Iraq were completely unilateral, without UN approval and carried out solely by the US and UK.

Clintonís pretexts for all this were the same pretexts used by Bush to invade Iraq, but with more emphasis on weapons of mass destruction and less emphasis on Al-Qaeda.  On February 4^th, 1998 Clinton said, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."  On February 17^th, 1998 he said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."  In his defense of Operation Desert Fox on December 16^th, 1998 Clinton argued that, ìSaddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weaponsî and that, ìThe best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.î  On February 18^th, 1998 Secretary of State Madeline Albright said, ìIraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.î  Clintonís National Security Adviser Sandy Berger warned, ìhe [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.î

The state department kept Iraq on its list of states that it claims ìsponsor terrorismî every year Clinton was in office.  Part of a 1998 indictment of Osama Bin Laden by Clintonís justice department read, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."  The use of the fact that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a dictatorship in order to demonize Iraq and justify aggression towards it has been a staple part of US war propaganda since the Gulf War and continued to be so under Clinton.  All the lies used by Bush to justify conquering Iraq were inherited from Clinton.

Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq and her husband agrees with her stance.  Bill Clinton supports the war; he only differs with Bush in that he thinks it would have been better to wait a little longer before invading.  In a June 2004 interview he told Time magazine, ìI have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq Ö I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasonsî and that ìYou couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these [weapons of mass destruction] stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Ö So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.î  He also claimed after the weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998:

ìthere were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that's all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.

After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.

That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for.î

During the 2000 election Bush, unlike Gore, was against ìnation buildingî (taking other countries over, like in Iraq and Afghanistan) but that was obviously thrown out the window.  Gore called for increasing military spending by $10 billion over the next ten years, while Bush only wanted to raise it by $5 billion over the next ten years.  According to Clinton foreign policy adviser Strobe Talbott, "the Bush administration was right to identify Iraq as a major problem. A President GoreÖwould have ratcheted up the pressure, and sooner or later resorted to force."  Subjected to the same political pressures as Bush and surrounded by advisers like Talbott, Gore would have probably reacted to events in a manner similar to Bush.  Those who argue that Gore would have been less aggressive than Bush and would not have invaded Iraq are arguing that the more aggressive & militaristic candidate would actually have been less aggressive & militaristic, which is fairly absurd.

The invasion of Iraq was the outcome of geopolitics and a changed domestic situation, not which man occupied the White House.  After the gulf war the US laid siege to Iraq with sanctions and bombings.  As this siege progressively degraded Iraqís military an invasion became more likely, because defeating Iraqís military in a war became easier & cheaper the more the siege degraded it.  At the same time, attempts to overthrow the government and install a pro-US one through terrorism, coups, etc. continually failed.  The failure of these covert attempts to topple the government and the decreasing costs & risks of an invasion created pressure to invade Iraq, which, given enough time, would eventually lead to an invasion.  This process was accelerated by 9-11 because it decreased domestic opposition to wars in general and enabled the government to decrease opposition to the invasion by scaring the public with fantasies about how Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks on the US.  The same pretext of ìfighting terrorismî could be used to keep US bases in the region for as long as the government wanted.  9-11 accelerated many of these trends, but they were still basically a continuation of Clintonís policies.

The Bush-haters position is not founded on the policies Bush has implemented, which they complain about.  If it were they would be Clinton haters, too.  Most ABBersí position is based primarily on a blind irrational hatred of the other party and, partly, also a reaction to the different media images of Clinton & Bush.  When Clinton ran for office he claimed to advocate a mildly liberal reformist platform, once in office he abandoned it and went with a conservative program.  Today, most leaders of the Democratic Party donít even pretend to support that mildly populist reformism Clinton espoused in 1992.  To think that the next democratic administration will be any different is asinine.  Clintonís administration gives us an example of what we can expect if the democrats take power this November: more of the same.

Source: http://question-everything.mahost.org (Socio-Politics section)

Comment: Who would you rather have appointment-power for judges including U.S. Supreme Court justices?  Bush or Clinton?  Or Kerry?  A valid question, no? - JL, Culture Change

Election a 'win-win situation' for secretive Bonesmen

 

By Kris Millegan 

A Kucinich for President campaigner throws down the gauntlet: Les Jeux Sont Faits

The falsehoods out of Condoleeza Rice's mouth on dealing with 9-11: credibility gap taints whole administration as fools.  See our 9-11 info page.

Gag order leaves troops, reporters speechless (the Rocky Mountain News comments on Bush's Iraq stopover)

Repression of dissent worst since McCarthyist era

Bush planned Iraq before becoming President; oil targeted before 9-11

Why the anti-war movement was right by Arianna Huffington

It is a journalistic coup for the cause of peace that Truthout.org had as its lead editorial a perspective by Senator Ernest Hollings, "The United States has lost its Moral Authority" (June 23, 2004).

Green Party governor-for-California candidate Peter Miguel Camejo is a solid activist who opposes the corporate agenda of U.S. politics as dominated in all our elections (and the so-called election of 2000 for president).  He did the best in the debates, according to polls, but was undermined by desperate Democratic Party tactics.  For example, two days before the election the Democrats claimed they had polls showing that they were neck and neck with the Republicans, both on the recall question and in the Bustamante vs Schwarzenegger race.  This lie helped turn people away from Camejo.  Following is an excerpt of his report on the election that he released October 14.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY FRONT ORGANIZATIONS 
    There is a web site called MoveOn.org that presents itself as progressive.  I believe it is nothing more than a Democratic Party organizing center, allowing Democrats to keep progressive minded people co-opted to the Democrats.  They launched a campaign, as did Code Pink, against Arnold Schwarzeneggerís attacks on women.  But this campaign was directly linked to a ìVote Democraticî campaign and therefore would not mention anything negative about Democrats, specifically allegations that Gray Davis intimidated and attacked women he worked with.  The truth is that the real purpose of both of these campaigns was to help the Democrats, no matter how sincere many of the people were in their disgust with Schwarzenegger.  I attended one of these events and spoke at it. The content of the event, sponsored by Code Pink, was overwhelmingly focused on defense of womenís rights, inter mixed with some pro-Davis signs.  Unlike MoveOn.org, Code Pink tried to some extent to keep the two issues separated. 
    I understand MoveOn.org came out with a ìSuddenly, I Love Gray Davisî slogan.  They are openly a front for the Democrats.  They raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and had a place for voters to sign pledging that they would never vote for Schwarzenegger. 
    Of course MoveOn will play a role in mobilizing progressive voters to vote Democrat in 2004 as part of a ìstop Bushî movement, but you can bet your life they will not have a pledge calling on voters to refuse to vote for anyone who voted ìUnequivocal support for George Bushî, because that would be most of the Democratic Partyís leadership. 
    We can expect that Democratic Party controlled organizations like the Sierra Club, NOW; MoveOn and many union leaders will all join in the attack on the Green Party.  In so doing they will show their failure to understand or support democracy.  Instead, they show their subservience to a corporate controlled party.  Their politics opens the door and helps facilitate Republican victories.  This is because Democrats always accept the premises of the Republican platform, whether it is the so-called ìwar on terrorismî or ìenergy deregulationî.  The only thing they argue over is the nuts and bolts of implementing this platform.  It is these organizations and their opposition to democracy that has historically blocked the development of any effective opposition to corporate domination or the Republican agenda.

Greenwash politics: The Sierra Club's head, Carl Pope, has a new article in Green Car magazine.  His article is titled "Technology Can Save the SUV."  This position, along with compromising on protection of forests, disqualifies Pope and his cronies as any heirs of John Muir.  "The Sierra Club is such a sell-out it's ridiculous," says Jen Petullo of the Redwood Peace and Justice Center, Arcata, Calif.  As less than half the motor-vehicle air pollution comes out of the tailpipe (due to manufacturing and mining associated with vehicles), it is no solution to switch fuels as the main approach to global warming and smog. 

______________________________________

just so you know:

ïI attacked and took over 2 countries.

ïI spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.

ïI shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).

ïI set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

ïI set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

ïI am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

ïIn my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did).

ïAfter taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.

ïI set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.

ïIn my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

ïI cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.

ïI set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period.

ïI appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

ïI set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.

ïI signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history.

ïI presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

ïI cut health care benefits for war veterans.

ïI set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

ïI dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

ïI've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

ïMembers of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.)

ïI am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.

ïI presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.

ïI am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.

ïI have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security"(only one letter away from BS).

ïI set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough to beat, but I did it!!).

ïI am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

ïI am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

ïI removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

ïI rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. I withdrew from the World Court of Law.

ïI refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

ïI am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.

ïI am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

ïThe biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

ïI spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

ïI am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

ïI am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

ïI took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

ïI am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

ïI changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

ïI set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.

ïI have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

ïI entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

ïRECORDS AND REFERENCES: I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

ïI was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of war.

ïI refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use. (wink,wink)

ïAll records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

ïAll records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

ïAll minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

ïAny records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

With Love,
GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House, Washington, DC

Source: http://www.mellowdrone.com

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 
Kucinich Culture Newsletter (2:4) 
Les Jeux Sont Faits 

It's been said that an operational definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. By this definition, our nation seems to be caught in the morass of a mass psychosis. As Freud so astutely pointed out, people often adopt the societal psychosis to save them the trouble of coming up with one of their own. This creates a "vicious cycle" which dangerously feeds the mass psychosis as more and more people opt to "buy in" to it. 

As i've said before, the three pillars of American society are Ignorance, Apathy, and Self-Indulgence. How else can you explain the fact that -- not one, but -- two people who broke their oath of office are being allowed to run for President! 

Isn't this exactly what people like Ralph Nader have been warning against? I've insisted the same thing myself. Continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and, over time, there'll be less and less difference between the "candidates". Furthermore, when you allow the Government and their lackey "press agents" to control the debate, to decide what will and what will not be discussed, you've lost any hope of a free exchange of ideas. And as soon as the People of a Democracy are no longer able to have a free and open exchange with their Government, can it really be called a Democracy? And when a Government coerces its citizenry with threats of fines, imprisonment, physical violence, and even deportation, is this not tyranny? 

If you are still reading by this point, you may be wondering as to the nature of this mass psychosis to which i've alluded. Let me offer a clue... it manifests itself most demonstrably every four years and culminates in the crowning of the potentate du jour. 

Years of "dumbing down" the populace has produced the ideal electorate: an electorate able to follow logic, but with such a short attention span as to be unable to recognize "circular logic". Circular logic leads inevitably to self-fulfilling prophesy. Yes, what we believe determines what we think, and what and how we think determines how we see the world, and how we see the world determines how we act in the world, and our interpretation of the results of our actions reinforces the beliefs we held to begin with. It's a closed system and it works in lockstep with a closed mind. 

So how does circular logic in league with self-fulfilling prophesy and a closed mind play itself out in current world affairs? There are several entry points, but let's go with the most obvious. 

Bush and his criminal coterie are clearly guilty of election fraud, lying under oath, war profiteering, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and treason. If any President in the history of this nation deserves to be impeached, it's George W. Bush. The 18th century is known as the Age of Reason. I think the beginning of this, the 21st, century may one day be known as the Age of Treason. 

But, instead of being impeached, removed from office, and tried for his numerous crimes, including egregious violation of his oath of office, Bush is, incomprehensibly, running for re-selection! Why? Because the American people have lost all sense of perspective, and consequently, all sense of reality. 

The "reality tunnel" through which the vast majority of people in this country see the world is narrow and distorted by generation after generation of mindless perpetuation of the American mythos... that we, as a nation, are all powerful, all righteous, and doing always the will of god. Though, in a grand ironic twist that is lost on most people, we -- as a nation -- are becoming exactly what we pretend to oppose: a nation ruled by lawlessness, terror, and barbarity. 

The Greek philosopher, Plato, observed, "Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy". Why? If we believe George Bernard Shaw that, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve", we are to believe that the American people deserve the government we have, and that we deserve the government that will succeed it. From my perspective, this is a sad but true assessment. 

Way too many people in this country do, indeed, in their beliefs, their thoughts, and their actions show themselves to be 'model' citizens in that they are ignorant, apathetic, and self-indulgent. They have been seduced by the American mythos of supremacy and entitlement, hypnotized by the illusion of freedom; when, in reality, this nation has become the driving force for fascism around the world. This nation manufactures, sells, and uses more weapons of all sorts than any other on the planet and this nation spreads far more terror, death, and destruction around the world than any shadowy network of fundamentalist Muslims ever will. 

And what of our Democracy? ...our right to select our leaders? Democrats and Republicans will say, "Hey, there are big important differences between Bush and Kerry". There undoubtedly are some differences, but neither of them would make a fundamental change in the direction this country is leading the world, both have violated their oath of office, both are beholden to big business, both are members of the secret Yale society, the Order of Skull and Bones. 

Typical democrats will shrug their shoulders and say, "So what, Kerry'll be better than Bush!". Better at what, i wonder. Kerry wants to send more troops to Iraq... his way of -- you know -- getting us out of there. Just like Bush, he wants to take away our Constitutional rights to -- you know -- protect us and make us more free. Is this what we've come to? Is this our 'choice'? ...Texas fascism with a mitre and staff, or fascism with a long face and Boston accent. All the democrats are clamoring, "Believe you me, take the long-face, Boston fascism over that mean, Texas fascism... it's a much kinder and gentler fascism"; but i'm not buying it. 

As someone who believes, thinks, and acts as if what they believe, think, and do actually does make a difference in the world, the following words, articulated beautifully in 1857 by the American abolitionist, Frederick Douglas, speak volumes to me: "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress". 

As you may have guessed from the title, i am taking it upon myself to declare -- at least for myself, and anyone else who shares my world view -- that the game is over... the jig is up. No more "business as usual" inside the beltway. 

Perhaps some of you are, by now, scratching your head and wondering what any of this has to do with Ohio Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich. Plenty! i say. Rest assured, i am not speaking on behalf of the Kucinich campaign; but rather, to the Kucinich campaign and to supporters of Kucinich and his ideas... and to the culture that has grown up around Kucinich -- hence, the title of this newsletter. 

What follows is an actionable plan for moving forward. I offer it here as a starting point for discussion, understanding full well that it will have some vocal opponents: 

* If Congressman Kucinich truly does want to be the leader of a progressive political movement, he should immediately resign from the Democratic party and become either a Green or a member of the Natural Law party. Let's be realistic here, do we progressives, or Congressman Kucinich for that matter, owe any allegiance whatsoever to the Democratic party? I dare say, "No!". 

The DNC, DLC, and so called 'legitimate' candidates have treated Kucinich and his supporters with little more than contempt. From my perspective, Congressman Kucinich is acting a bit like a battered spouse who's in denial. I ask you, Congressman, with all due respect, "Do you really feel you command the respect of the Democratic party?". It doesn't seem to me that you or your supporters are afforded anywhere near the respect that you or we deserve. 

As for those who insist the best way to change the system is from within, i have this to say: If those who are responsible for the care and feeding of the system -- the "beast", as i like to call it -- derive benefit from the system as it is and stand to lose if changes are made, then the system is impervious to change from within. At this point, the political process in this country -- and most of the rest of the world -- has become so utterly and absolutely corrupt as to be beyond repair. 

* After clearly stating the many reasons he's leaving the Democratic party, Congressman Kucinich would have a perfect segue into why he's submitting articles of impeachment. I know we've been over all this once before, but i am not the least bit swayed by the facile arguments against someone submitting articles of impeachment -- not just against Bush, but also against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and whomever else in the Bush regime who has broken their oath of office to "uphold and protect the Constitution" of this country. 

Two of the most often repeated arguments against submitting articles of impeachment are: one, it's too "negative"; and two, in a Republican-controlled Senate, the articles would never pass. 

In response to the first argument i invoke Doctor Martin Luther King, "A time comes when silence is betrayal", and Abraham Lincoln, "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men". In response to the second argument, these words of Goethe come to mind, "Whatever you can do or dream, you can begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now". To anticipate failure and defeat and resign ourselves to inaction makes slaves of us all. 

* The next step is for Congressman Kucinich to accept the Presidential nomination of the Natural Law party. It's my understanding that he will already be on the ballot as the Natural Law candidate for President come November. 

I can hear the sound of eyeballs rolling even as i type this. "But that would only split the progressive vote", is the familiar refrain. I disagree, it would do just the opposite; it would give progressives, populists, and libertarians alike a strong candidate around whom they can rally. You can polish the "turd" all you want, but J. Forbes Kerry is not someone around whom progressives, populists, and libertarians will rally. 

In summary, by making these three bold moves, Congressman Kucinich would prove himself to be the leader that i and many of us have hoped him to be. Either we stand up now to the powers that be and say, "No more!", or we resign ourselves to our fate as conscripted 'citizens' of a vile and pernicious global empire, the likes of which this world has never seen. 

Will we prove Hegel right, that the only thing we learn from history is that man can never learn anything from history? Or will enough people shake off their societal psychosis and come to understand that our beliefs, our thoughts, and our actions -- individually and collectively -- have everything to do with shaping the world in which we live? 

In Peace, galen aka Dennis Mitrzyk

*****

Subscribe to the free Culture Change e-Letter, delivered directly to your e-mail box.

Culture Change mailing address: P.O. Box 3387 , Santa Cruz , California 95063 USA
  Telephone 1-215-243-3144 (and fax)
Web: http://www.culturechange.org
E-Mail info@culturechange.org

Culture Change was founded by Sustainable Energy Institute (formerly Fossil Fuels Policy Action), a nonprofit organization.