Caldwell's Funny Zit; Gore for '04; Sending Up Andrew Sullivan; Armond White's Hero Worship; C. J. Sullivan Scores a Knockout
Another Bias Attack
Michelangelo Signorile is not the first to claim that the fact that the New York Times was "both exposing and editorializing against Bill Clinton" ("The Gist," 12/4) proves that there is no liberal bias in the major media. Of course the Times editorialized against Clinton on occasion; it was, after all, and still is, pretending to be an objective paper. As for "exposing" Clinton, one has to wonder how much the Times would have exposed had Matt Drudge not been pre-exposing what the Times in the end could not ignore. Anyway, the National Review, an avowedly partisan magazine, editorializes against Bush (see the recent agriculture bill and steel tariffs) but that does not make it unbiased. The fact that Signorile considers the Times' occasional deviations from lockstep ideological conformity with a Democratic president to be proof of lack of bias tells us exactly where he's coming from. Conservatives don't necessarily accuse the mainstream media of being the mouthpiece of the Democratic party (as Gore now accuses certain organizations of being "part and parcel of the Republican Party"), but rather of not understanding, or of being actively hostile to, or of not taking seriously conservative ideas, even as it asserts as axiomatic the correctness of liberal ones.
More importantly, Signorile misses a key point about media bias: that it is not quite the bugaboo it used to be for conservatives. Media bias used to be hugely frustrating to conservatives because there was no way to combat it. One would read The New York Times and The Washington Post and think to oneself: do they really think that I'm that ignorant, intolerant, evil and wrong? The only consolations were the lonely ones to be found in magazines like The American Spectator, whose "Current Wisdom" section deliciously skewered the mainstream media on its own words, and whose articles used arguments and data to demonstrate how mendacious, false, or hypocritical the mainstream media could be (compare, for example, the media's treatment of Clarence Thomas' alleged come-ons to that of Bill Clinton's admitted ones). Today, however, in large part because of the Internet (as MUGGER described in his column), media's liberal bias is a lot more fun for conservatives than it used to be. Phenomena like the "blogosphere" made us realize, first, that we are a lot more numerous than we thought we were. These numbers include not only hardcore National Review-reading conservatives, but also those who are just more conservative than the average journalist, and who are sick of having their intelligence insulted by the average journalist. (Consider how many people have voted for Republican presidents in the last 50 years, then consider how many Republican presidential candidates have been endorsed by The New York Times in the same period?that adds up to a lot of people being told that they're always wrong.) The Internet also gives these people access to raw data so they can see beyond the spin provided by the major papers. Finally, it gives people a way of communicating with each other, sharing their frustration and even effecting change (would Howell Raines' reversal of his Augusta censorship have occurred without the Internet? would it even have been widely known?). The Internet has therefore forced old media to realize that there are a large number of Americans who don't buy what they're selling, and that these Americans are not necessarily the inarticulate hicks of their imagination, but people with serious ideas. Now the mainstream media is finally recognizing that conservatives and their ideas deserve a serious hearing in the public square?a realization that Signorile dismisses as sucking up.
But it is typical that just when the media is becoming less biased, and conservatives are finally gaining a voice in the mainstream media, Al Gore and Signorile discover conservative bias. And how predictable it is that to them such a voice is "dangerous to American democracy."
S. Smith, Manhattan
Gored
And the Daily Howler could be his number one researcher! I love Gore for 2004! I say reelect him and let him actually do the job this time! The Bushits are ruining our country and the media propaganda machine is complicit and should be indicted along with those they are helping to keep in power! Remember when all of this goes down, all of the thousands of e-mails and articles we all wrote that were pointing out this atrocity! We will win! Thank you, Michelangelo Signorile, for keeping it real!
Char Evans, Little Falls, NY
Clearing the Air
Mike Signorile: Great piece about Al Gore and the myth of the liberal media! Just about the only reason why I read The New York Times these days is Paul Krugman's column, and the man has a day job!
Helga Fremlin, Melbourne, Australia
He'd Ban It There, Too
MUGGER: Mayor Mike couldn't possibly allow a casino in NY. Gamblers smoke.
Jim Huguley, Tampa, FL
Sicilian Slice
William Bryk: Thank you so much for your detailed article about Lt. Joseph Petrosino ("Old Smoke," 11/13). This man, who should be properly held up as an Italian-American hero, receives scant attention. Although Hollywood produced one movie about him (Pay or Die, with Ernest Borgnine), he has been seriously ignored by many except for the NYPD, the Bomb Squad, which he initiated in 1903, and some Italian-American organizations. I guess he just doesn't fit Hollywood's more contemporary Italian-American stereotypes, the cash-cows of the industry. The Square is, as you mentioned, litter-strewn, and has a problem with rat infestation as well. Recently, a community group (the Friends of Lt. Joseph Petrosino Square) is getting organized to work with the Parks Dept. to beautify the area. The condition is so deplorable, however, that this may take some time. Hopefully, there will be some positive changes before the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Bomb Squad in the spring. Your informative article is very much appreciated.
Pat Bennett Porto, Manhattan
Sucker Punch
Invariably, every time C.J. Sullivan writes about sports and the like, he gets something wrong, or doesn't properly qualify his statement. The latest gaffe: Technically Chuck Wepner did knock down Ali in their 1975 bout. However, every moderate sports and boxing fan knows the truth behind that statement: Wepner was able to do it because he pulled a stunt right out of 5th grade by standing on Ali's foot while throwing the punch.
Robert Liebowitz, Astoria
The More Things Change?
1992: The Economy, stupid.
2002: The Economy, George.
W.H. Spears, Arlington Heights, IL
Our 15 Minutes Must Be Over
As a groovy, over-compensated creative director with great taste, I must express my great disappointment with this year's Gift Guide (11/27). In past high-commerce seasons, you have directed me to at least a couple of sparkling yet shallow tokens. This year, I honestly didn't find one "cool" or "hip" item. What to do. What to do. Anyhow, please now excuse me, I must get back to discovering new city surfaces on which to plaster my mediocre mental pollution.
Mark Duffy, Manhattan
Black on White
Listen, I know film reviews are inherently subjective, and Armond White is entitled to his hero-worship of Steven Spielberg and Brian De Palma, but does he realize he's just about the only film critic on Earth who thought Mission to Mars was a good film? White sneeringly derides Solaris as slick and unsophisticated, but doesn't bother exploring the plot, which at least has the virtue of making the audience think for a few minutes after the film concludes. Mission to Mars unapologetically spelled out its mawkish, absurd conclusion in big, sloppy letters, as did Spielberg's pitiful A.I., another inexplicable White favorite.
Here's a suggestion for White: try going a few columns without slobbering all over one of Spielberg's overwrought epics and faulting every other movie you review for not being as "humanist" as the Great One's. Engage movies on their own terms before making a sweeping denunciation of each picture based on the canon of its director. And stop using words like "numinous"?you write for a newspaper, not a literary magazine.
David Faris, Philadelphia
Florida Lovin'
Keep Mike Signorile's columns going?it is refreshing to have such honesty in this less than honest world.
Kent Peterson, Longboat Key, FL
The Buchananites
MUGGER: Pat Buchanan believes Israelis have the right to defend themselves. This is an unfair swipe at him.
S. Blum, Boca Raton, FL
Clueless in Manhattan
MUGGER: I don't buy all the praise Bloomberg receives about how he's a brilliant businessman. He basically has a monopoly in his business. He was financed by Merrill Lynch and went solo in the 80s. He has minimal competition. But like any monopoly he can raise prices when he chooses and there's little one can do about it. He never had to deal with competitors and make the hard decisions needed to sustain a business. So now he's mayor and uses the same tactics as when he ran Bloomberg PLC. He raises prices (property tax hike) and there's nothing the citizens can do about it. He acts like a crusader trying to change people's behavior (smoking and noise) but has no clue how to manage a big city.
Marcello Frustaci, Brooklyn
Up the Irish
C.J. Sullivan's "Searching for Bobby Halpern" (11/27) was so good I had to re-post it at Frank Fitzgerald's madhouse political message board, Pacifica-related but not authorized, with the header, "An Irish-Jew From The Bronx." That Sullivan guy can put a shiver in you.
Dan Cameron Rodill, Manhattan
It's All Meaningless
MUGGER: Was Lewis Lapham asleep during the recent election? Does holding the House and gaining the Senate in the first off-year election of an administration mean nothing? It is historical. Does holding governorships and having people change from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party mean nothing? Of course, the people in his circles are probably all liberals, Democrats and Clintonistas.
Donald W. Bales, Kingsport, TN
Ever listen to music, White? The score to Femme Fatale makes no reference whatsoever to Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherezade ("Film," 11/13). It is rather a measure by measure rendering of yet another obscure piece of culture: Maurice Ravel's Bolero. Give me your address, I'll send you a CD and you can verify it for yourself, which is of course something you might have thought to do before writing your column. This kind of mistake would normally not be very important?White is a film critic, not a music specialist. But unfortunately, this is just one flaw among many, among which are the constant errors in grammar, misuse of vocabulary and mistakes about the actual substance of the movies that he is currently reviewing.
White, you are building your own glass house each week and throwing the stones that destroy it with every overwrought sentence. A writer who so overvalues his own point of view and incessantly demeans the opinions of anyone who may disagree would need to display a knowledge and a cultural authority that bred admiration and quelled dissent. But White is not as thoroughly knowledgeable or meticulous as he would need to be to write with such arrogance. And if he were, he would recognize that this grandstanding style is unnecessary and write in a different manner entirely.
A little humility. Soderbergh and many of the artists that you belittle are doing very challenging work (and De Palma, Spielberg and the few artists that you tirelessly applaud, sometimes put out spectacularly mediocre work). Step back from your work, take a deep breath, recognize your humanity and your limitations and write a review with a bit of balance and objectivity.
Mark Mandarano, Manhattan
The New, New Al Gore
Mike Signorile tells us that although he isn't sure how he feels about Al Gore as a presidential candidate in 2004, "if we elected media critics in this country, he'd have my vote in an instant" ("The Gist," 12/4). He should think twice before making such a sweeping endorsement. Surely we can find more probing analysts of what's wrong with the U.S. mass media?including the constricted range of debate that vexes Signorile?than the second-highest figure in an administration that brought us the 1996 Telecommunications Act, made corporate-friendly appointments to the FCC, sought to muffle the Pacifica network, and in general promoted the false and antidemocratic notion that profit-driven entities rather than the public are the proper owners of the airwaves. A few critical comments to The New York Observer do not a media reformer make. The best favor Gore could have done for this cause would have been to help a real advocate of democratic media reform gain access to a national audience; but instead, he joined in barring Ralph Nader from the corporate-sponsored presidential debates in 2000.
Ronald MacKinnon, Manhattan
Harper's in Decline
MUGGER: I scan Harper's periodically at our local library, and I am perpetually amazed that the person behind all the bombastic horseshit between its covers is the same Lewis Lapham that made Harper's so delightfully iconoclastic back in the late 1970s. I subscribed back then briefly, and still recall such wonderful offerings as "The Wealth of Washington" by Tom Bethell, a savage expose of how DC got to become the highest per-capita income metro area on the basis of legions of highly paid government employees and their Beltway Bandit consultant partners in crime; "Environmentalism and the Leisure Class" by William Tucker, with cover photo of the green-striped environmental flag flying from a yacht; and "Politics in the Woods" by Gene Lyons (before he became a drooling Clinton sycophant), a positively nasty take on aging hipsters in California. I gave up Harper's when the abominable Michael Kinsley took it over. Too bad it's gone from bad to worse.
Howard Hirsch, Carson City, NV
Signofyin'
Mike Signorile: I don't usually send reaction e-mail, at least not when I don't find something with which I can disagree, but today I'm making an exception. It's sort of a cliche that someone whose life is vested in reaching the masses might say something along the lines of, "...if I could just affect one person..." I'm writing to you to let you know that you've succeeded, if you ever wanted to do that.
I'm talking about your recent piece ("The Gist," 12/4). I've voted in every election since I was 18 (less than a decade ago), but I only became aware of what's beneath the surface of politics around the end of Clinton's term. This was because of all the media attention that focused on his "sexual relations." It angered me to see journalists, tongues dangling and eyes wide, making such a spectacle of one story. I had always assumed the media to be a body that strives for dispassionate accuracy, but then you know what your mother says about assuming things. It seemed to me that everything?the impeachment proceedings, the speeches, the outrage from Congress?was all initiated by the media. Which came first, I thought, the media's stories or government's actions? Chicken or egg?
Worse yet was the effect the biased media had on ordinary people. The public seemed acquiescent in lowering its expectations for journalistic standards and credibility. As someone who was interested in writing for the public forum and fresh out of college, I became quickly disgusted and lost interest. Why voice my thoughts when every columnist, reporter or pundit out there was simply swept up with the tide?
This brings me back to you. I appreciate that you shoot straight and shake your fist at what you see. The cynicism that seemed to block out my hopes has been thawed mostly by outrage these past two years, but reading your piece sealed the deal. (Also like you, I have mixed feelings about Gore and the Democratic party. But reading your piece, and others previous to it, helps me remember that it's okay to not jump on any particular bandwagon right now. These are tough times.) Thanks so much for staying true, and on behalf of every little guy trying to make it in your cutthroat field, please hold onto the bar a little longer?we will help you raise it.
Brian Sammons, Philadelphia
Thanks for Nothing
As the sun rises on this gloomy Thanksgiving Day in the year of our George, 2002, many Americans are wondering if there are any reasons to be thankful. The usual holiday cheer has given way to a deep sense of foreboding, anticipating yet another horrendous event of senseless death and destruction. Americans are very uneasy about the near term fate of our nation, especially in the wake of an election which ceded complete control of the U.S. asylum to our war machine inmates. Reagan's "Morning in America" has devolved into an eerie calm before George Bush's promised Iraq storm. The Neo-Dark Ages are upon us and the "Might Is Right" crusades are ready to begin. May heaven forgive us for it's clear we haven't a clue as to what we're about to unleash.
This sorry plight didn't happen to us overnight. It took a long time to push this great nation to the edge of Armageddon. George Walker Bush, the ultimate anti-president, will go down in history as the worst chief executive ever for one very important reason: he was never elected by the American people. Of course, there were many presidents who arguably had greater political stains on their records or were even less qualified for the office. But, Bush's infamous march to the Oval Office was an insult to the democratic process from its inception. No American should feel comfortable knowing that this man is in the White House due to the outright subversion of the U.S. constitution. Let's look at the facts.
George H.W. Bush's "Arrogance of Power" campaign of 1992 led directly to his defeat by Bill Clinton. As the keeper of the Reagan Revolution flame, George Sr. believed his guns-over-butter ideology and so-called victory in Iraq were enough to win reelection. He and his handlers completely discounted the desire of the American people for a national agenda based on books and bread rather than bombs. The electorate simply realized Bush's kinder, gentler rhetoric didn't result in more food on the household table. So, Americans voted for Clinton despite the frantic attempt by Bush and the war machine to pump billions into the economy just months before the election.
Bush's defeat raised the heat on our cold warriors who were sensitive to "peace dividend" pressures after the Berlin Wall and communism fell. In fact, the transfer of superpower hostilities to the Middle East was no coincidence. Our military mongers know that war and the threat of war are economically and politically profitable. Gingrich's 1994 "Contract on America" was a stalling tactic by the World War Industry until a suitable replacement for the U.S./USSR stalemate could be contrived. Meanwhile, it was Newt's job to make legislative life holy hell for Clinton's peace agenda. As Speaker of the House, he twice shut down the federal government. And Bill sealed his own fate by getting involved with an intern. (Note: Clinton met Lewinsky while she substituted for regular staff during a Gingrich lockout. It's very likely Bill Clinton may've never met Lewinsky if Gingrich hadn't shut down the government. It still remains a mystery how Monica became best friends with Linda Tripp, who just happened to be a right-wing spy who taped their conversations without consent and released the information to Bill's enemies. But, that's another article.)
Bob Dole's 1996 "Who Can You Trust?" campaign failed to unseat Clinton. The president's policies were popular with the electorate, even though many harbored misgivings about Whitewater and his morality. Without a smoking gun, the investigation of Bill's Arkansas real estate deals gathered little political traction. It's important to point out the great harm America suffered from the lynch mob tactics and personal destruction politics of the Gingrich gang. Bill's brilliance was completely wasted. Our national and global interests were suspended while Clinton and the American people were dragged through an unnecessary impeachment process. It's conceivable this humiliation set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks by starkly painting the U.S. as a weak, self-indulgent and hedonistic nation.
The perpetual siege of special prosecutor investigations of the Clinton administration created a climate for law-and-order politics. George W. Bush was primed to campaign on a platform of restoring integrity to the presidency. At that time, his sole official achievement was signing more death warrants than any governor in U.S. history. Yet, this Texas Bush, with only five years of executive experience and name recognition, became the de facto Republican candidate before the first primary vote was cast.
The military industrial incarceration complex wildly financed Bush's campaign. His war chest was so formidable many worthy candidates dropped out. Bush's pipeline to wealthy contributors was very strong. It permitted him to opt out of the federal campaign matching funds program, which required full disclosure of donor information. George Bush's choice to forego federal funds allowed his campaign to keep donor information secret. This was a distinct advantage when soliciting large donations from some rather shady and sinister clients.
The battles for the nomination and White House are no longer about issues but about who can afford the most attack ads. Financial interests have become so strong in our election process candidates no longer beat their opponents with political savvy. They simply bankrupt them in a blitzkrieg of negative ads. Today, the ad-invasion megaphones are turned up so high the electorate has been completely anesthetized into apathy.
The World War Industry banked heavily on a Bush victory. They were running out of excuses for delaying the "peace dividend" budget cuts. At the very least, a Bush victory would ensure a presidential veto of any near term reductions in military spending, regardless of whether the funds were needed or not. Bush would also be able to use the presidential bully pulpit to forward the World War Industry agenda. With so much at stake, a George Bush victory was to be assured, no matter the cost.
Again, George Bush's campaign was never based on him being the best candidate for president. He had little interest in the office. Any objections he might've had were quickly overridden by his party's interests and those of his financiers. The political and economic stakes were very high and his handlers believed he was the ideal product.
Despite the packaging effort to make George W. Bush appear invincible, the wheels on his dreadnought juggernaut started to come off in late summer. The smear job of shellacking Al Gore with a Clinton brush began to wear thin as the electorate started to pay closer attention to the contest. After the debates, the greatest spinmeisters available couldn't get voters to believe Bush's inept oratory skills were Lincolnesque. The vote was going to be close and the Bush forces prepared early for that possibility.
In order for George Bush to win, it was well known Florida's 25 electoral votes were critical. Since the governor was Bush's own brother, his handlers thought the votes were secure. Jeb Bush publicly recused himself from any direct intervention in Florida's election process. However, it's safe to assume he worked tirelessly behind the scenes to manipulate the vote favorably for his brother.
Florida's former Secretary of State Katherine Harris will go down as one of the most conniving and duplicitous politicians in history (her loyalty was rewarded recently with a congressional seat). She was the point person responsible for getting out the republican vote while using every political dirty trick to suppress democratic voters. Polling numbers indicated George Bush was facing a backlash from Democrats because of Jeb's slashing of various safety net programs. Katherine Harris orchestrated the most comprehensive plan to suppress voter turnout ever documented. The question evinced by the Florida Fiasco focused on the wrong point. The question should've never revolved around which chad hung, slung or swung. The real issue was the unconstitutional procedures used to stop voters from voting in the first place.
Neither candidate's camp was interested in the constitutional crisis from the people's perspective. Both sides sought to establish legal and political positions which favored their particular side. Al Gore first called for a statewide recount but settled for a fallback position recount in four heavily democratic precincts. The Bushmen used the "declare victory" gambit. They, then, accused the Democrats of stonewalling while using the courts to run out the statute of limitations clock. The disarray of the Gore camp in the face of the cold, calculated professionalism of the Bush camp proved to be the deciding factor. The Bush camp was prepared for any and all eventualities; the Gore camp was not.
The chad-ification of the constitutional crisis created a cover for the Supreme Court to decide the nation would be best served by getting the whole mess behind us. Bush wasn't chosen by the will of the people. He was selected by the Felonious Five Supreme Court justices who certified this electoral abortion. If the justices were worthy of their offices, they should've declared the presidential election invalid. Based upon the overwhelming evidence, our voting system was broken and could no longer assure the fair tabulation and protection of our voting rights. Voters were turned away at the polls not only in Florida but in several states. The Supreme Court should've been more interested in preserving the voting rights of all Americans. The harm at issue before the Court was not the supercilious, personal nonsense listed in the Bush and Gore briefings. The actual, prima facie case, which should've been brought before the Court, was the overt subversion of our democratic process and the constitution of the United States of America! Instead, the Court wasted its time accommodating the selfish, legal maneuverings of the Bush and Gore camps. As the situation now stands, the constitutional crisis continues; Bush is still an impostor president and our democratic process twists listlessly in the wind as a skeletal laughingstock.
A few other points about the election are rarely discussed. Moments after Florida was declared for Gore, Bush Sr. got access to national tv. While sitting in his easy chair, surrounded by his family, he strongly denounced the call as wrong. The following questions have never been answered: How did Mr. Bush know the count was incorrect at that point in time? How did he get immediate access to national tv to make this comment, then disappear like a ghost? Was he sending some kind of signal by revealing his unprecedented opinion? Why has the media not asked these questions?
Somehow James Baker III became George Bush's point man in the legal suits following the election. This is important because the question arises as to why Baker was chosen over someone more directly involved in the Bush campaign. This insinuates two things: (a) the choice was made by Bush Sr. who implicitly trusted Mr. Baker (a close friend, former campaign chairman, chief of staff, secretary of state and fellow Carlyle Group partner) to get the job done and (b) the Bush camp was intent on using political influence to sway the election rather than seek legal remedy. The Bush camp knew the political clock was on their side. So, the solution was to bring the process to a crawl while claiming in the media the Democrats were the obstructionists to a fair decision. The Gore camp was caught between the rock of Jeb's state control and the hard place of the Felonious Five Supreme Court.
No one in major media seemed to care how hideously repugnant it was to watch videotapes of certain voters, dressed in conservative khaki, mobbing and stopping the recount of legal votes in strongly democratic Miami/Dade county. Further, some of the rabble's ringleaders were identified and known to work for Tom DeLay, the House republican whip (vote counter). This horrific incident raises the questions: Why was this matter not investigated? Why was no one arrested for interfering with the democratic process? If Tom DeLay's office was involved, why wasn't he brought before a congressional ethics committee to explain his complicity or innocence? Why wasn't this disturbance considered treasonous by all involved?
If George Bush was truly interested in democracy, justice and the rule of law, he should've refused to serve as president under such woeful circumstances. He should've been the first to demand a recount or new vote. In the end, he proved he was more interested in winning, no matter the expense. Liberty, justice and the rule of law are easily sacrificed if they inconvenience the drive toward winning. Bush's camp summed it up: "It's good to be the king!"
From the moment "uniter" George W. Bush took his hand off the bible upon which he swore to protect and defend the constitution, he began dividing our nation between us and them. Protesters were forbidden along his inaugural parade route. Those who insisted on exercising their rights of free speech, petition and assembly were beaten, arrested and held in solitary confinement. Bail for protest leaders was set in the six and seven figure range. From the beginning, this impostor president has supported the brutal mistreatment of peaceful demonstrators. At what point did our local police get the authority to fire deadly rubber bullets and harmful chemicals at peaceful demonstrators? Is this Bush's recipe for national unity?
From the very beginning, George Bush sought to crush dissent by any means necessary. Tyrants always equate silence with acceptance. This impostor president must know history books are full of unhappy endings for these kinds of sordid fairytales. One thing's for sure, George W. Bush isn't a very good liar. The stress from maintaining his impostor presidency is in his face.
Bush did keep his promise to ram through a ridiculous tax cut to pay off his campaign contributors. He also signed bills to transfer federal funds to religious (read: mostly Christian) charities. After the Wall Street bubble burst and exuberant irrationality subsided, this administration did little to help average Americans cope. Bush's political capital was quickly running out until the attacks of Sept. 11.
Although the tragic attacks of Sept. 11 dramatically changed the global political equation, no form of magic was going to instantly transform George W. Bush into a world-class leader. It's safe to say these bombings helped to stabilize Bush's faltering presidency. Terrorism has been used as an excuse for the largest military and surveillance buildup in U.S. history although we have no legitimate sovereign threats. It doesn't take a half trillion dollars a year to clean up a ragtag bunch known as Al Qaeda and their confederates. So, why are we spending all this money on military modernization if the cold war is over and we have no serious enemies?
There are many unanswered questions about how the Sept. 11 attacks came to pass. Congress and the President are finally getting around to investigating the evidence, 15 months too late. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. Why has it taken so long to establish this investigation? Just what did George Bush know and when did he know it?
The Internet is rampant with information and interpretations about the Sept. 11 attacks. Rumors are rife the Bush administration, at least, permitted the attacks to happen because it and the World War Industry stood to benefit enormously from those terrible events. The facts over the last 15 months support this allegation. The biggest question is whether the Bushmen and the CIA are gross incompetents, criminals or both?
Again, the rumor mill is swirling with stories the Bushmen planned an Iraq war during Bush's candidacy. First, an untraceable terrorist would be given the means to inflict an awful attack on America. Then, Bush would use a bait-and-switch tactic to channel American outrage against Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether or not he had anything to do with the attacks. Since war can't be declared against a terrorist group, Iraq would be the convenient scapegoat. Endless war would be declared; the World War Machine would become a growth industry; George Bush would run America under martial law and millions of Arabs and Americans would pay for this insanity with their lives and livelihoods. Is this scenario too gruesome to be true? Let's connect the dots.
The first Iraq war was clearly instigated by U.S./CIA treachery. Hussein exited the Iran/Iraq war (also instigated by the U.S./CIA) with about a million men in arms, a devastated economy and $80 billion in external debt?much of which he owed to Kuwait. His desperation was increased by low crude prices, no foreign aid and the fact that Kuwait was using cross-border, diagonal drilling to syphon off Iraq's oil. When he broached the question of invading Kuwait (to settle an historic claim to the former sheikdom and erase a large part of his external debt), our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave him a green light. Of course, Bush Sr. (a former CIA director) used Hussein's misreading of American intent to start the Iraq war. Allied bombing destroyed most of Hussein's military capacity and almost all of Iraq's human resources, such as water, power and sewage treatment plants, bridges, hospitals and schools. We carefully defend our human resources, yet we feel no remorse when our young soldiers destroy these same resources in other countries. How insensitive can Americans get as we continue to ignore so much innocent blood on our hands?
A million Iraqis, half of them children, have died from the bombing and our savage embargo. But the greatest suffering was caused by U.S. and British usage of depleted uranium (DU) munitions or, basically, dirty bombs. The military justifies the implementation of low-level nuclear waste in this form, but the genetic holocaust from the uranium dust polluting the air, water, land and animals will plague Iraqis for generations. This is a crime against humanity and no nation can justify this cruel and unusual barbarity. DU weapons must be banned permanently. This is no way for nuclear nations to get rid of their radioactive waste.
The war with Iraq didn't save George Sr.'s presidency. Americans quickly lose their taste for war hero presidents in the same fashion as our military discards veterans once they pass usefulness. In the long run, a second Iraq war won't help George Jr. either. Destroying entire Arab nations to weed out a handful of terrorists is terrorism itself. The very thought of occupying a nation which hasn't attacked us is worse. The Bush oilygarchy has pushed itself so far out on the war limb it'll be hard to save face as we sheepishly crawl back to safety based on adherence to international law.
A second war with Iraq wasn't George Jr.'s idea at first. When Bush packed his administration with his father's political retreads, you didn't need to be a Rhodes scholar to predict they'd come up with policy identical to his dad's. Moreover, our most insecure and inarticulate president has demanded and received war powers even our most accomplished presidents never requested or required. Do you sleep well at night knowing "Tee Ball" George is in charge of "The Foo