Saturday, October 16, 2004

You don't have to go as far back as Vietnam to remember how different Bush and Kerry's foreign policy experience and views are. E.g. remember the late 1980s/early 1990s: while Bush was off at Camp David snorting cocaine, Kerry was up on Capital Hill trying to nail the death squads (Contras) that profited from selling that coke.

Robert Parry was one of the first reporters to uncover the Iran-Contra scandal and the original (1980) October Surprise -- the plot hatched by Wm. Casey (Reagan's campaign manager and CIA chief), George H.W. Bush and others to influence the election by making a deal with Iranian hostage-takers to hold them until after the election.

Parry is a seasoned investigative journalist who once worked for AP (where he and Brian Barger broke the Iran-Contra story) and then Newsweek, where he encountered resistance in tracking the scandal up the chain of command. After being forced out of Newsweek, he ended up producing a show on Iran-Contra for Frontline and then another on the October Surprise.

After the New Republic and Newsweek ran major hatchet jobs that backed Casey and Bush's flimsy alibis (i.e. that they could not have been in Paris for a meeting with the Iranians during the 1980 campaign because they were off at Bohemian Grove -- you know, that right wing antithesis of those Robert Bly retreats in the woods, where they get drunk and George Schultz reveals the tatoo on his ass, as they run around the fire naked, ghoulishly cackling cryptofascist chants with jack-o-lantern grins) ... but just about everyone but Parry dropped the case.

Years later, Parry went into a dusty storage space under one of the Congressional office buildings to look through the files of the closed Congressional investigation (careful not to copy too many pages in order to not attract too much attention from his minder) where he found a few smoking gun documents, including a Russian intelligence report that confirmed that Bush and Casey were in Paris during the final weeks of the campaign -- a vindication that would make a good spy novel scene.

Throughout the book there is a lot of lost history being recovered. And thankfully, the tone throughout the book is anything but conspiratorial, though it will be treated as such.

Also, underlying the thread of the story explores the question of whether there is a real difference between Kerry and Bush on foreign policy. After all, people say Kerry voted to authorize the war and the Patriot Act, has not come out and said he's against establishing 14 permanent bases in Iraq, and is a Sharon supporter and Free Trader.

All true, but apart from Kerry's nuanced explanation of his votes (which I've found is not enough for the tin-plated ears of my Nader-supporter friends) there is something else here: the historical trajectory of both men. Recall that while Bush was (according to Kitty Kelly) off snorting cocaine at Camp David while his daddy was President, Kerry was on Capital Hill leading an investigation into the Nicaraguan Contras’ ties to cocaine kingpins which, if Lee Hamilton had had any spine, might have resulted in nailing Bush Sr. (It must have made many cringe to learn that Hamilton was co-chair of the 9-11 commission).

And although people dismiss Kerry's record in Congress as unremarkable, in fact he has taken on and led a few of these politically difficult investigations, which have have been particularly embarassing for certain members of the Democratic establishment, such as the investigation into BCCI (the "Bank of Crooks and Commerce"), which could not have endeared him to Clark Clifford and friends. Let alone the radical right.

But “despite the attacks from the Washington Times and pressure from the Reagan-Bush administration to back off, Kerry’s contra-drug investigation eventually concluded that a number of contra units – both in Costa Rica and eventually concluded that a number of contra units – both in Costa Rice and Honduras – were implicated in the cocaine trade."

“It is clear that individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the contras was used by drug trafficking organizations and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers,” Kerry’s investigation stated in a report issued April 13, 1989. “In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring or immediately thereafter.”

And Bush?

The Kerry Commission nvestigation represented an indirect challenge to Vice President George H.W. Bush, who had been named by President Reagan to head the South Florida Task Force for interdicting the flow of drugs into the United States and was later put in charge of the National Narcotics Border Interdiction System. In short, Bush was the lead official in the U.S. government to counter the drug trade, which he himself had dubbed a national security threat.

(Funny that this was around the same time that Kitty Kelly reports W. was snorting coke at Camp David.)

“Spencer Oliver, the Democratic staffer whose phone was bugged in Watergate and who later became chief counsel of the House International Affairs Committee, came to believe that former CIA Director Bush and CIA veterans attacked to the White House were the hidden hands behind all facets of the Iran-Contra scandal: the Nicaraguan contra operation, the Iranian arms initiative and the propaganda-driven “Project Democracy.” The key players, Oliver believed, were not the government officials who became household names during the scandal – Oliver North, Robert McFarlane, John Poindexter, etc. – but the ex-CIA men, the likes of Donald Gregg and Walter Raymond, who coalesced around Vice President Bush’s office and mostly stayed out of the spotlight.”

(Raymond ran a domestic propaganda campaign to keep Iran-Contra from bringing Bush down. I remember one of his operatives coming to a church in our suburb of Chicago to make a presentation that had absolutely no connection to the reality on the ground in Nicaragua. I recall being so apoplectic that I had to leave after objecting and calling him a "liar" and finding not a sympathetic person in the room, no surprise for such a Republican audience. The guy was there for damage control, not to debate. And if people there were skeptical, they would hardly cross over to the ranks of international solidarity movement, with all its Sandalistas and liberation theologian purists.)

Also, most of us have forgotten that Bush was helped into office by the Moonies and helped out after he retired when they paid the ex-president millions in return for lending his imprimatur to its expanding operations. Estimates of his fee for one appearance in Buenos Aires alone (where he vouched for the Moon-affiliated news organization when it bought a major paper there, calling the Washington Times a voice of “sanity”) ran between $100,000 and $500,000. One source told Parry that Bush stood to make as much as $10 million total from Moon’s organization (which in turn was reportedly funded by Japanese yakuza).

So it shouldn't surprise people that the guy who produced the new attack movie on Kerry that Sinclair announced it will run used to work for the Washington Times (though they say for less than a year). See Parry's web site, Consortium News for more on Moon.

Also, reading Parry's book suggests we should pay closer attention to the emerging scandals surrounding the nest of spies in the Pentagon that are being investigated for passing state secrets on to Iran (the same Office of Special Plans run by Douglas Feith coordinated the awarding of no-bid contracts to Halliburton before the war). The people go back a ways. Michael Ledeen, for example, was involved in the October Surprise.

But if Bush gets elected, it'll all be swept down the memory hole.

Americans owe Parry a debt of gratitude for the persistence that results in an historical narrative that ties a lot of isolated events together:

"Many of the events may seem on the surface disconnected, although many of the central characters have reappeared throughout the course of the drama and others were understudies of earlier characters, carrying on their mentors’ tactics and strategies. ... Viewed as a panorama of 30 years, a continuity becomes apparent. What one sees is an evolution of a political system away from the more freewheeling democracy of the 1970s toward a more controlled system in which consensus is managed by rationing information and in which elections have become formalities for the sanctioning of power rather than a valued expression of the people’s will. ...Privately – and sometimes publicly – Bush insiders celebrated this transformation of the United States from what George W. Bush used to call a “humble” nation into a modern-day empire driven by a quasi-religious certainty in its own righteousness."

Thursday, October 07, 2004

The L.A. times has a good popup interactive electoral map that lets you try to figure out who's gonna win and what are the key states by assigning them to one or the other

If you're betting Kerry's gonna win -- in the unlikely event that he does, you could make some cake through offshore betting:

The Boston Review publishes intelligent articles on a variety of political and literary topics. In the April/May issue they published End of the Wild -- a frightfully sober assessment of trajectory of extinction.
Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself.
-- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Lee Waters (Harvey Wasserman) has been writing a series of hilarious "transcripts" from the Oval Office. Very funny.

Monday, October 04, 2004

New bumper sticker: A Vote for Bush is a Vote for The Grandson of Hitler's Banker

The Guardian (9/25) has published a story based on a lawsuit by two Holocaust survivors and " newly discovered files in the US National Archives" which confirm that Prescott Bush was the director of a company "involved with the financial architects of Nazism."

Maybe Kerry supporters should start printing some new bumper stickers:
A Vote for Bush is a Vote for Hitler's Banker

No wonder Bush doesn't support the International Criminal Court of Justice.

Note the inherited character trait:

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" [John Loftus] said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

Thursday, September 16, 2004

If you want to understand how serious a quagmire we are now in -- way beyond Iraq and Afghanistan and regardless of the outcome of the election (though clearly if Bush wins, the acceleration towards a "Clash of Civilizations" war is much more likely) -- read Imperial Hubris by Anonymous (first outed as CIA analyst Michael Scheuer by Jason Vest)

As Richard Clarke wrote in the Post (6/04), "For those Americans who had begun to doubt whether the Central Intelligence Agency could produce good analysis, Imperial Hubris clearly demonstrates otherwise. It is a powerful, persuasive analysis of the terrorist threat and the Bush administration's failed efforts to fight it."

As Clarke notes, the problem w/U.S. war-planners is that the "war on Terror" is framed wrong. Terrorism is a tactic. The enemy is "an Islamic insurgency," a multinational movement to replace governments in the Islamic world with fundamentalist theocracies. Jihadist leaders believe they must eliminate the American presence in the region and U.S. support for existing governments there so that they can seize power.

The portrait of bin Laden painted by the author is of a kind of Islamic Che Guevara. I.e., though most Americans can't understand it, to many who live in Islamic countries, his cause is seen as righteous, religious, moral and logical.

We can't beat the Jihadists through sheer superior military force. The way we are going about things now in places like Iraq, we only plant the seeds of support for his cause. Unfortunately, it seems like some Christian fundamentalists and neocons would love to see the kind of "Clash of Civilizations" that many of the jihadists envision.

What did Bush say? "Bring it on."


Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

The Boston Review has a great series of articles on big topics. Rick Perlstein's piece on the what Democrats need to do to win (in the long run) is followed by various responses. Good stuff.
Want a great up-to-date map showing who should win the presidency based on current polls and electoral college? Go HERE.

Monday, July 26, 2004

It's been a while since I've posted, but here's my summer reading so far:

Two books by Geoff Dyer -- Out of Sheer Rage - a book of musings on D.H. Lawrence and Dyer's inability to finish his book about Lawrence. Not bad, though it'd be hard to say it beat's Henry Miller's Book of Lawrence. Dyer is good essayist - see Yoga for Those Who Can't be Bothered to Do It (reviewed earlier). I also read Dyer's Paris Trance, which is an okay romance for would-be exiles, but not as good as his essays. His penchant for clever philosophistry is more suited for essays.

Remembering Denny by Calvin Trillin (a sad but interesting nostalgia piece about a Yale classmate who was the BMOC who ended up failing to live up to expectations and committed suicide in his mid-50s...an exploration of why.)

The Bushwhacked Piano by John McGuane is a phenomenal short novel. Best I've read all summer. This guy's riffs are intense. A master.

And a few books about the Right (rather than just Bush):

First, The Right Nation by two writers from the Economist is basic overview of the right-wing in America, though it's sometimes a bit off and sympathetic to the Right. And gives too much of a sense of irreversibility about the right-wing takeover of politics.

Banana Republicans by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (the editors of PR Watch, whose first book on the PR industry is still their best: Toxic Sludge is Good For You). By the way, if you want to research dirt on corporate front groups, go to their site. Their weekly newsletter is excellent.

Regime Change Begins at Home by Charlie Derber is the best answer to the question: after we get rid of Kerry, what's next. I.e. how should we who see the problem not as Bush the person (though he's obviously a problem) look at the 2004 election and the long-term challenge to free America from Corporate Rule.

And I'm slowly plowing through Ulysses -- with help from the unabridged spoken CDs (42 hours) recorded by Irish actor Jim Norton. If you wanna read Ulysses, but think it will be too hard, here's a hint: use this unabridged CD set, it will really help. (Of course, you should also read some of the criticism to understand the styles he's using, structure of the novel, etc.). It's really helped me appreciate it as a comic masterpiece this time.

Monday, July 19, 2004

The summer of documentaries.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is the blockbuster, of course, but there are other great docs you shouldn't miss:

Orwell Rolls in His Grave

The Corporation

The Yes Men

"Le Monde Selon Bush" (The World According to Bush)

Poetry in Wartime


Also, be sure to watch JibJab's "This Land is Your Land" short online.
JibJam.com has a new 2004 campaign piece that beats the hell out of any political commercial you'll see this year.

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

ah, yes, the 100th Bloomsday...a time to reJoyce ... many a Doobyliner (not to mention the footnote fetishists) will be looking for incoherant clues deep in the first chapter of the Bibulo: Guinesses. The sanctimoney of our syphilization.

"Kinch, you fearful Jesuit!"

Joyce: I first met him in psychosis...

But why trust a blind-from-reading-too-much Irishman who averred "the ineluctable modality of the visible"??

And shouldn't that be "risible"?....

but yet...the slanguage rivveruns to the great grey sea our mother...
so we must return to the great Ulyseas, the white pages our sails!

If you really wanna dive in, try The Modern Word

Here's another good Joyce page.

Oh...and then there's Finnegan's Wake. ("History is a nightmare from which I'd rather wake") The title an infinity sign made of two paradoxical puns stuck together:
"Fin" (Fr. - end) egin ("agin" - begin again)
and "Wake" (wake up or Irish death ceremony).

Put the two together and you have an infinity sign: ∞
I.e. Joyce's glasses.

Oh, and check out this great Pynchon page. Good time-waster.

Monday, June 07, 2004

Everyone's talking about Ronnie. But do they remember the Reagan Legacy?
The 100th anniversary of Bloomsday is in ten days (16th). Those who still read Joyce will wanna check out this Joyce portal.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, speaking on President Wilson's crackdown on dissent after the U.S. entered WWI

Friday, May 21, 2004

John Dean, Worse Than Watergate, page 155:

"And the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense. It is also evidence of the mentality that characterizes the Bush-Cheney presidency, which has led to other abuses of presidential power, not unlike those underlying Watergate -- only worse."

From Democrats.com:

Poll Finds Americans Evenly Split on Impeaching Bush

There are about 20 groups polling Americans on political questions. But only ONE poll - Retro Poll - has the guts to ask Americans if Bush should be impeached for lying about Iraq. "26. President Bush misled the public and Congress by saying that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat to launch chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare against us. Do you think that misleading the public and Congress in this way in order to take the country to war is grounds for impeachment?" The results: Yes (38.9%), No (39.8%). In other words, Americans are split right down the middle. Remember that in 1998 Americans OPPOSED the impeachment of Bill Clinton by 2:1. Call other pollsters and tell them ask the impeachment question!


Check out Eric Idle's latest song.

Thursday, May 20, 2004

Economists are notoriously disconnected from day-to-day reality. Maybe the new journal EconJournalWatch will shake things up. But if it's only "scholarly comments on academic economics" it's likely to get lost in that house of mirrors.
Check out the Freeway Blogger

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Chomsky on Revolution:

No less insidious is the cry for 'revolution,' at a time when not
even the germs of new institutions exist, let alone the moral and
political consciousness that could lead to a basic modification of
social life. If there will be a 'revolution' in America today, it
will no doubt be a move towards some variety of fascism. We must
guard against the kind of revolutionary rhetoric that would have
had Karl Marx burn down the British Museum because it was merely part
of a repressive society. It would be criminal to overlook the serious
flaws and inadequacies in our institutions, or to fail to utilize
the substantial degree of freedom that most of us enjoy, within the
framework of these flawed institutions, to modify them or even
replace them by a better social order. One who pays some attention
to history will not be surprised if those who cry most loudly that
we must smash and destroy are later found among the administrators
of some new system of repression.

Source: Introduction to American Power and the New Mandarins(1969),
pp. 17-18.
Check out BushFlash.Com
Another memory hole: the Center for Cooperative Research has archive of 9/11 timeline and Iraq war (exploration of all justifications, etc.), and an extensive History of U.S. Inteventions.
Check out Halliburton Watch.
Check out this Bush ratings chart.

Sunday, May 16, 2004

Thom Hartmann just published another book, this one in the tradition of political cartoonists like Art Spiegelman, takes on the serious question of whether we want democracy in the U.S. (or, potentially, fascism). It's called We the People.

Monday, April 05, 2004

Here's a site that's worth a look: take the Chernobyl ghost town tour.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

It always seemed to me that "The Matrix" is a perfect metaphor for a corporate-controlled society. The dominant institutions of our society -- created by us to serve us -- instead now enslave us. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the last Presidents to recognize the corporation as a Frankenstein monster in 1910: "The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being."

By then, it was too late. By then it was too late. Property had gained the right of people (the doctrine of corporate personhood was established in the 1886 Santa Clara decision). And now, people are once again becoming property (patenting of life).

Key to the machinery of corporate control is a corporate governance system that provides an illusion that what we have left somehow allows us to somehow control the corporation's behavior. The illusory notion of of "shareholder democracy" for instance (a paradox if there ever was one -- in a democracy, after all, it's one person/one vote), is supplemented by an additional illusion: that the interests of shareholders stands in perfectly for the public interest.

Instead, "share-centered corporate law creates the very problems it is meant to police," explains Daniel Greenwood in his essay, Enronitis: why Good Corporations Go Bad. "The single-valued profit maximization ethos of the share-centered corporation demands that managers teach themselves to exploit everyone around them: it is inevitable that some will learn this lesson so well that they will exploit even those for whose benefit they are supposed to be exploiting."

We buy into a self-colonizing system when we put our faith in notions such as "shareholder democracy":

"...the fictional shareholder resembles nothing more than a classic imperilist oppressor. The fiction we have created treats us as if we were a colonized people -- to be befirended, used or discarded only according to the interests of the colonizing power. But the colonizer is us and it is we ourselves we are colonizing."

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Republican Hypocrisy Revealed by the Armchair Subversive.
Check out Mad Magazine's Bush Action Figure

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Proposed Bush-Cheney bumper stickers:

1. Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!

2. BU_ _SH_ _!

3. Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough.

4. Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism

5. Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-voodoo all over again!

6. Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind

7. Bush/Cheney '04: Less CIA -- More CYA

8. Bush/Cheney '04: Lies and videotape but no sex!

9. Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at
a time.

10. Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism

11. Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.

12. Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!

13. Bush/Cheney: Asses of Evil

14. Don't think. Vote Bush!

15. George W. Bush: A brainwave away from the presidency

16. George W. Bush: It takes a village idiot

17. George W. Bush: The buck stops Over There

18. Vote Bush in '04: Because dictatorship is easier

19. Vote Bush in '04: It's a no-brainer!

20. Vote for Bush & You Get Dick!
Fight the Power.