FRIST INVESTIGATION A PUZZLER

A review of George W. Bush's history with the SEC leads one to wonder what the SEC could possibly find wrong with Bill Frist's selling of HCA stock from his blind trust.

Despite legal advice not to sell, George W. Bush unloaded his Harken stock soon after he learned the company was in deep trouble, and before the stock tanked. He had previously failed to meet SEC filing deadlines in othr matters. Nevertheless, the SEC did not even bother to interview him.

It is almost impossible to believe Bush was not using nonpublic information unless one assumed that he did not read reports or listen to what was occurring at meetings. In Frist's case, there is less reason for suspicion. He was told in 2002 what stock the trust held, but in 2003, he told interviewers that he did not know if HCA was in the portfolio. Under his unusual trust rules, he had a right to know what was there and to order a stock sold.

HCA was founded by his father Thomas Frist, and once run by Thomas Jr. Company officials sold off over $100 million in stocks before the firm announced that second quarter earnings would not live up to expectations. The senator ordered his sale in June and the stock was sold when it was near its peak.

Unlike the Bush case, there is room to doubt that the Tennessee senator held nonpublic knowledge and acted on it. Perhaps he had not discussed the hospital chain with his family.
How can it be proven that he did??? His investment in the firm was between $7 and $35 million. Maybe he weas not interested in the family business.

Frist's friend, SEC chair Christopher Shays has recused himself from this case, but it is a stretch to believe that his subordinates wopuld move against Frist. In the Bush case, the SEC chair was a Bush family friend who did not even bother to recuse himself.

The investigation is more likely an effort to remove this matter from the table before Frist runs for the GOP presidential nomination in 2004. A favorble SEC report and the blessing of his evangelical allies will be sufficient to make the matter disappear. To this day, the mainstream press has shown little interest in George W. Bush's SEC problems. It can be assumed that self-censorship will continue after the SEC clears Bill Frist.

THE KATRINA OUTRAGE: PERTINENT FACTS

Before the Hurricane
In the Reagan Administration, there was a concerted effort to get FEMA out of the disaster business, shifting the responsibility to local and state government. If you do some research of a FEMA conference at University of Miami in mid-eighties, you will learn what the new mission was to be. In 2001, Bush wanted to pick up where Reagan left off. Joe Albaugh, a Bush friend and campaign manager, took over FEMA and said FEMA should scale back its activities and leave disasters primarily to state and local government. He said the agency was "n oversized entitlement program" and said states should reply on faith-based organizations ...like the Salvation Army." Later, when Bush hugged the two distraught women in Louisiana, all he could say was that the Salvation Army would attend to their needs.

In 2002, Michael Parker, a former Republican Congressman from Florida, was forced to resign as head of the Corps of Engineers. He had protested drastic funding cuts.

By 2003, plans were developed to take FEMA out of the disaster business. This outlook might explain why Governor Blanco had so many problems contacting the president and other ranking officials by telephone. The plan assumed disaster work would be carried out by private enterprise. Plerasant Mann, head of the union for PHEMA employees, noted that Our professional staff are being replaced by politically connected novices and contractors....A lot of the institutional knowledge is gone."

The new orientation included shutting down successful Project Impact, created under Clinton, which mitigated damage by moving and elevated "repetitive loss"dwellings most likely to be hit by storms. FEMA has estimated that mitigation saved two dollars for every one spent. Eventually it was replaced with a much smaller operation that could only be employed by wealthy communities able to provide matching funds.

Max Mayfield , head of the National Hurricane Center, briefed Secretary Chertoff on what would happen when th4e level four hurricane struck New Orleans. Mayfield warned that the levees could be overwhelmed. He also briefed President Bush via conference call. Later, Bush, Chertoff, and Brown all said they were surprised by what happened. Bush later told Diane Sawyer that he didn’t think anyone thought the levees would break. But Mayfield commented, "It was not like this was a surprise."

In 2004, FEMA disaster relief activity in Florida had more to do with reelecting George W. Bush than helping people. Republican areas in Miami-Dade were receiving windfall payments even though Hurricane Frances barely touched the area. The South Florida Sun Sentianal obtained Jeb Bush’s e-mail correspondence with FEMA, which showed the FEMA operation there was about indirectly purchasing votes.

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declared a state of emergency on August 26 and asked for federal help on August 27. Then George W. .Bush declared a state of emergency, but his document did not include New Orleans or some other coastal areas among those eligible for assistance.

The Bush administration reduced by 44% the amount that had been appropriated under Clinton to protect New Orleans. Among the items slashed was money for more pumping stations. The 2005 budget eliminated all money to improve the New Orleans hurricane plan. To be fair to Bush, there was some work funded to repair the levees, and the two breaks occurred where some repairs were made. In 2004, federal funds for the levee was cut to a trickle. The East Jefferson Levee Authority managed to find $2, 250,000 by raising property taxes to make some repairs. Lacking funds, the local Corps of Engineers imposed a hiring freeze.

Democratic Mayor Ray Negin "strongly encouraged" people to evacuate New Orleans but he did not do much to help those without transportation to leave. We will hear his defense when a Jount Congressional Committee looks into the disaster. Democrats on the committee have not been given the power to issue subpoenas, meaning they cannot pursue independent lines of inquiry.

Pedestrians tried to escape New Orleans via the Greater New Orleans Bridge but were turned back by the police from the integrated suburb of Gretna, Louisiana. A black councilman and policemen agreed there were no resources to share with the displacees.

To the East, St. Bernard Parish authorities blocked roads with cars and trucks.

After the Hurricane Struck

Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley offered to send 100 policemen, 36 firemen, 140 street and sanitation workers, 130 other people, plus various trucks and equipment to New Orleans. FEMA declined the offer and requested one tanker truck.

FEMA turned away 500 Florida airboaters who volunteered for rescue operations, and the Department of Homeland Security delayed the American Red Cross from entering.
Loudoun County, Virginia sent twenty deputies who were turned away. FEMA turned down offers of trains, generators, diesel fuel, other equipment and water from corporations, states and municipalities.

The Pentagon drowned in paperwork requirements offers of National Guard assistance from New Mexico and some other states. But miraculously some units from Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas got there by late Tuesday and Wisconsin somehow also managedc to get units there despite Pentagon restrictions.

A Royal Canadian Mounted Police rescue team got to New Orleans before the U.S. Armed Forces arrived in significant numbers.

On the fourth day, large numbers of US troops began to appear. They were brought in from Iraq. 40 % of the Guard from the Gulf States were deployed in Iraq, and the necessary equipment and high-water vehicles had been sent there as well. Soon thereafter, US mercenaries were redeployed to New Orleans from Iraq to keep the peace.

Two days after all hell broke loose, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and FEMA director Michael Brown had no idea people were starving in the New Orleans Convention center.
While people on the Gulf Coast were suffering, FOX pundits were complaining that federal funds would have to be spent to help these people. Fred Barnes said these folks were bilking "the taxpayers with their cavalier choice of domiciles," and Charles Krauthamer said, "It’s a bit unseemly to talk about cutting off aid while the hurricane is still roaring through Mississippi. But let’s give it a try." Senator Rick Santorum thought people who refused to leave their homes should be fined in the future.

Bush indefinitely suspended the Davis-Bacon Act for the Gulf States, making it possible for federal contractors to pay laborers less than the prevailing wage. That wage for construction workers in Mississippi is $9.50 an hour.

SPINNING THE BUSH RESPONSE TO NEW ORLEANS DISASTER

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina’s attack on the Gulf Coast, the mainstream media began to cover the disaster in a manner favorable to the Bush administration. Chris Matthews trumped about how much was being accomplished as a super power turned its attention to disaster relief. Wolf Blitzer asked former Senator John Breaux if Bill Clinton was responsible for inadequate funding of levee repair, but he did not request information about George W. Bush’s dismal record. A few days later, media people were so appalled by the enormous disconnect between the official story and what they were seeing, that they actually pointed out this discrepancy and the Bush administration’s failure to respond to the crisis. Soledad O’Brien even asked FEMA director Mike Brown, "How is it possible that we’re getting better intel than you’re getting?" Conservative Jack Cafferty even acknowledged that broadcasters were not mentioning "the elephant in the living room," the possibility that racism had something to do with the slow response to the needs of New Orleans. It would be too much to suggest the mainstream media was growing a backbone, as it soon returned to treating the Bush administration with kid gloves. But still, it provided a few days of honest reporting that gave every American the opportunity to see just how badly the Bush administration had dealt with the catastrophe.

A September 6 CNN poll showed that 63% of Americans believed no federal official should be fired in connection with the slow response to the New Orleans disaster. Thirty-five percent thought Bush’s handling was good or great. These were people who were simply incapable of believing the Bush administration could bungle anything this serious. Forty-two percent thought the president’s performance was bad or terrible. Among independents , 29% approved Bush’s performance, and 47% disapproved. That many more people did not find Bush’s performance bad or terrible is a tribute to the exceedingly effective Republican spin operation and the simple fact that the community values of Franklin Roosevelt are being edged out by those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Bill O’Reilly, on his September 9 telecast, told his conservative followers that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were responsible for the disaster in New Orleans. In view of the federal government’s incredibly slow response, it is clear that the GOP noise machine needs to craft a message to distract attention from this failure of the Bush administration. O’Reilly usually mirrors the party line to a fault, so his broadcast may have been a trial balloon. This time the default response of blaming Clinton did not seem to work.

Republican commentator identified the main theme of the GOP response when he said, ""I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9/11 victimes" [ who dared to criticize his Leader]. He called the people who remained in New Orleans "scumbags." The American Spectator, which often tests new Republican positions, emphasized New Orleans’s historically high crime rate without linking it to deep poverty. The blame-the-victim approach was helped by the fact that almost all the victims in New Orleans seemed to be black and very poor. Senator Rick Santorum blamed the victims for not leaving the city. Too much of the television coverage focused on lawlessness that did occur after the hurricane and flooding, and there was too little attention to enduring deep poverty. Rush Limbaugh, the most influential GOP propagandist, harped on the theme that the suffering, stranded people of New Orleans were responsible for their own fate because they did not evacuate. By Saturday, FOX NEWS was focusing almost entirely upon successes that did occur in the rescue operation. The various fact checking organizations kept batting down wild claims about black storm victime, but they kept popping up. A month later, Sean Hannity was talking about victime using FEMA checks to rent condos at Martha's Vineyard, whee $2000 would not go far), buying alcohol ( probably true), and purchasiong many lap dances. Such tales not only deflect attention from Bush's failure, they further diminish the nation's sense of compassion and connectedness.

Much blame was placed on the mayor of New Orleans and Governor Kathleen Blanco. It has been said that the mayor could have saved those left behind by evacuating them on city buses and school buses before the storm struck. Whether he had the resources to do this needs to be examined. Even though Governor Blanco had sent Bush detailed information on what assistance would be needed before the hurricane struck, she has been the target of much criticism. On September 4, The Washington Post acccepted the Republican claim that Governor Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency. In fact, she did this on August 26. It is said–with no evidence- that she delayed Red Cross assistance from reaching New Orleans. Newsweek the same false story and added to it saying, that Blanco "seemed uncertain and sluggish, hesitant to declare martial law or a state of emergency, which would have opened the door to more Pentagon help." The delaying of the Red Cross was the work of FEMA, and the governor had declared a state of emergency and requested help--several times-- before disaster struck. The Post later printed a correction. Given they had been party to printing lies and political propaganda, both publications should have outed their White House source.

Blanco resisted having the Louisiana guard federalized because that would place too many restrictions on them in keeping the peace. Her reasons for taking this position were never mentioned by GOP critics. She is also denounced for at first refusing to meet with Bush when he traveled to the area on September 9. The truth was that she had not been informed of his itinerary.

Bush’s visit was a masterpiece of PR. He hugged two comely, well-dressed African American women. Fifty fire-fighters from the North were diverted to pose with him, and a Coast Guard helicopter was diverted to be used as a prop. He was photographed at a hastily assembled food distribution point, which German ZDF news reported was quickly disassembled as soon as he left. Senator Mary Landreau, a conservative Democrat, referred to another Bush appearance that day as "a hastily prepared stage set for a Presidential photo opportunity." When Bush appeared at the breached 17th Street levee, there was a great deal of equipment there. When the Senator flew over the site the next day, the assemblage of machinery was reduced to a "lonely piece of equipment." Several days before, Michael Brown bragged at a news conference that his agency was feeding everyone at the still crowded New Orleans Super Dome. The New Orleans Times-Picayune, publishing on line, retorted that "Lies don’t get more bald-faced than that...." Yet, Bush subsequently praised "Brownie," saying "You’re doing a heck of a job."

The trouble is that the Bushies are "doing a heck of a job" with spin, covering up their poor performance. In time, a substantial number of Americans may come to see George W. Bush as the Second Hero of New Orleans!

GOP Propagandists Renew Efforts to Blame 9-11 on Clinton

The current debate over whether the findings of a Pentagon anti-terrorism task force had been given to the 9-11 commission has resulted in renewed attacks on Bill Clinton by Republican journalists and radio shock jocks. The new information does demonstrate that the Pentagon knew Mohammed Atta was a potential threat. Rush Limbauigh has jumped from this to claiming Clinton must also have known about Atta.

The Clinton Justice Department is being blamed for erecting a wall prevented intelligence agencies from sharing information with thge FBI. In fact, the Justice Department was enforcing legislation passed before Clinton entered the White House.

The second charge, made by a retired Pentagon anti-terrorism expert, was that Clinton only considered Al Qaeda as a criminal justice problem. In fact, Clinton sent teams to assassinate bin Laden, sought unsuccessfully on two occasions to get the Joint Chiefs to approve military action against Al Qaeda, and unsuccessfully attacked an Al Qaeda base with missiles. There were other military actions taken, including keeping missile subs in position to launch more attacks.

The third claim is that Sudan offered to turn ocver Bin Laden but that the Clinton administration was not interested. The only attack on the former president worth consideration appeared in Vanity Fair, where it was alleged that the Clinton administration refused to even consider a Sudanese offer to turn over Osama bin Laden and vital information. When the Sudanese government offered to turn over Bin Laden in 1996 , the FBI told the administration that it lacked evidence to indict him and the matter was dropped. At that time, Bin Laden was not seen as a major problem. Indeed, the American intelligence community only began to take him seriously in 1995. The magazine’s claim was vigorously denied by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other Clinton officials. They detailed repeated efforts to discuss Bin Laden with Sudan and obtain information. They denied blocking FBI efforts to deal separately with the Sudan. The Sudanese were anxious to improve their image if they could besmirch that of their American detractors in the process.

It is likely that the FBI was willing to assist in this process and that the State Department had been unwilling to let the bureau deal separately with the Sudanese. The original article left the impression that the administration had little interest in enlisting Sudanese cooperation, a claim that appears clearly false. The sources for the article were the Sudanese government and the first Bush administration’s ambassador to the Sudan. If the offers existed, they were made to the security apparatus and not to the State Department. It is clear that the Sudanese government has a long history of supporting terrorism and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Christians.

Lacking a full investigation, it comes down to who is most believable. The Clinton administration had no reason to trust the Sudanese because the CIA believed it had evidence that, with the help of Osama bin Laden, it was attempting to manufacture biochemical weapons.

The Clinton administration in 1998 had sent cruise missiles to destroy a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant were materials for chemical weapons were being manufactured. The television networks showed film clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" and conveyed the impression that the action was intended to divert attention from Clinton’s scandals. It was widely reported that the plant only made medicines and the belief was that the strike Clinton had carried out the attacks to distract people from his impeachment problems. However, most intelligence professionals did not criticize Clinton’s decision. In 2002, evidence was made public that the administration was correct in its initial assessment. The CIA later found the precursor of VX nerve gas outside the plant. The plant was owned by Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi and Khalid Bin Mahfouz. Al Amoudi was later accused of financing Al Qaeda, and bin Mahfouz is Osama bin Laden’s brother in law and had a number of business ties to the Bushes.

After the Khartoum bombing, the Clinton administration "actually waged a vigorous campaign against bin Laden…." and doubled the counterterrorism budget. It eventually kept two Los Angeles class submarines in the Persian Gulf for the purpose of launcing missiles against terrorists.

Marc Rich, whose treatment of Clinton has generally been balanced, has suggested that Clinton’s main failure in battling terrorism was for not firing Louis Freeh, whose bureaucratic and traditional style as director of the FBI was considered by Clinton advisors to be a major impediment to dealing with terrorists. Two National Security Council staffers who worked on counter-terrorism have noted that Freeh’s FBI refused to cooperate with the NSC in anti-terrorism efforts and would not pass on information it had. Freeh detested Clinton, was busy investigating him, and even refused to obey the directives of Attorney General Janet Reno. Yet the firing of Freeh would have been the occasion for an enormous political firestorm as the Right venerated him for his relentless and highly partisan pursuit of Clinton and his actions, which undercut Attorney General Janet Reno, whom the Right also detested.

Despite these problems, the Clinton administration prevented the millennium bombing of the Los Angeles airport and several related bomb plots. The administration actively sought ways to thwart Bin Laden, and Janet Reno attempted to assist John O’Neill, the most effective FBI counter-terrorist operative. However, he faced determined opposition at the highest levels of the FBI and was eventually forced to resign. William Danvers, a former special national security advisor to Clinton, answered the criticisms of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, an aid to Vice President Richard Cheney, who disparaged the Clinton administration’s accomplishments in combating terror. He noted that Clinton doubled the anti-terrorism budget and succeeded in thwarting expected millennium attacks. Those who first bombed the World Trade Center were also caught on Clinton’s watch. He seemed to confirm reports that the second Bush administration had reduced the anti-terrorism efforts they found in place.

ERODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

The title of this article may seem alarmist, but the facts more than support it. Andrew Bacevich, a scholar not known for liberalism, says the American political "system is fundamentally corrupt and functions in ways inconsistent with the spirit of democracy."

Over three years, six Indian tribes, on the advice of Tom DeLay’s friend Jack Abramoff, gave $66 million to public relations man Michael Scanlon, formerly DeLay’s director oc communications. Abramoff was recently indicted in connection with other matters, and it remains to be seen if the Bush Justice Department will use this opportunity to probe his relationship with members of Congress.As Elizabeth Drew wrotes, everything is for sale in Washington. A source close to lobbyists reports, "There are no restraints now; business groups and lobbyists are going crazy—they’re in every room on Capitol Hill writing legislation. You can’t move on the Hill without giving money."

Yet the corruption Bacevich mentions runs much deeper than influence peddling and lining pockets. It involves a fundamental disrespect for democratic values. It is not confined to politicians. The touching , unrepublican reverence ordinary citizens pay a wartime president is not healthy. It has made it possible for an administration to take the nation into war based upon fake intelligence. The veneration of military prowess and belief that things American are naturally superior to those of other nations makes it easy for a regime to hollow out democracy at home and abroad. The abuse of detainees –- even children!--on our network of prisons is partly based on this false sense of superiority and the idea that military goals justify a multitude of grievous sins.

Contempt for democratic values and our political system is displayed in so many of the actions of those in power. Those who believe that the press serves a vital, though informal role in our system are alarmed by the Bush administration’s successful efforts to discourage investigative journalism and make the press dependent upon it for information. However, many do not believe that journalists serve the republic as watchdogs.

We should all be able to agree on the sanctity of the legislative process and the need that all elected representatives have ample opportunity to express their views and participate actively in framing legislation. In recent years, the House of Representatives has held open votes for long periods until people could be bribed or intimidated into changing their votes. Recently, it was held open an hour beyond the limit; two years ago it was 3 hours. When Speaker Jim Wright exceeded the limit by 15 minutes, there were many expressions of outrage. Legislative procedures, especially in the House, have been changed to prevent the minority from effectively proposing legislation or participating in the legislative process.

It is now not uncommon to exclude minority party members from committee meetings and even conference committees. Lobbyists sometimes are permitted to attend meeting from which elected representatives are excluded.. Legislation supported by 40% of the members of a chamber is frequently considered even at the committee level. Speaker Hastert has announced a new and unprecedented rule that only significant legislation approved by the majority of the Republican caucus can reach the floor.

Important legislation favored by the majority party in the House is usually considered under rules that forbid amendments. Likewise, decision s about when legislation reaches the follow of the House are often made in the wee hours of the morning so that only one party knows when a bill will come up for a vote. When the Democrats had power, the occasionally prevented amendments, but todays abuses far exceed what could have been imagined even in the 1980s, when Speaker Tip O’Neill and the majority occasionally stepped over the line.

The hollowing out of democracy can seen in the way political demonstrators are handled these days. In the 2004 campaign, demonstrators were kept large distances away from George W. Bush, being rounded up and placed in so-called "free speech areas." Recently, a woman who had lost her son in Iraq was kept four and a half miles from the president’s Crawford, Texas ranch. What does this say about out belief in free expression? That fact that so few ordinary Americans seem perfectly willing to accept these practices suggest that they share their leaders’ contempt for democratic values.

Waiting for Jeffersonian Democracy in Iraq

After the First Gulf War, General Colin Powell ridiculed the idea that if Saddam Hussein somehow disappeared "some Jeffersonian democrat is waiting in the wings.....there should be no illusions about the nature of that country or its society. " He added that if the US had gone onto Baghad, American soldiers [ would be patrolling the streets two years later still looking for Jefferson [ laughter]."

When the WMD pretext for the Second Gulf War finally collapsed, the George W. Bush administration and Secretary of State Powell replaced it with a new justification–preparing the way for a Jeffersonian Iraq. Amazingly, that idea quickly gained traction in our nation which was weaned on Jeffersonian and Wilsonian idealism. Never mind that Jeffersons’ belief that democracy was inevitable elsewhere was absolutely not predicated on exporting it by American troops.

Speaking of all of democracy’s advances in Iraq, Sy Hersh has just produced overwhelming evidence that the American administrators worked mightily to fix the election Our efforts reduced what would have been even greater Shiite dominance. They were partly counterbalanced by Shiite rigging. So much for the election that was a great triumph of democracy. It should be noted that the rigging was done as an off the books operation by retired security men as the administration failed to get the covert Congressional approval required by law.

Delegates are are now writing a new constitution for the Islamic Republic of Iraq, which states that its laws will be firmly based in the Koran. Voters should be ble to pass on it in October. Paragraph 16 recognizes the unique right of the Shiite Grand Ayatollah to instruct the state. Some think this could mean that his fatwas could overrule secular laws. The constitution contains provisions moving it away from a secular state, giving Shiite law a firm grip. One consequence of this is that the rights of women will be diminished.

Two years ago, respected Muslim scholar Tariq Ali wrote that it was likely that Iraq would eventually be divided into three pieces, the largest of which would be a Shiite state allied with Iran. As matters now stand, Iran and Iraq are now military allies, and Iraq is being ruled by people who had been exiles in Iran before the fall of Saddam. In other words, Iraq is allied with one of the two remaining members of the "axis of evil." For several decades, US planners have looked for a strong counterweight to Iran in the region. George W. Bush’s policies have strengthened Iran immeasurably.

The more worldly and cynical of us might be willing to justify the invasion if it gave the US a strong grip on Iraq’s oil. Bush’s neoconservative advisors clearly intended to sell the oil assets off to American firms, thus reducing the price of oil. Soon, the American oil industry prescribed an Iraqi state oil firm that would support OPEC. This would help American refiners by guaranteeing high prices, so the American administration in Baghdad reversed course. The US is building permanent bases athwart major pipelines, so the intention might be to control the flow of oil in that way.

The reasons for invading Iraq remain unclear. AS for Jeffersonian democracy, we have a long, long wait ahead of us.

Santorum and DeLay's K Street Project

When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, Senator Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay initiated their K Street Project. The object was to force businesses to fire Democrat lobbyists and hire Republicans in their place, making K Street a Republican preserve. Republican members of Congress were asked to refuse to speak to Democrat lobbyists. An added incentive to hiring Republican lobbyists was that House committees were taking to allowing lobbyists to sit with them in drafting legislation. Indeed, it is likely that lobbyists often had more influence over legislation than Democratic Congressmen, who have had increasing problems getting legsilation to the floor. Indeed, they are frequently excluded from committee sessions.

When Republicans gained control of the White House, there was even more reason for businesses to comply with the K Street Strategy. Many in the executive branch will not speak to Democrat lobbyists. Elizabeth Drew has written recently in the New York Review of Books that the new alliance of Republicans and lobbyists has led to an unprecedented level of corruption in Washington. David Brooks, a Republican columnist, recently said on a PBS program, that the greatest threat to continuing Republican domination is the potential for corrupti0n built into this alliance.

In 2003, Congressman Michael Oxley's staff tolds the Investment Company Institute that his investigations of mutual funds would ease up if its top Democratic lobbyists were replaced with Republicans. The organization complied, and the investigation seemed to ramp down.

In 2004, the Motion Picture Association of America made a huge mistake in hiring Dan Glickman, a former Clinton cabinet member, as its chief lobbyist. Grover Norquist, a leading Republican operative, said this action was a studied insult. He added that he would not be satisfied until all the secretaries on K Street were Republicans. Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, has played a key role in helping DeLay and Santorum in identifying firms that have been tardy in firing Democrats and hiring Republicans. The House of Representatives retaliated by scrubbing a $ 1.5 billion tax break for the motion picture industry. Roll Call reported that "Santorum has begun discussing what the consequences are for the movie industry." The matter was resolved by Glickman keeping his job but MPAA hiring a bevy of Republicans, including the former PR person for Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Until 1995, lobbyists were not almost equal to congressmen in the legislative process.
They had an informal role, and often they possessed useful expertise. Though they now have far greater influence, they privately complain that their expertise is often of no value as they can only make suggestions that are in accord with prevailing ideology. They also note that every consideration and contact they make seems to require contributions or at least arranging luxury outings for members of Congress.

Please visit my other sites:
http://mysite.verizon.net/resox2t6/thelakeeriereporter
http://www.ForwardAmerica2.BlogSpot.com on the media
http://www.AmericanImperium.BlogSpot.com on foreign policy

THE PENTAGON'S NEW BIBLE

Last year, the Pentagon advertised for a printer to produce 10,000 copies of a Bible that would contail "Army provided photographs and text materials." ( For the advertisement: www1.eps.gov/servlet/DocumentsR/1051015).

We have no idea what the pictures or text were about. To be charitable, we can assume that the Bushies were not adding to the scriptures. The only other alternative is that they were supplying interpretive material, which is not the business of government! Maybe they were explaining away Christ's teachings against violence. Who knows?

It is known that the Bibles were intended for the use of the U.S. Special Operations Command. The publishing contract was awarded to International bible Society in Colorado.

Steve Peacock, an activist in Binghamton, New York, filed a Freedom of Information request to gather more information and learn what had been added to the Bible. Rather than release any information, the DOD cancelled the purchase order, claiming it was no longer obliged to honor the FOIA request. Peacock disagrees with this interpretation of the law but notes that the Pentagon bas exceeded the numbers of days that can ellapse before it must at least acknowledge that he had appealed the original decision not to provide the information.

For a piece on religious problems at the Air Force Academy, thee the religion page at
http://mysite.verizon.net/resox2t6/thelakeeriereporter/

For a short piece on current US policy genocide in Dafur go to
http://www. AmericanImperium.BlogSpot.com

FLIPPING ELECTIONS

Tallahasee computer programmer Clinton Curtis has testified that before the 2000 election Tom Feeney, a Congressman and former Speaker of the Florida House, asked him to develop software to "flip an election" without being detected. Feeney, who often lobbied for Curtis’s employer had been Jeb Bush’s running mate in 1994. Feeney wanted a program that could be accessed with no additional equipment of software. The software firm also did work for NASA, the Defense Department, and the Florida Department of Transportation.

Curtis was a lifelong Republican and at first assumed that Feeney needed the prototype as part of a plan to unearth Democratic skulduggery. Then he learned that the software was needed to change the vote in southern Florida. As the meeting with Curtis and three others occurred in October, 2000, it can only be assumed that the plan was to use the software in 2002 and thereafter.

After the 2000 election, Feeney bragged to Curtis that an elimination list had been used to prevent some Democrats from voting and that the Florida state police had been positioned to prevent some blacks from getting to the polls. Curtis wrote the program and then quit his job. .1
Curtis landed a job at the Florida Department of Transportation. He soon poked a hornet’s nest by showing that his former employer was billing the department for services it did not provide. In 2002, he and another whistleblower were fired.

Feeney thought the patrol had prevented 25% of African Americans from voting. This writer was there in 2000 and estimates that around 5% of blacks were frightened into not voting.

After losing his job, he went to the press with his story. It included the claim that one illegal immigrant. Eventually, the government accused the illegal immigrant with there was somehow spying. with sending guidance chips for the Hellfire anti-tank missile to Red China. The St. Petersburg Times reported that Curtis passed a polygraph administered by a recognized Florida expert.

Raymond Lemme, a Florida DOT investigator, who was looking into the termination and related matters, turned up dead on July 1, 2003 at a Valdosta,Georgia motel. The death was ruled a suicide, there was neither an autopsy nor a thorough investigation. Lemme’s last comment to Curtis was that he was sure the investigation would lead all the way to the top. We do not know if by "top" he meant the White House or the governor's mansion.

How Fair Was the Election of 2004

While the 2004 vote was still being cast, a possibly tipsy New York Republican Representative Peter King appeared on the White House lawn with a blue plastic drinking cup in his hand. He told a documentary film-maker, "Its over! The election’s over-we won." When asked what that meant, he added, " It’s all about but the counting, and we’ll take care of the counting." King is one the better members of Congress and he seemed to be disquieted this knowledge.The election victory of 2004 violated two long-standing rules of thumb.( 1) Last minute undecided votes usually do not break for the incumbent. (2) An incumbent whose approval rating falls below 50% usually loses. These rules are not written in stone. Questions should be raised about the 2004 election because the results are not statistically probable and there was much evidence of gaming.

Recently, Christopher Hitchens published a piece in the March 2003 Vanity Fairentitled "Ohio's Od Numbers" and argues that the Federal Election Commission should take a careful look at the strange outcomes in Ohio. A sharp critic of John Kerry, Hitchens only looked at a few obvious problems and did not view the outcome from the standpoint of a statistician. He also gave full weight to the Republican argument that the Ohio election could not have been fixed because that would have required the cooperation of a significant number of people.There was less physical intimidation of minority voters in 2004 than in 2000, but there were probably even more efforts to suppress the minority vote. There were was less irrefutable evidence of efforts to almost openly fix machines, but those that did turn up almost always favored the GOP.

Almost gone was the shifting large numbers of votes to obscure minor party candidates for president. We can no longer expect to see the obvious and huge shifting of votes that occurred in Valusha County and elsewhere in Florida in 2000 or the unauthorized reprogramming of a large number of electronic machines, as occurred in southern Georgia in 2002. However, the election was replete with the kinds of anomalies and strange, unpredictable outcomes that alarmed statisticians and seasoned election observers.The election was unusual because there was such a great disparity between the exit polls and the actual results. The exit polls called for a Kerry victory , but the actual results gave Bush another term in the White House. In 42 of 51 states ( and District of Columbia), the states moved more toward Bush than the exit polls indicated. When it was clear that the exit polls appeared to be very wrong, the Edison and Mitofsky exit poll results were "rebalanced" early in the morning of November 3 so they came closer to actual results. An important assumption in the "reweighing" was that Bush got every vote he garnered in 2000; no one died and no one changed his mind.

This data was published by CNN and a CALTECH/MIT study, based on the modified figures, pronounced that the disparity between the exit polls and actual results was not great enough to warrant further inquiry. The actual exit poll data became available two weeks later and great disparities or "red shifts" in favor of Bush. In Delaware it was 10%,in New Hampshire 9.8%, in North Carolina 8%; in Ohio 6.2%, and Florida 6%. (2)In ten of the eleven battleground states, the differences between tallied and exit poll margin favored Bush. For two generations, the media’s exit polls have never been more than a tenth of a percent off. Freeman and Mitteldorf noted that there was a huge 10.0 average within precinct error in precincts that went at least 80% for Bush. On the other hand, the WPE for similar Kerry precincts was 0.3. Even Republican consultant Dick Morris told FOX News that "Exit polls are almost never wrong." The discrepancies were far outside the allowances for random error and chance. Statisticians have concluded that the chances of the wide variances of 2004 occurring were less that one in a thousand.

The chances that Kerry only received 47.1% of the vote in Florida are only three in a thousand. The best explanation Gallup pollsters could come up with was that Kerry people were much more willing to participate in exit polls than Bush backers. This became the official explanation of the pollsters. Yet 56% of those approached completed the surveys in Bush precincts, compared to 53% in Kerry bastions. (3) In states where a variety of means were used to count votes, there was no meaningful disparity between exit poll results and actual tabulations. However, there was a great difference between the exit polls and reported results in states were electronic programs were used to register and count votes. (4) The three corporations that control the manufacture and maintenance of electronic voting machines and the programs that tabulate votes are controlled by people with strong GOP ties. Moreover, their vote tabulating programs are easily hackable.

The many statistical anomalies of 2004 almost all benefitted the GOP, and they were a sort that could not be readily investigated. Indeed, Republican computer security expert Chuck Herrin noted that they "benefitted us 100% of the time." In the election of 2004, the electoral count was settled favor of George W. Bush in Ohio and Florida, both states where electronic voting and tabulation was predominant. A Quantitative Methods Research Team at the University of California at Berkeley examined the Florida election and found that "a county’s use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush " and that the random chances of this happening were "less than once in a thousand...." They conservatively estimated that Bush received between 130,000 and 260,000 more votes than could be statistically expected." Some voting machines there actually counted votes backward against Kerry. Bush carried the state by 5% , but lost it by 2% according to the exit polls. From a common sense but not rigorous statistician’s perspective, the results appear even more difficult to believe.. Among the 57 counties that used vote-scanning technology to count votes, 29 had been overwhelmingly Democratic. This time then became Bush bastions. The GOP gained 128.45% in those counties, and the Democrats lost 21%. In Liberty County, which is 88% Democratic, Bush gained 700%. Where optional scan technology was not used, voting followed predictable patterns. In Broward County, voting workers said there were boxes of uncounted absentee votes that were later removed from the court house. Before the election there, 50,000 applications for absentee ballots somehow got lost in the postal system. 6Analyzing the races in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania ( where a Senate seat was involved), Professor Ron Baiman thought the discrepancy between exit polls and tabulated votes could only occur once in 155,000,000 times.

The race was especially close in Ohio, where Bush eventually was declared the winner by less than 130,000 votes. There was not one elected statewide official who was a Democrat, and the secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, who counted the votes, was the Bush campaign chairman. Every possible legal and marginally legal device was used against Kerry. . In Franklin County there was a pattern of taking voting machines out of strongly Democratic precincts so that the lines would be longer. There were 580 absentee votes in Trumbull county which could not be matched with voters in the registration list. If this were extrapolated statewide, it would come to 62, 513 fraudulent absentee votes. A former ES&S employee was allowed to tamper with the vote counting computer in Auglaize County on October 16. In Warren County( about 20 miles northeast of Cincinnati–Kings Island), the court house was locked down so that reporters could not observe counting. In the past, there was room for the media in the court house during elections. It is important to know this is one of the last counties in Ohio to close its polling places. That county had a 33% increase in votes cast over 2000. In Perry County, more votes were cast than people who signed the register as on site voters or absentees/ In Butler County, the Kerry-Edward ticket ran far behind other Democrats. In the Columbus area, there were 4,258 votes in a Gahanna precinct and 260 for Kerry. Fortunately this was corrected. However, there were only 800 voters there. Miami County was very slow counting its votes and only released its complete total when almost the entire state had been heard from. Bush picked up an amazing 19,000 more votes than in 2000 in this rural county. , Kerry carried 31.38% of the voter, compared to 36.38 for Gore.. The county boasted an almost impossible increase in turnout, with the new votes shared between the candidates in these proportions. Some precincts had nearly 98% turnouts. In Mahoning County, many voters reported that they attempted to vote for Kerry on the video machines, but the vote kept turning up for Bush. Some might recall that this is Youngstown and naturally wonder is some kind of corruption were involved. In Lucas County where Toledo is located, , numerous machines consistently malfunctioned. Outside of Xenia, polling officials applied special standards to prevent black students from Wilberforce University

The Ohio recount was also marred by allegations of fraud. Triads Corporation, that services the punch card voting system in 41 counties was found to be sending people to court houses to prepare computers for recounts. The clearest case of abuse was in Hocking County, where Michael from Triad appeared to brief workers on "tricky" questions attorneys might ask and to work with tabulator and computer/ He asked which precincts had been designated for recount and then worked on the computer, telling the employees not to turn it off as the correct results were then on display. He also helped employees post a "cheat sheet" to help them with the recount. The deputy election commissioner who blew the whistloe on this conduct was subsequently fired by Hocking County, which was presured to do so by Secretary J. Kenneth Blackwell.In Lucas County, a Diebold technician reprogrammed machines prior to the recount, and in suburban Sylvania Precinct 3 the programming card was reprogrammed..Voting officials in Shelby County admitted they had destroyed critical materials, making a recount there impossible to the recount, Secretary of State Blackwell ordered voting officials in the counties to prohibit others from examining poll registers, a violation of Ohio law which made it impossible for Democratic observers to analyze the election or make sense of the recount.

Strange occurances seemed to mark the recount in many of the counties of northwestern Ohio. Moreover, Blackwell did not impound a single machine or computer, so a trustworthy recount was impossible. Moreover, he refused to appear before a House committee investigating the Ohio outcome even though its chairman was a Republican who would have treated him gently. In the same spirit, the Ohio Atgtorney General has demanded that the State Supreme Court discipline four attorneys who unsuccessfully litigated in a quest for a more thorough recount. Much more could be said about the abnormalities in the Ohio recount. One wonders why any rigging was even necessary in view of the fact that Ohio was certain to certify the original results.Before the election, many efforts were made to hold down the minority vote.The Republican Secretary of State in Ohio attempted to invalidate voter registration forms in Cleveland because they were not printed on pound stock paper.9 A quarter of a million African Americans in Ohio received letters warning them that they could not vote; among the reasons given were being registered by the NAACP.

Misleading pamphlets were also sent to Milwaukee blacks in an effort to discourage their voting. John Perzel, speaker of the Pennsylvania House of representatives, openly stated it was necessary to suppress the black vote in Philadelphia. 11In Las Vegas, Nevada , the Republicans hired Voters Outreach of America to register voters. The firms managers were caught destroy Democratic registration forms. Employees said they were only being paid for Republican signature. In Oregon, the same firm was discovered to be repeating this performance. However, there it sometimes used public libraries, claiming to be official registrars. Its employees were reported to have told University of Oregon students that by registering as Republicans they were somehow fighting the sexual abuse of children. Similar problems appeared in West Virginia.. 12 In Florida, election officials tried to remove another 22,000 Blacks from the voter roles, even though they were not felons. Republican Secretary of State Glenda Hood disqualified an additional 10,000 registration forms of likely Democrats because they had checked in only one place rather than two that they were citizens of the United States.

Former President Jimmy Carter, whose center has monitored elections around the world, noted that the process in Florida did not meet international standards in part because it is operated by people holding "strong political biases," and he predicted that the 204 Florida election would again be characterized by irregularities. 13The usual efforts of those in power to prevent some groups from voting were much in evidence. By placing outmoded equipment in black precincts, the chance of having many "spoiled votes" was greatly increased. In the 47 Dayton, Ohio precincts that went heavily for Kerry, the spoilage rate was 5.16%, compared to 1.31% for the rest of Montgomery County. This is partly why blacks have a 800 % greater chance of not having their votes counted than whites. Similarly, placing too few machines in black precincts created great lines and discouraged people from voting. The situation was so blatant in Ohio, that the very Republican Columbus Dispatch felt obliged to report on it. It found that the number of machines in Democratic parts of Franklin county were reduced by 17 while the Republican precincts received eight more machines.

In Democratic Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, old machines were used and the average number of votes per machine was less than half those per machine in the Columbus area. The provisional ballot, was a new technique made possible by HAVA, allowed people to provisionally vote if they showed up at the wrong place or broke some other regulation. These votes were usually not counted . Even Hitchens, a sharp critic of Kerry, noted that the massive bottlenecks "had a tendency to occur in working-class and, shall we just say, nonwhite precincts." Many people simply gave up and did not bother to complete the provisional ballots that officials eventually decided to offer them.

In Gambier, Ohio, there was only working machine where Kenyon College students voted. Many of them gave up and refused to bother with the provisional ballots because they believed the paper ballots would not be counted. These techniques were widely used, especially in Ohio, and boosted the number of uncounted votes to the 3,000,000 mark In addition there were 95,000 lost votes in Franklin County, 12,000 in Mahoning, and 6,400 in Warren County. In some southwest white Republican counties,, C. Ellen Connally, an unfunded African American running for Ohio Supreme court, somehow ran far ahead of John Kerry. 14 In two predominantly black Cleveland precincts, this also occurred. The normal patteren in presidential election years is that the highest number of votes would be at the top of the ticket, and that there would be a sharp drop-off thereafter.Social scientists are supposed to be pragmatists, so it is probably unfair to complain about efforts by a political campaign to suppress the opposition vote. Similarly, extremely stringent regulations for the identification of some voters and increased efforts to eliminate legitimate black voters as part of programs to purge felons might be considered benefits of incumbency.

Perhaps some would draw the line at capriciously changing voting place locations or how many new machines are placed in black precincts might cross the line for many realists. If all the above were considered part of rigging election, many would be justified in concluding that John Kerry should be sworn in as President in 2005. But leaving these things aside, we still have results that defy any reasonable statistical or common sense analysis. Whether the election of 2004 should have gone to John Kerry cannot be established, even though a shift of 65,000 votes in Ohio would have made the difference. Electronic machines and computerized tabulation systems are extremely difficult to audit and there is very little possibility that this situation will change. We can expect more elections like this in the future. One piece there provides extensive background information on the potential for fraud offered by electronic voting machines and computerized counting systems

.1. To view the film clip---http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/Movies/peterking.mov (Some who viewed this film clip concluded he may have been a bit tipsy.)2. Alastair Thompson, "Complete US Exit Poll Date Confirms Net Suspicions," Scoop.com ( November 17, 2004)3. Steven F. Freeman, "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," (November from voting. 10, 2004) stfreema@sas.upenn.edu; Jonathan D. Simon and Ron P. Baiman, "Who Won the Popular Vote? An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data,"The Free Press.com ( December 29, 2004)4. Michael Meacher, "Did Dubbya rig the election?" New Statesman (November 29, 2004), 22-235. Herrin, "Empathy Training for Compassionate Conservatives,"6. "UC Berkeley Research Team Sounds ‘Smoke Alarm’ for Florida E-Vote Count," (November 18, 2004) ucdata.berkeley.edu; Sean Sabatini, "Exit Polls and Vote Fraud: A user-Friendly Explanation," OPEDNews.com( undated); "Countdown," MSNBC.com ( November 3, 2004)7. John Conyers and others to. Kenneth Blackwell ( December 2, 2004), Truthout.com; Richard Hayes Phillips, "Hacking the Vote in Miami County," The Free Press.com (December 25, 2004).8. William Rivers Pitt, "Proof of Ohio election Fraud Exposed," Truthout.com ( December 15, 2004); Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld, and Harvey Wasserman, "American Democracy Hangs by a Thread in Ohio," Yurca Report.com ( December 15, 2004); Toledo Blade, January 5, 20059. "The Poll Tax Updated," The New York Times, October 7, 2004)10. ABCNews.com (October 31, 2004)11. Bob Herbert, "Days of Shame," New York Times (November 1, 2004)12. PBS.com (October 13, 2004); Laura Kurtzman, "GOP Paid Firm Faces Voter Fraud Charge," San Jose Mercury (October 14, 2004); Adrienne Packer, "Voter Fraud Alleged," The Las Vegas Review-Journal (October 14, 2004); Associated Press and KGW News, "KGW Report Prompts Oregon Voter Fraud Investigation." (October 13, 2004)13. Jimmy Carter, "Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote," Washington Post (September 27, 2004); Kurtzman, "GOP Paid Firm Faces Voter Fraud Charge."

The New Right in Historical Context

The right-wing populism of the New Right shares many characteristics with the right-wing populism in Europe and right-wing populism in the American past. Among the commonalities are a sense of victimhood, intense nationalism, fear of cultural pluralism, and the potential for acceptance of conspiracy theories and authoritarianism.

In 1984 ,the French National Front became the first European right-populist party to escape marginalization at the polls by combining nationalist xenophobia with ant-government establishment nationalism. The combination of these issues represented a successful "master frame"– as the European scholars call it, which was soon copied by emerging similar parties in Europe. They were also partially successful in overcoming the stigma of anti-democratic policies, authoritarianism, and biological racism that they inherited from similar movements earlier in the Twentieth Century. These parties attracted largely working class voters, people who generally would have stayed with left and socialist parties had then shown any inclination to address the economic threats posed by postindustrial society.

Once convinced that their old parties could not or would not deal with the problems growing out of the global economy, these voters looked to express their concerns about declining social status and threats to their cultural values. Biological racism is no longer acceptable in Europe, so these new parties adopt what some call "culturalracism," but they claim not to go beyond pointing out that new subcultures are incompatible with the European heritage. The claim that the new subcultures would bring about the extinction of the older European tradition caused great fear and rage, emotions likely to cement political affiliations and mobilize voters. Anti-political establishment populism was very attractive to them because they were convinced that the liberals and socialists in power no longer cared about them and richly deserved punishment. Leaders of the new right-populist parties portrayed themselves as being outside the political class. People who have lost faith in government and their old political party are more likely to form new cognitive routes to interpret reality.

It is difficult to establish how much racism attends right-wing populism in the United States. It is rarely an overt element, and appeals to it are masked at as calls for law and order and criticisms of people who are alleged to lack the work ethic. Right-wing populism in both Europe and the United States is marked by intense nationalism, fear of cultural pluralism, and contempt for much of the heritage of the Enlightenment.

Some believe that right wing populism is an ante-room to fascism, but worries about this cannot be entertained until Republican populists have serious violated constitutionalism and deprived others of basic rights. The New Right has demonstrated strong authoritarian tendencies by drastically limiting the rights of the minority in the House of Representatives and threatening to strip the Senate minority of certain filibuster rights. There is also an on-going effort to muzzle progressive professors. The Right has consistently attempted to intimidate the media into providing coverage it considers suitable. However, none of this represents clear violations of law, and intemperate rhetoric is not an acid acid test for fascism.

Polish writer Adam Michnik suggested that populism always contains an element of envy and employs demagoguery. When mixed with intense nationalism, it can produce fascism. After 9/11 intense nationalism was wed to right- wing populism , producing an irresistible political force Populist nationalists have learned that extreme nationalist and aggressive policies can forge powerful political majorities, and they have been unable to refrain from regular use of this very effective political ploy. Provoking hatred of foreign enemies as well as fellow Americans who happen to disagree is too effective a tool not to deploy whenever necessary. Republicans used it to tar opponents as allies of terrorists and Saddam Hussein, increasing their majorities in the House and Senate and reelecting their warrior-hero George W. Bush.

The traditional conservative thinker John Lukacs wrote, "when...temperance is weak, or unenforced, or unpopular, then democracy is nothing else than populism. More precisely : then it is nationalist populism....the fundamental problem of the future." Right-wing populism easily morphed into nationalist populism. Anyone objecting to any policy claimed to be part of the war on terrorism was likely to have her patriotism questioned. Jim Gibbons, a Republican Congressman from Nebraska, was to say it was "too damn bad we didn’t buy {critics of the Iraq war} tickets to become human shields there. He also said those who complained about corporate contributions to President Bush were "communists. " Such outbursts are relatively rare because they tend to spook independent voters, but his remarks accurately reflect the spirit of nationalist populism. There were many other ways to say the same thing without alarming independents and moderates.

So far the union of right-wing populism and extreme nationalism has not produced fascism, but it has clearly threatened the health of our democratic polity. John Lukacs believes the new populism could almost destroy democracy because it so easily degenerates into the tyranny of the majority. 'Nationalism is a very low and cheap common denominator that unites people,'' Lukacs says. ''It is hatred that unites people. People take satisfaction from the idea that we are good because our enemies are evil. This is a very American syndrome, but it is also universally true of mankind.'' Lukacs was one of the few conservative intellectuals to object to Senator Joseph McCarthy; it is likely that he will have even less company this time around.

Previous manifestations of American right-wing populism have had the quality of a Roman candle. They burned brightly but fairly briefly. There were the anti-Semitic followers of Father Charles Coughlin, the anti-Communist crusaders led by Senator Joseph McCarthy who also the American WASP establishment, and the anti-black backlash populists of George C. Wallace. In many ways ,Wallace pioneered in developing many of the arguments employed by the today’s New Right. Those three movements were short lived because their extremism quickly became obvious. This lesson has been learned by right-wing populist strategist here and abroad.

Especially in the United States, the movement has continued to grow over three decades because its extremist tendencies have been somewhat contained and masked. The New Right constitutes a serious threat to democracy, and will probably result in drastically remodeling how the Congress and Executive Branch do business. Popular pressure will probably further mute the mainstream press, but in the short term official assaults on individual rights may not exceed what was accomplished in the Patriot Act. The drift toward authoritarianism will most likely be contained because rapid progress in that direction could alarm a large portion of the electorate.

The New Right, Right-Wing Populism, and Displaced Economic Anxiety

Historically, movements for social change have often been instruments of status groups that felt an intense need to assert and legitimize their identities. Right wing populism, here in the form of the New Right and abroad, usually is fed by the bitterness and frustration of people facing status loss. These people do not want to be like people in the so-called "blue" states; they are simply intent upon expressing their identity as "decent" people and their anger over being mistreated because of that decency. Their status group anger has been framed in terms of authenticity. They are the real Americans as opposed to the phoneys.

Economic stagnation and the breakdown of welfare capitalism in the United States disoriented millions of people, who sought answers and affirmation of their identities. One might expect them to drift into a political movement that clearly and directly addressed their situation. However, cultural arguments touch people more deeply, and they were to accept an ideology that somewhat tangentially offered them some economic relief. Economic historian Alexander Cershenkron noted that even nations with long democratic traditions can become democracies without democrats. It is not so difficult to have a generous view of fellow citizens when living standards are rising. Economic growth makes the expansion of democracy possible. When people's ecopnomic prospects are declining, it is so much easier to be less inclusive, less trusting, and more inclined to accept views that place blame on a nation's woes on others.


The 2004 US election provides clear evidence of the extent to which anxiety rooted in economic concerns was displaced to
cultural matters. Sixty one percent of white voters refused to support John Kerry. In 1991, Stanley Greenberg wrote that "unless thre are some limits to the [ Democratic] party's moral agnosticism," it will not win over the averagfe family.

In Europe, those who lost their jobs, faced great insecurity or had to accept less income and benefits are loosely called the "abandoned workers." In the United States, there is a very broad definition of middle class, and the New Right here is considered a middle class phenomenon. Among the recruits to
right-wing populism were many Reagan Democrats, who faced great economic insecurity but also believed their cultural and religious values were under assault.

What has emerged in the last thirty years, is a self-conscious status group in the United States, the members of which would not object to the descriptive term "Middle America." Over time, this vast status group became desperate and anxious, believing their social and economic positions were slipping or in danger of slipping.. These middle class Americans developed a sub-culture or collective consciousness made up of orientations that guide their actions, particularly at election time. These orientations represent a form of conservative populism. Invariably, conservative populists identified their own fates with that of the nation, which also faced very grave threats. They, like their nation, were virtuous and deserved primacy among other people and nations. Their opponents were not just somewhat wrong, they were "evil."

Max Weber argued that there is a strong need for psychic comfort or a feeling of established worthiness. He thought that class consciousness was essentially "psychological thoughts of men about their lives. " In this instance, we are not dealing with a class. Status groups also a very similar form of consciousness, and in the late Twentieth Century marketing and other techniques that make it possible to frame information and arguments in such a way as to shape the content of that consciousness. Weber believed the most compelling ideologies developed when a powerful set of ideas were taken up by the disadvantaged. That is why it was so important to persuade a vast slice of middle Americans, regardless of their economic status, that they are somehow disadvantaged.

Today, the party of the right-wing populists controls every branch of the national government state governments. Nevertheless, the anger of the right-wing populists has not abated because they believe that the media, press, universities, and entertainment are still dominated by liberals who are committed to destroying American culture. To some degree the belief that they are conspired against victims is a tonic and confers upon them special identities. They cannot congratulate themselves on their political success or the fact that the press largely has been intimidated into soft-pedalling or ignoring stories that would offend conservatives. Their radio and television shockmeisters continually remind them that they are not safe as long as there is a Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy in the Senate or as long as The New York Times or Washington Post remain in print.

Cultural crusades have been powered by anxiety rooted in economic and status tensions. Concern over economic and status questions is redirected to cultural quests where the chances of success seem greater. At work is an historical process that somehow displaced feelings of deep economic anxieties, which reappeared as cultural resentments. The "somehow" means we cannot explain how or why it happened other than to note that these occurrences from Roman times forward can best be seen as examples of the irrational and unconscious in history. What can be called psycho-cultural climates exist in history, as the great Lucien Febvre suggested, but the followers of Clio have made little progress in deciphering t hem. Intense stress and fear that one was losing control of ones destiny generates the emotional energy that drives these psycho-historical situations. Going back even farther than the Romans, we find examples of oppressed peoples becoming somehow "Gods’s elect." Arguably this occurred in the case of the ancient Jews. Historians have developed the formula "oppressed people, elect people." Elect, of course, meant chosen. In the modern American setting, the word "elect" is both an adjective and a verb.

The rise of the New Right had some of the characteristics of a half-political, half-religious revival. A psychohistorian would say that revivalism is sometimes "a symptom of incipient regression in a life of a community under conditions of stress." The revival need not always take a religious form, for example contemporary Rumania seems to be going through a period of great anxiety that is producing a revival of old songs, ballads, and dances, and interest in imaginary heroes of the past. In the contemporary American case, the religious revivals of the 19th Century are being reenacted in modern form and the laissez faire economics of the robber baron heroes are recast as the essentials of American tradition. Of course, the United States is very different from Romania. Yet both have entered periods when radical cultural reorganization, when the corporate spirit has declined and many have not quite figured out how to cope with the fre4edom and individualism that came with it. Some experience an intense need to belong which adherence to the New Right satisfies. ( In fourth century BCE Athens, a similar period of anxiety and transition occurred and many reacted by joining the new mystery cults while others embraced a greater degree of secularism.)

In the case of contemporary America, economic anxiety occurred after a period of great abundance and what seemed to be the promise of continued affluence– fulfillment of the American Dream. It occurred simultaneously with the emergence of postmodern culture, which brought in its wake ambiguity and contradiction in respect to values. A great majority of the same people experiencing economic anxiety were also troubled by new threats to their values. Perhaps some found the new mental freedom an invitation to inner anarchy, as Adorno noted half a century ago. In any event, they lacked the mental structures to address the cultural disorientation of the period and its potential threats in matters of conscience. Some probably found that their central cultural and religious beliefs were not as strong as they had though and that they craved a consistent and rigorous way of thinking. They were unprepared for a pluralistic culture and moral ambiguities. The crusade of the New Right seemed to resolve these inner conflicts and allowed them to cope with the anxieties of these times.

RIGHT-WING POPULISM: THE GOP'S MOST POTENT WEAPON

After the 2004 defeat of John Kerry, many concluded that it was how one spoke about cultural issues that made the difference, and that George W. Bush’s appeal to conservative religious people explained what had happened. In fact, a more powerful and complex force was at work in establishing Republican dominance in the United States, right-wing populism as embodied in the New Right. At work was much more than many people responding to several hot button, values-laden issues. The Democrats were up against a complex, powerful social movement that took decades to build and a mind-set that will prove very difficult to change. True, the outlook of the Christian right lends itself to right-wing populism, but they are two different but closely related phenomena. Today’s incarnation of Right-wing populism is equated with evangelical religion, but it could stand alone as it frequently does in Europe. Right-wing populism is at the heart of the New Right’s identity and is largely a reaction against social change and comes wrapped as ultra-Americanism and assertive nationalism, which got a great boost from the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Failing to fully understand what they were up against, some Democrats slightly toned down their support for all forms of abortion, and many of them acquired a book on cognitive linguistics that correctly showed that Republicans were very skilled at recasting unpopular policies in favorable langage and at "branding" Democrats as very undesirable political products. The reading will do them some good, but it is necessary for them to learn much more about right-wing populism.

The main elements of populism are celebrating "the people" and battling elites. American right-wing populists believe the country is dominated by an elitist coalition of big government bureaucrats, old money aristocrats, and the so-called "New Class" of academicians, intellectuals, media people, and technocrats. The belief that the elite looks down on other Americans gives right-wing populism its great force which is expressed in anger, resentment, and determination to go to the polls and strike a blow against their enemies. The elitists are accused of trying to destroy American culture, and the New Right sees a nation divided by two starkly different cultures, one good and one evil. The term "liberal" has been redefined to mean people who are trying to overturn traditional American culture by supporting moral relativism, permissiveness, softness on crime, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and stem cell research. It is a simplistic black and white picture that bears little resemblance to reality but, with the help of a small army of propagandists, pundits and preachers, it has become the core frame of reference for the New Right. Growing belief that liberals are conspiring to undermine American culture and are contemptuous of ordinary Americans has generated paranoia and rage which has activated the New Right and enabled it to grow steadily as a political force over three decades. The fear and loathing of so-called elitists and their alleged plans to destroy American culture is far more important in motivating political action than particular issues like abortion or gay marriage.

American right-wing populism’s four main characteristics are majoritarianism– even in defiance of constitutional government, anti-elitism, intense nationalism, and anti-intellectualism. Historically, populism has led to anti-Semitism and racism. Polish writer Adam Michnik suggested that populism always contains an element of envy and employs demagoguery. When mixed with intense nationalism, it can produce fascism. However, it is likely that right populism would lose some of its charm in the United States if it were to spawn overt and excessive authoritarianism and obvious anti-Semitism or racism.

In the past, forms of populism in the United States have burned themselves out fairly quickly because they soon were manifesting more than a little bizarre and outrageous behavior. This latest incarnation has steadily grown over three decades, and zealous followers have been kept on somewhat acceptable paths by an army of radio talk show hosts, pundits, and very adept political managers. It has been no small accomplishment.

American right-wing populism it is very attractive to small entrepreneurs and ordinary Americans, often members of the white working class. In both Europe and America white males from the working class were particularly attracted to populism. They faced job insecurity and declining standards of living, and, especially in the United States, they resented the loss of privileges that had traditionally flowed from their status as white males. Yearning for the restoration of their roles as defenders and providers, some American men even joined militias, extremist organizations that display the repressive dimensions of right-wing populism when carried too far.

In the United States, however, right-wing populism appealed to an element that was not so important in Europe–evangelical, fundamentalist, and traditional Christianity. What has developed is, in the words of Italian writer Emilio Gentile defined "political religion, " defined as the use of religion , its language and symbols for political combat. The Christian adherents of the new right-wing populism have been called the Religious or Christian Right. Forty-two percent of American voters describe themselves as born-again, and about 75% of them have come to support the Republican party. In time the majority of traditionalist Catholics joined them on the religious right. It was unified by opposition to abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, and homosexual practice. Some members of the Christian Right differ from non-religious right-wing populists in that they are interested in eroding the wall separating church and state, and they are even more opposed to an open society. A few on the Christian Right adhere to "dominionism," the belief that true Christians must acquire political power and lead the nation by carrying our their biblical principles.

The Christian Right took shape in the 1970, and were helped come into being by conservative operatives and strategists Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, E.E. McAteer, and Howard Phillips. Their strategy proved to be so effective that one would expect it to have been hatched by several brilliant sociologists. In an 1976 interview, Viguerie said they were busy building support among evangelicals and getting "preachers into politics." They focused on ministers like Reverend Jerry Falwell, who believed America was being ruled by the "wicked." Christian Voice, an important evangelical group, was then saying that America was being attacked by "Satanist forces." This kind of black and white thinking did not invite dialogue, only fear, anger, and determination to seize power. By 2005, members of the Christian Right were announcing that those who opposed efforts to strip Democratic Senators of the right to filibuster against Republican judicial nominees were enemies of God. Republican Congressman Christopher Shays admitted that his party had been transformed into the "party of theocracy." Former Senator John Danforth, an Episcopal priest, observed that his party had been transformed "into the political arm of conservative Christians."

In most respects, there was a meshing of views and attitudes between the evangelicals and the right-wing populists. Even many members of the evangelical Churches, while usually voting for Republicans, were much more inclined to agree with their ministers on the evils of feminism or abortion than on other questions. Perhaps they were acting at the polls more as right-wing populists than as evangelicals, but certainly the appeals to the Religious Right helped activate their populism. Whether as evangelicals or as populists, they were equally disposed to demand that the United States take a more assertive role in world affairs, and they were frustrated when foreign countries failed to heed the leadership of this virtuous nation. Both were likely to see the Vietnam War a noble venture. For decades, this burning nationalism or what scholars call "foreign policy fundamentalism" bad been firmly suppressed by a bipartisan foreign policy establishment. With the election of George W. Bush, those favoring a far more aggressive and assertive foreign policy took power, and public outrage over the terrible events of September 11, 2001 made it possible for them to implement their policies. For some on the Christian Right, the invasion of Iraq was predicted in the Book of Revelation and should be seem as a large step toward the events of end times when one third of humankind is slain and millions of sinners are sent to eternal hellfire and torment.

It is unclear how far and how fast right-wing populism can continue to spread across a population. It is growing by leaps in bounds in Islamic countries, where conditions are more than ripe for its spread. Experience in the United States has demonstrated its steady growth, and the continual spread of evangelical Christianity seems to prepare its way for still more New Right growth. In the 1950s, people who held views similar to those of the New right were considered part of the so-called lunatic fringe. By the 1980s, there were many more of these people, but their views were not considered mainstream. Today, the New Right dominates the nation’s most powerful political party and has reason to claim that its outlook is becoming that of mainstream America.

Abu Ghraib, the American Gulag, and Bush Policies

Several months ago, a Reserve sergeant was sentenced to eight years in prison for his part in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. No one of higher rank has been charged; however, a Guard brigadier general was demoted on an old shoplifting charge and the inference that she should have had better control of Abu Ghraib. In truth, she had been ordered to turn over control to Military Intelligence, and she later made the mistake of going public with this information and practically predicting that she would be made a scapegoat. In late May, 2005, moderate columnist reported that over 100 detainees have died while in US custody, but this report caused only a few ripples in the US media. CBS, still in the dog house after it aired questionable documents about George Bush, ignored the matter entirely.

Although the Bush administration’s inflammatory pronouncements and “they hit us–we hit them” rhetoric was partly responsible, few make this connection. There has been little interest in tracing the scandal to its roots high up in the Bush government. Most Americans seem to hope the wrong-doing was confined to twenty or so low ranking personnel. Of course, the Bush administration is working hard to sell that illusion. If an officer is reprimanded in connection with the scandal, there is a caveat that says it will be removed from the personnel file in 6 months if the person is involved in no additional abuses.

In April, 2004, it was revealed that Iraqi detainees were being abused in Iraq by U.S. military police who were encouraged to do so by Military Intelligence and by civilian employees of private intelligence contractors, of which there were sixty in Iraq. In mid May, photographs surfaced of two soldiers posing with the dead body of a detainee who had apparently been beaten to death by CIA or private intelligence contractor operatives. The body was there because the CIA and military interrogators could not agree on who should dispose of it. When photographs of the abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison became available in late April. 2004 , the Bush administration denied it had been hiding anything from the public and denied the extent of the abuse. Indeed it claimed that it had discovered the abuses and had been working to find the culprits. The Red Cross had been complaining about the abuses since October, 2003 and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had also expressed deep concern about the abuses. It later developed that there were numerous "ghost prisoners" who were hidden during Red Cross visits.

Human Rights First claims that Rumsefle order4ed the military to hide some detainees from the Red Cross. If this claim is true, the US is in violation of international law. It is claimed that some were held at another prison near Baghdad, at Kohat, Pakistan, LJ Jafr, Jordan and on Diego Garcia. It is strongly suspected that other detainees are held aboard warships, particularly the Navail Consolidated Brig in Charleston harbor.

The administration claimed abuses were isolated to a handful of wayward National Guard personnel. Yet some of the photographs revealed torture techniques known only skilled professionals. Questions were quickly raised about whether higher authorities were involved or, at the least, whether there was an outlook in the officer corps that made these abuses possible.

Soon after 9/11, President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft agreed to a system of secretly detaining prisoners so that as much information could be extracted from them as possible. Rumsfeld even authorized "interrogation techniques" that involved nudity and use of dogs because the would challenge the religious sensibilities of detainees. After some months of interrogating prisoners, the Pentagon concluded that not enough information was being garnered. A study was ordered to explore the possibility of using torture. It concluded that the president could override laws forbidding torture and that those acting on his orders could not be prosecuted.

By April 16, 2003, General James Hill, who commanded overseas prisons, received guidance on new interrogation techniques. There were four that required the direct approval of the Secretary of Defense, and they were only employed on two prisoners. An August , 2002 Justice Department memo stated that torturing Al Qaeda prisoners might be justified and that the commander in chief’s full control of war policy could make international law provisions on torture unconstitutional. The memo from the Office of Legal Counsel was addressed to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and said that torturing Al Qaeda captives abroad “may be justified” and that international law on this subject “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation” of suspected terrorists. If questioning techniques brought on "organ failure" it could be considered torture. In June, 2004, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Bush approved guidelines for interrogating prisoners but never endorsed specific techniques.

Meanwhile, a Defense Department task force, headed by Air Force Counsel Mary Walker under orders from Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes, III, was defining down what torture meant. Leaked memos from the Justice Department advised the task force that cruel psychological techniques might not constitute torture even if they went on for months or years. Likewise, physical abuse would equal torture only if it was “equivalent in intensity to pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death.”

Even though members of Congress could read parts of the memos in the newspapers, Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to turn his department’s correspondence on this over to the Senate. Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee also wrote a memorandum outlining what torture techniques could be used on senior al Qaeda members. After the Defense Department memo was issued, The Attorney General ruled that prisoners arrested in Afghanistan were “illegal enemy combatants,” who were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Apparently Iraqi detainees were to technically enjoy coverage of the Geneva Convention. Perhaps the permissive attitudes about torture in the officer corps began here, even though the secret detention and interrogation program was originally designed to apply to only a relatively small number of people.

The Bush administration attempted to limit the damage by moving quickly to court-martial seven non-commissioned Guardsmen. Eventually the number of scape goats would expand to about two dozen low ranking soldiers. The administration drew a distinction between “abuse” and “torture.” Six officers were reprimanded, which immunized them from prosecution. Rumsfeld refused to use the word “torture” and would not go beyond saying that this sort of thing can happen when a system is not perfect. The government knew of the abuses much earlier and President Bush had been briefed during the winter holidays. By February, the Pentagon had a 53 page report written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba, but it had not been read by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the time the story broke. Taguba discovered “systematic” abuse, but when he testified before Congress he moved toward the official story.

Yet, three weeks before the story broke Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers had asked Dan Rather to delay releasing the story. Secretary Rumsfeld said he had read only a summary and had not been briefed on its contents.. The report indicated that one private security contracting company called CACI was clearly instructing MPs to abuse prisoners. Republican pundit Bill O ’Reilly expressed anger that the photographs of the humiliated Iraqis was shown on television, claiming this could cost American lives. Before Taguba was sent to study the situation, Major General Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the Guantanamo detention center, was sent in September, 2003, to study the situation a Abu Ghraib. If fact, his mission was to bring Gitmo techniques to Iraq and to place most of Abu Gharib under the jurisdiction of Military Intelligence.

Since April, 2003 interrogation techniques at Guantanamo had been toughened on the orders of the Pentagon. He "recommended" that the Military Intelligence be placed in charge of the prison and that prisoners could be placed in stress positions, deprived of sleep, and exposed to extremes of heat and cold. He wanted to “Gitmoize” the prison. The prison was placed under the control of military intelligence and civilian intelligence operatives on November 19.

Whether Miller recommended more severe measures is not known. At some time, most probably later, he was briefed –“read in”- about an operation called “Copper Green” which Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice had approved after 9/11. This was most probably the program Bush and Ashcroft admit to having endorsed. It was designed to extract information from “high value” prisoners. It was a “black” special-access program (SAP) that authorized elite personnel from the CIA, Seals, and other agencies to “Grab whom you must. Do what you want.” These high value terrorists could be moved across borders and kept in various locations in a vast US interrogation network. This secret gulag or network of prisons was linked largely by CIA operated Gulfstream and other executive jets . Prisoners were also turned over to other regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Pakistan for torture and interrogation. One Canadian citizen was held in Syria for three months, a matter that caused great consternation in Canada.

In the mid- 1990s, the Clinton administration began sanction the transportation of terrorist detainees to foreign countries for questioning. This policy of “rendition” was limited to people who had already been found guilty in our courts. The Bush administration broadened this policy to include mere suspects, and about one hundred and fifty have been subjected to rendition since 2001. The new policy was part of what Alberto Gonzales called the New Paradigm, the administration’s new approach to detention and interrogation. Rendition also changed in that it often meant more than just sending detainees to foreign countries, they were often held and questioned by Americans in safehouses in those countries. Detainees were sent to other countries known for the use of brutal torture techniques. Some have estimated that as many as 9,000 people were held in facilities that very from small rooms to very large encampments. However, it is doubtful that anything approaching that number are subjected to treatment that completely exceed international conventions. The New York Bar Association's estimation of 150 probably is about right for the people handed over to foreign governments for intense questioning.

It is now known that the abuse of prisoners at Bagram, Gardez, and Kandahar in Afghanistan was extensive. In May, 2005, the New York Times published a story based on a 2000 page report on systematic abuse of prisoners at Afghanistan's Bagram Collection Point. The most herart-breaking story was about a shy, illiterate young cab driver who was bound by wire to the ceiling of his cell for days while captors repeatedly struck and mocked him. He repeatedly called "Allah," which provoked laughter and jeers. Eventually the flesh around the bottom of his legs had, according to the coroner, been "pulpified." By the time he died, most of his American interrogators had decided he was innocent.

A minimum of eight detainees in Afghanistan died in US captivity, but the military claims that only two were homocides. Afghan investigators reported that prisoners were given electric shocks, beaten, hung upside down, had their toenails ripped out, and immersed in cold water. Hussain Youssouf Mustafa, a Pakistani sent to Bagram for questioning, said soldiers forced him to bend down so a one of them could ram a stick up his rectum. Another detainee, Abdurahaim Khadr, told a Canadian court that US soldiers "got me naked and they were taking pictures of my face and my private parts--just constantly taking pictures of my private parts." The commandos operating under this program seized people in Afghanistan and placed them in “the Pit” and other detention centers, where they were subjected to various forms of abuse, including sexual. They had learned that sex, especially homosexual sex, was especially taboo among Muslims. It was thought that sexual degradation and photographing people in compromising sexual situations would produce information and even recruit prisoners to become informers.

Vice President Cheney personally managed the administration’s successful Abu Ghraib damage control program. It was also Cheney who spearheaded the effort to conflate the Iraq operation with the war on terror by suggesting that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. For many, this cloaked the torture in the prisons with the mantle of righteous retribution.

Few voters would learn very much about how extensive the torture was or that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was involved in a secret program to allow torture and circumvent the Geneva Conventions. When the Sacramento Bee first ran stories about the prison abuse, there seemed to be hardly a ripple of public concern. As soon as it published a photograph, there were many complaints about “pornography,” “Sensationalism,” and “ bush-bashing” Only a handful of readers commended the paper for printing the photograph. Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma spoke for many Americans when he admitted he was “more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment.” It was likely that conservative voters in the Midwest were more outraged by the sexual debauchery than the torture of Iraqis and that there was a widespread sentiment that such mistreatment was to be expected in wartime. The Pentagon refused to release more photographs, claiming they were evidence in a continuing investigation.

Some noted that the torture was “a direct consequence of the with-us-or-against-us doctrines of world struggle “ of the Bush administration, but appeared that most of the press wanted to move on to other subjects. Concern was voiced that following the story showed “bad taste” or was “political,” meaning it would reflect badly on the Bush administration. The torture story soon was cycled to the back pages in most places and the press did not show a great deal of interest in getting far beyond the cover story that the mistreatment was the work of seven guardsmen. However, a few of the nation’s best papers continued to follow the story, track memos that suggested a shift in policy about torture began at the highest reaches of government.

last revised- July 6, 2005

Who can Believe Condi?: The Bush Administration Put Counterterrorism on the Back Burner Bfore 9/11

It is appropriate that Condi is on the road defending the Bush record on terrorism. The trouble is she has bent the truth so many times, she cannot be believed. When she assumed her new position, she and George W. Bush put counterterrorism on the back burner. Later, she did all she could to avoid admitting this.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, had written that terrorism was manly part of the problem of dealing with rogue states, suggesting that she did not understand how dangerous Al Qaeda had become. She believed the new administration should deal with a few major foreign policy problems and attend to the less important later. She shared the belief of the Bush team that Clinton foreign policy had been wrong pretty much across the board and was determined pursue different approaches.1 Before leaving office, the Clinton National Security staff had three meetings with Bush counterparts. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger attended one of those meetings himself because he wanted to underscore the warning he was there to give about Al Qaeda. Berger told Dr. Condoleezza Rice, his successor, that her main problem would he terrorism. Berger told her in a private meeting, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on Al-Qaeda specifically, than on any other subject." To emphasize the subjects importance, Berger held a special briefing on the subject. Richard Clarke, who had also worked for the first Bush administration, made the presentation via PowerPoint. Clarke outlined an action plan that included assisting the fight against terrorism in the Philippines, Yemen, and Uzbekistan. It also included more aid for the Northern Alliance foes of the Taliban, far greater covert action there, the use of special operations forces, air strikes, and the freezing of financial assets. Rice later denied that Berger was present, and another Bush official minimized the meetings importance, claiming that it was only a PowerPoint presentation. Under Clinton, Clarke had the de facto standing of a cabinet officer where counter terrorism was involved. Brian Sheridan, a Clinton assistant secretary of defense , repeated Berger’s warning in a meeting with Rice and urged her to keep Richard Clarke and rely upon his expertise. Sheridan offered to brief her team on what he knew about terrorism and counter terrorism, but no one asked to hear what he had to say. Clarke did brief Rice on Al Qaeda, and "her facial expression gave {him} the impression that she had never heard the term before" or was not very concerned about it. Rice retained Clarke, was not sure a separate directorate for counterterrorism was need, and reorganized the NSC in a way that diminished Clarke’s influence. He no longer had a seat at the Principals Committee when terrorism was discussed, bur Rice did ask him to lead an interagency study of U.S. efforts to deal with Al Qaeda. Before being removed from that venue, Clarke argued that there was an urgent need to address the Al Qaeda question at the January Principal’s Meeting and warned that "We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al-Qaeda poses or overestimating the stability of the moderate, friendly regimes Al-Qaeda threatens." The question of what to do about terrorism was turned over to Vice President Dick Cheney for study.
Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, a holdover from the Clinton NSC staff, wrote a paper for Dr. Rice warning that the terrorists will strike again. He believed that the memo resulted in his being excluded from meetings where he could raise the matter. The general feared that the Bush team were thinking like predecessors in the eighties, that terrorism was mainly a problem associated with rogue states. In his view, the Rice NSC demoted terrorism as a priority concern. General Hugh Shelton saw anti-terrorism moving "farther to the back burner." It is also known that a 1999 government study indicated that Al Qaeda might dispatch "suicide bombers ... [to]crash an aircraft ...into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the White House."
Dr. Rice subjected the Clinton NSC plan to an eight-month "policy review." Since the Spring, Clarke had warned Rice about Al Qaeda and once even said the organization was "trying to kill Americans, to have hundreds pf dead in the streets of America." The Clarke plan was not reviewed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and George Tenet until September 4, 2002, when most of its provisions were finally accepted. Wolfowitz raised a strong objection to Clarke comparing Bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and said "Well, I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking abnout this one man bin Laden." Wolfowitz was much more interested in looking into I raqi terrorism. Rumsfeld seemed impatient with the discussion of Al Qaeda and supported Wolfowitz in wanting to turn to other sources of terrorism, particularly Iraq. Rice’s deputy suggested they needed a policy of Al Qaeda’s sanctuary state, Afghanistan, before a great deal could be done about Al Qaeda. The Clinton proto-plan was more surgical in nature than the action eventually taken by the Bush administration after the attack on 9-11. The latter plan had the advantage of possibly bringing enough stability to permit construction of a planned twin pipeline to take Caspian fuels through Afghanistan into Pakistan and India.. 2
In its last years, the Clinton administration assigned a high priority to counterterrorism. The president received detailed information on Al Qaeda and terrorism. George W. Bush was told by a counterterrorism expert during the campaign that Americans would die during his first term due to a terrorist strike. At their December 19, 2000 meeting, Bill Clinton told President-elect Bush , "I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is bin Laden and the al-Qaeda." There is no evidence Bush heeded the warning. At 40 morning meetings with the president, George Tenet warned about the great threat posed by Al Qaeda. The 9/11 commission was unable to turn up evidence that Bush discussed terrorism more than once prior to September 11. It did learn that more than 40 reports sent to Bush indicated that Al Qaeda was a very serious threat. Moderate Democratic vice-chairman made it clear the body was "not interested in trying to assess blame...." To counterbalance information damaging to Bush, it criticized Clinton for failure to act decisively against Bin Laden’s organization even though an exploitable opportunity to do so did not exist. The commission faced insuperable obstacles for assessing responsibility –a matter it essentially whitewashed--and settled for mainly looking at what could be done to prevent another attack. The administration repeatedly delayed turning over information, prompting member Max Cleland to observe, "It’s obvious that the White House wants to run out the clock here...." Before 9/11, George W. Bush did not make counterterrorism a major priority and he has almost admitted as much. Available evidence suggests that the Bush administration’s counter terrorism program was unfocussed and received a low priority. 3 Before September 11, 2001 the principal’s committee of the Bush NSC only met twice to consider the terrorist threat. Yet, it had met at least 90 times. On the other hand, the Clinton NSC principals group dealt regularly with counter terrorism and it had a Counterterrorism Security Group that met two or three times a week since 1998. The Clinton efforts to improve the Predator drone were subsequently hobbled by a turf battle between the FBI and CIA and disagreement about who would put out the $200,000 to replace future drones lost in surveillance missions.. There is evidence that Clinton’s more aggressive efforts to hunt down or neutralize Bin Laden were shelved. 4 It is know that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cancelled the budget for Clinton’s program for hunting down and exterminating Osama bin Laden. The secretary also rejected a request to pour $800 million into anti-terrorist activities. John Ashcroft turned down a request to hire hundreds of new FBI agents to fight terrorism. While asking for greater appropriations for 68 Justice Department programs, he did not request more money to fight terrorism. Clinton’s NSA counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke and CIA director George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, were unsuccessfully trying to direct more attention to the problem in the months before the attack. 5 In a July 5 White House Situation Room meeting, Clarke told representatives of other agencies that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon."6 It is known that eleven countries provided advanced warning that a major attack was imminent, and two senior Mossad officers appeared in Washington in August with information that there were 200 terrorists resident in the U.S. preparing the attack. They gave the FBI and CIA the names of four of the hijackers.7
Eventually, Congressional investigators were tipped off that President Bush had been warned that Al Qaeda planned to strike the US. Attention came to focus on the president’s August 6 daily briefing, which carried the headline: " Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," There is no evidence Bush even read the memo. It was presented to him on his first day of his month-long vacation at his Crawford ranch. If he did read it, it may have had little impact upon him as he went off that morning on a fishing expedition. 8 The administration refused to reveal exactly what information it contained or to expand upon what else President Bush may have been told about bin Laden’s intentions and capabilities. Condoleezza Rice stated on May 16, 2002 that Presidential Daily Briefing (PDP) dealt with an historical perspective on Bin Laden’s historical method of operation. She included among those methods hijacking airliners but added that "I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center…." Other administration officials echoed her assertion that no one had thought about the possibility of using airplanes as weapons to crash into buildings. Rice and others also said that while there were warnings about Al Qaeda attacks, they were about assaults on U.S. assets or planes abroad. In truth, this possibility had been discussed in intelligvence circles for several years, and the FBI had been warning about this porspect in the weeks before 9/11.
The evidence that has become public suggests that Dr. Rice and other figures in the Bush administration were telling less than the truth about what was known. If they did not know of the strong possibility that terrorists were likely to attempt to fly airplanes into buildings in the United States it is because they were not doing their homework or because the administration had placed counter terrorism on the back burner. A 1993 Pentagon study raised the possibility that an airplane could be used as a bomb to a national landmark. There were four known efforts to fly airplanes into buildings in 1994, one was by an Al Qaeda related group that tried to send a plane into the Eiffrel Tower. A massive plan , called Project Bojinka,"was unearthed in the Philippines which included an option for flying planes into "key structures" in the United States. Among them were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Sears Tower, the White House, and the Transamerica Tower. One of the captured pilots had been trained in the U.S. and said he was to fly into the CIA headquarters. In his 1995 World Trade Center bombing trial, Ramsi Youse talked about flying a plane into the CIA headquarters, and he had earlier mentioned to FBI agents the possibility of doing this to the Pentagon. CIA agents reported in August , 1998 that terrorists were planning to capture a plane in a foreign country and fly into the World Trade Center. In 1999, the National Security Council learned, based on information gathered from a Pakistani arrested in the Philippines that "suicide bomber [s] belonging to al-Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash land an aircraft packed with high explosives ( c-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, (CIA), or the White House. There were other intelligence reports of plans to fly bomb-laden planes into various targets the Egyptian Presidential Palace and U.S. airports. Vladimir Putin had warned in August the US that 25 Islamic terrorists were in the US on a major mission, and that number included suicide pilots who were to attack U.S. targets. Jordan accurately provided the name of the Al Qaeda mission to attack U.S. targets, "Big Wedding." Israel warned in mid-August that 50 to 200 Al Qaeda terroists were in the U.S. and gave the CIA a list 19 terrorists who were to be involved in the initial attack. It is known that four of the names were accurate, but the full list was never released.