Radical Militant Librarians and Other Dire Threats

When the shepherd is a wolf, the flock becomes only so much meat.
- Gurney Halleck

There was an internal FBI email sent in October 2003 that speaks volumes about why our legal system has been arranged the way it has. An unnamed agent was railing via email against the Department of Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. Specifically, the agent was frustrated by OIPR's failure to deliver authorization to use Section 215 of the Patriot Act for a search. "While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us," wrote the agent.

Radical militant librarians?

Radical militant librarians?

This, right here, is why the legal system is arranged the way it is. This is why officers must obtain warrants from a judge before they can conduct a search. Even in this time of watered-down civil liberties, warrants serve a vital purpose. At a minimum, the warrant firewall keeps walleyed FBI agents with wild hairs about radical militant librarians from bulldozing through the Fourth Amendment.

The President of the United States of America, it seems, does not agree with the sentiment.

It has been widely reported that Bush personally authorized the super-secretive National Security Agency to conduct surveillance against American citizens. "The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval," wrote the New York Times upon breaking the story, "was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches."

As if this were not outrageous enough, Bush, during his weekly radio address, bluntly admitted to violating the laws governing surveillance of American citizens and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution not once, but some thirty times. "I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September 11 attacks," said Bush, "and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

These revelations hit Congress like a dung bomb, and caused what would likely have been an easy rubber-stamping of the renewal of the Patriot Act to go flying off the tracks and into the puckerbrush. "Disclosure of the NSA plan had an immediate effect on Capitol Hill," reported the Washington Post on Saturday, "where Democratic senators and a handful of Republicans derailed a bill that would renew expiring portions of the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law. Opponents repeatedly cited the previously unknown NSA program as an example of the kinds of government abuses that concerned them, while the GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he would hold oversight hearings on the issue."

The most disturbing aspect of this situation is, simply, how totally unnecessary it was. The provisions of the Patriot Act, along with several other laws, allow the administration to get warrants for the surveillance of anyone, anywhere in the country, with little trouble. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) set up a special court for the dispensation of warrants with no need for evidence or probable cause. This court has almost never denied the issuance of such warrants when asked, and said warrants are usually delivered in a matter of hours.

"Why would the President deliberately circumvent a court that was already wholly inclined to grant him domestic surveillance warrants?" asked columnist David Sirota in a recent essay. "The answer is obvious, though as yet largely unstated in the mainstream media: because the President was likely ordering surveillance operations that were so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror, and, to put it in Constitutional terms, so 'unreasonable' that even a FISA court would not have granted them. This is no conspiracy theory - all the signs point right to this conclusion. In fact, it would be a conspiracy theory to say otherwise, because it would be ignoring the cold, hard facts that we already know."

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, widely known for her revelations about the inner workings of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and its manipulation of Iraq war evidence, spent two years working at the National Security Agency. On Sunday, I asked her what the ramifications are of a President throwing aside the firewalls that have blocked governmental surveillance of citizens for the last twenty five years.

"It means we are in deep trouble," said Kwiatkowski, "deeper than most Americans really are willing to think about. The safeguards of mid-1970s were put in place by a mobilized Democratic congress in response to President Richard Nixon's perceived and actual contempt for rule of law, and the other branches of government. At that time, the idea of a sacred constitution balancing executive power with the legislative power worked to give the Congress both backbone and direction."

"Today," continued Kwiatkowski, "we have a President and administration that has out-Nixoned Nixon in every negative way, with none of the Nixon administration's redeeming attention to detail in domestic and foreign policy. It may indeed mean that the constitution has flat-lined and civil liberties will be only for those who can buy and own a legislator or a political party. We will all need to learn how to spell 'corporate state,' which for Mussolini was his favorable definition of fascism."

I asked Lt. Colonel Kwiatkowski what it all means in the end. "I believe this use of national technical means (NSA communications interceptions) against American citizens is illegal," replied Kwiatkowski, "and I hope the courts will reverse the President. This illegality and misuse of executive power matches that of both the White House Iraq Group and the Office of Special Plans, where the truth and the law were both manipulated in a myriad of ways in order to satisfy an executive desire for domination and destruction of a Ba'athist Iraq. In all of these cases, American citizens were objectified as means to an end, rather than [treated as] individuals with Creator-granted unalienable rights, safe from excessive government interference and control."

"It all points to growing DC anti-constitutionalism," continued Kwiatkowski, "and what Dr. Robert Higgs calls the growth of the warfare state. A warfare state is wholly incompatible with a constitutional Republic. In my opinion, we need to fight, resist, refuse to subsidize Washington in every way, and we must immediately begin impeachment proceedings against this particular president, not only because he has clearly earned impeachment, but in order to revive a national awareness of the intent of the Founding Fathers to circumscribe centralized state power, and their vision of a free and peaceful Republic."

Hard words - impeachment, warfare state, fascism - for a hard day in our history. King Solomon, whose words bellow from the Book of Proverbs, spoke a warning which George W. Bush may come to know ere long. "He that troubleth his own house," said the King, "shall inherit the wind."

HISTORY OF THE TERRORIST COMMANDO SENT TO CUBA BY SANTIAGO ALVAREZ IN APRIL 2001

SANTA CLARA—These days the name of Santiago Alvarez Fernández-Magriña is being mentioned a lot, and with reason; he is the notorious terrorist charged with transporting Luis Posada Carriles to Miami on his personal boat, the now-famous Santrina.

Alvarez, currently detained in Miami under charges of possession of automatic weapons and a false passport, was the man who ordered one of his minions to blow up the Tropicana nightclub in the Cuban capital.

Villa Clara residents are well aware of what type of man is Fernández-Magriña, an individual who on April 26, 2001, attempted to infiltrate a terrorist commando into the Isabela de Sagua area of this province, with the aim of perpetrating acts of destruction in this country. They were caught, however, by local Border Guard Troops.

As part of their dreams of destroying the Revolution, Santiago Alvarez

and Nelsy Ignacio Castro, the operation’s masterminds, resorted to shady individuals with the lowest standards of morality, like Ihosvany Suris de la Torre, Máximo Pradera and Santiago Padrón, with a long record of anti-Cuban activities in Miami.

Ihosvany, who was acting as head of a terrorist commando, had emigrated illegally to the United States where he was recruited in 1998 by the counterrevolutionary organization Comandos F4.

His goal was to disembark at a point along the coast between Remedios and Caibarién, in order to penetrate the Escambray mountains and recruit campesinos who would be paid for carrying out his crimes. His plans also included moving on to Havana, to engage in other missions under Alvarez’ orders, including placing an explosive device in the celebrated Tropicana nightclub.

Máximo Pradera Valdés emigrated to the United States to avoid standing trial in the revolutionary courts for a terrible criminal record. In November of 1980 he and Ihosvany were part of a plot – which never materialized – to infiltrate Cuba and sabotage the Havana Tunnel.

Padrón Quintero, a criminal who emigrated in 1980, had been convicted in Cuba of the crimes of bodily harm, habitual vagrancy and theft. He was a member of the Alpha 66 terrorist group in Miami.

The commando did not last very long at all in Villa Clara. The Border Guard Troops in Isabel de Sagua took care of that.

A Border Troops boat sighted them in the afternoon and requested help from their command post, which immediately sent a speedboat. As it approached, the delinquents fired shots at the troops, who valiantly responded to the aggression.

During the intense exchange that followed, the raft carrying the bandits was damaged, and they took off toward Cayo Hutía. That is where Lieutenant Ernesto Valenciaga arrived, heading a group of young soldiers. In a few minutes, they located the mercenaries dispatched to Cuba by Santiago Alvarez.

"Don’t kill me! Don’t kill me! Don’t shoot, please!" begged Santiago Padrón, and burst into tears in fear.

Máximo Pradera barely managed to say, "Oh, man, Santiago’s really dropped us in it." Meanwhile, the tough guy of the bunch, Ihosvany Suirs de la Torre, kept repeating, "Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, I only came to make a social revolution."

As screened on television, it was this last one who spoke on the phone with Fernández-Magriña and got the order to "Lie low! And when you can, throw the three little cans into the Tropicana, and that’s done with."

It is criminals like these who Santiago Alvarez and his real bosses, Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, have used to do away with the Revolution. Just like in the 1960s, when bandits were used in an attempt to destroy the process begun on January 1, 1059, once again the dreams of the Miami mafia were stymied, when they tried to use Villa Clara as a base of operations for their crimes.

Saddam Hussein is the Bobby Seale of Baghdad

As a Chicagoan, the trial of Saddam Hussein and his seven co-defendants is a trip down memory lane. Once again the accused are throwing the charges in the face of the court and aiming to put US justice on trial. Saddam is, so far, more genteel than Bobby Seale in how he's addressed the court.

Hussein has not yet called the judge a "fascist dog" but he is every bit as proud, defiant and smart as the founder of the Black Panther party. He wears berets too.
The reporting of the Baghdad and Chicago Eight are about the same. Both proceedings were almost entirely political, with their outcomes foregone conclusions months before they began. Yet both show trials were covered like they were legit. Both sets of defendants are caricatured as dangerous loons and their legitimate legal objections mostly ignored.

A difference between the trials is the happy fact that all Chicago Eight defense lawyers made it through the proceedings alive. Baghdad's US-trained cops are apparently even worse than Chicago's. Also unlike Bobby Seale, Hussein has not yet been bound and gagged, though in the US he's suffered the 21st-century equivalent, he's been cropped and edited.

Reassessment of Air Marshals Urgently Needed

It is now clear that two Air Marshals simply "executed" a bipolar Latino passenger at the Miami International Airport and lied about him saying that he had a bomb. Three passengers have now come forward to say the Mr. Rigoberto Alpizar never said "I have a bomb!". In addition, new information is emerging concerning hundreds of cases of misconduct within the Federal Air Marshal Service that were recently exposed by the Inspector General of the Homeland Security Department

The general public does not know but according to DHS Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin, hundreds of Air Marshals have lied on their job applications, slept on duty, worked under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and have "lost" their weapons. Many more are mentally unstable and some have criminal records. Under these circumstances, there is a high probability that one or both of the Air Marshals that cowardly shot Mr. Rigoberto Alpizar may have acted under the influence of drugs or alcohol and did so because they are racists (Air Marshals are mostly all of the White race).

In a report, Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin accused the Federal Air Marshal Service of being too lenient with agents who misbehave and of failing to identify applicants with unsavory pasts. "Many...were granted access to classified information after displaying questionable judgment, irresponsibility and emotionally unstable behavior," Ervin wrote. The Inspector General's report exposed serious deficiencies in disciplining Air Marshals. It says a review of personnel records revealed 753 documented cases of misconduct.

Ervin mentions 161 Air Marshals whose applications were approved for top secret security clearances during pre-hiring evaluations despite having financial problems, disciplinary issues and criminal histories. The Inspector General's investigation also turned up 104 Air Marshals who had 155 separate cases of misconduct on their previous jobs at the "Bureau of Prisons". The offenses included security breaches, sleeping on duty, verbal and physical abuse, an inappropriate relationship with an inmate's wife, and misuse of government property and credit cards.

There is more danger to passengers, especially to those of color and of Middle Eastern descent, from rogue Air Marshals than from actual terrorists. This is a lesson that was learned, albeit too late, by Mr. Alpizar's family on that fateful day in Miami. Today we are hearing here in Los Angeles that armed Air Marshals will now operate on passenger trains and buses. It will not take long before we hear in the news that a Latino or Black was shot on his way to work by a drugged and racist Air Marshal.

The London-Washington Axis Called Into Question

The traditional alliance of the British crown with its former American colony, an alliance that served as a foundation for the British foreign policy during the times of Winston Churchill and also Margaret Thatcher, is called into question today. In effect, the United Kingdom has no other option than choosing between its Atlantist commitment and its European interests. However, as Cedric Housez notes while analyzing statements by British leaders, they reject this choice. Today’s criticism of Tony Blair’s participation in George W. Bush’s military adventures is limited to expressing a will for a balance in transatlantic relations.

READ MORE

The miscreant dynasty - The Bush generations have enriched themselves while impoverishing the presidency.

AT THIS point, the policy legacy of George Bush seems pretty well defined by three disparate disasters: Iraq in foreign affairs, Katrina in social welfare, corporate influence over tax, budget and regulatory decisions. As a short-term political consequence, we may avoid another dim-witted Bush in the White House. But what the Bush dynasty has done to presidential campaign science — the protocols by which Americans elect presidents in the modern era — amounts to a political legacy that can haunt the Republic for years to come.

We are now enduring the third generation of Bushes who have taken the playbook of the "ruthless" Kennedys and amplified it into a consistent code of amorality in both campaign tactics and governance. In their campaigns, the Kennedys used money, image-manipulation, old-boy networks and, when necessary, personal attacks on worthy adversaries such as Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey. But there was also a solid foundation of knowledge and purpose undergirding John Kennedy's sophisticated internationalism, his Medicare initiative, his late-blooming devotion to racial justice, and Robert Kennedy's opposition to corporate and union gangsterism. Like Truman, Roosevelt and, yes, even Lincoln, two generations of Kennedys believed that a certain amount of political chicanery was tolerable in the service of altruism.

Behind George W, there are four generations of Bushes and Walkers devoted first to using political networks to pile up and protect personal fortunes and, latterly, to using absolutely any means to gain office, not because they want to do good, but because they are what passes in American for hereditary aristocrats. In sum, George Bush stands at the apex of a pyramid of privilege whose history and social significance that, given his animosity to scholarly thought, he almost certainly does not understand.

Here's the big picture, as drawn most effectively by the Republican political analyst Kevin Phillips in American Dynasty. Starting in 1850, the Bushes through alliance with the smarter Walker clan, built up a fortune based on classic robber-baron foundations: railways, steel, oil, investment banking, armaments and materiel in the world wars. They had ties to the richest families of the industrial age: Rockefeller, Harriman, Brookings. Yet they never adopted the charitable, public-service ethic that developed in those families.

Starting with Senator Prescott Bush's alliance with president Eisenhower and continuing through the dogged loyalty of his son, George H. W. Bush, to two more gifted politicians, presidents Nixon and Reagan, the family has developed a prime rule of advancement. In a campaign, any accommodation, no matter how unprincipled, any attack on an opponent, no matter how false, was to be embraced if it worked.

The paradigm in its purest form was seen when the first president Bush, in 1980, renounced a lifelong belief in abortion rights to run as Reagan's vice-president. To this day, any mention of this sell-out of principle sends the elder Bush into a rage. His son surpassed the father's dabbling with pork rinds and country music. He adopted the full agenda of redneck America — on abortion, gun control, Jesus — as a matter of convenience and, most frighteningly, as a matter of belief. Before the Bushes, American political slogans of the left and right embodied at least a grain of truth about how a presidential candidate would govern. The elder Bush's promise of a "kinder, gentler" America and the younger's "compassionate conservatism" brought us the political slogan as pure disinformation. They were asserting a claim of noblesse oblige totally foreign to their family history.

But whether Bush the father was pandering or Bush the son was praying, the underlying political trade-off was the same. The Bushes believe in letting the hoi polloi control the social and religious restrictions flowing from Washington, so long as Wall Street gets to say what happens to the nation's money. The Republican Party as a national institution has endorsed this trade-off. What we don't know yet is whether a GOP without a Bush at the top is seedy enough to keep it going. Dating back to the days when they talked of making George Washington a king, Americans have had an ambivalent attitude towards their aristocrats. They have also believed that dirty politics originated with populist Machiavellis such as Louisiana Governor Huey Long and urban bosses such as Chicago mayor Richard Daley. The Bushes, with their minders such as Rove, Cheney and DeLay, have turned that historic expectation upside down. Now political deviance trickles down relentlessly from the top. The next presidential election will be a national test of whether the taint of Bushian tactics outlasts what is probably the last Bush family member to occupy the executive mansion.

In 1988, the first president Bush secured office by falsely depicting his opponent as a coddler of rapists and murderers. In 2000, the present president Bush nailed down the nomination by accusing John McCain of opposing breast-cancer research. He won in 2004 with a barrage of lies about John Kerry's war record.

With the right leadership — the kind of flawed, but principled presidents sprinkled through its history — the United States can stop the blood-letting in Iraq, regain its standing in the world, avert the crises in health care and Social Security, and even bring disaster relief to the Gulf Coast.

But that's not simply a matter of keeping Bushes and Bushites, with their impaired civic consciences, out of the White House. The next presidential campaign will show us whether these miscreant patricians have poisoned the well of the presidential campaign system. If so, there's no telling what kind of president we might get.

Howell Raines is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former executive editor of The New York Times.

The Making of the Enemy: Only in America

The coming years, like those of the present and the past, will see the continued spewing of fictionalized propaganda designed to manipulate the fears, hatreds, xenophobia and nationalistic tendencies of the population. The level of control over the masses and power over the nation in the years after 9/11 by corporatists intent on hijacking the country became, to them, a rousing success, thanks to the intense levels of fear and hatred engendered by the horrific events of that day. In the span of a few infamous days the corporatists had unleashed massive psychological warfare upon us, its effects still lingering in the minds of millions. Suddenly, those in power had become the puppeteers of the citizenry, free to manage us as they saw fit, our fragile and damaged psychologies traumatized, our thinking, human minds replaced by our more primitive, mammalian instincts and behaviors. An entire nation had succumbed, thanks to television, to images and emotions no people had ever witnessed, repeated over and over and over again. The making of America’s new enemy had begun.

The manufacture, marketing and dissemination of bogeymen enemies, both real and fictional, for a long time endemic in American society, has always worked to perfection, becoming the inertia used to control the population. It becomes the energy needed to maintain America’s permanent wartime economy. The creation of unseen bogeymen into supernatural evildoers fits the perfect mold of how the American citizenry has been brainwashed over the years through the use of Hollywood movies and television, with the constant themes of good versus evil, of fantasy and sensationalism, and of course the always needed happy ending, where the good guy always triumphs over the villain.

The struggle against America’s enemy, conveniently chosen and designed to fit the policies and goals of those in power, is purposefully made out to be like a struggle in a typical Hollywood film of good and evil characters, where America is seen as the force of good confronting the evildoer afflicting the world, a hero that ultimately, in the end, will triumph, leading to the happy ending that in reality rarely, if ever, bears fruit. Yet to the reprogrammed mind of the average American, our conception of real life rewired, our brainwaves reconfigured through the incessant fictions and altered states of reality bombarded into our heads by movies and sitcoms, the battle of superhero and evildoer must continue, because America can do no wrong, it is the shining beacon on a hill, the savior of humankind, incapable of committing human evil, fighting forces intent on destroying the nation. Inevitably, in our warped mind good always triumphs over evil, the hero always gets the girl and normalcy eventually returns to life.

To say that televised fantasy bears no resemblance to real human outcomes is an understatement, yet in a fictional war that remains but a fleeting illusion in the minds of the population, becoming more intangible than visible, hardly affecting the daily lives of the majority, the deception works like magic thanks to the blitzkrieg of propaganda sent out through the airwaves. In a sense, the so-called war against America’s enemy becomes a Hollywood production, existing in the conscious of the people but never truly being felt, its puppeteers hiding its reality and its truth, the keepers at the gate filtering what needs to be seen and what does not. Our reality is what they make it to be, after all.

read more

***THE WMDs OF VENEZUELA***

I have often said that my living in Latin America the past twenty years has been similar to being hit over the head daily, but in a very positive sense. I have had to see so many things from an entirely different perspective.

It probably should not have been a surprise to me, therefore, when I heard a Venezuelan colonel tell a group of visitors from the U.S. that Venezuela was in possession of missiles.

Then he clarified the matter.

He said the missiles, which Venezuela has and is already using, are missiles with books, missiles with medicines, missiles with food. I think you might interpret this as saying that Venezuela possesses WMDs – Weapons of Mass Development.



Linguistically we are products of our times. And too often the media and those who hold the reigns of governments dominate our ways of thinking and the meanings of words and symbols. Entering the twenty-first century, the word “war” brings to mind Iraq and Afghanistan and the great excuses for every abuse that a government can perpetrate: “the war on terrorism” and “the war on drugs.” We forget that even in the United States of American there was once a positive use of the word “war,” the “War on Poverty.”

The word “weapons” brings to mind the billions of dollars that are spent on destruction throughout the world. A common dictionary definition says that a weapon is something used to injure, defeat or destroy. We have been locked into the idea of injuring and the negative connotations of “defeat” and “destroy” and have overlooked the possibility that the word “weapons” could also be used positively (e.g., for books and food) as means to defeat and destroy problems such as illiteracy and hunger.

I listened very carefully to the closing remarks of the Latin American presidents who were at the Mercosur meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay, last week. They spoke repeatedly about the threats to democracy in the region. But in their remarks, and possibly I missed something, I didn’t hear any of them referring to the need for a “War on Terrorism” or a “War on Drugs” to protect democracy. They did speak repeatedly about poverty and inequality as the menaces in today’s world that had to be overcome. In spite of the fact that the meeting was about trade agreements, the emphasis seemed to be more on social development than economic development. The second was of importance only in relation to accomplishing the first.

In that connection, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela spoke of the concept of “free zones.” To those who travel to foreign countries, “free zones” bring to mind the Duty Free Shops that populate the international airports. To those involved in commerce, “free zones” provoke the thoughts of free trade.

But Chávez said that the world needed to begin to speak not only of free trade zones but also of: “zones that are free of illiteracy, zones that are free of malnourished infants, zones that are free of abandoned women living alone with their children in shacks, zones that are free of youth who are not able to finish their secondary education, zones that are free of young men and women who finished high school with hard work and who now can’t go to college; zones that are free of the street children that fill our cities; zones that are free of exclusion, exploitation and misery.” He added, “We can plan for this and we must plan for this. If we, who are political leaders, can plan for economic development we are even more obligated ethically to plan for social development.”

So, once again, I feel like I’ve been gently hit on the top of my head and my brain is spinning a bit. Leaders here are speaking a different language. But happily these linguistic thumps don’t bring me to the medicine cabinet for an aspirin; they do bring a smile to my face and give me hope for the future of our world.

The lesson from Lula

Latin America's upheaval continues to transform the politics of the continent. In reaction to more than a decade of free-market reforms that failed spectacularly to end poverty but exacerbated extraordinary levels of inequality, left-leaning governments have been elected in one country after another - this week in Bolivia. But Brazil's experience is a warning to these administrations that, if they are to achieve real change, they need to rely on their own social base as a counterweight to the powers-that-be.

Three years ago, as the former industrial worker Luis Inacio Lula da Silva prepared to take over as president of Brazil, many Latin Americans hoped that he would show a radical, non-violent path out of centuries of poverty and exclusion. Lula's Workers party (PT) grew out of the mass strikes in the 80s against the military regime. In its emphasis on internal democracy, support for groups such as the Movimento Sem Terra (the movement of landless people) and its hosting of the World Social Forum, the PT seemed an instrument of real change in a country where a small elite controls most of the land and wealth. Its local record had been impressive, developing imaginative ways in which citizens could have power over budget decisions.
But in government, Lula has been cautious and conservative, going even further than the IMF demanded and sacrificing social reform to repay huge external and internal debts. Worse still, since last May, a series of dramatic revelations has shown that the PT has been engaging in exactly the kind of corruption that activists joined the party to end. The leadership has been buying the votes of Congress members and operating a slush fund built from bribes paid by companies for government contracts. Lula denies involvement, but many are unconvinced.

Where did the PT government go wrong? Most commentators agree that the rot set in long before Lula's victory in October 2002. The party's original base - the industrial working class - was weakened in the 90s by rocketing unemployment as successive administrations enforced IMF edicts. Instead of trying to build a new base among the unorganised rural and urban poor, the PT increasingly used the same methods for winning elections as every other party - even hiring the same spin doctors. This required money (hence the slush fund) and led to a concentration of power in a centralised leadership. The practice of involving the membership was eventually abandoned.

This growing obsession with electoral success at any price meant that the PT failed to prepare properly for government. Remarkably, when Lula walked up the ramp to the presidential palace in January 2003, he had no clear programme for tackling the serious social problems or the anti-democratic nature of the Brazilian state. Even the flagship programme for ending hunger (which has benefited more than 8 million families in extreme poverty) was thought up on the hoof without a strategy for real redistribution. The government has been most successful in international affairs, where a coherent strategy had been prepared. As a result, Brazil has successfully challenged the EU and the US at the World Trade Organisation over their huge agricultural subsidies.

Shortly before taking office, Lula said: "I cannot fail. The poor in Brazil have waited 500 years for someone like me." But real change demands confrontation, tough bargaining - and risk taking. In his inaugural address in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt recognised this in his much-quoted comment: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." It is a lesson Lula appears not to have learned.

Despite rightwing crowing, the left has not been destroyed in Brazil. Some activists are staying to fight for change within the PT, but many others are taking their experience elsewhere. Most agree that the way forward is not to abandon the party's innovative experiments in participatory democracy, but to deepen them. Real change, they say, will require the incorporation of the poor within the political system so that they can provide permanent support for a radical government as it confronts powerful vested interests.

As Latin America begins a period of hectic electoral activity, which may bring more leftwing leaders to power, this is a cautionary lesson that future governments would do well to heed.

· A dossier of voices of the Brazilian left, edited by Hilary Wainwright and Sue Branford, will be published online at www.tni.org next month

hilary@redpepper.org.uk

Which way Evo? Wait and see.

Which Way Evo?

With the official results showing Morales with a clear majority win in the popular vote (53% according the current statistics out of the Corte Electoral), Bolivians, Bolivian social movements, the foreign press, foreign oil companies and many others are all asking the question: How will Evo govern?

First, I think the question; “Can Morales find competent people to run the government?” is getting a little silly. I get asked that by almost every foreign reporter who calls. How does one measure competence? Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was certainly able at negotiating really bad deals, behind closed-doors, with foreign energy companies. Is that competence? Tuto Quiroga was part of the government that negotiated and signed the Cochabamba water contract with Bechtel, the contract that resulted in huge overnight water price hikes. Is that competence? Both those presidents managed to kill their own people by the dozens. Is that competence?

Morales has a huge pool of competent, progressive professionals to draw on, including many whom probably would never have been willing to enter government before. In one of my meetings with the Vice President to be, Alvaro Garcia Linera, as he was considering joining the MAS ticket, Alvaro specifically mentioned that finding good and talented people was a priority and he knows where to find them.

The more interesting question is: Will Morales moderate his positions, especially on gas and oil, after he actually has to govern? To be sure, governing has a natural moderating influence on anyone. Morales could easily get bogged down in deciding whom to appoint to official positions. The foreign lenders (the IMF especially) on whom Bolivia depends for much of its national budget, will be sure to apply moderating pressures. Foreign oil producers will be threatening legal actions. Santa Cruz will be threatening self-declared forms of autonomy. That is a lot to deal with for any government.

Bolivian social movements are directly concerned about these pressures on Morales. They know well that whatever major changes he will be able to make he will need to make in the first three months of his presidency, when his historic mandate is still fresh.

The signals of which way Evo will go will not be seen in his rhetoric (“anti-Yankee” rhetoric just seems his natural discourse) or in acts of symbolism (I am sure we can count on Bolivia’s new President to take the oath of office with neither a coat or a tie.).

If you want to see which way Morales and MAS will govern, keep your eye on what he does on gas and oil. Will he quickly tell foreign oil producers holding current contracts with Bolivia that all those contracts are now going to be renegotiated from scratch? Will he put Bolivia’s state-owned oil company back into business exploring and exploiting underground reserves?

He ought to do both those things, both because they are smart economics for the nation and because he was given a very clear mandate to do so. Yet, it is on these choices that the foreign pressure will be brought most heavily to bear in the coming weeks.

Which way Evo? Wait and see.

Chavez Welcomes Morales' Victory in Bolivia

Caracas, Venezuela, December 21, 2005—The election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia last Sunday marks the beginning of a new era, said Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez in a letter to Morales. According to Chavez, Bolivians had to wait 500 years until they were finally able to have an Aymara Indian as President and this represents, “a real and true historical vindication,” said Chavez.

Last Sunday, Evo Morales, the leader of the party Movement Towards Socialism and a former organizer of Coca plant growers, won Bolivia’s presidency with 51-55% of the vote. This represents the highest percentage with which a Bolivian has been elected to the presidency in the history of the country.

The Bush administration repeatedly accused the Chavez government of contributing to unrest in Bolivia and of supporting Morales financially. Chavez, however, has forcefully denied these allegations. It is, though, generally assumed that Morales will follow similar policies as Chavez has. Morales rejects U.S. drug control policies in the region and promised to nationalize Bolivia’s natural gas fields. Chavez and Morales have enjoyed close ties for several years now.

Chavez’s letter of congratulations to Morales went on to say, “Without a doubt, Evo, our joy is also great: the Fatherland of Bolivar and of Sucre [two 19th C. liberation fighters of Latin America] begins its new and definitive battle for dignity and sovereignty, and the great family of peoples finds in your fatherland a new reason to affirm the cause of humanity and to negate the neo-liberal fallacy of the end of history. It is time for the re-founding of Bolivia: it is a new beginning for history.”

Venezuela’s Vice President José Vicente Rangel also expressed satisfaction over Morales’ election, saying he felt this way not just “for what it represents politically and ideologically, but also for the human.”

Rangel went on to say that Morales, “Is a man who came form the people, son of a peasant family, forged in the everyday struggle for survival and in addition it is the first time that an indigenous person from Latin America reaches the presidency of the Republic.”

Rangel also denied that Chavez had anything to do with Morales’ victory. “For all the satisfaction the government of Hugo Chavez feels, it will not become involved in the policies and government of Morales,” said Rangel.

Venezuela Buys Argentine Bonds, Backs IMF Payoff

Caracas, Venezuela, December 21, 2005—Latin America takes another step away from the IMF and toward regional integration, with the Chavez administration’s agreement to buy $2.4 billion of Argentine debt in the next few months.

The decision comes in the wake of Argentina's announcement to finish paying off its debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez Frias praised the decision, and pledged to "help Argentina end its dependence on the IMF."

Argentina's president Nestor Kirchner said that, though Argentina was using well over a third of its foreign reserves to pay off the IMF debt, it will quickly replenish its reserves, in part because of the $2.4 billion in bond purchases Venezuela will make before the end of the first half of 2006. This is almost two and a half times as much Argentine debt as Venezuela has bought thus far this year.

In the first of this set of bond purchases, Argentina announced the sale of almost half a billion six-year dollar-denominated bonds to Venezuela at market rates.

Argentina's decision to pay off the IMF is the latest in a series of Latin American moves rejecting Washington's neoliberal economic policies. Brazil also recently paid off its IMF debt, and presidents throughout the region, such as Argentina's Kirchner, are increasingly winning elections based on platforms rejecting the economic policies of the past 20 years. Sunday, Bolivia's Evo Morales became the latest presidential candidate to win on such a campaign.

Between 1980 and 2000, under the guidance of the IMF, the region saw an almost 8 fold decrease in economic growth over the previous 20 years, according to a study of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. In late 2001 Argentina, once the poster-child of IMF success from good economic governance, suffered one of the region's worst economic collapses.

The decision to buy more Argentinean bonds is the latest in a series of moves the Chavez administration has made to increase economic ties between Venezuela and the rest of the region. Earlier this month, the government also bought $25 million, or about 4 percent, of the first Ecuadorian bonds issued since the country's 1999 default. Also earlier this month, Venezuela was put on track to become a full voting member of MERCOSUR, a regional trade and economic integration agreement.

In another move, Chavez suggested that South American countries create an alternative IMF called the "Bank of the South" to enable the countries to borrow without being subject to economic policies determined in Washington. "Venezuela would contribute a part of its reserves, Brazil would contribute a part of its reserves, as well as Argentina and other countries," he said.

This newest purchase of Argentinean bonds makes Venezuela the biggest buyer of Argentinean debt this year. Unlike Venezuela, the market had reacted negatively to Argentina's decision to pay back the IMF, with argentine stocks, bonds and currency initially falling. Many US financial analysts have criticized Venezuela's decision to buy Argentinean bonds as political rather than economic, pointing out that the Venezuela bought bonds in October at $22 million more than the market demanded, according to Bloomberg. Venezuela officials countered that, through sales of the bonds, they had already made $40 million profit, and that Ecuador's bonds have also increased in value.

However, while Chavez has repeatedly called for a region free of IMF influence, Argentina is not cutting off all ties to the institution. "The IMF is in crisis, but it continues to be a reference for the economic universe," Kirchner told Argentina’s daily newspaper Clarin.

The Other Journalism About the Other Campaign

For Authentic News Reporting of the Tour by Subcomandante Marcos Throughout the Mexican Republic

By the Amado Avendaño Figueroa Brigade
December 21, 2005

We are citizens and journalists who have joined together in the Amado Avendaño Figueroa Brigade, publishing through the Internet at http://www.narconews.com/otroperiodismo/ news, analysis and information about the travels that Subcomandante Marcos – known as “Delegate Zero” – will conduct for the Other Campaign beginning on January 1, 2006, throughout the entire Mexican Republic.

The members of this brigade have followed the indigenous movement of the Zapatistas during the past twelve years. Based on that experience, we are certain that the mass media will not truthfully report what occurs during the Zapatistas’ “Other Campaign.”

The Zapatistas have sent Marcos to the states outside of Chiapas "to listen to the simple and humble people who fight." We will work to assure that when the people speak, they will be listened to throughout the country and the world. Toward this end, we have joined forces to report on the first steps of the tour by Delegate Zero which begins January 1 in San Cristóbal de Las Casas, and will head out of Chiapas on January 9 beginning in the states of Yucatán y Quintana Roo.

Our reports will be published on the Internet – in Spanish, English, Portuguese, French, Italian and German – at:

http://www.narconews.com/otroperiodismo/

There, we will make them available to the public free of charge and without accepting any paid advertising: written investigative reports, video and radio reports, documentaries and interviews, photos, analysis and commentaries. These reports will be available, also without charge, to community radio and TV stations and other independent media on the condition that they be published in full without censorship and, in the case of online media, that they include all the links to sources of information and audio-visual evidence contained in the original reports.

Since, at present, we don’t count with the resources to cover all legs of the delegate's travels over the six months in which it is scheduled, we have decided to join forces and concentrate our efforts reporting on the events of January 1 in Chiapas and then on the Yucatán Peninsula, where our team will go in ahead of Delegate Zero's January 9 arrival to interview the simple and humble people who struggle and who await his visit. Then we will crisscross the peninsula a second time to report directly from their meetings with him.

On January 16 we will take a pause to conduct an evaluation as to whether our efforts were worthwhile and if there are sufficient resources and interest to continue reporting from other parts of the six-month tour.

We invite sincere colleagues who believe in hard work to join forces with us, by writing to otroperiodismo@narconews.com or by contacting or visiting our spokeswoman Mercedes Ozuna (halcon@zonamaya.net) in San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México, telephone: 967 678 36 98.

Salud y abrazo from the simple and humble people who are journalists in struggle,

The Amado Avendaño Figueroa Brigade

Mercedes Osuna, general coordinator
Concepción Villafuerte, correspondent and January 1 coordinator
Al Giordano, correspondent and road team coordinator
Gerardo Osuna, technical coordinator
Gregory Berger, documentary director
Sarahy Flores Sosa, cinematographer
Quetzal Belmont, audio/radio coordinator
Ana Laura Hernández, correspondent
Giovanni Proietrus, correspondent
Barrett Hawes, documentary producer
Dan Feder, managing editor, webmaster and graphic designer
Luis Gómez, international coordinator

Translation Coordinators:

Spanish: Ivan García
English: Dan Feder
Portuguese: Natalia Viana
French and German: Dorothee Lienan
Italian: Giovanni Proietrus, Renza Salza

Tel. 967 678 36 98
Email: otroperiodismo@narconews.com
Web page: http://www.narconews.com/otroperiodismo/

Latinoamérica celebra la victoria de Morales; EE.UU. se pregunta: “¿gobernará democráticamente?”

El gobierno venezolano considera que el ideal integrador ahora es más factible

El presidente de Chile Ricardo Lagos confía en que la elección del líder indígena Evo Morales en Bolivia mejorará las posibilidades de diálogo entre ambos países. Los presidentes del Mercosur auguran una nueva era de concordia nacional y estabilidad institucional. El gobierno venezolano considera que la victoria de Morales es un estímulo a los procesos de integración y los esquemas de complementación, cooperación y solidaridad entre los países de la región. Estados Unidos todavía duda de la conducta que vaya a tener el nuevo gobierno y se pregunta: “¿Gobernará democráticamente?”.

En un comunicado divulgado por la cancillería argentina, firmado por el presidente de la Comisión de Representantes Permanentes del Mercosur, Carlos “Cacho” Alvarez (Argentina) se califica de ejemplar la actitud de los ciudadanos bolivianos. “La jornada del domingo 18 de diciembre de 2005 será recordada por todos los latinoamericanos como un hito en el inexorable camino de la democracia en la región”.

"Los resultados conocidos, inéditos en la historia de la democracia boliviana, permiten augurar una nueva era de concordia nacional y estabilidad institucional que los países de la región acompañaremos con profundo compromiso y respeto", remarcó Alvarez y aseguró que los países del MERCOSUR ofrece al próximo gobierno el apoyo que se considere necesario.

"Ahora hay un interlocutor con un alto grado de respaldo que permite tener conversaciones también más profundas”, afirmó Lagos en la primera reacción oficial de La Moneda al aplastante triunfo logrado ayer por el candidato del MAS. “El candidato Morales ha hecho un planteamiento respecto a los temas que tienen que ver con Chile y me parece que si se continúa en la forma en que hasta ahora lo hemos hecho podemos tener un resultado adecuado", indicó.

El ministro venezolano de Relaciones Exteriores, Alí Rodríguez, destacó que la victoria de Morales representan un fortalecimiento de los procesos democráticos y de la defensa de la soberanía. Según el funcionario, Sudamérica vive un proceso de profundización de la democracia y en este caso por primera vez en Bolivia va a la Presidencia un representante de las mayorías bolivianas representadas por los indígenas.

"En el pasado gobernaron oligarquías de espalda a las realidades del pueblo, y con toda certeza que el triunfo de Evo Morales va a encarnar los intereses, los padecimientos, las reivindicaciones postergadas durante siglos", enfatizó el ministro venezolano.

El vicepresidente venezolano, José Vicente Rangel, calificó la victoria de Evo como un acto en el que triunfó la inclusión social. “(Evo) Es un hombre que surgió del pueblo, hijo de una familia campesina, forjado en la lucha cotidiana para sobrevivir y además es la primera vez que un personaje indígena de América Latina arriba a la presidencia de la República", destacó.

Agregó que “el gobierno de Hugo Chávez por más satisfecho que esté no se va a involucrar en la política y gobierno de Morales”. Chávez afirmó la víspera que el pueblo boliviano escribía una nueva página de su historia este domingo cuando se realizaron las elecciones presidenciales. “Desde aquí saludamos a Bolivia que ha despertado y estoy seguro que silenciosamente el hermano pueblo boliviano está escribiendo una nueva página de su historia”, remarcó el presidente venezolano.

Otra fue la reacción del gobierno de Estados Unidos ante el triunfo de un partido hostil al imperialismo norteamericano. “Tenemos buenas relaciones con la gente de los distintos sectores políticos en América Latina. El asunto ahora para nosotros es el nuevo gobierno boliviano ¿Gobernará democráticamente? ¿Están abiertos a la cooperación en términos económicos? Esto es indudablemente beneficioso para el pueblo boliviano porque Bolivia no puede estar aislada de la comunidad internacional, y por eso, desde nuestro punto de vista, este es un asunto de conducta”, declaró la secretaria de Estado de Estados Unidos, Condolezza Rice.

El departamento de Estado de EE.UU. reaccionó con frialdad ante la victoria del dirigente cocalero y a través del portavoz de una oficina secundaria felicitó al pueblo de Bolivia por haber contribuido a un proceso pacífico. La vocera para el Hemisferio Occidental del departamento de Estado dijo: “Felicitamos a los bolivianos por realizar elecciones pacificas y demostrar su compromiso con la democracia y el proceso constitucional. Mientras los resultados oficiales todavía no han sido difundidos, felicitamos a Evo Morales por su aparente victoria”.

Evo: "Comienza la nueva historia de Bolivia"

El futuro presidente pide la renuncia de la plana mayor de la Corte Nacional Electoral por las múltiples irregularidades detectadas en los comicios de este domingo

Evo: “Comienza la nueva historia de Bolivia”

El próximo año empieza la nueva historia de Bolivia con igualdad, justicia social, paz y equidad. Será el tercer milenio de los pueblos y no del imperio, en el que se resolverán los problemas de la gente cambiando el modelo económico que bloquea el desarrollo de Bolivia y acabando con el Estado colonial. Eso dijo Evo Morales en su primera aparición pública luego de confirmarse su contundente victoria en los comicios presidenciales de este domingo.

A las 7 de la noche Morales voló a Cochabamba para reunirse con miles de militantes del MAS que le esperaban para proclamarlo como presidente del país. Allí agradeció al pueblo de Bolivia y en especial a su comunidad, Orinoca, y a las seis federaciones de cocaleros del trópico de Cochabamba que le permitieron crecer políticamente hasta alcanzar la victoria con posiblemente más del 51% de los votos. Además, Morales observó que la elección demostró que no toda la gente de las ciudades desprecia al movimiento campesino.

La victoria del MAS en las urnas con mayoría absoluta, un hecho inédito en la historia reciente de la democracia boliviana, “es una revolución histórica, la gran diferencia es que es democrática y en base al voto. Más que una elección es un plebiscito que le ha dado al MAS victoria irrefutable e inapelable, Bolivia entera ha votado por el cambio y ha marcado el rumbo del cambio democrático”, dijo Alvaro García Linera, el virtual vicepresidente del país.

García Linera considera que la victoria del MAS, “poderoso torrente de liberación y transformación social”, es un hecho histórico de gigantesca trascendencia no vivido desde la revolución de 1952. “Hemos derrotado la infamia, la mentira, hemos sabido resistir como saben resistir los pueblos indígenas en estos 500 años”, añadió refiriéndose a la intensa guerra sucia contra el MAS que se vivió durante la campaña.

El gran cambio pacífico y democrático del que habla García Linera tiene que ver con la construcción de un nuevo modelo económico, la recuperación de la soberanía y el control de los hidrocarburos, apoyo al empresariado, respeto de la propiedad privada, a las inversiones y los ahorros, y la preservación de la estabilidad macroeconómica.

En lo político, el gobierno del MAS garantiza la convocatoria inmediata a la Constituyente que sesionará en Sucre en agosto de 2006; las autonomías departamentales, pero preservando la unidad nacional, y un nuevo comportamiento de las dirigencias políticas basado en la ética. “Vamos a mandar obedeciendo, como dice el presidente Evo Morales; sabremos oír a todos los sectores, movimientos sociales, empresarios, cívicos y sistema político. La población debe asistir a este acontecimiento sin ningún temor. Nadie tiene que sentirse excluido y atemorizado”, declaró García Linera.

Evo aseguró que el MAS “jamás extorsionará a los empresarios que quieran invertir en el país, jamás se vengará de la gente que hizo daño al país”.

“Es verdad que antes nos mataron con bala y ahora intentaron matarnos con guerra sucia en base a la mentira, pero eso ha favorecido al MAS”. Evo agradeció a los que le hicieron guerra sucia porque eso le permitió crecer electoralmente, e hizo énfasis en su agradecimiento a la red Unitel, un canal de propiedad de una familia de latifundistas de Santa Cruz que fue particularmente duro con la candidatura de Morales en la etapa pre electoral.

Morales no perdió la oportunidad de fustigar duramente a los funcionarios de la Corte Nacional Electoral (CNE), que en esta jornada fueron criticados por haber ordenado la depuración de más de un millón de personas del Padrón Electoral, curiosamente en las poblaciones donde el MAS tiene más apoyo.

“Si yo fuera miembro de la CNE y si tendría ética, renunciaría al cargo. Frente a los observadores de la OEA, digo que el proceso electoral se manejó irregularmente desde la Corte. Las cortes debían garantizar elecciones limpias y transparentes, pero las denuncias son graves. Algunos miembros de la CNE han cometido un crimen contra la democracia, y pese a ello el pueblo ha demostrado que se puede derrotar al neoliberalismo y a sus instrumentos en la CNE”, observó el futuro presidente boliviano.

Según Morales, Bolivia no es inviable como predican los funcionarios del departamento de Estado norteamericano: “felizmente no estamos solos ni en Bolivia ni a nivel internacional, tenemos mucho apoyo de la comunidad internacional, varios representantes de legaciones diplomáticas y gobiernos de América Latina, Europa y Asia nos llamaron, esa es la fuerza del MAS”, dijo.

Batimos un récord. Ningún partido ganó con más del 51% de los votos. Ahora queda luchar por “la Unión de Latinoamérica, reconstruir el Tahuantinsuyo o la patria grande de Bolívar para vivir bien”, finalizó Morales.

Chavez Welcomes Morales' Victory in Bolivia

Caracas, Venezuela, December 21, 2005—The election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia last Sunday marks the beginning of a new era, said Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez in a letter to Morales. According to Chavez, Bolivians had to wait 500 years until they were finally able to have an Aymara Indian as President and this represents, “a real and true historical vindication,” said Chavez.

Last Sunday, Evo Morales, the leader of the party Movement Towards Socialism and a former organizer of Coca plant growers, won Bolivia’s presidency with 51-55% of the vote. This represents the highest percentage with which a Bolivian has been elected to the presidency in the history of the country.

The Bush administration repeatedly accused the Chavez government of contributing to unrest in Bolivia and of supporting Morales financially. Chavez, however, has forcefully denied these allegations. It is, though, generally assumed that Morales will follow similar policies as Chavez has. Morales rejects U.S. drug control policies in the region and promised to nationalize Bolivia’s natural gas fields. Chavez and Morales have enjoyed close ties for several years now.

Chavez’s letter of congratulations to Morales went on to say, “Without a doubt, Evo, our joy is also great: the Fatherland of Bolivar and of Sucre [two 19th C. liberation fighters of Latin America] begins its new and definitive battle for dignity and sovereignty, and the great family of peoples finds in your fatherland a new reason to affirm the cause of humanity and to negate the neo-liberal fallacy of the end of history. It is time for the re-founding of Bolivia: it is a new beginning for history.”

Venezuela’s Vice President José Vicente Rangel also expressed satisfaction over Morales’ election, saying he felt this way not just “for what it represents politically and ideologically, but also for the human.”

Rangel went on to say that Morales, “Is a man who came form the people, son of a peasant family, forged in the everyday struggle for survival and in addition it is the first time that an indigenous person from Latin America reaches the presidency of the Republic.”

Rangel also denied that Chavez had anything to do with Morales’ victory. “For all the satisfaction the government of Hugo Chavez feels, it will not become involved in the policies and government of Morales,” said Rangel.

Heads roll at Veterans Administration - Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed

Heads roll at Veterans Administration
Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed

by Bob Nichols

Project Censored Award Winner


Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war.

Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, "The real reason for Mr. Principi's departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the 'Gulf War Syndrome' has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military."

Bernklau continued, "This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed."

He added, "Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of 'Disabled Vets' means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!" The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.

"The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000," wrote Bernklau. "He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!"

"Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that ‘Gulf Era Veterans’ now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans," said Berklau.

"The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence," stated Berklau. "Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as 'spectacular ... and a matter of concern!'"

When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for "destroying things and killing people," Fulk was more specific: "I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people!"

Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline.

References

1. Depleted uranium: "Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad" by Leuren Moret, http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml.

2. Veterans for Constitutional Law, 112 Jefferson Ave., Port Jefferson NY 11777, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director, (516) 474-4261, fax 516-474-1968.

3. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter. Email Gary Kohls, gkohls@cpinternet.com, with “Subscribe” in the subject line.

Email Bob Nichols at bobnichols@cox.net.

Bush's Wartime Dictatorship

The threat of presidential supremacism

In defending his edict authorizing surveillance of phone calls and e-mails originating in the United States, President Bush reiterated legal arguments, long made by his intellectual Praetorians, that imbue the White House with wartime powers no different from those exercised by a Roman emperor. As Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer pointed out in the Washington Post the other day:

"Bush's constitutional argument, in the eyes of some legal scholars and previous White House advisers, relies on extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Bush said yesterday that the lawfulness of his directives was affirmed by the attorney general and White House counsel, a list that omitted the legislative and judicial branches of government. On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president's war-making powers in legal briefs as 'plenary' – a term defined as 'full,' 'complete,' and 'absolute.'"

The new presidential absolutism infuses not only Bush's foreign policy, which asserts the "right" of the White House to make war on anyone, anywhere, anytime, and for any reason, but also, increasingly, his domestic policies. The doctrine of wartime presidential supremacy has been dramatized, in recent days, in a series of disturbing developments on the home front: the utilization of "national security letters" by the FBI to snoop on thousands of U.S. citizens, the creation of a permanent database that amounts to an electronic "enemies list," and just this past week the revelation that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails originating in the U.S. – without going to the FISA court that normally oversees such activities.

This doctrine of presidential supremacy is derived, in substance and style, from the unrestrained militarism of the regime. That we are now in a state of permanent war requires that our government undertake a perpetual war on what is left of our civil liberties. Given the nature of this conflict with a formless, stateless enemy, more a concept than a combatant, there is no longer any division between the "home front" and the struggle against the worldwide Islamist insurgency, between domestic and foreign policy. We spy on Americans because we fight in Iraq, and, as time goes on, the converse will be true: we will continue the overseas battle in order for the regime to win the fight against its political opponents in the U.S. That the antiwar opposition, already demonized by neoconservative ideologues as "appeasers" and worse, will wind up being treated as "the enemy" should surprise no one.

Of course, the regime isn't locking up its domestic opponents and "renditioning" them off to some godforsaken gulag quite yet. However, it is more and more treating opposition to its policies – or even discussion of its methods – as the equivalent of treason, and this story about how, in response to the NSA revelations, the president summoned the executive editor and the publisher of the New York Times to the Oval Office merely underscores how far we have gone in that direction. The president went out of his way to denounce the Times piece as "a shameful act," and this overbearing style is part and parcel of the developing tyranny. Lew Rockwell has posited the rise of what he calls "red-state fascism," as have I, and we can see, from recent events, that this phenomenon is quickly congealing from a fluid potentiality into a hard reality. All the elements of a new American fascism are in place: a regime that recognizes no restraints on its power, either moral or constitutional; the rise of a leader cult surrounding the president; and a foreign policy of relentless aggression. And make no mistake: it is this latter that makes all the rest of it possible.

Without the pretext of a wartime emergency, the neoconservative ideologues who seek to reconcile constitutional "originalism" with a legal and political doctrine of presidential hegemony that would have horrified the Founders would be relegated to the margins and considered harmless crackpots. Today, however, the crackpots are not only in power, they are going on the offensive – with much success.

Just how much success is evidenced by the complete inability and unwillingness of the Democrats to stand up against this systematic assault on our liberties at the most crucial point: that is, at the time it was initiated. This is underscored by the fact that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is coming out in public against the NSA eavesdropping only now that it is politically popular to do so. When it really counted, however, those few congressional Democrats who were let in on the secret unauthorized wiretaps, such as Rockefeller and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said nothing. In the summer of 2003, Rockefeller wrote to Vice President Dick Cheney that, while expressing "concerns" about bypassing the FISA court, he refused to pass judgment: "As you know," he wrote, "I am neither a technician or an attorney," and he therefore felt "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse" the NSA intercepts.

Could a wimpier "opposition" even be imagined? Rockefeller held this secret close to his chest for years, as did Pelosi. These Weimar Democrats are gutless wonders, fully complicit in the regime's assault on our liberties and the constitutional order. To anyone looking to the Democratic Party as the locus of an effective opposition to red-state fascism, I would strongly suggest that they are setting themselves up for a severe disappointment – and that they'd best look elsewhere.

Tie-Breaking Cheney to Students, Seniors, Middle Class: Go Fuck Yourself!

Let's call them "the Cheney cuts."

Today, when the Senate split 50-50 on a budget stealing money from people just scraping by and transferring it to the wealthiest Americans, it took Dick Cheney, recalled from Afghanistan, to cast the tie-breaking vote. In order to pretend to be cutting the deficit, the Republicans partially compensated for their tax cuts for millionaires by cutting Medicaid, Medicare, Student Loans, Food Stamps... you know, all that Katrina-type welfare that makes people so dependent on government handouts.

It's an unexpected holiday gift that the Vice President has given us: he's put a human face on "compassionate conservatism." That crooked mouth, that Ebenezer snarl, that hearty Halliburton shake of jowl: he could hardly suppress his satisfaction at tipping the balance.
Of course, it's not really the balance. If you add up the number of people represented by the 50 Senators who voted against this reverse-Robin-Hood Republican budget, you'd actually have a majority of Americans. But in our system, cattle and sheep can count more than kids and seniors.

In honor of the Vice President's return from Kabul in time to kill Christmas, it would be a lovely tribute if students who can't get loans explain their predicament by citing the Cheney cuts. Or: "I wanted to go to college, but Dick Cheney told me to go fuck myself." The nurse, at a patient's bedside: "Vice President Cheney says we have to send you home." The supermarket clerk, counting the single mother's food stamps: "Well, if you Cheney the diapers and the dog food, you'll have enough to pay for the rest."

So maybe it lets Bush, Frist & DeLay off the hook. But I think the country needs something appropriate to remember Cheney for. You know: like Hoovervilles.

Goss Tells Turks to Prepare for Iran Attack

You'd think the fact Porter Goss, head broom sweeper at the CIA, recently told the Turkish government the United States plans to attack Iran and Syria would be headline splashing news in the New York Times and the Washington Post. But although the news was carried in the Turkish press, it elicited hardly a murmur here in America, with the exception of United Press International and Reuters. As for the latter, only Goss' meeting with Turkish officials on the "separatist terrorist organization" known as the Kurdistan Workers Party was mentioned and nothing about the impending attack, while the UPI mentioned it in the fourth paragraph, stating: "Goss said that Iran sees Turkey as an enemy and will ‘export its regime,’ warning Ankara to be ready for a possible U.S. aerial operation against Iran and Syria."

PHX News was more specific and noted the lack of attention the story: "In an overlooked story, the Turkish press reported last week that CIA Director Porter Goss went to Ankara recently and informed the Turkish government that Iran already has nuclear weapons and they should be ready for 'a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria.'" The Turkish Press added more details:

During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara. Goss is said to have asked for Turkey’s support for Washington’s policy against Iran’s nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey. Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria. Goss, who came to Ankara just after FBI Director Robert Mueller’s visit, brought up Iran’s alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It was said that Goss first told Ankara that Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region. Diplomatic sources say that Washington wants Turkey to coordinate with its Iran policies. The second dossier is about Iran’s stance on terrorism. The CIA argued that Iran was supporting terrorism, the PKK and al-Qaeda.

In short, Goss and Mueller were sent by the neocons to shop around an “air operation against Iran and Syria” in Turkey in exchange for a hardline against the Kurds and using the unestablished “fact” the Iranians have nukes and the desire to use them as enticement.

As I have written here for months, the neocons are determined to attack Iran and Syria, if only with airstrikes. Of course, if this is accomplished it will stir up even more chaos and strife, precisely what the neocons want, regardless of all the nonsense Bush mumbles about democracy and Iraqi elections. As we should know if we pay attention, the Bushcons are playing by the Zionist script in an effort to balkanize the Muslim Middle East by way of mass murder and sectarian violence.