BUSH WATCH...BERNARD WEINER

Bushism as Greek Drama:
"Hubris" and "Tragic Flaws"

By Bernard Weiner

April 26, 2006

The world of theatre that I've swum in for decades as a drama critic provides a useful prism through which to view today's political events and players.

This is especially true when thinking about drama from ancient Greece and Europe's Renaissance. Those periods remind us how often human tragedy repeats itself over the centuries. (Which is why many modern directors return so often to the wisdom of these ancient plays, often staging them with contemporary conceits so as to make the connections overt for their audiences.)

Much of ancient Greek drama focuses on the disastrous results of "hubris," an overweening pride and arrogance that can lead rulers to go outside the ethical/legal boundaries. (See "Oedipus Rex," "Antigone," "The Orestia.") Almost invariably, because their reckless attitude upsets the delicate balance required for proper rule, punishment or even tragedy results -- and not just personal, but for society as a whole.

NIXON, REAGAN & CLINTON

Nixon, coming off a landslide GOP victory in 1972, committed "hubris" by thinking himself immune from normal laws ("When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal," he claimed) by authorizing secret wiretapping, breaking & entering, bribing of witnesses, etc. -- the felonies that came to be subsumed under the rubric "Watergate." To avoid his imminent impeachment, Nixon resigned, the only President to do so in American history.

Reagan, a popular Republican president in the 1980s, had his dip into hubris by engaging in the Iran/Contra scandal (illegally selling arms to enemy Iran in order to secretly finance anti-government guerrillas in Nicaragua), and then claiming the violations of law never happened. Reagan probably avoided later criminal prosecution when GOP President George H.W. Bush sandbagged the scandal by pardoning key participants "pre-emptively," before questioning under oath could begin.

The Democrat Clinton entered the halls of hubris when he, believing a President could get away with anything, lied about having engaged in dubious conduct with a government intern. He was impeached but the Senate did not convict, believing, along with the overwhelming majority of the American people, that lying about sex did not constitute a "high crime" against the country or Constitution.

BUSH'S UNPRECEDENTED HUBRIS

Now we have Bush Junior, who has attempted to codify his power-grabbing hubris by claiming that the President can do whatever he chooses to do as long as he does so as "commander in chief" during "wartime." Using this dictatorial theory, Bush has authorized torture, illegal spying on U.S. citizens, breaking & entering into citizens' homes and computers without their ever knowing such violations of privacy occurred, leaking classified information to friendly reporters, and on and on.

The scale of Bush's hubris is unprecedented in American history, which may be why, five years into his rule, even friends and conservative supporters are opposed to his unconstitutional grab for power. Many of them recall Bush's predilection for operating outside the laws and traditions of our democratic republic; three times he has expressed an affinity for dictatorship. What may have been Freudian-slip jokes when uttered several years ago -- such as: "it would be much easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as I get to be the dictator" -- now don't seem so funny.

THE "TRAGIC FLAW"

Which brings us to the next theatrical concept from the Greeks, and honed in the works of Shakespeare in the Elizabethan period in England more than 400 years ago: the "tragic flaw."

The essence of this theory is that, by and large, rulers are not brought down only, or even mainly, by external events -- rather, they bring ruin upon themselves because of some significant deficiency in their own character, a "tragic flaw" in their psychic and ethical makeup. They are consumed by overweening lust for power, or don't mind using immoral means in the service of good ends, or can't control their obsessions, etc. Think: "Macbeth," and ambition; "Othello," and jealousy; "Hamlet," and indecision.

Nixon's "tragic flaw" was his paranoia, needing always to know what his political opponents were up to, hence the break-in and wiretapping of the Democratic Party headquarters, the building of his "enemies' list," digging up personal information for his "dirty-trick" operations against political opponents, etc.

Reagan's "tragic flaw" was his simplistic view of the world, divided into "the evil empire" (the Soviet Union) and us good American guys; this stark black-and-white view of reality led him illegally to sell armaments to another enemy (Iran) in order to find ways around Congressional laws that prohibited U.S. funds going to the anti-Communist Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua.

Clinton's tragic flaw, again derived out of a weak aspect at his core, was his need for constant affirmation, which he could assuage by finding a woman who would sexually service him out of adoration.

ROVE'S M.O.: DENY AND ATTACK

Bush is the apotheosis of all those weaknesses into one humonguous Tragic Flaw unlike any that has been seen in American politics, with worldwide consequences that result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings. What is different is that the other leaders, at some level, knew they were misbehaving and tried like the dickens to hide the evidence. These politicians were undone when they came to learn, once again, that the coverup is always worse than the crime.

Bush, of course, has tried to conceal his many mistakes, but when that doesn't work, the Rovian approach for Bush is to loudly assert, in a threatening in-your-face manner, that his worst weaknesses are really his strengths. (For example, he's violating laws and the Constitution in order "to protect Americans.")

As the many violations and scandals begin breaking through the denial dam, the policy is altered to proudly assert a "constitutional right" right to do whatever Bush and his cohorts are doing or planning on doing. In short, a variation of Nixon's claim (a theory knocked down instantly by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s) that whatever the President does is ipso facto legal. Most legal scholars today support the Supreme Court's outright dismissal of that claimed right to abrogate the Constitution and upset the separation of powers structure -- but let us not forget that Bush may well have a working majority on today's Supreme Court.

From where does Bush's tragic flaw derive?

ORIGIN OF THE DISEASE

In almost any area of governance you can think of, George Bush is ridden with the fault-lines of his tragic flaws -- and may have borrowed some from earlier leaders.

Bush is so bereft of self-esteem (much of it derived from his upbringing, by constant humiliation by his parents, by a string of personal and business failures, by his inability to admit error and tell the truth), that he can't help himself from over-compensating by displaying a persona of cockiness and belligerent authority. In short, the bully syndrome: deficient on the inside, aggressive on the outside. Bush, let us remember, delighted in blowing up frogs with explosives as a child.

Incompetent by nature and practice, Bush surrounds himself with yes-men and those who likewise are boastful bumblers. Basically ignorant, dogmatic and intellectually incurious, Bush easily is manipulated and swayed by those few insiders he trusts; namely, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the architects of his political ideology and modus operandi.

One can sense that the American people during the past year or so figured out that Bush and his crew are way over their heads when it comes to intelligent leadership -- witness the debacle that is Iraq, the post-Katrina-disaster federal "assistance" they thoroughly botched in New Orleans, the economy which has put future generations trillions of dollars in hock, the Medicare and Social Security messes, Plamegate, domestic spying, torture, etc. etc.

When Bush uncorks another of his deficient media performances these days, a majority of the American people simply don't pay much attention anymore to what he says, since they know it bears only the slightest connection either to what he is doing or to the activities of Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld behind the curtain.

IMPEACHMENT AS A NECESSITY

Many citizens, numb and apprehensive, seem fixated on somehow riding out the next two-and-a-half years of disastrous policies and destructive consequences under Bush. Or perhaps they suspect that something will come along, maybe the Republicans losing the House or Senate in the November midterm election, to finally offer some hope for the future -- including Bush and Cheney resigning rather than to face impeachment. Don't count on it.

These guys will have to have the stake of impeachment and conviction driven through their hearts to get them to vacate the White House -- which is why we have to keep driving this issue this early in the process. We have to make it a viable, mainstream option and reasonable topic for discussion.

Certainly, our immediate future -- the pending attack on Iran, perhaps using "tactical' nuclear weapons -- does not offer the slightest bit of encouragement. On the contrary, I'd say the odds are 50/50 that America will survive that reckless adventurism, which potentially could lead to a World War III-type conflagration.

WHY GENERALS ARE SPEAKING UP

As we prepare to march and demonstrate Saturday in New York and elsewhere against the war in Iraq, it is essential that we remember there's another war re-flaring in Afghanistan and that Bush&Co. are quite eager to take us into the maelstrom of still more military madness in Iran. A trifecta of dangerous, reckless wrong-headedness.

That's why the generals are speaking up (finally!) in opposition to the Cheney/Rumsfeld war policy, and why we need to crank up our opposition on the civilian side. We did it decades before with regard to the Vietnam debacle, and helped bring that conflict to a close, and we can do it again here with regard to Iraq/Iran. But only if we're ready to do the heavy lifting to build a truly effective oppositional Movement. Let's get to work.

 

Stop Us Before We Kill Again!

By Bernard Weiner

April 20, 2006

The essence of Bush&Co. strategy, from January 2001 to today, can be boiled down to this: We'll continue doing whatever we want to do until someone stops us.

So, if you're wondering whether the U.S. will back off from attacking Iran, or whether corporations will no longer be given the ability to dictate Administration environmental policy, or whether domestic spying on U.S. citizens will cease, or whether Scalia might recuse himself on cases he's already pre-judged -- if you still harbor any or all of those illusions, forget about it.

Since Bush&Co. openly carry out the most reprehensible crimes, with nobody being able to prevent them from moving on to even worse atrocities, it's almost as if their unconscious is screaming out for a political intervention, reminiscent of that old plea from a tormented serial-killer: "Stop Me Before I Kill Again!"

But consciously, as they sense their time in power may be coming to an inglorious end and as they read their quickly-sinking poll numbers, they can't help themselves from issuing their traditional, in-your-face dare: "Stop me if you can, losers!"

This big-A "Attitude" started long before Inauguration Day, when Karl Rove & Dick Cheney were devising their strategy and theory of governance. It goes something like this: We need only one vote more than the other guys -- on the Supreme Court, in the Senate, in the popular vote totals in key states. Once we get our victory by whatever means necessary, we are then the "legitimate" rulers. We can claim The People Have Spoken and that we have a "mandate" for action and can do whatever we want. If you don't like it, tough. If you're foolhardy enough, you can try again at the next election and see where that gets you, suckers -- our side counts the votes!

THE POSITIVES & NEGATIVES

The Bushistas look around and, though not happy with how their policies have fallen out of favor, they can be somewhat sanguine. After all, their fundamentalist base of about 33% is still hanging in there with them. The mainstream media -- most newspapers, Fox News, radio talk-shows, cable pundits -- are still more or less in their pockets. The bothersome Democrats remain in the minority, marginalized in Congress and far away from the levers of power. The votes are still tabulated by a few Republican companies, many from e-voting machines that are easily manipulatable by company technicians, even from remote distances. Another major catastrophe -- a new war, a huge natural disaster, a major terrorist attack -- can re-focus the headlines away from Bush&Co.'s current and ever-growing scandals.

On the other hand, a determined prosecutor Fitzgerald is still out there, deeply knowledgeable about what really went down in the manipulation of pre-Iraq War intelligence. The military establishment is rebelling against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war policies, openly in the case of those generals who resigned to speak their minds, and covertly in the case of those actively serving who are leaking their opposition to Jack Murtha, Sy Hersh and others. More and more conservative and moderate Republicans are backing away from too-close association with BushCheney, and there have been a number of embarrassing defeats for the Administration in Congress. Revelations of one Bush&Co. scandal after another keep coming (Katrina, Abramoff, domestic spying, WMD lies, torture, Plamegate, Unitary Executive dictatorship, and on and on).

Given all that -- and one suspects that is just the tip of the criminality iceberg -- one would expect that Bush and Cheney would be approaching the impeachment dock shortly. But while a majority of the public is willing to consider or support making Bush and Cheney accountable for their lies and corruption and incompetency, the weak-kneed politicians simply refuse to even consider a censure resolution, let alone to pass one authorizing impeachment hearings. In short, the Democrats have chosen not to put up a real fight for either the future well-being of the Constitution or their own political survival, preferring instead to watch from the sidelines as the Republicans implode in corruption, scandal and disarray.

And so, with no effective opposition in their way, Bush&Co. simply keep moving forward. Next stop: Iran.

THIS IS NOT JUST SABER-RATTLING

Though there is some speculation that all this talk about Bush attacking Iran is so much saber-rattling to get the Iranians to back away from pursuing their nuclear ambitions, I don't buy it.

Bush&Co. want this war for a variety of reasons: to further their deeply-held goal (and Bush's sense of "legacy") of altering the geopolitical makeup of the greater Middle East; to control the vast oil reserves in the region; to provide yet another demonstration model to Muslim rulers in the area not to mess with U.S. desires and demands; and, of course, to wrap Bush in the warrior flag yet again as a way of deflecting attention away from his domestic and foreign scandals by counting on the public's fascination with footage of laser-guided "precision" bombs striking the "enemy's" buildings and radar batteries.

("Precision" is in quotation marks because by now we know to anticipate thousands of dead and wounded civilians when the missiles and bombs go off-target. And, let us not forget, we haven't even brought up the subject of the radiation effects that might ensue if, as is being planned, Bush uses "tactical" atomic bombs, the so-called mini-nuke "bunker busters," to get at Iran's deep-underground labs. If such WMD are employed by the U.S., hundreds of thousands could be killed or badly damaged by radiation, and the area contaminated into the far future.)

The propaganda barrage being laid down by Administration spokesmen these days is so utterly identical to the fog of lies that preceded the attack on Iraq that it seems all Rumsfeld and Rice have to do is simply re-use the original press releases and change the last letter of the target country, "n" instead of "q." We even get ye olde "mushroom cloud" image hauled out again, supposedly warning us about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons; this time, that mushroom cloud could well be one effected by the U.S. bombers and missiles.

Even the fantastical expectations are as out of whack as what we were told would happen in Iraq. There, we were promised, the American forces, in a "cakewalk," would be greeted as "liberators," with kisses and flowers. In Iran, we're told, much the same will occur, and the oppressed Iranians, chafing at the harsh rule of the fundamentalist mullahs running the country, will rise up and topple their repressive government. Seymour Hersh writes: "One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that 'a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.' He added: 'I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?'")

NUCLEAR BUNKER-BUSTERS?

These predictions of a popular Iranian uprising, which arise out of neo-con ignorance and desire, simply ignore the realities on the ground. Imagine, for example, how U.S. citizens would feel -- even those opposed to the Bush Administration -- if a bullying foreign power bombed the hell out of our country's scientific and industrial laboratories, killing a lot of our citizens in the process, and badly hampering our economic progress for decades to come. If the attack included nuclear bombs, multiply those angry reactions (and the resulting radiation deaths) by a thousand per cent. How would the citizens react? Of course: The American people would unite behind their leaders, beloved or despised, in resisting the attackers. Much the same reactions should be anticipated from Iran's citizens.

In Iran's case, given that it's the major Muslim military and political power in the region, that resistance might well lead to retaliation where it hurts. Israel, America's one surefire ally in the region, probably would be attacked, thus widening the already red-hot conflict; U.S. warships in the area would be targeted by Iranian missiles; oil sales to the West would be greatly reduced or cut off entirely, and perhaps other oil fields in the region might be bombed; the Straits of Hormuz, which control entry into the Persian Gulf, might be blocked to sea traffic; Iranian assault troops might enter Iraq to support the insurgency, which would have redoubled its attacks on U.S. forces; Iran-sponsored terrorists would hit American targets both in the region and perhaps even inside the United States. Plus, the Law of Unintended Consequences would lead to even more ruinous events not even contemplated here as other Islamic nations become involved.

Surely, Iran knows how much the U.S. military is stressed these days in Iraq and Afghanistan, how thin the troop strength is around the globe, how so many U.S. troops are going AWOL or are not re-upping, how National Guard troops and commanders are reacting negatively to their overuse outside America's boundaries, how many in the Pentagon brass are opposed to Bush policy, etc. The aim of the Iranians, in this scenario, would be to get the U.S. bogged down in yet another land war in the region.

In short, it's not just the ineptly-managed quagmire in Iraq that is behind much of the opposition from high-ranking officers and retired brass in America's military command. Clearly, they are speaking out now because of the prospect of another disaster about to unfold in Iran, which will get young American troops slaughtered and tied-down in yet another military adventure.

(Let us be clear. The military brass currently in revolt against Rumsfeld and his superiors -- the unnamed Cheney and Bush -- are not liberal activists energized by the issues of whether these wars are moral or legal or even well-advised; they are arguing, for the most part, on how best to properly manage such conflicts, how to more effectively conduct such imperial adventures while keeping their troops safe. But, whatever their motives, progressives should welcome any dissent that weakens the hold of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad on the levers of uncriticized power.)

WHY IRAN WANTS NUKES

Do I believe that Iran's rulers are nice, progressive guys who deserve our active support? Of course not. Ahmadinejad mirrors Bush as a close-minded, backward-looking, religiously-influenced fundamentalist leader, and Iran's senior mullahs likewise. Do I believe Iran wants uranium-enrichment purely to build nuclear power plants? Of course not. They desire to be the big power in the neighborhood, plus they've seen how defenseless Iraq and Afghanistan were treated, and how this differs from how the U.S. behaves toward North Korea, Pakistan and India, all recent members of the nuclear-weapons club.

If for no reason other than their own protection against the two atomic powers in the region (the U.S. and Israel), the Iranian government's goal is to possess some nuclear-tipped missiles. Their atomic program is taking its first babysteps these days. America's own intelligence analysts believe it would take anywhere from five to ten years to get to the point of Iran having a nuclear arsenal. And, if both sides possess nuclear weapons, the world may return to the days of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, as a brake on rash action.

The Bush doctrine of "preventive" or "pre-emptive" war is to hit potential enemies before they can even get on the track of building up their weaponry. Hit 'em while they're weak and vulnerable, even if they have no plan of attacking anybody (such was the case with Iraq) -- that's the operating principle. The Islamic states are weak and vulnerable right now; hit 'em. Iraq is weak and vulnerable; take it. Iran doesn't yet have a fully developed nuclear program; blast it.

THE APRIL 29TH ANTI-WAR TEST

Nobody is sure when the U.S. attack on Iran will come. Given the resistance inside the American military to launching such an attack, the Bush propaganda machine may feel it needs a few more months to soften the public's attitude to the "inevitability" of the move on Iran. (And to obtain the international fig-leaf of a vaguely-worded U.N. Security Council authorization vote for war.) Or they could judge that the situation requires a "the-sooner-the-better" approach, before too much opposition develops in the American body politic and around the globe. Since this will not be a ground invasion, the air assault could happen at any moment. I'm guessing we have maybe a month in which to head this madness off at the pass.

Before the attack on Iraq in 2003, more than ten million people worldwide marched in opposition to that imminent invasion. Three years later, there seems very little organized resistance to the impending war on Iran. Only now is the possibility of such a U.S. attack coming onto most folks' radar screens. The peace movement seems puny in its ability to organize masses of demonstrators these days, whereas the march of immigrants across the country brought out millions.

We'll have a better sense of the strength of the peace movement on April 29, when the big anti-war march (the war being opposed is the one in Iraq) will happen in New York City, this one organized by United for Justice & Peace. Will those in the anti-war movement see the larger picture and alter their approach and rhetoric and actions accordingly? We shall see.

Bush Visits His Shrink, Session #2

By Bernard Weiner

April 13, 2006

"The last time we met, sir, you had me thrown out of the White House, thinking me too aggressive with my questions. Now you're back for another session. What's changed?"

"It's worse. My world is falling apart. People aren't afraid of me anymore. The whole Plame and Iraq-intelligence and NSA spying stuff is coming at us full force, and we haven't got good answers. I can't sleep well. I have more nightmares. Not even the pills help. My wife, my doctors and my chief adviser more or less ordered me see you again. Otherwise, I wouldn't have come, believe me."

"I do believe you. Many clients in the early stages of counseling get very uncomfortable when the therapist brings up sensitive topics. It's not unusual for them to lash out at the therapist rather than doing the hard work of diving into that uncomfortable area and trying to deal with those issues."

"I don't believe in therapy, doc."

"Do you mean you don't believe it exists? Or that it doesn't work, at least that it wouldn't help you?"

"I've gotten to where I am today on the basis of my will and belief in myself, and I see no reason to question myself now."

"But you seem to be suggesting that you've lost your hold over people after years of doing what you're always done. So maybe it's the perfect time to re-examine your patterns and your behaviors and see if any changes need to be made. I'm happy to work with you, if you wish to do that."

"But if I start doubting myself, then the people will lose their faith in me, and I'll lose more of my self-esteem, and so on. It's a no-win situation. I want you to just move on to other areas, doc. But I want to make sure again that our confidentiality agreement is still in place; nothing I say leaves this room, right?"


THE SWAMP NIGHTMARE

"Yes, of course. OK, we can move on to other topics, and perhaps as we talk, some of the other areas that need work will insert themselves. Why don't you tell me about those nightmares you're having. What's the most recent one?"

"It reminds me of the one I told you about during our first session. In this one, I'm stuck up to my neck in black tar, in a swamp red with blood. Sharks are circling me. I scream for help to my friends in the airboats, but they just smile and wave at me. Burros, whose noses are machine-guns, are aiming at me from the bank; big sheets of paper are falling on me from the sky. I feel like a perfect target: unable to get out of the tar; my enemies can pick me off; my friends aren't coming to my aid; the paper sheets are falling faster and faster; the black swamp is sucking me down. I wake up in a cold sweat."

"I certainly can see why you'd be disturbed by those images. What do you make of the dream? You began by saying it reminded you of the nightmare you told me previously, where you were swimming in black sticky stuff and crying tears of blood. Why do you think, for example, your friends would not be coming to your aid?"

"In the dream, they think I'm going down anyway, so why come near me? They might get shot also or get eaten by the sharks. So they smile and wave and pretend they're still my friends. But they've really just deserted me to save their asses."

"And can you translate that to your life in the real world? Do you think your friends are deserting you?"

"My poll numbers are in the toilet, and I'm losing battle after battle in Congress as conservatives and moderates peel off. I guess those are the people in the dream smiling and waving at me. They're no longer in my pocket, not afraid any more. They rode my coattails into power in Congress, but having to face re-election in November, they're now happy to put some distance between themselves and me, away from that mucky swamp."


ADMITTING WEAKNESS IS WEAKNESS

"Who's trying to shoot at you? What do you think the swamp means? And who are the sharks and where do those dropping sheets of paper come from?"

"Burros are like donkeys, so no secret there; the Democrats are taking pot-shots at me every day. And more and more elements in the press are circling like sharks, smelling my political weakness, and dumping on me, though we still have Fox and the cable-news shows and the radio talk-shows that our base listens to. The swamp? Not a bad description of Washington, D.C., if you ask me. And, like in the earlier dream, I guess the tar probably is oil, and the blood is from the war in Iraq."

"You'd make a good therapist, sir; I think your interpretations are spot-on. So let's extrapolate. If your current policies are losing you support, bringing out the political and media 'sharks,' why not consider altering your policies, perhaps moving closer to the center, so you can get more of your programs passed?"

"For one thing, we can't be sure the people would vote for my policies these days. Besides, I told you: That way says to the people, and especially to my supporters: 'I was wrong, my policies were wrong.' That makes me look weak. If a President appears weak, he loses his clout, people are not afraid of him any longer, and thus he becomes even weaker."

"But the dream seems to be telling you that your behaviors and policies have already weakened you. But let's put that political aspect aside for now; the key question outside the dream is: What are you really afraid of, deep down, that keeps you from making the necessary compromises politicians must make?"

(Long silence.) "I'd be seen as what my parents and others have called me all my life; I'd be a "loser," someone with no intelligence to get things done effectively, just living off the reputations and assistance of others. This office was going to change that for me. We were thinking big, moving big in the world, and in the country; sure, people thought we were cocky and arrogant, but it was more that we were absolutely sure we were doing the right thing so why compromise with those who disagreed? God chose me to save the country, to fight the Evil Ones, and to change the world for the better, don't forget that."


SAVING THE LEGACY

"Yes, I do understand you feel that way. But I keep getting back to the central question: Your way, the barrel-on-through approach, confronting and threatening, seems to have alienated not only your enemies but many of your friends as well. Unless you're willing to fight to the end, simply continuing those behaviors that used to work for you in the past, then you'll have to make adjustments to save yourself and your legacy. And, I might add, to avoid impeachment."

"Yes, we may have to make a few tactical adjustments in these months before the November election, so we can hold onto the House and thus stave off any possible impeachment hearings there -- and maybe criminal charges later. But my advisors and I are determined in the next two years to continue to play hard-ball with our enemies and those who desert us. That's the strategy that got us here, and kept our political enemies totally flummoxed. We will stay the course in Iraq; we will continue to roll back governmental regulation of corporations; we will rule from the Unitary Executive position; we will monitor all communications, domestic and foreign, and, if it comes to it, we'll force a constitutional crisis and trust that our court appointees will rule in our favor."

"And if that doesn't work and you and the Vice President are impeached? Would you resign rather than put yourself and the country through a trial in the Senate?"

"I don't think it will come to that, but if it does, we'll take it to the very end and let the chips fall where they may."

"May I speak freely here, sir?

"Of course. You're a rich psychiatrist who has been most generous to the party; you're a Pioneer. Besides, you don't have an agenda, so it's easier to listen to you."

"You used the word 'chips.' Many fellow Republicans might well respond that you're not playing poker here, sir. Those 'chips,' they might say, are the Constitution, and the GOP, and the people of this country, and your wife and your girls and, and other nations, and your -- you're really willing to take the country down with you, if it comes to that?"


SPREADING THE BLAME

"I said you could speak freely, but you're taking liberties, Mr. Shrink. Watch what you say. Anyway, if we are taken down, it won't be my fault. It'll be the partisan Democrats, getting revenge for what we did to Clinton, and the weak-kneed in our own GOP ranks who couldn't take the heat, and the Iraqis, who would do anything to get back at me for invading them, and the people for electing me, and the neo-cons -- a number of them are Jewish, by the way, which will come in very handy in assigning blame. Our forces will take a hit, sure, but we'll reorganize our true-patriot movement and go after those evil ones who 'lost Iraq' -- the cowardly moderate Republicans, the slimy Democrats, the Iraqi terrorists, the Black Caucus, the Islamists, the Jews, the liberal internet wackos -- and we'll be back in a few years. And I'll be regarded as a saviour of our cause who was done in by forces of Satan. I won't go off with my tail between my legs, but brandishing a sword of vengeance and faith."

"Do you really believe all that?"

"No, of course not, at least not all of it. But it'll play out there in the Red states, and I'm young enough, I'll be around to give it a focus."

"All this is very interesting. But let me, as your consulting therapist, offer an alternative idea about your situation. It's just a theory, so tell me if I've gone wrong here. It's possible that you are indeed in a swamp, but it's not just oil but a moral quagmire that derives from the blood you have to spill daily to maintain your control of those resources, and, in a sense, even to keep control of yourself. In this interpretation, that's why you're so agitated and depressed. There's no implication that you're a bad man or a 'loser' in this regard; lots of presidents, even the best ones, found themselves in that same area of moral ambiguity when sending young men and women to die in wars."

"I don't like where you're going with this, doc. I'm warning you."

"Another way of looking at your situation, as one reason your poll numbers have fallen so precipitously, is that the country senses that you've been sucked down in that swamp not only by external enemies and situations but by your own choices. In this view, you're a Faustian character who exchanged his soul for power and control -- but it's not just you who is suffering because of it. The country as a whole is feeling the impact of your decisions, in a wide variety of areas, and realizes that since you're incapable of or unwilling to alter the course of your policies -- or even to acknowledge that you might have made some major errors -- they have to move in a different direction.

"I know this interpretation might not be easy to hear, but I'm offering it as a possibility, something you might want to think about. In my professional opinion, you need to do something, quickly, sir, to ease the internal pressures building up in you. I say all this both to help save your presidency, since I still believe you're capable of greatness, and to save you, since your psyche is too delicately balanced right now, and I don't want to see you go over the edge into a total breakdown."

"You're just trying to tear me down, like the rest of them. I warned you. I hope you enjoy your stay in Gitmo, fella. Guards! Take him away!" [They start to exit.]

"I know this session may have been really painful for you, sir, but if you change your mind once your anger subsides, you'll know where to find me." [Exits.]

"Shrinks! Meddling bastards! [picks up red phone] Rummy, shock-and-awe, baby! It's Iran time." #

---

Bush's Grand Game:
A "PNAC Primer" UPDATE

By Bernard Weiner

April 5, 2006

When the Bush Administration keeps hauling out its "we-didn't-know-nothin'" spin -- about Katrina, 9/11, Iraq, torture -- in effect they're using incompetence as their defense. How can you try to censure or impeach us, they're saying, when we didn't know what was happening, what to do or how to do it?

Their incompetence by this time has been well-documented and par for the Bush course. But, as the evidence demonstrates, in each of those cases they knew a lot more than they let on, having received adequate warnings of the scenarios that were about to unfold.

They knew the levees might well be breached in New Orleans and did nothing; more than 1000 died. They knew a major al Qaida attack was coming in late-Summer 2001, probably by air and aimed at icon American targets in New York and Washington, and did nothing; nearly 3000 died. They knew their own advisers had alerted them that Saddam had no WMD and no connection to the 9/11 attacks, but they went ahead anyway and lied the Congress and American people into Iraq; tens of thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have died and are continuing to do so. They knew, because they had approved the "harsh" interrogation methods, that tortures were being carried out on prisoners in U.S. care, but they did nothing (until photos leaked to the press); more than 100 detainees have died, and many thousands more have been brutalized and/or humiliated. They knew that eavesdropping on American citizens was illegal without court-sanctioned warrants, but they went ahead anyway, convinced nobody would ever learn of their law-breaking.

All of that is reprehensible, and will be added to the list of charges for the eventual impeachment hearings of Bush and Cheney, and/or to the criminal trials of those two and their subordinates. But what I propose to talk about here are not specifics of the high crimes, misdemeanors and thorough-going bunglings. To do that is to focus on the trees while ignoring the forest; we need to go deeper and find out who planted the seeds.

AN IDEOLOGY OF GREED & CONQUEST

To get a handle on how Bush&Co. took America into its current domestic and foreign crises, one must first understand that their policies and actions did not originate after Bush was installed in the White House in January of 2001. The philosophy of greed and power-amassment already was in place years prior to that.

And so it's time to re-examine The Project for The New American Century, about which still too little is known by the American public. There were a number of us writing about PNAC three years ago -- William Rivers Pitt, myself, Neil Mackay, John Pilger, Tj Templeton and others -- but, after an initial flurry of interest by the media, discussion about that neo-con think tank mostly dissolved.

Much of the following takes off from my original 2003 essay "How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer:"  A PNAC Primer" -- which is the most widely reprinted article I've ever written. That piece has been updated to reflect the new evidence that has surfaced in the past several years.

THE ORIGINS OF THE CRISIS

Most of us Americans saw the end of the Cold War as a harbinger of a more peaceful globe, and we relaxed knowing that the Communist world was no longer a threat to the U.S. The Soviet Union, our partner in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and Cold War rivalry around the globe, was no more. This meant a partial vacuum in international affairs. Nature abhors a vacuum.

The only major vacuum-filler still standing after the Cold War was the United States. The U.S. could continue the so-called "soft imperialism" approach, the kind of diplomatic, well-disguised defense of U.S. interests (largely corporate) carried out under Bush#1, Reagan, Clinton, et al. Or one could go the Karl Rove route of speeding up the process and accomplishing those same domestic and foreign ends overtly -- with an attitude of arrogance and in-your-face bullying -- within maybe one or two Republican administrations.

Some of the ideological roots of today's Bush Administration power-wielders could be traced back to the political philosopher Leo Strauss (short version: act aggressively, do whatever you have to do to win), and to GOP rightist Barry Goldwater and his rabid anti-communist followers in the early-1960s. But, for simplicity's sake let's stick closer to our own time.

In the early-1990s, a group of ideologues and power-politicians, most of whom had been in positions of authority in the Reagan Administration, found themselves on the outside looking in during the Clinton era, and were relegated to the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found PNAC, The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when Republicans regained control of the White House, and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well. When that day came, their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

PNAC was not a rag-tag group of lightweight amateurs. The PNAC founders were heavy hitters, with juice: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, et al., most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, savvy as to how to exercise power to the max in Washington. But even given their reputations and clout, the openly militarist views of this group -- attacking other countries "pre-emptively," for example -- were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the generally mainstream, small-government, isolationist conservatives who controlled the Republican Party.

THE EARLY DAYS OF PNAC

To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, several wealthy billionaires and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the HardRight cabal and their supporters could assume control.

That moment arrived with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The temporary "outsiders" from PNAC were once again powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz up until last year was Deputy Defense Secretary (now president of the World Bank), I. Lewis Libby (now under indictment in the Plamegate scandal) was Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams was put in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council (and is now a Deputy Secretary of State), Dov Zakheim was named comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton (now U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle was chair of the important Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey was on that panel as well, etc. etc. PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard. In short, PNAC had a lock on foreign/military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP, they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. In one of their major reports, written in 2000, PNAC noted that "the process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event --  like a new Pearl Harbor."

The Bush Administration, which came to see 9/11 as an "opportunity," used 9/11 and the fear that it generated in the general populace as their cover for enacting all sorts of draconian measures domestically and as their rationalization for launching military campaigns abroad. The Patriot Act, drafted earlier, was rushed through a frightened Congress in the days following 9/11 and the mysterious anthrax attack; few members even had read the huge document. The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) to go after al Qaida in Afghanistan now is hauled out by the White House to justify torture, domestic eavesdropping, and anything else the "commander-in-chief" wants to authorize during "wartime."

THE DOMESTIC RAMIFICATIONS

Today, the Bush manipulators, led by Karl Rove, continue to utilize fear, hyped-up patriotism and a permanent "war on terrorism" as the basis for their policy agenda, just as they did in 2004 to get Bush re-elected. This, in order to continue to fulfill their primary objectives, not the least of which is to roll back and, where possible, decimate and eliminate domestic social programs that the far-right has hated since the New Deal/Great Society days, and to free corporate ambitions from government regulation. In short, a great leap backward to turn-of-the-(20th)-century laissez-faire policy.

By and large, these long-established social programs (Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, etc.) are popular with Americans, so Bush&Co. can't attack them frontally. However, if all the monies are tied up in wars, defense, tax cuts, etc., they can go to the public and, in effect, say: "We'd love to continue to fund education and environmental protection and drugs for the elderly, but you see there's simply no extra money left over after we go after the bad guys. It's not our fault."

Up until recently, that stealth strategy has worked. But, as Bush's fast-falling approval ratings suggest, the public is not buying that line so unquestioningly any more. Even so, Rove seems wedded to what's worked so well for the White House in the past, and so continues to use fear of terrorism as the main selling-point to the American public.

Don't get me wrong. Islamist fanatics dedicated to killing are real and deadly and must be stopped. The question is: How to do that in ways that enhance rather than endanger America's long-term national interests, and in ways that protect the very liberties and freedoms the terrorists allegedly are against, and what the neo-cons claim to be defending? The Bush approach is to use a howitzer in hunting for gnats; after all, Bush said, the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper."

One doesn't have to guess what the PNAC guys might be thinking, since they're quite open and proud of their theories and strategies. Indeed, their writings lay out quite openly what they're up to, but few took such extreme talk seriously. Now that they're in power, actually making the policy they only dreamed about a decade or so ago, with all sorts of scarifying consequences for America and the rest of the world, we need to educate ourselves quickly as to how PNAC, and other HardRight think-tanks, work and what their future plans might be.

Given the absolute mess the Bush Administration has made in Iraq, the neo-cons, whose ideology underpinned the invasion and occupation of that country, are somewhat in disfavor these days. But, importantly, they haven't given up on their ultimate goal of transforming the geopolitics of various key regions in the world, and installing U.S.-friendly governments, by force if necessary. The policy of setting up new "democracies," however, comes with a caveat: Your country had better elect the right candidates, meaning those that will accommodate U.S. desires. Look how the Bush Administration is punishing Hamas in Palestine, Prime Minister Al-Jaafari in Iraq, President Chavez in Venezuela. All democratically elected but not quite what the Bush White House had in mind.

PNAC'S PROUD PAPER TRAIL

So let's take a quick, chronological look at PNAC, to see how we got from there to here. Some of these PNAC documents and strategies, which now are official U.S. policy, you may have heard about before, but I've expanded and updated as much as possible.

1. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a  strategy report drafted for the Pentagon, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. (Both men would later help found PNAC.) In the report, the U.S. government was urged, as the world's sole remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

Somehow, this report leaked to the press, whereupon the negative response was immediate. Senator Robert Byrd led the Democratic charge: "The basic thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world, and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to put at risk the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so." Clearly, the objective political forces that could support this policy free of major resistance hadn't yet coalesced in the U.S. And so President Bush the Elder repudiated the paper and sent it back to the drawing boards.

2. Various neo-con/HardRight intellectuals outside the government were spelling out the new PNAC policy in books and influential journals. Zalmay Khalilzad (formerly associated with big oil companies, currently U.S. ambassador to Iraq) wrote an important volume in 1995, "From Containment to Global Leadership: America & the World After the Cold War"; the import of this book was to urge the U.S. to move aggressively in the world and thus to exercise effective control over the planet's natural resources. A year later, in 1996, neo-conservative leaders Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, in their Foreign Affairs article "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," came right out and said the goal for the U.S. had to be nothing less than  "benevolent global hegemony," a euphemism for total U.S. domination, but "benevolently" exercised, of course.

3. In 1998, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.  A January letter from PNAC  urged America to initiate that war even if the U.S. could not muster full support from the Security Council at the United Nations. Sound familiar? Clinton replied that he was focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells. But PNAC's lobbying was able to convince a GOP-dominated Congress to pass the "Liberation of Iraq Act," with nearly $100 million earmarked for Iraqi opposition groups.

LAYING OUT "GLOBAL HEGEMONY" PLAN

4. In September of 2000, PNAC, anticipating a GOP victory in the upcoming presidential election, issued its white paper on  "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century."   The PNAC report was quite frank about why the U.S. would want to move toward imperialist militarism, a Pax Americana, because with the Soviet Union out of the picture, now is the time most "conducive to American interests and ideals. ... The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'."

As Neil Mackay observed: "In its own words," he wrote, the PNAC report is a "'blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'." This 'American grand strategy,' it says, must be advanced 'as far into the future as possible'."

And how to preserve, enhance and advance this Pax Americana?  The answer, William Rivers Pitt noted, lies in following a five-fold plan: "Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East; Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities; Develop and deploy a global missile-defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space; Control the 'International Commons' of cyberspace; Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent."

Most ominously, Pitt, wrote, "this PNAC document described four 'Core Missions' for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,' and to 'perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.' Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see."

In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations," for example. No country will be permitted to get close to parity with the U.S. when it comes to weaponry or influence. Therefore, more U.S. military bases will be established in the various regions of the globe. Post-Saddam Iraq would serve as one of those advance military bases. Currently, it is estimated that the U.S. now has more than 150 military bases and deployments in different countries around the world, with the most recent major increase being in the Caspian Sea/Afghanistan/Middle East areas, the so-called "arc of oil" states in that area of the world.

5. George W. Bush was moved into the White House in January of 2001. Shortly thereafter, a report,  "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century,"  was commissioned from the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy -- yep, that James Baker, the Bush consigliore. The report advocated a more aggressive U.S. posture in the world and called for a "reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly cited as a "security imperative." It's possible that inside Cheney's secret energy-panel papers, which he refuses to release to Congress or the American people, are references to foreign-policy plans for how to gain military control of oilfields across the globe. We do know now that maps were rolled out at those energy-panel meetings,  which detailed which foreign oil-companies might get a slice of the Iraq oil pie.

"SWEEP IT ALL UP, RELATED OR NOT"

6. In February of 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said publicly that Iraq was contained and posed  no military threat to its neighbors or the U.S. But mere hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks. "Go massive," the aides' notes  quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Rumsfeld leaned heavily on the FBI and CIA to find any shred of evidence linking the Iraq government to 9/11, but they weren't able to do so. So he set up his own fact-finding group in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, that would provide him with whatever shaky connections it could find or surmise. Paul O'Neill, Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, reported that he was astonished that the first Cabinet meetings in January 2001 were focusing on war with Iraq. The leaked  Downing Street Memos also supply proof of how far along the war-plans were developed,  years before the invasion began.

William Rivers Pitt offered some intriguing possibilities about why this Bush&Co. obsession with attacking Iraq:

"The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States...

"At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line."

And, of course, inherent in all these PNAC plans is for the U.S. to act in concert with its one surefire ally in the region, Israel, which has to be supported and protected economically and militarily. (Jews and non-Jews alike in PNAC worked hard to maintain U.S. support for Israel.) The U.S. has a friend it can count on, Israel has a protector against its Arab neighbors. A two-country backscratching system.

"PRE-EMPTIVE" WARS OF CHOICE

7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively in the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America."  The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in various PNAC white papers and similar ones from other think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, the operational hub of Washington's neo-cons.

Chief among these proposals are: 1) "Pre-emptive" wars should be launched, even if there is no meaningful provocation or imminent threat, whenever the U.S. thinks a country may be amassing too much power and/or could provide some sort of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region. A later corollary rethinks the country's atomic policy: nuclear weapons would no longer be considered defensive, but could be used offensively in support of political/economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes" could be employed in these regional wars. 2) International treaties and opinion are to be ignored whenever they interfere with U.S. imperial goals. 3) The new policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia."

In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions, and threat of "shock-and-awe" attacks, including with nuclear weapons, keeping the outlying colonies, and potential competitors, in line. Those who aren't fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way; "you're either with us or against us."

"FIXING INTELLIGENCE AROUND THE POLICY"

8. Paul O'Neill's wonderment at the early emphasis on making war on Iraq was well-placed. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair secretly were colluding precisely to launch that war, even while they were telling their skeptical publics that there were no plans to do so. We now know that Bush told some U.S. Senators in March of 2002 "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out," and that Blair and Bush agreed in July 2002 to launch such a war. (Four years earlier, when talking with his speechwriter about a possible run for President, then-Governor Bush said of Iraq:  "If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.")

Even today, Bush hauls out his retread lie that he did everything possible to avoid war and was hoping to forestall it through diplomacy. In the latest White House/Downing Street Memo, we learn that he even considered provoking Saddam into providing a casus belli by flying a plane low over Iraq painted with United Nations insignia on it, in hopes that Iraq would shoot it down. Likewise, Bush continues to lie that Saddam would not let the U.N. inspectors back in to verify that he had no WMD; Saddam did let them in, the inspectors weren't finding anything, and Bush quickly launched his attack.

Neither country had the proof required about Saddam's supposed caches of WMD, so, according to the top-secret  Downing Street Memos, which were leaked to the British press in mid-2005, it was decided to "fix the intelligence around the policy."

In other words, Bush&Co. would move the war plans forward and, in the interim, try to cobble together some reasonable-sounding "intelligence" that could justify the invasion. Hence, Cheney's red-hot anger that the CIA couldn't, or wouldn't, come up with the proof required, so Rumsfeld then established his own in-house Office of Special Plans, staffed with PNAC political types rather than intelligence analysts. The required "intelligence" was pasted together from unreliable raw data and rumors from dubious exiles supplied by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. That "intelligence" was stove-piped directly to Cheney in the White House, thus avoiding having to vet it through the government's professional analysts, and the green light was turned on, with Powell delivering the laughable pack of lies to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003. The Council wouldn't vote for a specific authorization for war and so Bush hastily launched "shock-and-awe" bombing and the ground-invasion of that country before the international community could organize itself effectively to resist.

Bush two months later, standing under a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner, declared that the U.S. "has prevailed" over the Iraqi enemy. Expecting to be welcomed as "liberators," and with no Plan B to rely on in case that didn't happen, the U.S. soon became bogged down fighting a mostly nationalist insurgency that continues until this day, one that grew in ferocity because the U.S. was responsible not only for an enormous loss of Iraqi civilians as "collateral damage," numbered in the tens of thousands, but also because of lack of employment for young men and the much-publicized torture and humiliation of thousands of detained Iraqis. Iraq then became a magnet, and perfect training ground, for jihadist fighters from all over the Middle East.

SUMMARY & PNAC'S FUTURE PLANS

Everyone loves a winner, and American citizens are no different. Bush's approval numbers were unusually high after his "Mission Accomplished" speech. The situation is quite different today, with Bush's numbers down into the low-30s (Cheney is at 18%!), and with a strong majority believing the Iraq War cannot be won.

By following the PNAC precepts, the costs have been huge in troops and treasure, and in damage to America's reputation. Bush&Co. may well be losing the larger war around the globe: the U.S. now lacks moral stature and standing in much of the world, is revealed as a liar for all to see (no WMDs in Iraq, no connection to 9/11, no quick handing-over the interim reins of government to the Iraqis as initially promised), has destroyed a good share of the United Nation's effectiveness and prestige, is needlessly alienating our traditional allies, is infuriating key elements of the Muslim world (especially in the Middle East), and providing political and emotional ammunition for anti-U.S. terrorists, etc.

Already, we're talking about half a trillion -- trillion, with a T! -- dollars in costs for the Iraq War and reconstruction. And PNAC is deeply involved in preparing the ground for Bush's next war, which may either be a ground invasion of Iran or, more likely, a joint Israeli/U.S. or U.S./U.K. air assault on that country's fledgling nuclear facilities and scientific laboratories. The propaganda assault against Iran already has begun, and it is eerily similar to the pre-Iraq war propaganda. It would appear that the evidence is once again being "fixed around the policy." The consequences of such an assault on Iran -- unlike Iraq, Iran is a formidable Mideast power -- are barely addressed.

One can believe that maybe PNAC sincerely believes its rhetoric -- that instituting U.S.-style "free-markets" and "democratically-elected" governments in Iraq and the other authoritarian-run countries of the Islamic Middle East will be good both for the citizens of that region and for American interests, but even if that were true, it's clear that these neo-con incompetents are not operating in the world of Middle Eastern realities.

These are armchair theoreticians, most of whom made sure not to serve in the military in Vietnam, who truly believed, for example, that the Iraqis would welcome the invading U.S. forces with bouquets of flowers and kisses when they "liberated" their country from the horribleness of Saddam Hussein's reign. Most Iraqis, especially the majority Shias, were happy to be freed from Saddam's long reign of terror. But, as it stands now, U.S. military forces are more likely to remain trapped in a political/religious quagmire for years there, given that so many of the Shia population, along with the rebellious minority Sunnis, just want the occupying soldiers to leave.

BIG ON IDEAS, SMALL ON REAL-WORLD BRAINS

Despite the utter cockup that the Bush Administration has made of Iraq, PNAC theorists continue to believe that remaking the political structure of the Middle East should proceed as planned. It will be done by force if necessary, although they hope the example of what the U.S. did to Iraq will make war unnecessary.

These are men of big ideas who don't really think. They certainly don't think through what takes place in the real world, when the genies of war and religious righteousness are let out of the bottle. The military planners did great with the actual invasion, but when the Saddam government collapsed, and with it law and order, and much of the population remained sullen and resentful towards the U.S., the Bush Administration had no prepared way of dealing with this new situation on the ground. They were dangerously slow to react, and had to change Occupation administrators several times; many of the appointees dispatched by the White House as political favors were young novices with no expertise or smarts about the complexities of Iraqi cultural and political life.

No, friends, the PNAC boys and their AEI-type allies are dangerous ideologues playing with matches in a region soaked in gasoline, and the U.S. is going to get burned badly even more in years to come unless the Bush Administration's hold on power is broken. Since censure and impeachment at this stage are problematic (though we must continue to agitate for them, making those topics part of the daily discourse), the surest way to accomplish this is to defeat the Administration's party at the polls in November 2006. That would result in Democrats taking over the House, thus breaking the HardRight momentum that has done, and is doing, such great damage to America's reputation abroad and to our country internally, especially to our Constitution and the economy.

Burdened with an unpopular president and a corruption-ravaged party, the GOP looks weak in the early run-up to the November voting. But this election defeat of the Republicans will happen only if there is a huge grassroots campaign to defeat them, and if there is genuine reform of the voting process. Right now, the GOP continues effectively to control the voting machinery and the vote-counting software, and may well have manipulated the election results in 2002 and 2004. We must work tirelessly to ensure electoral integrity and transparent ballot-counting.

We don't need or want an emperor in our country. We don't need huge tax cuts for the wealthy when the economy is stagnating or tanking. We don't need more "pre-emptive" wars, we don't need more shredding of constitutional due process. Instead, we need opposition leaders with big ideas who are capable of creative thinking. We need peace and justice in the Middle East to help alter the chemistry of the soil in which Islamist terrorism grows. We need jobs and economic growth at home, and we need authentic and effective "homeland security" consistent with our civil liberties. In short, we need a new Administration, which means that we need to get on with our serious work to make all this change happen. ASAP.

Organize, organize!, ORGANIZE! The first primaries are only several months away.

Copyright 2006, by Bernard Weiner

---

Inside Rove's Diary:
Strangle That Censure Baby

By Bernard Weiner

Posted: March 29, 2006

Sorry, diary, no time to jot, it's been a helluva few months here in the White House as one balloon after another has exploded in our faces.

We just can't seem to tamp down the Iraq situation enough for us to slide by the November election. The goddamn ragheads can't even agree on a government months after their own balloting! And if scores more civilians and U.S. troops continue to get killed every day, it's not good news for us politically. All we need is a few months of relative calm and a government in place that will do what we tell them to -- for one, permitting our military bases to remain on their territory. But we may not get that.

But we'll use whatever comes along. If the Iraqis ask us to leave, we'll announce that we'll leave. However, we'll make the effective date after the election, and then things may change, ha ha.

That hope that our troops might be leaving should garner us more support with our GOP base, at least enough to hold onto our majority in the House in the midterm election. That's all that matters right now.

Then the Iraqis can go back to slaughtering each other, I don't care. The few American casualties are "the price a nation pays for the defense of freedom." Focus groups seem willing to buy that one, so that's our story and we're stickin' to it. We gotta hope it will balance out the "incompetence" albatross that's hanging around our necks.

The GOP base used to be monolithic in support of us. But now a good many are drifting away, having figured out that we don't really have a coherent plan for Iraq, and saying we're wasting our troops and treasure for no good purpose. (They sound like goddamned Cindy Sheehan!) What do they know? We do have a plan: It's called permanent war, permanent control, but we prefer not to talk about it. As for bankrupting the treasury, duh, that's the idea, stupids. How else can you get big government into the bathtub for lessons in drowning?


MIDTERM ELECTION MACHINATIONS

Those GOP turncoats may not be able to bring themselves to vote for a Democrat in November, but, if they sit on their hands on election day, it amounts to the same thing. The Demoncrats could well sweep into power in the House, and we can't have that. If the Dems control the House, we're in deep doodoo.

They would control the committees and thus would have full use of subpoena power and would put us under oath in a variety of dangerous hearings: on domestic spying and break-ins without warrants, on our ties to Abramoff, on our lies and deceptions that took us to war in Iraq, on the Halliburton thievery, on our misuse of the FBI and Secret Service, on our encouraging the use of torture of prisoners, on our Patriot Act and its shredding of constitutional protections, on our theory that presidents can break the law whenever they feel like it as long as they use the magic words "national security" and "war on terrorism," and so on.

In short, we've got to win in November (Memo to Self: Be sure to call our friends over at Diebold and Sequoia), which is why we've got to squash Russboy's censure resolution real quick before it gains any traction. Thank God the Demoncrats are such jellyfish, backing away from Feingold as quickly as they can swim. If we can make the public think it's just a few weird liberals and pro-terrorist bloggers behind censure, we're home free.

But if the public fails to take that bait, the Dems' censure ploy might tempt more GOP moderates and conservatives to jump ship, and censure might even lead to impeachment. I say strangle this little sucker right now in its crib; don't even take the risk it might grow up.

If they want to play this game, we have to let them know they're in the big leagues now. In short, find (or invent) dirt on Feingold and cover him in it to the point where it will make the SwiftBoating of Kerry look like a high school prank. I think the Dems will get the message and will remain their usual docile selves. God, how I love my job! I just hope I can keep it.


A MISTRIAL OR PARDON

Fitzpatrick continues to let me dangle in the wind, and, if something goes wrong, I could wind up indicted along with Scooter. Well, if it comes to that, I'll join Libby's game of courtroom hardball: We'll both call key Administration witnesses to discuss classified information, and the government will have to withdraw the indictments lest "national security" be compromised.

But if none of that works, there's no way I'm going into the slammer. Even though it will smell to high heaven, Bushboy will simply have to pardon us pre-emptively and stop the case in its tracks. Poppy Bush did it with Cap Weinberger in Iran-Contra and got away with it, so why not Dim Son?

Sure, the Demoncrats will yell and scream, but what the hell can they do about it if they remain in the minority and the mainstream media remains pretty much in our control? The Dems are quite aware of our political and criminal liability in so many areas, but they don't have the legislative tools, or the balls, to try to stop us.


THOSE LOUSY POLLS

It's so much fun running at the Dems' perceived strengths full bore and then watching them totally flummoxed, ducking and covering, instead of simply standing up straight, taking the hit and breaking our momentum. On the other hand, the Demoncrat opposition is starting to attack us on our strong suit, "national security," and the poll numbers are showing more and more Republican defectors don't feel as safe or as trusting under us as they once did.

Jesus Christ, Bushboy is down to 33% in the polls! That's just about the percentage of our rock solid evangelical base. Cheney is at 18! Why did he have to go hunting quail in his condition? Lucky the sheriffs agreed to come back the next day to interview him, when he was, uh, more sober in his judgment. (Good one, that!)

We've got to do something drastic to change the news agenda. Wonder if there's anything in the works: An assassination? A terrorist attack inside the U.S.? Some "missing" WMD that suddenly gets found in Iraq? Maybe a bit more anthrax powder making its way through the halls of Congress? Bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities? McCain taking over as Veep after Cheney resigns for "health reasons"? Something. Anything?


THE CLUELESS OPPOSITION

The point, which I have to keep reiterating to the weak-kneed down in the bunker, is that no matter how outrageous our behavior, no matter how much the Dems and a few GOP moderates twist and shout in pain and anger, we don't have to worry. They haven't got a clue how to stop us.

We were declared the winners in 2004 (notice I didn't say that we "won the election," hee hee), and that was the referendum on our rule. The Dems don't get do-overs. Assuming we can squash all this talk about censure/impeachment, hold onto the House in November, and keep our media boys in line, the Dems will just have to wait until 2008 for another one of their losing tries.

And, if we're lucky, they'll pick Hillary and we'll get another four years of Republican rule, with our guys still in positions of power throughout the three branches.

Eat that pickle, you pinko liberals.
 

 Copyright 2006 by Bernard Weiner
 

---

Anti-Semitism From The Left

By Bernard Weiner

Posted March 22, 2006

Anti-Semitism on the Left is generally not spoken about, but it's real and appears to be growing. For those so inclined, it's easy to slip from denunciations of Israeli policy -- many of us on the Left are quite vocal in opposing Israeli policies and actions -- to out-and-out anti-Semitism.

It's often difficult to locate that fine line. Jew-haters often can hide their true feelings and arguments inside broadsides against Israeli policy, but those opposed vehemently to certain Israeli policies (and I count myself as one of that breed) are definitely not anti-Jewish in this context. So how to tell the difference?

Certainly, AIPAC (the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has no problem: Anybody writing anything in opposition to Israeli policies is all too-often smeared with the "anti-Semitic" or "Jew-hater" brush; if they happen to be Jewish, AIPAC types often throw the phrase "self-hating Jew" into the denunciation.

In my experience, in order to judge articles about Israelis and Jews somewhat accurately, you sort of have to follow a pundit's writings over time, and discern where the arguments are coming from and where they are going.


REACTIONS TO ISRAELI POLICIES

Most liberals and leftists, including those who have grave disagreements with Israeli policy and U.S. policy toward Israel, abhor generalized statements about any subgroup of people, be they Jews, Arabs, Muslims, African-Americans, gays, women, et al.

But because U.S.-supported Israeli policies are at the heart of much of the conflict in the Middle East, and thus are connected in some degree to Islamist terrorism around the world, anti-Jewish feelings get stirred up more than usual in these current times.

The anti-Semitism-on-the-Left issue cries out for more in-depth examination as to motive and intent. Perhaps in time, I will be able to delve deeper into this topic. Suffice it to say that elements of anti-Semitism are alive and well not only in the usual hate and neo-Nazi sites on the internet but also can be found where most of us live in alternative, progressive and even mainstream circles.

I realize that I come at this topic from an insider's extra-sensitivity, having been raised Jewish and with many members of my parents' families having perished in the Holocaust. Perhaps I'm over-reacting. I would love to believe that, but I don't really think so. I'd love to hear others' opinions on this development, which might help expand the thesis.


THERE IS NO VACCINE AGAINST HATE

Anti-Semitism is like a dormant virus, relatively quiet most of the time in respectable society and discourse, but which bursts out into the open now and again, usually in times of economic and psychological crisis. The resulting social rash can be deadly. And there is no vaccine, other than shining the light of truth on ignorance, with which to combat the disease of hate. (In America, overt racism against blacks similarly is a virus that tends to lie dormant until suddenly bursting out in tense times.)

Since the Israel/Palestine situation goes unresolved decade after decade, and since the explosive region there is so much at the heart of U.S. policy and thus of resistance to that policy, it should not surprise anyone that the virus of anti-Semitism is erupting once again, and in so many areas.

Just a few examples:


THE FORGED "PROTOCOLS"

* We get more than the usual number of anti-Semitic letters these days at The Crisis Papers, mostly disguised but more often recently out-and-out Nazi-type screeds directed at "the Jews." For the most part, we don't print them, but every so often we do so to reveal to our readers the level of what passes for intelligent debate from some on the Right fringes. (And how far are the incendiary comments about "traitorous" liberals by the likes of Coulter, Horowitz, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Savage from crossing the line into incitement-speech?)

* In earlier years, world leaders would not speak openly in anti-Semitic terms; but recently, for example, officials from Malaysia and Iran in public speeches have stoked the fires of anti-Jewish suspicion and hatred. And just a few years ago, Egyptian TV broadcast a documentary filled with anti-Jewish propaganda, based largely on the long-discredited forgery called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," about an alleged Jewish plot to rule the world. Schools in many Muslim countries (including states allied with the U.S.) continue to teach their young students to hate Jews, likewise using the phony "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as their starting point.

* The fact that there are a number of well-known Jews at the heart of the neo-conservative movement in America -- most notably Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith -- has engendered a good many rants about how "the Jews" control U.S. foreign policy and have taken America to war in Iraq for reasons having more to do with protecting Israel than America. (Ignored in these screeds are the majority of non-Jews involved in the neo-con and HardRight movements, and the influence of Christian Zionists and the military/industrial/Big Oil complex on American foreign policy.)

* The Left was somewhat split over last weekend's anti-war demonstrations. Many liberals chose not to participate in the large marches organized by one of the main national anti-war groups, A.N.S.W.E.R. ("Act Now to Stop War & End Racism"), because that outfit's emphasis on Palestinian statehood at the expense of Israel's existence -- thus implying that Jews need to be eliminated from the region -- is both offensive and ill-advised; the group also is much criticized for co-opting rallies organized by other anti-war groups and bringing a whole host of domestic and foreign issues into marches supposedly devoted to getting the U.S. out of Iraq. Those not choosing to march with A.N.S.W.E.R. avoided Saturday's rallies or made other arrangements; many are gearing up for the April 29 nationwide demos being organized by United for Peace, which concentrates less on side issues and mostly on ending the war in Iraq.

Well, one could go on and on with such a listing. The point is that scapegoats are required in any time of crisis. Often those scapegoats are "the Jews," but at other times and at other places, the focus of hate is directed at "the liberals," "the blacks," "the gays," "the Arabs," and so on.


"KILLING EACH OTHER, OF COURSE"

I recall my travels in Yugoslavia when Tito was holding together that artificially-constructed, multi-ethnic country by force of his charisma and his Communist police-state. I asked all the academics and students I ran into what would happen when their leader died. It didn't matter whether these reasonable intellectual types were Serbs or Croats, Christian or Muslim, the answer was always the same: "When Tito dies? We'll go back to killing each other, of course."

But, I protested, you've lived together in peace for decades now, you are often good friends and colleagues, you even intermarry; why would you revert back to such brutal ways of dealing with each other, to a kind of vicious tribalism? The answer I got was heartbreaking in its scapegoat simplicity: "Because you can't trust the [insert name of ethnic or religious group], they're all liars and thieves." When, years later, the Serbs and Croats began slaughtering each other, I was appalled but not surprised. Ancient rivers run deep.

And Jews are, in some ways, as ancient as they come, and therefore throughout history have served as handy scapegoats when an outlet is needed for blame and resentment.

THE NEW "JEWS"

But there are Jews and there are those who might be considered the new "Jews," who take their lumps as well: homosexuals, Chinese in Southeast Asia, Palestinians and other Arabs in Israel and the U.S. (and often also in Arab nations), African-Americans in the South and in the inner cities, Mexican immigrants, whoever. It's the same process of stereotyping and repression, which often leads to discrimination and violence, even when the group being victimized changes.

Again, this topic of anti-Semitism on the Left and Right is enormous, and I only want to raise it here as a warning flag for progressives, something we need to examine and deal with in thinking about how discriminated-against groups are treated.

For obvious reasons, anti-Jewish expression on the Left mostly does not make its way into liberal discourse. But if you want a good starting-point for thinking about the issue, I'd suggest a 2003 article that transcribes a rare forum on the topic: Jamie Glazov's "Symposium: Anti-Semitism - the New Call of the Left" at FrontPage Magazine.

Perhaps what is called for is a national forum on religious/ethnic/sexual-preference scapegoating that includes representatives from all discriminated groups. The participants might then become aware of the commonality of their persecution (and often of their persecutors), and develop a coordinated way of defending themselves and going after those who wish them ill.

---

The Middle East Muddle:
Is Peace Still Possible?

By Bernard Weiner

Posted March 21, 2006

The run-up to the impending war against Iran -- and make no mistake, the foundations are being laid daily by the Bush Administration -- bears a remarkable resemblance to the propaganda barrage before the U.S. attacked Iraq: Iran is the repository of all things evil, they will destabilize the region if they get nukes, they support terrorists, the U.N. and international community can't wait until there are mushroom clouds in the sky, etc. etc. All that's missing is an invented tie-in with 9/11.

Because of the thorough botch the Bush Administration has made of the Iraq Occupation, and because there are no extra U.S. troops to go around, it's a reasonable presumption that there will be no ground invasion of Iran. Instead, following passage of some ambiguously-worded U.N. Security Council resolution, there might well be a U.S.-Israeli air-bombing/missile assault on that country's nuclear facilities. (The experts tell us that Iran won't have nuclear-weapons capability for anywhere from three to 10 years out -- in short, there is no imminent threat to the U.S. or anyone else.)

The reaction by Iran and other Islamic countries to such an air assault is likely to be intense, perhaps including retaliatory attacks on Israel, and damaging the American and European economies by withdrawing oil sales to the West or blocking ships from entering the Straits of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf. And, of course, one can anticipate that the Bush Administration -- unless the impending attack can be stopped in its tracks by popular opposition -- will be caught flat-footed (again!) by its usual lack of planning for the unforeseen consequences of its wars.

But rather than focus on what is about to go down in Iran, the chaotic disaster that the Bush Administration's attack on and inept occupation of Iraq has led to, or even the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, I'd like to propose an examination of the Middle East situation since it serves as the kindling for the firestorms that sweep the entire region.

Hamas is now on the inside of the halls of power, Israel is about to choose its new leaders, and the situation is encouragingly fluid, with a tenuous truce in major fighting between the two sides. Thus, this is an especially propitious time for all parties to reflect and meditate on how, or even whether, a just solution is still possible, and what such a Middle East peace might mean for the entire region.


THE MEDIEVAL ISLAMISTS

A resurrected holy Muslim empire has been the dream for many decades of a segment of the Islamic religion. Or if that dream is unrealizable, at least their desire to be left alone, outside the distractions and decadent temptations of the 21st century, to implement their strict version of the Koran.

Regardless of what the U.S. does, that Islamist resurgence is bound to occur, even, or especially, amidst a more widespread Islam that is willing to exist side by side with Western modernity and tolerance.

But certainly the harsh treatment for nearly 60 years of Palestinians by Israel, a nation supported by the U.S., has been a spur to the growth of that fanatic Islamist movement in the Middle East.


U.S. NEGLECT OF THE REGION

On the surface, American policy in the region appears to make no sense. It seems clear that if the U.S. is after a calmer Arab Middle East, and with it a stable flow of oil to America and Europe, its first order of business, one would think, would be to ensure a just peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, so as to tamp down the fire that endangers so much in that region.

But under both Democratic and Republican presidents, the status quo has been left to fester, partially because intervening in this convoluted, passionate dispute rarely pays off for the U.S. and often leads to embarrassing failures. And so Israel, America's lone dependable ally in the region, is blindly supported by U.S. administrations, no matter what its leaders do. The Palestinians are teased with words about a coming Palestinian state, but nothing much really happens from the U.S. end.

While Carter and Clinton at least tried to bring the parties together, and actually were starting to accomplish something, the Bush Administration promises much and delivers little, and is unwilling to use its leverage to get its ally Israel to make the concessions it will have to make for a lasting peace.


WHY SHOULD U.S. WORK FOR PEACE?

The well-armed Israelis feel insecure, the powerless Palestinians feel humiliated and brutalized, thousands die, terrorism grows in this atmosphere -- and not much changes, decade after decade. And, from the point of view of America's political leaders, why should it be changed? The oil keeps flowing, so why would any U.S. administration risk touching this dangerous third-rail of international politics?

How about because it's the right thing to do? How about because the Middle East would be stabilized? How about because Islamist terrorism would lose one of its most potent recruiting arguments? How about because the U.S. would regain much of the positive prestige it has lost as a result of Bush's wars against Muslim countries?

Even supposing a just peace could be worked out between the Israelis and Palestinians, Islamist terrorism would still exist, would still be capable of awful acts of mayhem and murder. But much of the passion behind today's terrorism would be diminished or, in some areas, even disappear were the Palestinians to obtain their own viable state. Similarly, there would be a concomitant diminution of Israeli brutality and murder in the new arrangement.

Which brings us to how we get to that state of peace. Even with the victory of Hamas, an organization dedicated to the elimination of Israel from the map, polls continue to demonstrate that most Palestinians prefer a peaceful, two-state solution. Most Israelis, if their security can be guaranteed by treaty, likewise seem to prefer peace with a Palestinian neighbor-state rather than decades of still more bloodshed and insecurity.


WHAT WILL HAMAS & ISRAEL DO?

It's not going to be easy. Hamas has been dedicated to the destruction of Israel, so asking them to recognize Israel's right to exist now that they are in charge of the Palestinian Parliament seems to make no sense. Likewise, Ehud Olmert, Israel's acting prime minister, wants to carry on many of the hard-line policies of Ariel Sharon, such as completing the Separation (Border) Wall and enlarging key existing settlements in the Occupied West Bank, which antagonizes the Palestinians.

We don't know how the new Hamas leadership will look at the compromises that will have to be made in the movement toward peace. Will it, can it, evolve into a government that accepts a two-state solution? If a geographically and economically viable Palestine state were to be created next door to Israel, would they, could they, accept that neighbor?

We don't know who the new leaders of Israel will be after the upcoming election. If it's the hard-line Likudist Benjamin Netanyahu, peace prospects are minimal. But if the new Israeli leaders are open to the idea of an equitable two-state solution, progress can indeed be made. (And, looking at the demographics, as Sharon did, Israel simply has to divest itself of the Occupied Territories, lest the Jewish nature of the State of Israel be placed in jeopardy. The probable outcome is that the bulk of the Palestinians will be on one side of the border in their own state, with the bulk of the Jews on the other side in a smaller, but more religiously homogenous, Israel.


WHAT A SOLUTION MIGHT LOOK LIKE

So, everyone knows, and always has known, what the eventual solution will be, will have to be: A secure Israel, a viable Palestine, an internationalized Jerusalem of some sort. To get there, Israel will have to exit from virtually all of the West Bank, abandoning almost all of the settlements there and agreeing not to attack inside the new Palestine's borders; the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel's right to exist, and refrain from terrorist attacks on their neighbor.

Those Palestinians who would prefer to return to their ancestral homes inside Israel will, for the most part, have to relinquish their claims and agree to accept financial compensation for those properties, money that will help them purchase land and buildings inside the new Palestine state. As Ernest Partridge ingeniously has suggested, only partially tongue in cheek, Jewish settlers in the West Bank would be allowed to remain on condition that they renounce Israeli citizenship and accept Palestinian citizenship. One imagines that the settlers would leave voluntarily.

Those parts of Jerusalem that are regarded as Holy Land by three great religions will have to be administered by an international body of some sort.

Once the peace treaties have been signed and implemented, then the doors will be open for bilateral treaties on water, jobs, environmental protection, etc.


WHAT'S BLOCKING MOVEMENT TOWARD PEACE

• I suspect that there will be no significant U.S. movement toward bringing peace to the Middle East while Bush/Cheney are in power. It's simply not a priority for them; indeed, it's possible that they are quite content with keeping the Palestine/Israel dispute on the boil, thus ensuring their superpower hegemony in the region. (Then, too, Bush&Co.'s fundamentalist Christian base requires that Armageddon take place in the Holy Land prior to the Second Coming of Christ, so peace is not what they're after.)
  
  Keeping the parties at war reminds one of the reason why the Reagan Administration supported Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s, to ensure that the two regional giants would battle and decimate each other. Because of Bush Administration screwups, if current trends hold, Iraq will be ruled by Iran-leaning Shi'ite parties, bringing Iraq and Iran closer together. The irony of history.
   

• Nobody quite knows how to factor in Fatah, Arafat's organization, into the Palestinian equation. Would the more moderate Fatah, defeated in the recent parliamentary elections, be willing or able to serve as a mediator between Israel and the new Palestinian rulers (since the Israelis don't want to negotiate with Hamas)? Could Fatah, would it, work out tentative peace proposals with the new Israeli leadership? If so, could the Fatah negotiators sell it to Hamas?
   

• Will Hamas, now that it is the governing body rather than the secret militant opposition, move somewhat toward the center? In doing so, would they be willing to deal for a geographically/economically viable Palestine by agreeing to recognize Israel's right to exist -- and would their fanatic base permit them to do this? (Sort of like the Catholic IRA making peace with the Protestants in Northern Ireland, which spawned "the Real IRA," those extremists eager to continue the violence.)

THE HOPE THE OTHER WOULD VANISH

It seems to me that no progress whatsoever toward peace can be made without a willingness to start at a point "beyond history," as it were. That is, both sides would acknowledge historical grievances going back decades, or in some cases hundreds or even thousands of years -- but, in the interest of bringing the conflict to an acceptable close, simply stipulate that each side has its historical grievances and move on. No more "my victimhood was worse than yours, and you owe me for this, that and the other atrocity."

In the past, neither party has wanted to move seriously toward peace because, in truth, each side believed that with just a bit more pressure or violence, the other side would disappear. Yes, I know this attitude doesn't make rational sense, but not much is rational in this ages-old dispute.

The Palestinians believed that they could force the Israelis to give in and grant them everything they wanted, which would mean the effective destruction of Israel; the Israelis believed they could force the Palestinians through the brutalities of an Occupation to move to other lands and abandon their desire to push the Jewish state into the sea.

Now, it's possible that both sides, after ceaseless murders and brutalities over the decades, might come to a mutual awareness that enough is enough, that the Other is not going to disappear, that the Israelis can destroy Palestine if they so choose, that the Palestinians can ensure that Israel will never live in peace. In short, a political accommodation will have to be made, for the sake of the children and grandchildren, and economic viability, of both countries.

Supposing that a peace treaty can be obtained, and implemented properly with sensitivity, peace and prosperity for both peoples may eventually be achieved.

But, as always, how to get from here to there? Aye, there's the rub. All we can be sure of is that Middle East peace won't be, can't be, accomplished as long as the current U.S. administration is in power.

 

---

Conservatives Are Jumping Ship:
Bush Is Going Down

By Bernard Weiner

March 8, 2006

I'm more and more convinced that it will be Republicans, many of them of the true conservative and realist kind, who effectively will do in the Bush Administration.

In this, I am reminded of the behavior of Richard Nixon when he realized that he was fast losing his middle-class, bourgeois base: He called it quits on the Vietnam War, and likewise on his presidency after his crimes were exposed.

But unlike Nixon's crew, Bush&Co. seem willing to take the country down with them, so desperate are they to hold onto power, deplete the treasury, pay off their corporate friends, carry out their ideological revolution -- and keep themselves out of the federal slammer.

The crimes of the Bush Administration are so many and varied that none of us should be surprised by anything that might happen in the coming weeks and months: Bin Laden captured or reported killed, a U.S.-Israeli air assault on Iran's nuclear facilities, a major terrorist attack inside the U.S. to be followed by martial law, the announcement of a bird-flu outbreak with the military placed in charge. I'm pretty level-headed and don't usually think in these dire terms, but these guys have backed themselves into a tight political corner and are desperate -- and dangerous.


THE IMPLODING SCANDALS

Bush is at 34% approval rating (Cheney is at 18!), and their scandals are blowing up in their faces: Katrina lies and incompetence; Iraq lies and incompetence; the Dubai Ports deal and incompetence; GOP bribery and corruption; Libby under indictment and Rove apparently about to be; Bush claiming authority to authorize torture, spy on millions of American citizens and violate the law whenever he incants the magic words "national security"; Congress rebelling at being frozen out of decision-making, etc. etc. But in the face of all that, the Roveian M.O. is always to attack their foes and to hype the fright quotient.

The Administration didn't have to consider the most extreme options until recently, when the wheels started falling off the Bush bus. The attacks were no longer coming mostly from liberals and Democrats; more and more, they were coming from loyal conservative Republicans, who, cognizant of the sinking poll numbers, saw the handwriting on the wall: They realized they could well lose their majorities in the House and Senate -- in other words, severed from their jobs and access to the spoils of power -- and they started distancing themselves from the Administration.

So, rather than beating my usual drum here denouncing the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration, I thought I'd just lay out the comments of those conservatives and let them speak for themselves. (My late friend Emile de Antonio, the documentary filmmaker, taught me a good lesson; it's always better, he pointed out, to quote what the Wall Street Journal is saying rather than quoting a hippie or left-activist making the same point. When your own posse smells the moral rot up top, the end is near.)

The quotes here are on Iraq and the neo-con ideologues who took this country to war, though currently the flak is also coming hot and heavy from the Right on both the domestic spying and Dubai ports scandals. (Even conservative Republican Senator Richard Shelby says Bush broke the law in the way he handled the Dubai ports contract, and neo-con leader Bill Kristol suggests the other "i" word ("incompetent") in describing how Bush&Co. stumble around trying to govern: "I think it's become in people's minds an emblem of the administration that just isn't as serious about the competent execution of the functions of government as it should be."


THE NEO-CONS BEHIND THE WAR

Let's begin with a reminder that the conservative establishment didn't agree from the very beginning with Bush's neo-con obsession to invade Iraq. President George H.W. Bush, who successfully organized a massive coalition to push Iraq's army out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War, warned his son privately and through his spokesmen of the dangerous consequences both of invading and occupying Iraq and of doing so without wide international support. As he said of Iraq in "A World Transformed" (written with Gen. Brent Scowcroft): "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."

Fast forward to the present, when so many Republican stalwarts are saying, in effect, that they backed the wrong horse. Their party was taken over by rightwing extremists, incompetent at that, whose reckless neo-con policies are doing great danger to the country and to the future of the once-great GOP. Here's Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, chair of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation, going even beyond the war into the deeper crimes being committed against Americans' freedoms:

"Most Americans do not yet realize that