The Power of the Good Mind

{1} "All people whose minds are healthy can desire peace, and there is an ability within all people, especially the young, to grasp and hold strongly to the principles of righteousness. Those principles of righteousness demand that all thoughts of prejudice, privilege, or superiority be swept away, and that recognition be given to the reality that the creation is intended for the benefit of all equally. Even the birds and animals, the trees and insects, as well as the people. The world does not belong to the humans -- it is the rightful property of the Great Creator." -- The PeaceMakerMany years ago, the people that are known today as the Iroquois lived in a period of time that could be described as "anomie." Anomie is a state of society in which the normal standards of belief and behavior are very weak, or altogether lacking. It is a condition in which the individual and the community experiences disorientation, anxiety, and isolation.Today, the United States is experiencing anomie. There are numerous objective measures of this, including the high rates of violence; the use of legal and illegal drugs to cope with anxiety and depression; and the federal government's manipulation of fear to control the citizens in the most undemocratic of ways.Why should we care about the Iroquois? Aren't they a small group of people, living largely in the margins of modern society? Perhaps, because as Victor Hugo said, "There is no such thing as a little country. The greatness of a people is no more determined by their number than the greatness of a man is determined by his height." (Quote taken from "The Book of the Hopi," by Frank Waters)At the time of the Revolutionary War, the most influential of our "Founding Fathers" -- Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison -- were students of the Iroquois Confederacy. Our first "great document," the Articles of Confederation, were based largely on Iroquois thought. Our system of federalism is based entirely upon the Iroquois model.Today, I thought we could examine a few Iroquois concepts, and see if they might be of some value to us in our struggle against anomie, and for democracy.{2}"Then, too, his law was a written law; his divine decalogue reposed in a book. And what better proof that his advent into this country and his subsequent acts were the result of divine will! He brought the Word! There ensued a blind worship of written history, of books, of the written word, that has denuded the spoken word of its power and sacredness. The written word became established as a criterion of the superior man -- a symbol of emotional fineness. The man who could write his name on a piece of paper, whether or not he possessed the spiritual fineness to honor those words in speech, was by some miraculous formula a more highly developed and sensitized person than the one who had never had a pen in hand, but whose spoken word was inviolable and whose sense of honor and truth was paramount. .... Is not humanness a matter of heart and mind, and is it not evident in the form of relationship with men? Is not kindness more powerful than arrogance; and truth more powerful than the sword? .... True civilization lies in the dominance of self and not the dominanceof other people ....""I am going to venture that the man who sat on the ground in front of his tepee meditating on life and its meaning, accepting the kinship of all creatures, and acknowledging unity with the universe of things was infusing into his being the true essence of civilization. And when native man left off this form of development, his humanization was retarded in growth."-- Luther Standing Bear; "Land of the Spotted Eagle"The story of the man known as the PeaceMaker, who brought the people we call Iroquois the Great Law of Peace, is an oral tradition among traditional Haudenosaunee peoples. (Haudenosaunee is the correct name for the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy.) Others have written it down.The written versions include: (1) the "Newhouse Version" by a Canadian Mohawk named Seth Newhouse. It was revised by Albert Cusick, an Onondaga/Tuscarora, then published by the first NYS archaeologist, Dr. Arthur Parker, in 1916.; (2) The "Chief's Version," from the 6 Nations territory in Ontario, published 1900; (3) The "Gibson Version," by Chief John Arthur Gibson in 1899 (revised by Chiefs Butler, Buck & Buck in 1900 and again in 1914).; and Paul Wallace's "The White Roots of Peace," publised in the 1980s.I like Wallace's version, although it has some errors. It's two biggest strengths are the introduction by John Mohawk, and the artwork by John Fadden. (John's father grew up a couple miles from where I live, which by coincidence is a short walk from where Albert Cusick's grandson was my neighbor when I was a boy.)Now here are some things I learned: long ago, far before the time that Wallace describes, the people of the northeast were hunters and gatherers. They lived by what traditional people around the globe call the Original Instructions. People lived in small groups that were extended families. Life was not "perfect," and there is no need to attribute the Garden of Eden mythology to it. But it did tend to make for good relationships between people.Around what we call 200 ad, an empire from the Ohio River Valley region began to introduce their culture into the northeast. This was done by way of trade, more than migration. Cultigens, most significantly corn, beans, and squash, were introduced. This resulted in communities becoming larger, and more sedentary. More, the roles of men and women changed, as women became the primary suppliers of food. Also, the bow & arrow was introduced, and men no longer hunted in cooperation with spears, javalin, and atlatl. Rather, the individual hunter became a loan competitor.Settled villages, which begin to take part in large trade relationships with distant city-states, depend upon accumulated wealth. This changes their relationship with the earth, and with their community. Social stratification occures. The shaman is replaced with a priesthood.All empires fall. When the ORV empire(s) did, around 500 ad, things changed for the outlaying areas. Competition in trade becomes a form of survival of the strongest. Different groups of people begin to have warfare. The larger communities have more families; as a result, the violence between distant competitors becomes bloof feuds between local communities. In turn, family turns against family. Again, the break-down in societies is known as anomie. When we examine what took place in 500, we see it is not much different than what we experience today.{3} "The Original Instructions direct that we who walk about the earth are to express a great respect and affection and gratitude towards all the spirits that create and support life. We give a greeting and thanksgiving to the many supporters of our own lives ... the plants,the animals, the water, the air, and the sun. When people cease to respect and express gratitude for these many things, then all life will be destroyed, and human life on the planet earth will come to an end." -- Hau de no sau neeAmerica too often suffers from a cultural "blindness" that has resulted in our mistaken belief that democracy comes only from the Greeks, or to attribute the concepts expressed in the Bill of Rights to the English. But we can benefit by looking at the teachings of a Huron during what was known as "the time of great sorrow and terror."The PeaceMaker was a Huron who had a political philosophy based on rational thought. But his people, who were involved in blood feuds, were irrational, and so they rejected him and his thoughts. And so he traveled to the land of the Iroquois, which was filled with assassins who took part in a head-hunting cult.The PeaceMaker's first stop was at the lodge of an elderly woman. He told her his philosophy, and she fed him. She then instructed him to spread his message in the land of the most violent people. This is symbolic of the beginnings of matriarchal sciety as an antidote to violence. This woman was the first "clan mother."He traveled until he found a man who had quit society, because his two daughters had died. The man's name is often called "Hiawatha," which was used by a poet incorrectly years later. This man, Hianawetha, was in despair. The Peacemaker recognized that pain causes dispair. He told the man his philosophy, and this changed despair to hope. Thus, chiefs are "raised" in a condolence ceremony, even today.Hiawatha's true name means "he who combs." It was because he could comb the twisted errors in thinking from disturbed minds. He used good words. (The PeaceMaker's name is only used in ceremony by traditinals. It signified a problem with his ability to speak clearly. He thus was a man of thoughts, who depended on his friend to express them.)In the next 20 years, they spoke to the most violent of men and women. They convinced them that all people have the potential for rational thought, and that this means they are capable of desiring peace. They did not discount irrational thought. More, they encouraged listeners to be skeptical, and to decide things for themselves, rather than accepting a "leader's word."They taught that the Power of the Good Mind can be amplified by having groups of people search for common interests. They knew that clear thinking was the highest human potential, and that it was best achieved by stable extended family relationships that accepted the value of all members equally.The Power of the Good Mind was developed into a philosophy to improve individual and community life through the power of peace, mutual respect, and common good.{4} "Our principles do not change. Justice is always justice; freedom is always freedom. Great principles are constant. And so what they call the 'old way' is nothing more than principles. And they say you can't go back to the old ways -- which means you can't go back to justice, you can't go back to equality, you can't go back to what is right and what is wrong. Principles are how you exist above and beyond the emotions that you feel; to control and have discipline of one's self. Self-discipline, not people making you behave, but the discipline where you don't need police. That is how our people lived. There were no police. There were no jails. There were basic laws -- you don't lie and steal. Tell the truth. Be strong. Look out for your brother. Look out for the ones just underneath you. Look out for the elders.Use your strength on behalf of the Nation, on behalf of the people. Conduct yourself in a proper manner." -- Oren LyonsThe Iroquois thought was actually based primarily in peace. That is it's greatest strength -- peace. But we live in a world that values violence, and so quite often, the larger society looks at the military ability of the Iroquois. Their role in the Revolutionary War is often viewed in terms of their warriors. The 9-87 National Geographic shows the range of influence they had at that time. Again, however, the influence of trade relations with empire (this time the British) puts that focus on things military.We can look at two of those concepts of self-defense, however, andapply them to our non-violent efforts, which are guided by that Bill of Rights. First, the PeaceMaker taught that alone, we are like individual fingers that our enemy can easily break .... but together, we can form a poweful fist. (There are variations on this, with a single arrow easilt broken, and a strong bundle.)When we read DU today, we see that we have a wide range of issues. Some of us experience problems based on race; religion; sexual identity; education; jobs; and many others. Alone, we are individuals who our enemy -- and we have a common enemy -- can easily break. Together, we are a powerful fist.The second lesson is equally important: it is the idea on a confederation. If I am involved in an environmental issue in New York, I benefit from having people involved in a fight against sexism in Pennsylvania help me. But, one hand must always wash the other: I must be willing to help them with their issue.This comes into sharp focus today, in regard to the Supreme Court. The nominee put forth by the Bush administration will certainly effect some of the fingers on our hand more than others. But it is an error for some to think, "He's not so bad -- he poses no specific threat to me." He surely does. This is a time when we need to cooperate, and to oppose him, while we simultaneously work on Plame, and other issues.We should not limit ourselves to fighting on any one front. We can fight on them all as a confederated force.{5} "We must seek out out the spiritual people because only that is going to help us survive. We have a great force -- a great brotherhood. This brotherhood involves all living things. And that, of course, includes us all. We are talking about the natural world, the natural force, all the trees, everything that grows, the water. That is part of our force."But when you gather spiritual force in one place, you also gather the negative force. We begin to perceive the enemy now, the power and presence of the negative force."There is a great battle coming." -- Oren Lyons

The Unknown Soldier

"For all the speculation about Rove's fate and despite a failed attempt by Senate Democrats to have Rove's security clearance revoked, within the White House there was little sign of panic. 'They think Karl is bulletproof,' says a former Administration official who is familiar with the issue and the players. 'They think, "We won a second term. We control Congress." They don't think Karl is any real jeapardy."-- "The Rove Problem"; Nancy Gibbs; Time; 7-25-05; pages 32 & 34.In a White House that takes great pride in its ability to "control" the news, at least in the corporate media, the above quote -- from an "unnamed" former Administration official -- has raised the hair on the back of many necks. While the general public, reading the full article, would take little or no special notice of such a comment, those in the cross-hairs of Fitzgerald's investigation know that there is a man outside of their control .... who is talking. He's talking to the press, and he's talking to other sources.This morning, I thought that we could examine a fellow who poses a serious problem for those Bush administration officials who are beginning to feel the pressure that Nixon administration felt 32 years ago. To keep this little essay simple -- so simple that even a republican could understand it -- I thought we should rely primarily upon a single source of information. So grab your copy of Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," the self-proclaimed "definitive account of the decision to invade Iraq," and let's have some fun examing what the book tells us about Dick Armitage.Woodward understands Dick Armitage quite well. Dick graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1967. He served four tours in Vietnam, which made him a rarity in the Bush2 administration. He taught counterinsurgency, in programs which resulted from President Kennedy's beliefs in the future of armed conflict. In the 1980s, he served in the Reagan administration, under the criminal "leadership" of Casper Weinberger, as the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. It was during this time that he bacame best friends with Colin Powell. Woodward notes that the two began talking to each other several times each day, something he compared to teen-aged pals. He calls Armitage "Powell's best friend, adviser, and most outspoken advocate." (page 20)In the early months of the Bush administration, Armitage often joked to Powell that the two of them were "being kept in the freezer," because they were at odds with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Cheney and Rumsfeld certainly had complete access to Bush and Karl Rove. Powell had to go through Condi Rice in order to reach the president, something that was unprecedented considering his position.A week before 9-11, Time magazine ran a cover story, "Where Have You Gone, Colin Powell?" The story was clearly based upon information given to Time by someone in the White House who, for the sake of this essay, we will call "Karl Rove." The story was an obvious attempt by Rove to pressure Powell to toe the Cheney line. In my opinion, it marked a the beginning of a significant trend: Powell seems to have become weaker, and more willing to humiliate himself, while Armitage becomes the stronger of the two, despite his official position as being his friend's assistant.Just after 9-11, the New York Times ran an article, "Bush's Advisors Split on Scope of Retaliation." The topic was the talk of targeting Iraq for posing a threat to the USA, in relationship to 9-11. The article made clear that Powell was strongly opposed to targeting Iraq, while Wolfowitz and "Scooter" Libby were advocating an attack on Iraq.Those who have followed the Plame Threads will recall my saying from "thread one" on that, even within the administration, there are those who perform from behind a curtain of complete secrecy. Libby is one of those people. When he saw his name in print on this, he told Woodward he considered it "scandalous." He immediately went to confront Armitage. Woodward describes Armitage as looking like a cross between Daddy Warbucks and a professional wrestling champion. He is a large man, who though 56 when this book was published, is aware of his strengths. A man who served four tours in Vietnam is not intimidated by those in the administration who found ways to avoid serving in the military. The situation, described on page 50 of "Plan of Attack," marks the point when Armitage is no longer considered trustworthy by the neocons.The neocons' "plan of attack" is to go to a friend at the New York Times, and plant a story about how while Rumsfeld is a tough man, looking to protect American interests, Colin Powell is "soft," and doesn't recognize the need to take agressive actions to keep Americans safe. Yet, as noted, Armitage specialized in "counterinsurgency." He intervened and had some changes made in the 12-1-02 NYT's article. He laughed about how this upset the neocons; Woodward quotes him as saying, "Oh, State, they're in the game. They want to get these fuckers." (pages 38-9)In the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, Powell continued to oppose the Cheney blueprint. Woodward's book includes a number of quotes, such as this one from page 183: "So Powell and Cheney went at it yet again in a blistering argument." When Powell had wrote his book, "My American Journey," he had experienced some difficulty in telling about the cold shoulder that Cheney had always turned towards him. Armitage had helped him with that section. Now Dick advised Powell to talk directly to President Bush.Armitage and Powell had discussed the "pottery barn rule" of "you break it, you own it," as it applied to Iraq. Armitage in particular was unimpressed with Douglas Feith's plans for post-Saddam Iraq. Many of the people with military experience found the "high-pitched" Feith annoying; DUers will remember General Tommy Franks told his friends about Feith: "I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day." The neocons were not pleased with Armitage's influence on Powell. They had resented a NYT's article that noted Karl Rove having increasing involvement in foreign affairs. Rove had wanted to exercise control over Powell. The neocons saw Powell doing things like putting three "career people" in jobs that usually went to "political appointees" .... meaning those were jobs Rove had planned to fill. The three that Powell put in place, without consulting Rove, included a democrat under Armitage."We're never going to say no to you," Rove wrote to Powell. "(Now) what are you going to do for us?" (page 127)As the build-up to the invasion of Iraq built strength, the neocons decided to try to draw Dick Armitage in. The White House "Communications" had come up with a document they called "Apparatus of Lies." It was 33 pages of information about Saddam's hidden WMD programs and capacities. Armitage, who was aware that the vast majority of the information was from the pre-Gulf War era, told Woodward that the document was "bullshit." (page 286) The White House pressured Armitage to use the document for a speech, in coordination for one being given by Wolfowitz."This is awful. I'm not going to touch it," Armitage told them. However, the pressure increased -- meaning that the man in charge, Dick Cheney, was demanding he use it in a speech. Finally, he agreed, upon the condition thatr he would not accept White House "clearance" for his speech.On January 21, 2003, Armitage addressed the US Institute of Peace. He told this group, established by Congress to promote peace, that he had recently addressed alma mater, the US Naval Academy. He said of the 4000 midshipmen he had spoken to, "I sincerely hope that not one of those young men or young women -- or any of our other service members -- is sent into harm's way in Iraq. That is what we at the Department of State -- and indeed across the government -- are working hard to avoid." At the end of his speech, Armitage noted that the document "Apparatus of Lies" was avaliable in the back of the room. "I recommend it to you to the extent that the past is prologue."(pages 286-7)Four days later, Armitage was one of the White House officials that listened to a presentation by Scooter Libby on the dangers posed to the USA by Saddam. Woodward notes: "Armitage was appalled at what he considered overreaching and hyperbole. Libby was drawing only the worst conclusions from fragments and silky threads." (page 290)Colin Powell, in preparing to present the administration's case for war to the United Nations, spent Saturday, February 1st, at the CIA. There, analysts showed him what they actually knew about Iraq. Powell was stunned. That night, he called Armitage, who agreed to go with him to CIA headquarters the next day. (page 299)Woodward notes: "At times, Powell thought Chalabi was the biggest problem they had in Iraq. From the reports Armitage received from Iraq, most Iraqis thought Chalabi was a knucklehead. And though it was denied by others in the administration, Armitage believed that Chalabi had provided hyped WMD intelligence that made its way to Bush and Cheney before the war." (page 433) Armitage wanted the CIA and Congress to investigate Chalabi's role. (Speaking of Judith Miller.....)By this time, Woodward reports that Armitage realized Powell and he were not able to exert any positive influence on the administration. He recognized they were enabling the administration. A close friend from Congress told Armitage that he and Powell had failed in their attempts to do what was right.A new co-worker, who had been employed in a right-wing think tank, told Armitage he could serve as a bridge to the neocons. "You're on our team. You don't bridge shit. I've known those fuckers for thirty years. You ain't bridging shit," Armitage told him.Three weeks later, the guy told Armitage that he was right. "I had no idea," he said. "It's mind-numbing." (page 433)Armitage knew he would be leaving the administration. But he wouldn't go before Powell. However, he did take a new approach. Throughout the remainder of his service, when Powell approached him about a problem with the neocons, Armitage would say, "Tell these people to fuck themselves." (page 414)Condi Rice was sent to talk to Armitage about his "all-too-apparent distress." He outlined his views. On October 12, 2003, the Washington Post had a front-page article, "Rice Fails to Repair Repair Rifts, Officials Say; Cabinet Rivalries Complicate Her Role." The article was by the paper's two State Department reporters, and it read very similar to the opinions Armitage had outlined to Rice.Rice went to Powell to express her concerns that Armitage was the "unnamed source" of the information. Powell brushed her off. He realized, he later told Woodward, that Rice was more interested in finding someone to blame for saying there was a problem publicly, than in addressing the problem. (pages 414-5)And thus ended the neocons' relationship with Dick Armitage .... at least for the time. I recognize that some DUers might be thinking, "Hey, Water Man, have you lost your mind? Speaking well of a guy like Dick Armitage?" I am very aware of his background, from the Reagan years through PNAC. My point is, in part, that the neocons are facing potential dangers when republicans are seeing them as posing a serious problem to the stability of our cuntry. A number of DUers have a relative like Armitage, maybe an uncle, maybe a cousin. They are the type of guy that you have argued about politics with at every family function (weddings, reunions, funerals) for the past thirty years. But, in a strange way, you know that they really do care about America, and that -- even if they hate to admit it -- they find things like the war in Iraq and the lies about WMDs and the exposing of Valerie Plame unacceptable.Thank goodness some of them still have media connections.

Mayberry Machiavelli: Will Otis Rove Go To Jail?

{1} Phillips on Machiavelli & an American Dynasty
"I'll play the orator as well as Nestor,
Deceive more slyly than Ulysses could,
And, like a Sinon, take another Troy.
I can add colors to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school."
-- Shakespeare; Henry VI
Kevin Phillips, the former Nixon White House strategist, uses this wonderful quote in the beginning of the "afterword" in his book "American Dynasty," (Viking, 2004). This book carries a warning, actually the very same that Benjamin Franklin gave in 1787, when asked if the Constitutional Convention had created a monarchy or a republic: "A republic, if you can keep it."
"The political thinker Niccolo' Machiavelli (1469-1527), long a believer in the famous Florentine Republic of the Renaissance, began to lose faith in his later years as the tides of imperial war and ambition -- French, German, and Spanish -- swept across the Italian peninsula, washing away the old republican politics of city-states like Florence and Siena too small to survive on their own. Unlike Machiavelli's less-well-known books, which embraced republican politics and institutions, his most famous volume, The Prince, was dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici, the duke of Urbino. It encapsulated the techniques, from amorality and fraud to religion, by which ascendant princely rulers might govern most successfully.
"As the 2004 presidential election took shape, another such Machiavellian movement was at hand. U.S. president George W. Bush, while hardly a Medici, was a dynast whose family heritage included secrecy and calculated deception. Harkening to the increasingly imperial self-perception of the United States, the president's theorists and tacticians boasted of taking the advice of Machiavelli and the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu. The late Lee Atwater, chief political adviser to the elder Bush, and Karl Rove, strategist for the younger Bush, friends and collaborators, were both devotees of Machiavelli and The Prince, hardly a coincidence. "
-- "American Dynasty"; Kevin Phillips; pages 320-321
Phillips was not the first author to note the Bush family had a tendency to Machiavellian, of course. One of the strengths of his book is his book is the foundation he builds by quoting other sources: in "Marching In Place," authors Dan Goodgame and Michael Duffy describe Bush1 as "remoreselessly deceitful when it served his purpose." (Simon & Schuster; 1992; page 11)
"George W. Bush is in a class by himself when it comes to prevarication, " authors Drake Bennett and Heidi Pauker note in an article comparing him to LBJ and Nixon, who had previously been considered the best liars of recent vintage. "It is no exaggeration to say that lying has become Bush's signature as president." ( "All The President's Lies"; The American Prospect; May 2003; page 29)
Of special interest, even excluding an infamous "16 words," was President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. It was described in David Broder's March 9, 2003 Washington Post column as reflecting a "gulf of credibility," and "artful misdirection," as well as being "surreal" and a "bald-faced lie." ("Bush's Tax Brush-Off")
And, in the classic "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George Bush Presidential," authors James Moore and Wayne Slater write that Rove prides himself in helping the president use the Machiavellian arts. "Perception is reality," Rove is fond of quoting from The Prince. "The great majority of mankind is satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities." (Moore & Slater; 2003; pages 31 & 43)
And so it is no surprise when Phillips, on page 148 of his book, writes that "...American readers of 'The Prince' may feel that they have stumbled on a thinly disguised Bush White House political memo."
{2} Karl Rove's Quest for Power
"...(T)he reign of the Mayberry Machiavellians, in which everything -- I mean everything -- (is) being run by the political arm .... There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a political apparatus."
This quote from University of Pennsylvania professor John DiIulio, who had been the first director of the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, explained why he quit in disgust. (See "State of Disunion"; Eric Alterman; The Nation; 2-10-03; page 10) Phillips uses it to, I believe, show the distain he felt for those in the Bush administration who mistakenly believed they were of genius status. Let us look at the Mayberry Machiavellian's very own Otis, Karl Rove.
In this week's edition of Newsweek, in an article titled "Rove At War," author Howard Fineman does his best to portray Rove in a sympathetic light. He was deeply impressed by the Nixon- Kennedy debates in 1960, and decided he not only wanted to be a masterful debator, he wanted to be president. However, unlike young Americans with healthy minds, Karl was not a fan of Kennedy. Fineman notes that Rove's heroes became Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover.
His dream of becoming president ended the day he met George W. Bush, however. Fineman describes Rove as recalling "the scene in a kind of gauzy cinematic slow-mo: 'He was weraing jeans, and a bomber jacket, and he had an aura of confidence and charisma'." The description seems closer to Hoover than Nixon. But, were Fineman to be more honest in his "Rove At War," he might have quoted one sentence from Bob Woodward's "Bush At War." On pages 276-7, Woodward describes Bush throwing out the ceremonial first pitch of the third game in the World Series, between the New York Yankees and the Arizona Diamondbacks. After he tosses the pitch, the stadium erupted. Then:
"Watching from owner George Steinbrenner's box, Karl Rove thought, It's like being at a Nazi rally."
Rove also tells Woodward that "the war would be measured by the outcome. 'Everything will be measured by results .... The victor is always right. History ascribes to the victor qualities that may or may not actually have been there. And, similarly, to the defeated." (pages 337-8) And so began America's response to 9-11.
{3} Karl and Tricky Dick Cheney.
"Draft #6 also contained the line: 'And the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from sources in Africa, a central ingredient in the enrichment process.
"The basis for this was an unsubstantiated report from British intelligence that Iraq had recently attempted to buy uranium oxide, known as 'yellowcake,' from Niger. The CIA was unsure of this for a number of reasons and had shared its concerns with the British. A former ambassador, Joseph Wilson IV, had been sent to Niger to check out the report and had found nothing to substantiate it. The CIA memo recommended that any reference be dropped from the Cincinnati speech, and it was."
-- "Plan of Attack"; Bob Woodward; pages 201-2.
Woodward's second book on the Bush administration contains a wealth of information on the inner conflicts that took place in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Simply put, "Karl Rove had come to love Cheney." (page 429) This is similar to what Fineman writes in Newsweek: Rove had begun to call VP Cheney "Leadership" as the case for war in Iraq was being made. As Colin Powell and George Tenet expressed doubts about the intelligence Cheney was pushing, Rove became "personally and operationally close to Cheney';s chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby." (Newsweek; 7-25-05; page 28)
At the same time, Rove came to dislike Powell. "Rove detected a subtle, subversive tendency, as if Powell were protecting his own credentials and his own political future at Bush's expense," Woodward writes on page 12 of "Bush At War."
"Rove was disturbed and felt Powell was beyong political control ... 'It's constantly, you know, "I'm in charge, and this is all politics...",' Rove told Woodward in private. (Bush At War; page 13)
"Rove, for one, was saying privately that he thought Powell had somehow lost a step and that it was odd to see him uncomfortable in the presence of the president." (Bush At War; page 14)
The wek before 9-11, two magazines stood out. TIME ran a cover story, "Where have you gone, Colin Powell?" It was clearly done at Rove's request. And The Weekly Standard's cover story, "The Impressario, Karl Rove, Orchestrator of the Bush White House," had a cover showing a respectable looking Rove with a tiny clownish Bush in his pocket.
{4} Wilson Exposes The Mayberry Liars
"How do you publicly counter a guy like that? As 'senior advisor,' Rove would be involved in finding out. Technically, Rove was in charge of politics, not 'communications.' But, as he saw it, the two were one and the same -- and he used his heavyweight status to push the message machine ..."
-- Newsweek; "Rove At War"; page 30.
Rove's goals are described in Newsweek: surprisingly, they are not to protect President Bush. Rather, Fineman is clear, "The message: protect Cheney by explaining that he had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, and dismiss the yellowcake issue."(pages 30-31) Think of the implications in that; protect VP Cheney by separating him from the mission to Niger and the significance of the yellowcake claim.
As we know, Rove has been caught lying about his role in this effort. We know that he spoke with Time's Matt Cooper, with Robert Novak, and with Chris Matthews. The White House message machine is attempting to dismiss the significance, but it isn't going away. Recent reports show that the issue is not limited to who exposed Valerie Plame. Under another statute, it can be a felony to "willfully disclose information from a classified document. (Newsweek; page 31) This involves the State Department memo, as well as Condi Rice's briefing book. And it goes beyond "Otis" Rove, drunk with power. (Of course, the White House is planning to set-up Colin Powell. I say that we need to keep a close eye on Dick Armitage .... he will not let that happen!)
{5} Conclusions and convictions.
Last week, after Matt Cooper testified to the grand jury, Rove's attorney called Fitzgerald, and asked if he needed to talk to Karl again. "Fitzgerald didn't bite," Fineman reports in Newsweek. " 'We'll get back to you,' the prosecutor replied curtly, and quickly got off the line." (page 32)
Since then, Rove and his gang have been trying to get the neocon machine in gear. But Fineman notes it is hard, because they are trained to attack, not to defend. He notes that Rove's friends are concerned, and Rove is shaken by the "speed ... and direction" that Fitzgerald is moving in. Karl is used to being in control, Fineman writes. But his little Machiavellian play is spinning out of control.

DU Street Memo (Top Secret)

"Americans trust the Republicans to do a better job of keeping our community and families safe. We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."-- Karl Rove; RNC meeting in Austin, Texas; January 19, 2002Within hours of Karl Rove being exposed as a weasal willing to expose the identity of a CIA operative who worked to keep our communities and families safe, in order to protect other criminal misdeeds that occured in bringing our nation into an unnecessary war, the neocon/far right republican machine went into high gear. Their goal was to confuse the issues involved in the Plame scandal. Their tactics were the "old reliables" that Rove himself has perfected over the years: distort, distract, misinform, and lie.Dozens of "reliable liars" were brought out of the attic, dusted off, and sent with orders to appear on Fox, CNN, and other networks. They began talking to reporters in an effort to keep the American public from recognizing that this administration is more corrupt than the Nixon White House, and more criminal than the Iran-Contra gang.A memo of republican "talking points" has been posted and commented upon by several alert and insightful DUers. Yet, sadly, we still have witnessed a number of threads which repeat what are, in fact, the neocon talking points. These include the "Did Wilson say Cheney sent him?" and "Is Wilson a Liar?" things that can only serve to distort, distract, misinform, and promote the outright lies of the extreme right wing republicans. (See: "Flies and the Lying Liars Who Eat Them" for more information.)Mark Twain once said that the problem with our society was not one of ignorance .... rather, it was one of people knowing so darned much that just wasn't true. Keeping that in mind, I have attempted to organize a few things that are true -- but which involve the worst damned liars in our nation's history -- in such a way that we can focus on why those "16 words" that Joe Wilson exposed as damned lies are so important.Simply put, the lie about Iraq attempting to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger was the "icing on the cake" of lies the administration sold the American public, in order to justify their invasion of Iraq. More: Wilson's brave and entirely accurate essay in the NYT's op-ed section was the first time someone had the balls to publicly call the administration on their purposeful lying.Let's take a closer look at this, using two primary sources: Senator Robert C. Byrd's "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency," and John W. Dean's "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush." (Note that even in "double-extra-top-secret DU Street Memo's, we identify sources!)The neocon position that the USA had the right, and the need, to forcefully remove Saddam Hussein can be traced to those who felt betrayed by President Bush1's decision not to at the end of the Gulf War. Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 would begin to advocate "preemption" to curb the threat posed by the proliferation of WMDs, and this began to be blended with the call to remove Saddam.In 1998, Wolfowitz and his buddy-buddies in PNAC ( Project for a New American Century) called the Bush1 policy of containment in Iraq a "failure." That same year, Bush1 and his former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft co-authored "A World Transformed," a book that included a detailed analysis of why it would have been a serious mistake to try to take Saddam out and occupy Iraq: "Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' .... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nation's mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be the occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."Yet, as we know, on January 26, 1998, the PNACers sent President Clinton a letter advocating that he use his upcoming State of the Union address to announce plans to remove Saddam: "We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy to remove Saddam's regime from power." Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 11 would be given posts in the Bush2 administration.The neocons began to plan the Iraqi war from "day one" of the Bush2 presidency. From a number of sources, including republicans Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill, we know that a war on Iraq was on the agenda from the very first NSC meeting in January 2001. These are not the "angry democrats from MoveOn" the republican talking points mention -- they are (ex-)members of Bush's administration.Yet they faced a harsh reality: there was no lawful way to justify a war in Iraq. The 1973 War Powers Resolution didn't allow Bush/Cheney to attack Iraq. The 1990 UN Security Control Resolution 678 didn't. Nor did the 1991 Gulf War resolution.Then came 9-11. The administration saw an opportunity to use S.J. Resolution 23 (passed on 9-14-02), along with the "national emergency" clause of the War Powers Resolution, to justify invading Iraq. To do so, they needed an "emergency threat."In the Jan 2004 edition of Vanity Fair, Paul Wolfowitz notes, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was the weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." And so it was. The administration began lying to the public, and making it seem like there was a real threat of Iraq using WMDs to attack America."Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," VP Dick Cheney told the 103rd National Convention of the VFW on August 26, 2002. On page 102 of Dean's book, we find more information about Cheney in this telling footnote: "Investigative journalist Sy Hersh has reported at some length in the New Yorker -- for example, 'Who lied to Whom' (Mar.3,2003) and 'The Stovepipe' ()ct 27, 2003) -- about Cheney's out-of-channels intelligence-gathering operations. In addition, the information about Cheney's hidden intelligence-collection operations has been further puzzled together by Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest in Mother Jones (in 'The Lie Factory' jan-Feb 2004). Dreyfuss and Vest reported that dubious and untested intelligence was assembled by the Office of Special Plans, set up in the Pentagon (a 'shadow agency within an agency') and composed largely of neoconservative ideologues, assembled to make the case for war in Iraq, and did so when others in the government's intelligence community had no information justifying the cas that Cheney and Bush wanted to make."Thus, in early September of 2002, President Bush told the UN, "We cannot stand by and do nothing while danger gathers." However, the September 23, 2002 edition of Newsweek revealed that in the mid-1980s, the Reagan/Bush administration had sent Iraq viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa which included the anthrax and botulinum that the administration now accused Saddam of having. Senator Byrd confronted Donald Rumsfeld with this article at an Armed Services Committee hearing that month; Rumsfeld denied ther acuracy of the article. Byrd countered by saying he personally knew of US shipments of West Nile fever virus and dengue fever to Iraq. But the rush to war crushed the truth into the ground, as that very day Bush sent Congress the first draft of his resolution for war against Iraq.A media consultant quoted by Byrd on page 143 notes that the networks fell in line behind Bush. Of 414 stories that followed, all but 34 originated in the White House, the Pentagon, or the State Department. Byrd notes that networks were advised that they could find it "expensive" to cover anti-war news events.It remained important to pretend Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons. Byrd notes on page 175: "Vice President Cheney had warned that Iraq verged on having nuclear weapons, directly contradicting the CIA view..." In order to support his lie to America, Cheney relied upon the forgeries known as the "yellow cake documents." And, although the administration knew they were discredited, John Bolton slipped the lie into the 12-19-02 State Department "fact sheet" justifying an invasion of Iraq. Someone saw the lie, and removed it, proving the State Department was aware of the two memos and one phone call from DCI Tenet saying the charge was not true.Yet, in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush would lie to America. Byrd describes it on pages 180-181: "Then the president's voice took on a different tone. He began to detail the horrible substances Saddam Hussein had not accounted for. To a hushed chamber, Bush recited the poisons: anthrax, enough to kill several million people; botulin toxin, enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure; sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent, enough to kill untold thousands. He went on to summon visions of prohibited munitions; mobile biological weapons labs designed to produce germ warfare; and an 'advanced nuclear weapons development program,' citing intelligence dating back to the 1990s."Then came the fateful and now famous sixteen words, 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quanties of uranium from Africa.' That statement was false, and known to be false by key advisors to Bush at the time he made it -- a desperate ploy by agenda-driven zealots to justify and lead the country into an unnecessary war."While Byrd goes on to describe Bush as a theatrical scoutmaster scaring children with ghost stories in hushed tones around a camp fire, the truth is that the yellow cake lie was essential in convincing the public that there was a reason to go to war in Iraq. When Wilson blasted this lie out of the water, the neocons began a savage attack. It included exposing the identity of a CIA operative who had dedicated her life to protecting our communities and families from dangerous enemies.And that, my friends, is my DU Street Memo for today. I look forward to your comments.

My Trip to the Land of Wovoka

Part One: Awake"AwakeShake dreams from your hair My pretty child, my sweet oneChoose the day and choose the sign of your dayThe day's divinityFirst thing youe see.A vast radiant beach in a cool jeweled moonCouples naked race down by its quiet sideAnd we laugh like soft, mad childrenSmug in the wooly cotton brains of infancy.The music and voices are all around us.Choose, they croon, the Ancient OnesThe time has come again.Choose now, they croonBeneath the moonBeside an ancient lake.Enter again the sweet forest,Enter the hot dream,Come with us.Everything is broken up and dances.Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleedingGhosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.Indian, Indian what did you die for?Indian says nothing at all.Gently they stir, gently rise.The dead are newborn awakeningWith ravaged limbs and wet soulsGently they sigh in rapt funeral amazementWho called these souls to dance?"-- James Douglas Morrison; An Amrican PrayerIn the past two weeks, DUers have been witness to significant changes in the political & social landscape. Good and bad. Encouraging and discouraging. The Supreme Court; the Plame case; violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and London. The death of a voice in the wilderness who found community on DU.The roller coaster of emotions has been evident on a number of threads that have been on General Discussion in the past 48 hours. Everyone reacts in an individual way. I have spent some time in the woods behind my home: it's too wet to heat rocks for a sweat lodge, but it has been pleasant to sit and listen to the rain.I surrounded myself with thoughts on one topic. There had been a discussion about the advantages of either considering -- or ignoring -- what the militant Islamists who may be responsible for the London bombings think. We could expand that to include what goes on in the minds of others who advocate violence to advance their goals. Do we ignore them? Decide that they are too evil to examine, except in death?Or, would it be possible to examine, however briefly, what they think? Could it help us in war? In peace? I thought of two quotes that we might consider.Part Two: A World's View"If you wish to conduct offensive war you must know the men employed by the enemy. Are they wise or stupid, clever or clumsy? Having assessed their qualities, you prepare appropriate measures."-- "The Art of War"; Sun Tzu; Oxford Press;1963 (translation); p.148"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."-- "A Time to Break Silence": Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; 4-4-67In both war and peace, it is important to understand the thinking of your opposition or enemy. It is equally important in attempting to utterly destroy that enemy, or to find some form of resolution to those problems which divide you from that enemy.It is not my goal to say that as individuals we must seek in every case to make peace with our enemies. Nor would I claim that war is never warrented. One would have to suffer from delusions to assume, for example, that Usama bin Laden will ever sit opposite an American president and discuss making the world a better place. Yet it would seem that as Americans, we are capable of sitting down with people we describe as radical Islamists, and potentially reducing tensions between our countries. If Rumsfeld could shake hands with Saddam, and President Bush can kiss a Saudi "prince," it is not unpatriotic to at least consider the thoughts of those who identify themselves as the enemies of America.I note that it is the Usama bin Ladens and George W. Bushes who take -- like Hitler -- what Thomas Merton called a stance of "the unforgivableness of sin" built upon "the central dogma of the irreversibility of evil." It is not just the "top leader" who reflects this belief in a sick society: Merton points out that Eichmann, by pleading obedience to the Nazi system, reflects a "deep faith in an irreversible order which could not be changed but only obeyed."Merton compares this lack of individual responsibility in thinking to the wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas, who recognized "evil" as not only reversible, but as possessing the potential to be turned into good. Aquinas taught that "sin" is in and of itself "punishment." He noted that those who "consider themselves happy and whose sense of power depends on the idea that they are beyong suffering any evil are not able to have mercy on others." I believe that he was describing "leaders" who send individuals and armies to crush other enemies, without ever considering the possibility that there is another way that is potentially available.Part Three: The Way to Gandhi"The awakening of the Indian mind in Gandhi was not simply the awakening of his own spirit to the the possibilities of a distinctly Hindu form of 'interior life.' ... Gandhi realized that the people of India were awakening in him. The masses who had been totally silent for thousands of years had now found a voice in him. It was the spiritual consciousness of a people that awakened in the spirit of one person. But the message of the Indian spirit, of the Indian wisdom, was not for India alone It was for the entire world. Hence Gandhi's message was valid for India and for himself in so far as it represented the awaking of a new world."Yet this renewed spiritual consciousness of India was entirely different from the totalitarian and nationalist consciousness that came alive in the West and in the East (Japan) to the point of furious and warlike vitality. The Indian mind that was awakening in Gandhi was inclusive, not exclusive. It was at once Indian and universal. It was not a mind of hate, of intolerance, of accusation, or rejection, of division. It was a mind of love, of understanding, of infinite capaciousness. Where the extreme nationalisms of Western Fascism and of Japan were symptoms of paranoid fury, exploding into alienation, division, and destruction, the spirit which Gandhi discovered in himself was reaching out to unity, love, and peace. It was a spirit which was, he believed, strong enough to heal every division."In Gandhi's mind, non-violence was not simply a political tactic which was supremely useful and efficacious in liberating his people from foreign rule, in order that India might then concentrate on realizing its own national identity. On the contrary, the spirit of non-violence sprang from an inner realization of spiritual unity in himself. The whole Gandhian concept of non-violent action and satyagraha is incomprehsible if it is thought to be a means of unity rather than as the fruit of inner unity already achieved."-- "Gandhi and the One-Eyed Giant"; Thomas Merton; New Directions; 1964.Part Four: Why Do They Hate Us? And What Do They Want?Michael Scheuer is a retired senior U.S. intelligence official, with nearly 20 years with the CIA. He studied Afghanistan, South Asia, and Usama bin Laden. He authored two important books: "Through Our Enemies' Eyes," and "Imperial Hubris."Scheuer contests President Bush's saying that militant Islamists hate us "for our freedoms." Rather, he notes, that "while there may be a few militant Muslims out there who would blow up themselves and others because they are offended by McDonald's restaurants, Iowa's early presidential primary, and the seminude, fully pregnant Demi Moore on Esquire's cover, they are exactly that: few, and no threat at all to U.S. national security. The focused and lethal threat posed to U.S. national security arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is, but rather from their plausible perception that the things they most love and value -- God, Islam, their brethern, and Muslim lands -- are being attacked by America. What we as a nation do, then, is the key casual factor in our confrontation with Islam. It is, I believe, the Muslim perception that the things they love are being intentionally destroyed by America that engenders Islamic hatred toward the United States, and that simultaneously motivates a few Muslims to act alone and attack U.S. interests; a great many more to join organizations like al Qaeda and its allies; and massive numbers to support those organizations ..."--"Imperial Hubris"; Michael Scheuer; 2004; pages 9-10Scheuer lists on page 241 the six U.S. policies that Usama bin Laden has repeatedly identified as anti-Muslim, and which can only lead to more death and destruction on all sides. They are:1- US support for Israel that keeps Palestinians oppressed.2- US (and allies') troops on the Arabian Peninsula.3- US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.4- US support for China, India, and Russia in their fight against Muslim militants.5- US pressure on Arab energy "sources" to keep prices low for maximum US consumption.6- US support for the most corrupt, apostate Muslim governments.Scheuer makes clear that our nation has two choices: either engage in a war that leads to the total destruction of them or us; or try to find some resolutions to the problems caused by US policies in the Middle East. The choices are between Sun Tzu's military, or Martin Luther King's militancy.Part Five: A New World"We will either have a new world, or a new world war." -- GandhiIn his 1968 book, "Earth House Hold," Gary Snyder wrote of the "memories of a Golden Age -- the Garden of Eden -- the Age of the Yellow Ancestor -- (which) were genuine expressions of civilization and its discontents. Harking back to societies where men and women were more free with each other; where there was more singing and dancing; where there were no serfs and priests and kings."Projected into the future time in Christian culture, this dream of the Millennium became the soil of many heresies. It is a dream handed down right to our own time -- of ecological balance, classless society, social and economic freedom. It is actually one of the possible futures open to us. To those who stubbornly argue 'it's against human nature,' we can only patiently reply that you must know your own nature before you can say this. Those who have gone into their own natures deeply have, for several thousand years now, been reporting that we have nothing to fear if we are willing to train ourselves, to open up, explore and grow."It is important that we love and not hate. Just as people like Gandhi and King rode the energy of the masses' love and positive energy, people like Bush and bin Laden ride hatred and negative energy. Do not hate. Do not seek revenge. Look for opportunities to create unity. Look for the Gandhi and the Martin Luther King inside you. Use that strength to oppose the Bush war in Iraq. Let's send a message to the world.

On Minister Malcolm, Dr. Dean, & White Folks

In a 1965 meeting of the OAAU in Harlem, after Malcolm X gave a speech on black nationalism that touched on "brotherhood" with people of all colors, a Black Nationalist stood up, rocked back on his heels, and said slowly, "We heard you changed, Malcolm. Why don't you tell us where you're at with them white folks?"The audience became silent. It was at a time when Malcolm was going through some changes: he had endured an attempt to silence him by the vultures in the Nation of Islam, who wanted him out before Elijah died. And he had taken two extended trips to Africa and the Middle East, where he moved beyond the ignorance that had handcuffed him to a racist, hateful ideology. And that made many, like the man confronting him, very uncomfortable.Malcolm didn't miss a beat. "I haven't changed," he said. "I just see things on a broader scale. We nationalists used to think we were militant. We were just dogmatic. It didn't bring us anything."Now I know it's smarter to say you're going to shoot a man for what he is doing than because he is white. If you attack him because he is white, you give him no out. He can't stop being white. We've got to give the man a chance. He probably won't take it, the snake. But we've got to give him a chance."We've got to be more flexible. ... I'm not going to be in anybody's straitjacket. I don't care what a person looks like or where they come from. My mind is wide open to anybody who will help get the ape off our backs." (Village Voice; 2-25-65)When Dr. Dean points out that the republican party is almost exclusively white christians, it is a good thing. But it is important that we do not stop there. The truth is that the democratic party's largest group is also white and christian. We need to attack the republican party because of what their "exclusive" ideology actually translates to in their actions.The Southern Poverty Law Center's spring 2005 Intelligence Report includes extensive information that exposes the republican parties' growing linkages with racist hate groups. One that we should focus on is the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). This group is actually the Ku Klux Klan wearing business suits in the daytime; their members put on their white sheets at night. I am not joking.In 1998, (now former-)US Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott "got into political hot water .... over his cozy relationship" with the CCC, the SPLC reports. (Spring '05 Intelligence Report; page 12) Both the RNC and the Conservative Political Action Committee called the CCC "racist," and urged republicans to avoid any association with it.What do the CCC leaders say publicly about non-white peoples? One leader, Edgar Steele, calls blacks "a retrograde species of humanity." James Hart, a Tennessee republican running for congress, campaigned on a platform calling for the elimination of welfare and immigration, before the USA looks "like one big Detroit." He advocates a forced sterilization program that is a "war on poverty genes" to reduce the threats posed by the "lesser races" and "bums from the slum."In Georgia, the republican candidate for district attorney in a largely black district was Craig Fraser, former assistant to J.B. Stoner. Fraser has described Hitler as a "genius" who fought the good fight to "get rid of the Jewish poison."MS Governor Haley Barbour is a long-time CCC supporter. He has refused to distance himself from the CCC on principle: "Once you start down the slippery slope of saying, 'That person can't be for me,' then where do you stop? Old segregationists? Former Ku Klux Klan?" Good heavens, we don't want Haley sliding down a slippery slope that separates him from his KKK friends and relatives!These are the things that democrats need to be hitting the republicans with. We need to make the Roy Moore and Tom Parker-types the poster boys of republican prejudice. The fact that a person is white and christian is not the issue -- the fact that they are racist snakes is the issue.

Bolton's Adagio in DU minor ......

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the reason."-- Paul Wolfowitz; Vanity Fair; Jan 2004In 1998, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton were among the neoconservatives who wrote an infamous letter to President Bill Clinton, demanding that the United States remove Saddam Hussein from power. This was to become an obsession with them. In "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by Ron Suskind, we find that in the very first National Security Council meeting (1-30-01), it was decided to make the removal of Saddam the primary focus of Middle Eastern policy.O'Neil states that, "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein ans looking at how we could take him out ... It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President was saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"On May 8, 2001, President Bush issued a statement called "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction." In it, Bush noted, "Some non-state terrorist groups have ... demonstrated an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction .... It is clear that the threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the United States -- while not immediate -- is very real."In "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean notes that at this time, President Bush "asked Cheney 'to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that e may do the very best possible job of protecting our people fromcatastrophic harm.'" Bush then created an Office of National Preparedness within FEMA to implement Cheney's recommendations. This was a way, Dean explains, to derail the Rudman-Hart commission's proposals. (see pages 108-110)VP Cheney's plans to protect the USA apparently failed on 9-11. Richard Clarke, who had served in high-level positions for four presidents, would later detail being pressured by President Bush to connect 9-11 with Saddam. (See "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore for a film clip of Clarke, as well as numerous examples of Bush officials lying to the American public about the "threat" Saddam posed to this country with his WMDs.)In "Losing America," Senator Robert Byrd tells of his frustration in trying to get the truth about Iraq and WMDs from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Thus, he requested that CIA Director "George Tenet brief us privately prior to the Iraq war, back when the administration was conjuring up visions of 'mushroom clouds' and death-dealing vials of germ warfare carried by missles aimed at U.S. cities. Tenet told us then, that no tangible evidence connected Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. He also had no hard evidence confirming development of a nuclear program in Iraq. There was virtually no link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the days before we created a hotbed for terrorist wrath by attacking Iraq." (pages71-2)If no such evidence existed, who might have come up with all the lies fed to the American public? In "The Politics of Truth," Joe Wilson explains, "The neoconservatives who have taken us down this path are ... a small pack of zealots whoe dedication has spanned decades, and ...through years of recruitment has become a government cult with cells in most of the national security system. Among those cells are the secretive Office of Special Plans in the Department of Defense ... and a similar operation in the State Department that is managed in the office of Undersecretary for Disarmament John Bolton." (page 432)In September of 2002, the first public mention of an Iraqi attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was made in a British "White Paper." However, as we know, Wilson had already investigated this, and concluded it was not true. Two other US investigators had reached the same conclusion before Wilson. (The UN's IAEA would soon call the documents the US provided them on the Niger uranium "forgeries.") And the UN weapons inspectors were finding no evidence of WMD production, which threatened to expose "the one issue that everyone could agree on," to quote Wolfowitz, as a fabrication.So on December 19, 2002 the State Department issued a "fact sheet" of Iraqi WMD violations. Included in the first draft was "a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger. The reference was apparently scrubbed soon after, and the Niger charged was removed -- at least for a time. News reports after the fact suggested that the neoconservative mole in the State Department, John Bolton, the under secretary for Arms Control, had slipped the reference into the first version, but someone at State had caught the mistake and deleted it." (Wilson; page 302.)In time, Wilson would expose the Niger lie for what it was. The Bush administration reacted by exposing his wife's identity as a covert CIA agent. I believe that Bolton's role in that is indicated in the following, from page 445 of his book: "In fact, senior advisors close to the president may well have been clever enough to have used others to do the actual leaking, in order to keep their finger prints off the crime. John Hannah and David Wurmser, mid-level political appointees in the vice president's office, have both been suggested as sources of the leaks. I don't know either, though at the time of the leak, Wurmser, a prominent neoconservative, was working as a special assistant to John Bolton at the State Department. Mid-level officials, however, do not leak information without authority from a higher level. They would have been instruments, not the makers, of decisions."I think that it is important that DUers take the time to write a LTTE of their local paper, explaining that the democratic opposition to John Bolton becoming UN Ambassador isn't based on him being a grumpy fellow. It's based on his being a criminal.

Scandal preparations .....

DUers who have been active on the Plame Threads for a year or more will excuse this review of two figures who will, in relatively short order, be seen to have participated in the scandal that will expose the ugliest side of the Cheney administration. But, for those who are interested, let us examine the role of two key players: Stephen Hadley and Condi Rice.It is easy to dismiss Rice as a confused soul who simply doesn't "get it." For example, we think of her saying, "It is ludicrous to suggest the president of the United States went to war on the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa. This was part of a very broad case that the president laid out in the State of the Union and other places." (Fox News Sunday; July 13, 2003) Right. The idea of WMD and mushroom clouds was never part of the administration's lies to the American public.Actually, this was simply part of Condi's outright lies. The administration had been using the Niger yellow cake documents as a "smoking gun" which "proved" Saddam had violated every effort at containment which those opposed to Bush's rush to war were advocating as successful.When the IAEA publicly denounced the documents as forgeries, and Wilson noted the administration knew that they were fully discredited, Condoleezza categorically lied, and said that noone -- including herself -- at the senior level at the White House had received any information that suggested the documents were not strong evidence. Shortly thereafter, she had to admit that her office recived two memos from the CIA saying just that; further, Condi had to admit that the NSC had received a phone call from the CIA stressing the fact the documents were worthless.Rice then took the novel position that in the three months between Bush's October speech in Ohio (where John Bolton's repeated attempts to stick the yellow cake lies in were frustrated by people who knew better) and the State of the Union address, she simply "forgot." Right. The single "strongest" evidence of Saddam's WMD programs is exposed as a lie, but she forgot. Sure. As Wilson notes on pages 331-2, "How does someone whose job it is to track nuclear weapons developments, especially in rogue states, receive such critical information and then proceed to forget it? This is not a grade school homework assignment. The short answer is they didn't forget, unless they are derelict. Regrettably, disingenuousness is another possibility. Condoleezza Rice may be many things, but she is hardly derelict."Is Ambassador Wilson (who drank mint tea) suggesting that this sweet and innocent flower that blooms in the compost of neocon trash is a liar? Good heavens! This virginal specimen of righteousness? Let's see: when she was asked on "Meet the Press" about the administration's having received the information that the documents that were the central "smoking gun" in the administration's WMD case for emergency intervention in Iraq, she said, "maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the Agency," suggesting the CIA was full of shit. But let's look closer for the aministration's favorite turd before we flush this chapter from the Plame discussion.Shortly after Wilson's NYT article exposed the "16 words" in the president's State of the Union address as a lie (i.e., falsehood, untruth, fib, taradiddle, pious fiction, tall tale, cock-n-bull, or full of shit, as in the bowels of the administration), CIA Director George Tenet -- looking for a pat of appreciation on his humbly bowed head -- said that he took full responsibility. But it was clear that responsibility lay elsewhere, and as Wilson makes crystal clear, this Nixonian adventure with the truth had its genesis in the State Department. (See Wilson, pages 351-55)Deputy NSC Adviser Stephen Hadley had been responsible for vetting Bush's State of the Union speech. And Steve had to admit that he left those 16 words in, despite the fact that he had recieved two CIA memos and a personal phone call from CIA Director Tenet which made clear the Niger documents were forgeries and lies. "The high standards the president set were not met," Hadlet sadly admitted, though he did not identify which president he was referring to.Wilson notes: "Earlier, in a press briefing on July 11, Hadley's boss, Condoleezza Rice, had skirted the issue of the sixteen words by saying: 'If there were doubts about the underlying intelligence to the National Intelligence Estimate, those doubts were not communicated to the president, the vice president, or to me.' After Hadley admitted the existence of the memos and suddenly recalled the telephone call from Tenet, Rice had no choice but to own up to her own culpability in the matter. On July 30, in an interview with PBS correspondent Gwen Ifill, she grudgingly acknowledged her responsibility, but not before trying yet again to fob the blame off on Hadley, much as she had earlier tried to blame Tenet." 'What we learned later, and I did not know at the time, and certainly did not know until just before Steve Hadley went out to say what he said last week, was that the director had also sent over to the White House a set of clearance comments that explained why he wanted this out of the speech. I can tell you, I either didn't see the memo, or I don't remember seeing the memo.' Gwen Ifill finally asked Rice directly: 'Do you feel any personal failure or responsibility for not having seen this memo and flagged it to anybody else who was working on this speech?' Rice responded: 'Well, I feel personally responsible for this entire episode. The president of the United States has the right to believe that what he is saying in his speeches is of the highest confidence of his staff.' " (pages 352-3)Within a short period of time, Rice would begin to pretend that she had never heard of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and had never heard of him. He wrote that he was at first unsure of why she seemed to go out of her way to make this part of the public record, when there was really no question that she knew exactly who he was. I think we will see the answer to that. Very soon.

A cancer on the presidency .....

In the past week, there has been a growing awareness in the United States that the Plame scandal ranks with the two largest and most significant presidential disgraces of our time: Watergate and the Iran-Contra sacandals. Today, I would like to take a few minutes to start a discussion about the similarities between Plame and Watergate.

Often, in discussing Watergate, older DUers will note that "it isn't just the original criminal activity that catches up to an administration, it's the attempt to cover it up." And that is true, to a large part. Actually, the events of Watergate, as they came to be understood some 20 years later, could have brought the Nixon administration tumbling down. And, while it took 20 years for the public to find documents (tapes included), a House Committee could have accessed them quickly.

Has there been an attempt to cover up the criminal activities of some high-ranking White House officials in the Plame case? Let's take a look, shall we? Perhaps we could begin with a curious quote found on page 360 of Joseph Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth":

"We have rolled the earthmovers in over this one," a senior White House official was quoted in the 12-5-03 "Financial Times" as saying about the administration's efforts to "resolve" the Plame investigation before Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the case. Could it be that Fitzgerald and the grand jury are interested in uncovering who called the earthmovers in?

That term -- senior White House official -- seems to keep popping up.Seems like that moldy man Robert Novak used the same term to describe the sources of his information on Plame being a CIA operative. For fun, let's see if we can find any qualified source who can explain what the term "senior official" means!

"Usually, the term senior official refers to a vice president, cabinet officer, or top White House aide," writes John Dean on page 170 of his wonderful book, "Worse Than Watergate." Gish, it sounds as if he could be descibing the actual criminals who we discussing. Let's look at the next sentence in the book, to see if he indeed is: "On July 17, Time published the same story {* as Novak}, attributing it to 'government officials,' and in a later story the Washington Post confirmed that two officials had called around trying to stir greater interest in the planted story."

Still, many of Karl Rove's supporters are pointing out that he did not tell Matt Cooper what Valerie Plame's favorite color was, or her favorite Beatle album, so he clearly did not know her status .... even though he spoke to Cooper as a supe "double secret" source. Did those senior White House officials have any idea that Valerie was more than a secretary at CI? Let's take a look at something published but 5 days after Mr. Cooper's contribution to the effort to keep America safe.

On July 22, Newsday's Washington Bureau notes: "Valerie Plame ... works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity..." Does that clear up the republican confusion? Do we need more? Let's try this, from the same article: according to "a senior intelligence official" Plame worked in the "Directorate of Operations (as an) undercover officer."

Once these senior White House scum, er, officials knew that they had made a serious mistake, and were going to possibly face consequences, they began to organize a cover-up. Keep in mind, folks, that only guilty people attempt to cover up their activities. If the administration was confident it had done no wrong, there would have been no cover-up. But, you may ask, do we have some fun quote that indicates there was a cover-up? Something besides the earthmovers?

"The known facts -- that the activities involved two (or more) senior officials -- indicate that there is evidence of a criminal conspiracy. That criminal conspiracy is ongoing, and now involved with covering up the initial crime, thus creating secondary transgressions. (Sound familiar?) The federal laws of conspiracy, along with the federal laws dealing with obstruction of justice, are among the most far reaching of the federal criminal laws. Whether they know it or not, the Bush2 White House -- given this active and ongoing criminal activity -- had dangers it has never dreamed possible by not ending this matter itself. It is only going to get worse before it gets better." ( Worse Than Watergate; John Dean; pages 175-6)

Oh, no! This sounds terrible for the administration! Almost like someone needs to go in to the Oval Office and say the following to President Cheney and his wonderful tumbling chimp, Uncurious George:

"I think there is no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we've got. We have a cancer within, close to the presidency, that is growing. It's growing daily. It's compounded, growing geometrically now, because it compounds itself." That infamous quote came from John Dean duuring his March 21, 1973 meeting (10:12 - 11:55 am) in the Oval Office with President Nixon and H.R. Haldeman. When it appeared Nixon, who is a far cry sharper than the current industrial sludge occupying the White House, wasn't fully grasping the implications, Dean laid it out this way: "What really troubles me is one, will this thing not break some day and the whole thing -- domino situation -- everything starts crumbling, fingers will be pointing. Bob will be accused of things he has never heard of and deny and try to disprove it. It will get real nasty and just be a real bad situation. And the person who will be hurt by it most will be you and the Presidency ..."(See: "The Presidential Transcripts": published by the Washington Post with commentary by Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, Haynes Johnson, and Lawrence Meyer; Dell Books; 1974; these quotes from pages 99 and 115.)

Likely now, the DU readers are depressed to realize that this administration, as much or more as Nixon's, can be viewed as having what John Dean described as "a cancer on the presidency." But didn't the White House, way back 33 years ago, attempt to protect the presidency? And could that series of actions shed any light on how we should view today's delicate situation? Perhaps we should consider some information made available from the research of Fred Emery. He wrote the 1994 book and accompanying 5-part tv series shown on the Discovery Channel, "Watergate." Much of the following comes from his incredible work, which allowed the public access to tapes and documents that had never been seen or heard by the public.

On a 6-20-72 tape, Nixon made a strange comment to his Rovian friend, Chuck Colson: "If we didn't know better, would have to thought it was deliberately botched." Nixon was talking, of course, about the Saturday, June 17th break-in at the Watergate. At the time, few were aware that James McCord, Jr, a retired CI operative with years of experience in "burglaries," had left a series of doors taped in a manner that led two undercover police officers to the exact office where the burglars were hiding.(The significance is important to understand: the burglars could have walked out any of the doors had they been left untaped, because they were inside; McCord's actions clearly indicate "it was deliberately botched.")

Emery notes that, "On Wednesday, June 21, the cover-up suddenly moved to take on what would be its final shape." (page 182) Tapes that were newly released at the time of his book show that Ehrlichman was advocating a plan to have Liddy take the full blame for Watergate. Nixon is clearly interested. Haldeman notes that the attractiveness of this plan "is that you establish an admission of guilt at a low level, rather than just a presumption, instead of imply guilt at the highest level, which I tell you, they're trying very hard to do; I'll tell you, the press ..." Nixon is getting the picture: "the focus goes back to keep the scandal away from the White House."

But they make a huge error: rather than recognize that McCord has set them up, they fear Liddy. None of these administrators has been around a man of his nature before. Haldeman tells Nixon that Mitchell
fears Liddy will not take the full blame (although as history shows, he was both willing and able to, and the Ehrlichman plan might have put history on another course). Mitchell was "likely involved" in the Watergate plans, Haldeman tells Nixon, and is "a little bit afraid because of Liddy's instability ..."

The alternative plan -- to have CI tell the FBI to back off -- becomes the accepted route of the cover-up. By 11:30, John Dean is in the FBI's acting director's office. Gray will be a willing participant in the cover-up, and his actions will outrage Mark Felt.

CREEP attorneys tell the attorney for Alfred Baldwin, McCord's associate in the Committee to Re-Elect the President, and in the Watergate break-in, that they no longer consider Baldwin worth their investment in protecting.

"My lawyers came out and brought me into an office and said there is a lot we have to do here," Baldwin says on the 1994 television series shown on the Discovery Channel. " 'They are not going to acknowledge you even exist. They are disowning you. They have no concern for you. They are not going to supply a lawyer for you as long as you can't identify Mitchell or you can't identify any one else from the White House. They don't care about you.' " When his attorneys explained that, they recommended he talk to the FBI. The US attorney who would be prosecuting the Watergate case would, as Emery notes, get his first chance to hear from an "insider witness."

Emery's appreciation for the complex turns of history is evident when he describes a "faraway event .... that no one realized might have much significance." The long-time chair of the House Judiciary Committee, a long-time Nixon friend named Emmanuel Celler, was upset in a democratic primary by an "unknown insurgent, Elizabeth Holtzman" (page 185) Celler would have gone the extra mile to make sure the House of Representatives would not have held impeachment hearings. Actually, at that time, few people considered those hearings even a remote possibility, althougha citizen's group took out a full-page ad in the New York Times demanding exactly that! (Heads up, DU!)

On June 22, Nixon addressed the White Housepress corps. There was only one question about Watergate. Nixon gave an answer that I think DUers will find familiar:

"... As Mr. Zieler has stated, the White House had no involvement whatever in this particular incident. As far as the matter is now concerned, it is under investigation .... I will not comment on those matters, particularly since possible criminal charges are involved."

On June 23, Hurricane Agnes hit the Washington DC area hard. Emery notes: "The Potomac hit record flood levels, National Airport was closed, and John Dean in Alexandria, Virginia, had to sandbag his home against the rising tide. With hindsight, the omen was unmistakable." (page 194)

Flies, and the Lying Liars Who Eat Them

"The chief American diplomat, Joe Wilson, sheperds his flock of some 800 known Americans like a village priest. At 4:30 Sunday morning, he was helping 55 wives and children of U.S. diplomats from Kuwait load themselves and their few remaining possessions on transport for the long haul on the desert to Jordan. He shows the stuff of heroism."-- 1990 news story by Robert Novak & Rowland EvansAs the Plame scandal threatens to destroy the Bush administration's serious compromised claim to credibility, we have witnessed the aggressive right-wing "talking points" on the news. It comes as no surprise to DUers who have taken the time to become familiar with the case. However, as several of the neocon's thousand points of misinformation have begun to pop up even here, I'd like to take a few minutes to help clear a few of them up.This morning, I got out a copy of the "guidelines for discussing differences of opinion" that I used as a psychiatric social worker. I used these with the domestic violence groups at the clinic, and the groups of inmates at the jail. By no small coincidence, not only do many of the neocons seem to rely upon the debating tactics of bullies and brutes, but several may be incarcerated soon. But, as a democrat, I'm not interested in offering them therapy: I'd just like to discuss a couple of those tactics so we all recognize them.In a rational discussion that involves differences between individuals or groups, it is important to focus on clarifying the differences. For example: it is a good thing that Fitzgerald is investigating possible criminal behavior on the part of two or more senior White House officials. Many people think that's good; others think it's bad.Those who think it's good will take the basic facts involved in the scandal, and discuss them rationally. Others, who we can refer to as bullies, brutes, neocons, ex-convicts, pre-convicts, and/or supporters of the administration, do not want to discuss those facts. Instead, they wish to bring up nonsense, lies, and other things that attract flies if left on a hot sidewalk in July.In the domestic violence and/or jail groups, we would either say, "That has nothing to do with this discussion. You are merely trying to distract us from the serious issues," and then get back to business. Other times, we would simply ignore their efforts to distract, almost as if we were stepping around a pile of something that attracts flies on a hot sidewalk in July.Remember, "distractions" are the irrelevant material that is brought up to keep the discussion from focusing on the truth. The more we see this tactic being used, the more we know the brutes and bullies and neocons are feeling anxious. This anxiety is caused by our group (or country, in this case) coming too close to the truth about the Plame scandal for their confort. As this happens, they resort to the tactic that has worked best for them in the past -- lying.Shall we examine a few of these lies, and perhaps make note of simple answers to them?#1: VP Cheney did NOT send Wilson to Niger, as Wilson claims.A: Wilson never claimed Cheney did. Numerous sources have noted that Cheney and Libby pressured the CIA to support their "theories" about Iraq and WMDs. The CIA sent Wilson to Niger.#2: Joe Wilson was unqualified for that assignment.A: Wilson was selected because he was uniquely qualified for the job. He had served this country honorably as a diplomat from 1976 to 1998. He had decades of experience in Africa, and was the last US ambassador to Iraq before the Gulf War.#3:The Senate confirmed that Plame sent Wilson to Niger, yet he continues to lie about it.A: The Senate confirmed that Plame agreed with those who approached her to ask if she felt this was a job that Wilson could do.#4: Wilson is a democrat who is attempting to hurt the republican party.A: Wilson has long been a political centrist. He has served both democrats and republicans; the first President Bush has called him "a true American hero."#5: Wilson misrepresents his findings, which were inconclusive.A: Wilson's findings confirmed two other investigations' findings. One was by another U.S. ambassador, the other by a 4 star Marine General. All three found no evidence to support any claim Niger sold Iraq yellow cake uranium. The IAEA confirmed these findings when it determined the documents were forgeries.#6: We don't know if Plame was a secret agent, or if any law was broken.A: Yes, we do. Executive Order 12333 requires the CIA to report suspected criminal offenses; the fact they reported on this indicates beyond doubt what Plame's status was. More, on 7-24-03, a CI attorney notified the Chief of the Counteresppionage Section of the Department of Justice of CI concerns; then, the CIA filed two reports (7-30-03 & 9-5-03) with the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. They did this because of concerns that the White House broke the law.#7: Rove was merely trying to set the record straight with Cooper about false claims made by Wilson.A: Rove also called Chris Matthews and said, "Wilson's wife is fair game." The administration also contacted Walter Pincus, who told Wilson that they recognized admitting their error on the yellow cake "was the biggest mistake the administration had made," and that to cover it up, "they are coming after you."When we see these attempts by republicans to distort the truth and to inject misinformation into the national discussion, we need to confront them just as one would any liar in a jail group.Remember, as they feel more and more pressure -- and everyone who has read some of the new information revealed in the past couple days knows that Fitzgerald has scared the heck out of them -- they will attempt wilder lies. Do not react; always respond. We control the discussion, not the criminals.Also, keep in mind that there is presently tremendous stress between Karl Rove and VP Cheney & "Scooter" Libby. We need to keep the pressure on, so that this tension comes to a head. It's closer to happening than the republicans dare admit publicly.