Chomsky: There is no War on Terror

======================================

The acclaimed critic of U.S. foreign policy analyzes Bush's current political troubles, the war on Iraq, and what's really behind the global 'war on terror.'

By Geov Parrish, AlterNet
January 14, 2006

For over 40 years, MIT professor Noam Chomsky has been one of the world's leading intellectual critics of U.S. foreign policy. Today, with America's latest imperial adventure in trouble both politically and militarily, Chomsky -- who turned 77 last month -- vows not to slow down "as long as I'm ambulatory." I spoke with him by phone, on Dec. 9 and again on Dec. 20, from his office in Cambridge.

Geov Parrish: Is George Bush in political trouble? And if so, why?

Noam Chomsky: George Bush would be in severe political trouble if there were an opposition political party in the country. Just about every day, they're shooting themselves in the foot. The striking fact about contemporary American politics is that the Democrats are making almost no gain from this. The only gain that they're getting is that the Republicans are losing support. Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it. When they try to say something about Iraq, George Bush turns back to them, or Karl Rove turns back to them, and says, "How can you criticize it? You all voted for it." And, yeah, they're basically correct.

How could the Democrats distinguish themselves at this point, given that they've already played into that trap?

Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They know what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by public opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition party, and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their position on just about everything.

Take, for example, take your pick, say for example health care. Probably the major domestic problem for people. A large majority of the population is in favor of a national health care system of some kind. And that's been true for a long time. But whenever that comes up -- it's occasionally mentioned in the press -- it's called politically impossible, or "lacking political support," which is a way of saying that the insurance industry doesn't want it, the pharmaceutical corporations don't want it, and so on. Okay, so a large majority of the population wants it, but who cares about them? Well, Democrats are the same. Clinton came up with some cockamamie scheme which was so complicated you couldn't figure it out, and it collapsed.

Kerry in the last election, the last debate in the election, October 28 I think it was, the debate was supposed to be on domestic issues. And the New York Times had a good report of it the next day. They pointed out, correctly, that Kerry never brought up any possible government involvement in the health system because it "lacks political support." It's their way of saying, and Kerry's way of understanding, that political support means support from the wealthy and the powerful. Well, that doesn't have to be what the Democrats are. You can imagine an opposition party that's based on popular interests and concerns.

Given the lack of substantive differences in the foreign policies of the two parties --

Or domestic.

Yeah, or domestic. But I'm setting this up for a foreign policy question. Are we being set up for a permanent state of war?

I don't think so. Nobody really wants war. What you want is victory. Take, say, Central America. In the 1980s, Central America was out of control. The U.S. had to fight a vicious terrorist war in Nicaragua, had to support murderous terrorist states in El Salvador and Guatemala, and Honduras, but that was a state of war. All right, the terrorists succeeded. Now, it's more or less peaceful. So you don't even read about Central America any more because it's peaceful. I mean, suffering and miserable, and so on, but peaceful. So it's not a state of war. And the same elsewhere. If you can keep people under control, it's not a state of war.

Take, say, Russia and Eastern Europe. Russia ran Eastern Europe for half a century, almost, with very little military intervention. Occasionally they'd have to invade East Berlin, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, but most of the time it was peaceful. And they thought everything was fine -- run by local security forces, local political figures, no big problem. That's not a permanent state of war.

In the War on Terror, however, how does one define victory against a tactic? You can't ever get there.

There are metrics. For example, you can measure the number of terrorist attacks. Well, that's gone up sharply under the Bush administration, very sharply after the Iraq war. As expected -- it was anticipated by intelligence agencies that the Iraq war would increase the likelihood of terror. And the post-invasion estimates by the CIA, National Intelligence Council, and other intelligence agencies are exactly that. Yes, it increased terror. In fact, it even created something which never existed -- new training ground for terrorists, much more sophisticated than Afghanistan, where they were training professional terrorists to go out to their own countries. So, yeah, that's a way to deal with the War on Terror, namely, increase terror. And the obvious metric, the number of terrorist attacks, yeah, they've succeeded in increasing terror.

The fact of the matter is that there is no War on Terror. It's a minor consideration. So invading Iraq and taking control of the world's energy resources was way more important than the threat of terror. And the same with other things. Take, say, nuclear terror. The American intelligence systems estimate that the likelihood of a "dirty bomb," a dirty nuclear bomb attack in the United States in the next ten years, is about 50 percent. Well, that's pretty high. Are they doing anything about it? Yeah. They're increasing the threat, by increasing nuclear proliferation, by compelling potential adversaries to take very dangerous measures to try to counter rising American threats.

This is even sometimes discussed. You can find it in the strategic analysis literature. Take, say, the invasion of Iraq again. We're told that they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that's not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't tell their troops to guard the sites. So the sites were left unguarded, and they were systematically looted. The U.N. inspectors did continue their work by satellite and they identified over 100 sites that were systematically looted, like, not somebody going in and stealing something, but carefully, systematically looted.

By people who knew what they were doing.

Yeah, people who knew what they were doing. It meant that they were taking the high-precision equipment that you can use for nuclear weapons and missiles, dangerous biotoxins, all sorts of stuff. Nobody knows where it went, but, you know, you hate to think about it. Well, that's increasing the threat of terror, substantially. Russia has sharply increased its offensive military capacity in reaction to Bush's programs, which is dangerous enough, but also to try to counter overwhelming U.S. dominance in offensive capacity. They are compelled to ship nuclear missiles all over their vast territory. And mostly unguarded. And the CIA is perfectly well aware that Chechen rebels have been casing Russian railway installations, probably with a plan to try to steal nuclear missiles. Well, yeah, that could be an apocalypse. But they're increasing that threat. Because they don't care that much.

Same with global warming. They're not stupid. They know that they're increasing the threat of a serious catastrophe. But that's a generation or two away. Who cares? There's basically two principles that define the Bush administration policies: stuff the pockets of your rich friends with dollars, and increase your control over the world. Almost everything follows from that. If you happen to blow up the world, well, you know, it's somebody else's business. Stuff happens, as Rumsfeld said.

You've been tracking U.S. wars of foreign aggression since Vietnam, and now we're in Iraq. Do you think there's any chance in the aftermath, given the fiasco that it's been, that there will be any fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy? And if so, how would it come about?

Well, there are significant changes. Compare, for example, the war in Iraq with 40 years ago, the war in Vietnam. There's quite significant change. Opposition to the war in Iraq is far greater than the much worse war in Vietnam. Iraq is the first war I think in the history of European imperialism, including the U.S., where there was massive protest before the war was officially launched. In Vietnam it took four or five years before there was any visible protest. Protest was so slight that nobody even remembers or knows that Kennedy attacked South Vietnam in 1962. It was a serious attack. It was years later before protest finally developed.

What do you think should be done in Iraq?

Well, the first thing that should be done in Iraq is for us to be serious about what's going on. There is almost no serious discussion, I'm sorry to say, across the spectrum, of the question of withdrawal. The reason for that is that we are under a rigid doctrine in the West, a religious fanaticism, that says we must believe that the United States would have invaded Iraq even if its main product was lettuce and pickles, and the oil resources of the world were in Central Africa. Anyone who doesn't believe that is condemned as a conspiracy theorist, a Marxist, a madman, or something. Well, you know, if you have three gray cells functioning, you know that that's perfect nonsense. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it has enormous oil resources, mostly untapped, and it's right in the heart of the world's energy system. Which means that if the U.S. manages to control Iraq, it extends enormously its strategic power, what Zbigniew Brzezinski calls its critical leverage over Europe and Asia. Yeah, that's a major reason for controlling the oil resources -- it gives you strategic power. Even if you're on renewable energy you want to do that. So that's the reason for invading Iraq, the fundamental reason.

Now let's talk about withdrawal. Take any day's newspapers or journals and so on. They start by saying the United States aims to bring about a sovereign democratic independent Iraq. I mean, is that even a remote possibility? Just consider what the policies would be likely to be of an independent sovereign Iraq. If it's more or less democratic, it'll have a Shiite majority. They will naturally want to improve their linkages with Iran, Shiite Iran. Most of the clerics come from Iran. The Badr Brigade, which basically runs the South, is trained in Iran. They have close and sensible economic relationships which are going to increase. So you get an Iraqi/Iran loose alliance. Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a Shiite population which has been bitterly oppressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. And any moves toward independence in Iraq are surely going to stimulate them, it's already happening. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabian oil is. Okay, so you can just imagine the ultimate nightmare in Washington: a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of Washington and probably turning toward the East, where China and others are eager to make relationships with them, and are already doing it. Is that even conceivable? The U.S. would go to nuclear war before allowing that, as things now stand.

Now, any discussion of withdrawal from Iraq has to at least enter the real world, meaning, at least consider these issues. Just take a look at the commentary in the United States, across the spectrum. How much discussion do you see of these issues? Well, you know, approximately zero, which means that the discussion is just on Mars. And there's a reason for it. We're not allowed to concede that our leaders have rational imperial interests. We have to assume that they're good-hearted and bumbling. But they're not. They're perfectly sensible. They can understand what anybody else can understand. So the first step in talk about withdrawal is: consider the actual situation, not some dream situation, where Bush is pursuing a vision of democracy or something. If we can enter the real world we can begin to talk about it. And yes, I think there should be withdrawal, but we have to talk about it in the real world and know what the White House is thinking. They're not willing to live in a dream world.

How will the U.S. deal with China as a superpower?

What's the problem with China?

Well, competing for resources, for example.

NC: Well, if you believe in markets, the way we're supposed to, compete for resources through the market. So what's the problem? The problem is that the United States doesn't like the way it's coming out. Well, too bad. Who has ever liked the way it's coming out when you're not winning? China isn't any kind of threat. We can make it a threat. If you increase the military threats against China, then they will respond. And they're already doing it. They'll respond by building up their military forces, their offensive military capacity, and that's a threat. So, yeah, we can force them to become a threat.

What's your biggest regret over 40 years of political activism? What would you have done differently?

I would have done more. Because the problems are so serious and overwhelming that it's disgraceful not to do more about it.

What gives you hope?

What gives me hope actually is public opinion. Public opinion in the United States is very well studied, we know a lot about it. It's rarely reported, but we know about it. And it turns out that, you know, I'm pretty much in the mainstream of public opinion on most issues. I'm not on some, not on gun control or creationism or something like that, but on most crucial issues, the ones we've been talking about, I find myself pretty much at the critical end, but within the spectrum of public opinion. I think that's a very hopeful sign. I think the United States ought to be an organizer's paradise.

What sort of organizing should be done to try and change some of these policies?

Well, there's a basis for democratic change. Take what happened in Bolivia a couple of days ago. How did a leftist indigenous leader get elected? Was it showing up at the polls once every four years and saying, "Vote for me!"? No. It's because there are mass popular organizations which are working all the time on everything from blocking privatization of water to resources to local issues and so on, and they're actually participatory organizations. Well, that's democracy. We're a long way from it. And that's one task of organizing.

Geov Parrish is a Seattle-based columnist and reporter for Seattle Weekly, In These Times and Eat the State! He writes the "Straight Shot" column for WorkingForChange.

Noam Chomsky is an acclaimed linguist and political theorist. Among his latest books are Hegemony or Survival from Metropolitan Books and Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and the Global Order published by Seven Stories Press.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/30487/

Emails today to John Kerry and Ted Kennedy

After their herculean effort to generate enough votes (which fell short despite their efforts) to terminate the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, I thought it worthwhile to write to thank both Senators from Massachusetts.

John -

May I call you "John"?

Words can barely express my deep gratitude for your efforts of the last few days. The push to defeat cloture and extend the debate on Alito's nomination was a phenomenal success, even as it came up short. Democracy is about MAKING ONE'S SIDE'S ARGUMENTS AND MAKING SURE THEY ARE HEARD. It is not about winning. The Republican Party doesn't get that. They think it doesn't matter how your win. It is about being true to real principles, not about cheating and lying and stacking the deck (as they did in the last two elections, IMHO). SOMEONE had to push for defeating Alito. It should, of course, have been Harry Reid's job. When he waffled at the crucial moment, you and Senator Kennedy stepped in - in the face of a VERY tough uphill climb. You climbed well, and may have gotten all the way there if you'd had a few more days. Alito does not represent anyone but a small cadre of "haves", and doesn't represent the America that we believe in. Let us hope he is not there too long, and that the victorious Democratic candidate in 2008 can get a chance to replace some of Reagan's other Court appointees with ones more in the mainstream of sane and reasonable people - and ones who will vote to RETAIN the principles and specifics of the Constitution. Thank you for fighting for us. Even though you are now among the "haves", you represent the have-nots with serious brotherhood, support and encouragement. God speed, John, and may we, the sane, prevail soon. Sanity cannot come too soon for the nation and the world. (BTW, I am not a Democrat.)

Senator Kennedy -

Words can barely express my deep gratitude for your efforts of the last few days. The push to defeat cloture and extend the debate on Alito's nomination was a phenomenal success, even as it came up short. Democracy is about MAKING ONE'S SIDE'S ARGUMENTS AND MAKING SURE THEY ARE HEARD. It is not about winning. The Republican Party doesn't get that. They think it doesn't matter how your win. It is about being true to real principles, not about cheating and lying and stacking the deck (as they did in the last two elections, IMHO). SOMEONE had to push for defeating Alito. It should, of course, have been Harry Reid's job. When he waffled at the crucial moment, you and Senator Kerry stepped in - in the face of a VERY tough uphill climb. You climbed well, and may have gotten all the way there if you'd had a few more days. Alito does not represent anyone but a small cadre of "haves", and doesn't represent the America that we believe in. Let us hope he is not there too long, and that the victorious Democratic candidate in 2008 can get a chance to replace some of Reagan's other Court appointees with ones more in the mainstream of sane and reasonable people - and ones who will vote to RETAIN the principles and specifics of the Constitution. Thank you for fighting for us. Even though you are now among the "haves", you represent the have-nots with serious brotherhood, support and encouragement. God speed, John, and may we, the sane, prevail soon. Sanity cannot come too soon for the nation and the world. (BTW, I am not a Democrat.)

The GOP talking-points parrots attack you more than any other person in the Congress. They only do that because they fear you so much, and because you call them on so much of their heinous agenda. DO KEEP UP THE FIGHT. Know that vast numbers out here in the middle of America agree with your fight. It is our fight, too.

My sincerest appreciation for your all your efforts. You know what Congress is about, and the Constitution, and the principles of the American endeavor.

For the record, both Senators from New York, California and my own state of Illinois also voted against cloture (cloture is the ending of debate on an issue or nomination). 25 Senators voted against cloture, and though it failed, it showed that SOME Democrats have balls. When the vote did come up before the entire Senate, 42 voted against Alito - the highest "Nay" votes since Clarence Thomas squeaked by a single vote in the 1980s.

On The Razor's Edge

Here we are, on the eve of the Senate vote on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Literally, as I write this it is after 7:00 pm on January 29th.

One of the directions we could go in is toward a monolithic government of a unitary Presidency and a weakened Legislative and Judicial Branch. It will definitely depend on whether Alito sides consistently with his neocon and ultra-right pals in the Bush II administration. It is the opinion of most that he will do so. If so, God help The Union.

At the same time, we are also on the brink of Senate Judiciary Committee meetings about the NSA wiretapping. Most of the legal opinions out there seem to argue strongly against the legality of these wiretaps and the President's authority to order them. All of them cite the 4th Amendment, which reads,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To you and me, this says clearly that "probable cause" is the standard that must be met. However, NSA Director General Michael Hayden is insistent that the 4th Amendment's standard "unreasonable" - in effect blowing off the entire latter text about the issuance of Warrants.

On the face of it, Hayden seems to be completely in the wrong. But, since any legal proceedings that reach the Supreme Court will arrive there after Alito is ensconced in his SCOTUS seat, it is a very iffy call on what will be decided eventually.

It could go either way.

Also on the near horizon is the Scooter Libby trial over his lying to the FBI and the Special Prosecutor in the Plame case. Libby's lawyers are planning all kinds of legal stratagems to get the prosecution to give up the case. Their first broadside is this (from Newsmax's Scooter Libby's Lawyers: Subpoena Reporters):

Lawyers for a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal judge Friday they want to subpoena journalists and news organizations for documents they may have related to the leak of a CIA operative's name.

In a joint filing with prosecutors, lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, 55, warned U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton that a trial likely will be delayed because of their strategy to seek more subpoenas of reporters' notes and other records...

The filing provides the most concrete indication yet that a large part of Libby's trial strategy will be identifying other government officials who knew Plame was a CIA operative and told reporters about it.

Actually, it is not important whether Libby was the FIRST person to out Plame to reporters. The lying by Libby had nothing to do with the moments when his responses to the FBI or to Patrick Fitzgerald were made. At those moments, his statements were either true, uninformed, forgetfulness, or they were lies. It is the position of the Grand Jury, and of Fitz, that they were lies. That is what Libby's lawyers have to argue before a jury.

Further along in the Plame case, Fitz has much more to do and Karl Rove is certainly still at risk. The loss of Rove would be devastating to Bush, as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed: Bush is worthless on his own, without someone to pull his strings. At the time, Rove was said to be in the hospital with a kidney stone problem. It will be impossible for Bush to act at the same level without Rove.

And in regards to the NSA situation, there is much activity on several fronts about the potential for impeachment, based on Bush's blowing off the FISA law. This is a many-pronged web. Bush apparently DID attempt in 1992 to get Congress to sign on to the warrantless wiretaps, but was shot down. This argues that Bush's team knew at the time that they needed to get Congress's go ahead. He also, in 2004, attempted to get support from the Attorney General's office to continue the program (see Newsweeks's Palace Revolt, page 4, Jan 29, 2006)

There was one catch: the secret program had to be reapproved by the attorney general every 45 days. It was [assistant Attorney General named Jack] Goldsmith's job to advise the A.G. on the legality of the program. In March 2004, John Ashcroft was in the hospital with a serious pancreatic condition. At Justice, [James] Comey, Ashcroft's No. 2, was acting as attorney general. The grandson of an Irish cop and a former U.S. attorney from Manhattan, Comey, 45, is a straight arrow. (It was Comey who appointed his friend—the equally straitlaced and dogged Patrick Fitzgerald—to be the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak-investigation case.) Goldsmith raised with Comey serious questions about the secret eavesdropping program, according to two sources familiar with the episode. He was joined by a former OLC lawyer, Patrick Philbin, who had become national-security aide to the deputy attorney general. Comey backed them up. The White House was told: no reauthorization.

The angry reaction bubbled up all the way to the Oval Office... A high-level delegation—White House Counsel Gonzales and chief of staff Andy Card—visited Ashcroft in the hospital to appeal Comey's refusal. In pain and on medication, Ashcroft stood by his No. 2.

Bush may be on his way to being Emperor. Many suspected the neocons and BushCo to pull something before the 2008 elections to allow Bush to suspend the election or otherwise allow Bush to stay in the White House. While that seemed paranoiac at the time, it is not out of the realm of possibility, what with Bush's team arguing daily about the powers of a unitary President during a war.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is the potential for Bush to not only be impeached for his ordering of the eavesdropping in violation of the FISA law and the 4th Amendment, but to possibly be indicted either before or afterward.

We are at a crossroads in our history, brought about by a small cabal of power-hungry individuals and a dupe at the helm, who is too stupid to understand what the plain language of the laws and the Constitution are, and who is gullible enough to believe his advisors who tell him his new clothes are so wonderful, even as they lead him on the long, tortuous road to perdition. When he awakens in his cell, some 4 years from now, and discovers that he is - and always has been - naked and out on a limb, he will be in for one helluva shock... as his cellmate closes in on his nakedness.

(At least that is the scenario I see as a happy ending for We The People.)

. . . . TD

I'm not surprised at the Missouri Senate race situation

I found this at American Prospect, and article by Terence Samuel dated today, about the Race for the seat of incumbent U.S. Senator James Talent.

Better Off Talentless

...Jim Talent is a well-liked incumbent, conservative senator with whiffs of moderation -- as well as a seasoned campaigner first elected to public office at 28. He is now 49.

Claire McCaskill, the state auditor and Democratic challenger, lost in a 2004 race for governor and, last month, requested privacy for herself and her kids after her ex-husband was murdered in Kansas City. She is going to have a tough time trying to win: Consider that Missouri has grown increasingly red since George W. Bush beat Gore by three points in 2000 after Democrats conceded the state to concentrate on Florida (ha!). In 2004, Kerry got stomped by seven points, 53 percent to 46 percent.

So what then is this rumble out of Missouri this week showing Talent and McCaskill in a statistical dead heat? The poll, which was done by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, (where I once drew a paycheck), puts McCaskill ahead of Talent by three points, 47 percent to 44 percent. That is not good news for the GOP -- even if there are ten months to Election Day.

While this will be a surprise to most people, I have a bit of an inside angle on this and do not find it shocking whatsoever. My sister and her husband live out in the Ozarks on a 90-acre homestead, deep in what everyone believes is Bible Belt, George W Bush-believing land.

Well, that is only half right. Bible Belt, yes. In nearby Cape Girardeau (Rush Limbaugh's own home town), there are well over 120 churches in a town of only 37,000.

But anyone thinking that this is a monolithic, conservative area that loves George W Bush would actually be sore wrong. Regardless of the official results of the 2004 election results in the area (which I personallly do not know at present), I found in talks with my brother-in-law that he does not know anyone who admits to having voted for Bush in 2004.

Does that strike you as peculiar? It did me, too. But he told me that everyone he talks to during his running around town and country in the nearby counties is livid about the man in the White House. Their attitudes are, boiled down, "He don't represent ME! I didn't vote for the asshole. He's driving the country into the ground." What came across was a solid impression that Bush's rural vote totals in Missouri in 2004 may have been as bogus as the vote count in Ohio.

Down Home Missouri












The people there simply DO NOT LIKE BUSH. Deep in the Bible Belt - fundamentalist central. Missouri is maybe the deepest of deeply fundamentalist states, with many, MANY independent Baptist churches and it is the home of the Missouri Synod, a major division of fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. A 2,000 page book could be written on the ins and outs of fundamental sects in Missouri - and still only touch on the bare outer edges of it all.

BUT THESE PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE BUSH.

Why?

They think he is stupid.

They think he has given religion a bad name.

They think he has given America a black eye. Torture. Renditions. Iraq.

They don't agree with the war in Iraq. Pre-emptive war that their sons and daughters are fighting. Lies to Congress to get the approval to go ahead with the use of force. This is an area of hunters galore. They are not pansy Liberals. But neither are they gullible or ignorant about what America is about. They think that the WMD issue was, and is, important. They think they have been lied to.

I don't know what they think about the NSA snooping, as I have not talked recently enough with my brother-in-law. When I find out, I will post here.

- - - - -

Taken all together, do not accept that this population will vote for Republicans in November or in 2008. Will the GOP still carry the state? IMHO, that depends on the shennanigans behind the scenes and behind the software and who has access to the vote tabulators before the totals are rung up.

The people there don't know who among them DID vote for Bush in 2004, and they may wonder the same thing in 2006 about this Senate seat. If there is an honest election, be prepared for a real shoot-down of the GOP in Missouri, come November.

Landmines aplenty left over by Robin Fool

We are now in Bush NSA wiretapping, pre-Impeachment mode. It is amazing how many, MANY things he has done to deserve impeachment, and finally one comes up that brings people to bandy about the "I"-word.

It is a breath of fresh air, 4 years late.

In the first week after his first inauguration, Bush decided that the separation of church and state no longer applied, as he pressed forward - rejecting the fact that he had been elected by the single vote of Sandra Day O'Connor - the only 1-person election in the history of the world outside of dictatorships and empires. Such a mandate did, of course, allow him to claim anything he wanted to. After all, he DID have majorities on both houses - for a few months anyway, until James Jeffords became a hero for a year and a half by switching his party allegiance to "Independent". Now THAT was a breath of fresh air - AND the second 1-person election in half a year. The day the Senate committee chairmanships changed hands I was so happy I almost peed in my pants.

And I am not even a Democrat. Gnostic Anarchists rarely are.

And now, as the Bush whirlpool swirls large and the 2006 election looms even larger, honorable men of the GOoPer persuasion weigh the merits of riding out the Abramoff storm, the Plame waiting game and the Bush need for self-destruction, to decide whether it is nobler to ride the chuck wagon all the way to the light at the end of the Iraq tunnel or to detour through the Impeachment wasteland. Bush has left so many landmines, alienated so many voting groups, and stolen money from every population except the very wealthy.

Robin Hood in reverse he is. John Cleese would never deign to play this twerp, though.

Things are looking so bad for the GOP legislators (and I use that word loosely - the more proper term might be toady sheep) that they have every reason in the world to loose themselves of Bush's anti-coattails. Coattails attract votes, and Bush repels votes. "Whose side will they be on?" we wonder. Well, look at the Abramoff "situation" and you will see. Everyone involved is uncommonly eager to avoid having a horny cellmate and are quite motivated to do their patriotic duty and turn in anyone they can.

Between Jack A_off and his Royal (ex-)"high"ness, they are in terrible shape. And they should be. They have enabled him like James Dean's parents in "Rebe' Without a Cause". If they hadn't swooned over their finally (after all those YEARS of Dem sovereignty) getting a chance to be at the head of the feeding trough of favors and pork, golf trips and women. Oh? There haven't been women? Maybe I am getting ahead of the game. Trust me, there have been women. Will it come up before all the heads have rolled? It is hard to say.

Anyway, the Repugs got so freaked at being THE party, that when they got THEIR President, why all freakin' hell broke out back of the barn. They got offered all the goodies that a majority party gets offered, but since they had no experience at it, they didn't know they were supposed to say "No" to bribery. Money was their drug of choice, and the pusher men - Abramoff wasn't the only one, you know - hanging out down by the creek or the 1st tee had nickel bags galore. It was frat party night every night, and Mom and Pop America were paying the (gold) bar tab.

I guess most of them missed Civics class in high school. They must have thought it was about working on Japanese cars, and they didn't want to get their hands dirty.

All the now and soon-to-be humbled are mixed all in with the honorable Republicans, and they are tainting (hahahaha) the good apples with the rotten. It will all fall out soon. Will it be soon enough to change the outcome of the election in November? Oh, we should be so lucky.

The Dems will bring their own weird ways back to Capitol Hill, and it will be like old home week when Teddy and all are heading up those committees in Congress. They will have their plates full for four years or more, as they will be investigating and bringing charges long overdue against some very nasty anti-democracy fellows.

Much of what has gone on is still FAR below the radar, and I am looking forward to the bombshells to be bursting in air all over GOP-land (rhymes with Cop-Land). We haven't seen the worst of it yet. We have only seen what the ubermen have decided it is convenient to let out, and only in the colors they choose to let us see. The ubers will not let go the filters yet - We The People are still not to be trusted - just to be led down a primrose path.

It is too early to think that things might be getting better. The government has been eviscerated, and it will take decades of hard work to get it back into any kind of shape again. They tried to flush the government down the drain, and they have nearly succeeded. The more innocent of them must have actually thought that it wouldn't take the country down the tubes with it. They can be pardoned their ignorance. But the old fuckers like Hastert should know better. Hastert, though, seemed awfully eager to flush New Orleans away, so maybe that was part of his agenda all along.

Bush? He is close to being history. But his legacy will haunt his party and America for decades and decades. Not to mention Iraq and his effect on that poor country whose only fault was getting suckered into trying to re-unite Kuwait with the rest of Mesopotamia.

100,000 dead and uncounted wounded and crippled and blinded later, and hopefully Bush and his handlers will be made to pay like the Nazis of old. It is only fitting - if you want to be a Nazi, you should follow through to the fvery end of the story.

Guachimontones
(Why is there no horizon? Because the site is on a promontory, and this is looking out over the end of the promontory - plus the day is hazy. There are mounatins out there in the distance, actually)

As a restful, peaceful start to this blog:
This is Mexico, Autumn 2005
- a blissful place called Guachimontones, ruins perched on a promontory with over a dozen small ROUND pyramids, intermixed with many square platforms, overlooking a large lake with mountains beyond. It is west of Guadalajara about an hour and a half, out in the boonies. There's not much tourist stuff around, nor any tourists either, so a person can have some time and space to contemplate your navel, or the state of the world. . . speaking of which ...