"Then the face of Big Brother
faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood
out in bold capitals: 'WAR IS PEACE' 'FREEDOM IS SLAVERY' and 'IGNORANCE
IS STRENGTH'."
--From
George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four
Dear MoveOn member: Are you involved in a local or national
non-profit or public interest organization? As a leader or board
director or member? Please read this message carefully,
because your organization could be facing a serious threat. The
Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election
Commission ("FEC") to issue new rules that would shut
down
groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way
critical of President Bush or members of Congress. Incredibly,
the FEC has just issued -- for public comment -- proposed rules
that would do just that. Any kind of non-profit -- conservative,
progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service, charitable,
educational, civic participation, issue-oriented, large, and small
-- could be affected by these rules. Operatives in Washington
are
displaying a terrifying disregard for the values of free speech
and
openness which underlie our democracy. Essentially, they are
willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush administration
policy. We've attached materials below to help you make a public
comment to the FEC before the comment period ends on APRIL
9th. Your comment could be very important, because normally
the FEC doesn't get much public feedback. Public comments to
the FEC are encouraged by email at politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov
Comments should be
addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel,
and must include the full name, electronic mail address, and
postal service address of the commenter. More details can be
found at: http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html
We'd love to see a copy of your public comment. Please email
us
a copy at FECcomment@moveon.org.
By the way, the FEC's
proposed rules do not affect the donations you may have made
in the past or may make now to MoveOn.org or to the MoveOn.org
Voter Fund. They are aimed at activist non-profit groups, not
donors. Whether or not you're with a non-profit, we also suggest
you ask your representatives to write a letter to the FEC opposing
the rule change. Some key points: - Campaign finance reform
was not meant to gag public interest organizations.
- Political operatives are trying to silence opposition to Bush
policy.
- The Federal Election Commission has no legal right to treat
non-profit interest groups as political committees. Congress and
the courts have specifically considered and rejected such regulation.
You can reach your representatives at: Senator Arlen Specter
Phone: 202-224-4254
Senator Richard J. Santorum
Phone: 202-224-6324
Congressman Curt Weldon
Phone: 202-225-2011
Please let us know you're calling, at: http://www.moveon.org/callmade.html?id=2540-664070-OU7fg
TLuYfKEPta_hx8BOw In a non-election year, this kind of
administrative overreach would never find support. It goes far
beyond any existing law or precedent. It is a serious threat to
the
fundamental checks and balances in our system. But because
of an unholy alliance between a few campaign reform groups
and GOP partisans, this rule change could actually happen if we
don't act now. I've attached more details below, prepared by our
attorneys and by the FEC Working Group -- a group of more than
500 respected non-profit organizations. If you run a non-profit,
don't assume this change doesn't apply to you. First check out
the EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR
NONPROFIT GROUPS section below. It's outrageous. Thanks
for all you do,
Sincerely,
--Wes Boyd MoveOn.org
March 30th, 2004
________________
EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT
GROUPS
Under the proposed rules, nonprofit organizations that
advocate for cancer research, gun and abortion restrictions or
rights, fiscal discipline, tax reform, poverty issues, immigration
reform, the environment, or civil rights or liberties - all these
organizations could be transformed into political committees if
they criticize or commend members of Congress or the
President based on their official actions or policy positions.
Such
changes would cripple the ability of groups to raise and spend
funds in pursuit of their mission and could be so ruinous that
organizations would be forced to back away from meaningful
conversations about public policies that affect millions of
Americans. If the proposed rules were adopted, the following
organizations would be treated as federal political committees
and therefore could not receive grants from any corporation, even
an incorporated nonprofit foundation, from any union, or from
any
individual in excess of $5,000 per year: - A 501(c)(4) gun rights
organization that spends $50,000 on ads at any time during this
election year criticizing any legislator, who also happens to
be a
federal candidate, for his or her position on gun control
measures. - A "good government" organization [§501(c)(3)]
that
spends more than $50,000 to research and publish a report
criticizing several members of the House of Representatives for
taking an all-expense trip to the Bahamas as guests of the hotel
industry. - A fund [§527] created by a tax reform organization
to
provide information to the public regarding federal candidates'
voting records on budget issues. - A civil rights organization
[§501(c)(3) or §501(c)(4)] that spends more than $50,000
to
conduct non-partisan voter registration activities in Hispanic
and
African-American communities after July 5, 2004. - An
organization devoted to the environment that spends more than
$50,000 on communications opposing oil drilling in the Arctic
and identifying specific Members of Congress as supporters of
the legislation, if those Members are running for re-election.
- A
civic organization [§501(c)(6)] that spends $50,000 during
2004
to send letters to all registered voters in the community urging
them to vote on November 2, 2004 because "it is your civic
duty."
Other potential ramifications include the following situations:
- A
religious organization that publishes an election-year legislative
report card covering all members of Congress on a broad range
of issues would be unable to accept more than $5,000 from any
individual donor if the report indicated whether specific votes
were good or bad. - A 501(c)(3) organization that primarily
encourages voter registration and voting among young people
will be required to re-create itself as a federal PAC. - A 501(c)(4)
pro-life group that accepts contributions from local businesses
would break the law by using its general funds to pay for any
communications critical of an incumbent Senator's position on
abortion rights after the Senator had officially declared himself
for reelection more than a year before the next election. - A
501(c)(3) civil rights group that has been designated as a
political committee can no longer hold its annual fundraiser at
a
corporate-donated facility, and it must refuse donations or grants
from donors that have already given $5,000 for that year.
BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGES
Under federal campaign finance laws, federal "political
committees"
must register and file reports with the FEC and can accept
contributions only from individual persons (and other federal
committees), and only up to $5,000 per year from any one donor
("hard money"). The FEC is now proposing to redefine
"political
committee" to include any group that: 1. Spends more than
$1,000 this year on nonpartisan voter registration or get out
the
vote activity or on any ad, mailing or phone bank that "promotes,
supports, attacks or opposes" any federal candidate; and
2.
Supposedly has a "major purpose" of election of a federal
candidate as shown by: (a) Saying anything in its press
releases, materials, website, etc. that might lead regulators
to
conclude that the group's "major purpose" is to influence
the
election of any federal candidate; or (b) Spending more than
$50,000 this year or in any of the last 4 years for any nonpartisan
voter registration or get out the vote program, or on any public
communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes"
any federal candidate. What's more, any group that gets turned
into a federal "political committee" under these new
rules has to
shut down all its communications critical of President Bush (or
any other federal candidate) until it sets up "federal"
and
"non-federal" accounts; and raises enough hard money
contributions to "repay" the federal account for the
amounts
spent on all those communications since the beginning of 2003.
These proposed rules would apply to all types of groups:
501(c)(3) charitable organizations, 501(c)(4) advocacy
organizations, labor unions, trade associations and non-federal
political committees and organizations (so-called "527"
groups,
as well as state PACs, local political clubs, etc.). The new rules,
including those that apply to voter engagement, cover all types
of
communications -- not just broadcast TV or radio ads -- but
messages in any form, such as print ads, mailings, phone
banks, email alerts like this one, websites, leaflets, speeches,
posters, tabling, even knocking on doors. The FEC will hold a
public hearing on April 14 & 15. Written comments are due
by
April 5 if the group wants to testify at that hearing; otherwise,
by
April 9. The FEC plans to make its final decision on these
proposed rules by mid-May and they could go into effect as early
as July, right in the middle of the election year, potentially
retroactive to January 2003. It's clear that these rules would
immediately silence thousands of groups, of all types, who have
raised questions and criticisms of any kind about the Bush
Administration, its record and its policies.
SOME TALKING POINTS -
The FEC should not change the rules for nonprofit
advocacy in the middle of an election year, especially in ways
that Congress already considered and rejected. Implementing
these changes now would go far beyond what Congress
decided and the Supreme Court upheld. - These rules would
shut down the legitimate activities of nonprofit organizations
of
all kinds that the FEC has no authority at all to regulate. -
Nothing
in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law or the Supreme
Court's decision upholding it provides any basis for these rules.
That law is only about banning federal candidates from using
unregulated contributions ("soft money"), and banning
political
parties from doing so, because of their close relationship to
those candidates. It's clear that, with one exception relating
to
running broadcast ads close to an election, the new law wasn't
supposed to change what independent nonprofit interest groups
can do, including political organizations (527's) that have never
before been subject to regulation by the FEC. - The FEC can't
fix
the problems with these proposed rules just by imposing new
burdens on section 527 groups. They do important issue
education and advocacy as well as voter mobilization. And
Congress clearly decided to require those groups to fully and
publicly disclose their finances, through the IRS and state
agencies, not to restrict their independent activities and speech.
The FEC has no authority to go further. - In the McConnell
opinion upholding McCain-Feingold, the U.S. Supreme Court
clearly stated that the law's limits on unregulated corporate,
union and large individual contributions apply to political parties
and not interest groups. Congress specifically considered
regulating 527 organization three times in the last several years
-
twice through the Internal Revenue Code and once during the
BCRA debate - and did not subject them to McCain-Feingold. -
The FEC should not, in a few weeks, tear up the fabric of
tax-exempt law that has existed for decades and under which
thousands of nonprofit groups have structured their activities
and
their governance. The Internal Revenue Code already prohibits
501(c)(3) charities from intervening in political candidate
campaigns, and IRS rules for other 501(c) groups prohibit them
from ever having a primary purpose to influence any candidate
elections -- federal, state, or local. - As an example of how
seriously the new FEC rules contradict the IRS political and
lobbying rules for nonprofits, consider this: Under the 1976
public charity lobbying law, a 501(c)(3) group with a $1.5 million
annual budget can spend $56,250 on grassroots lobbying,
including criticism of a federal incumbent candidate in the
course of lobbying on a specific bill. That same action under
the
new FEC rules would cause the charity to be regulated as a
federal political committee, with devastating impact on its
finances and perhaps even loss of its tax-exempt status. - The
chilling effect of the proposed rules on free speech cannot be
overstated. Merely expressing an opinion about an officeholder's
policies could turn a nonprofit group OVERNIGHT into a federally
regulated political committee with crippling fund-raising
restrictions. - Under the most draconian proposal, the FEC
would "look back" at a nonprofit group's activities
over the past
four years - before McCain-Feingold was ever passed and the
FEC ever proposed these rules - to determine whether a group's
activities qualify it as a federal political committee. If so,
the FEC
would require a group to raise hard money to repay prior
expenses that are now subject to the new rules. Further work
would be halted until debts to the "old" organization
were repaid.
This rule would jeopardize the survival of many groups. - The
4
year "look back" rule would cause a nonprofit group
that criticized
or praised the policies of Bush, Cheney, McCain, or Gore in
2000, or any Congressional incumbent candidate in 2000 or
2002, to be classified as a political committee now, even though
the group has not done so since then. This severely violates our
constitutional guarantees of due process. - These changes
would impoverish political debate and could act as a de facto
"gag rule" on public policy advocacy. They would insulate
public
officials from substantive criticism for their positions on policy
issues. They would actually diminish civic participation in
government rather than strengthen it. This would be exactly the
opposite result intended by most supporters of campaign
finance reform. - The FEC's proposed rule changes would
dramatically impair vigorous debate about important national
issues. It would hurt nonprofit groups across the political
spectrum and restrict First Amendment freedoms in ways that
are unhealthy for our democracy. - Any kind of nonprofit --
conservative, liberal, labor, religious, secular, social service,
charitable, educational, civic participation, issue-oriented,
large,
and small -- could be affected by these rules. A vast number
would be essentially silenced on the issues that define them,
whether they are organized as 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), or 527
organizations. - Already, more than five hundred nonprofit
organizations - including many that supported McCain-Feingold
like ourselves - have voiced their opposition to the FEC's efforts
to restrict advocacy in the name of campaign finance reform.
During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer
companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House.1 [Footnotes
below.] But you won't see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's
Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.2
Meanwhile, the White House is on the verge of signing into law
a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored
for CBS and Fox,3 allowing the two networks to grow much bigger.
CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across
the country lobbied against it; and now our ad has been rejected
while the White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot
like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech.
Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an
ad that was also rejected.4 But this isn't even a progressive-vs.-conservative
issue. The airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental
right to hear viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum.
That's why we need to let CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily
turning down ads that may be "controversial" -- especially
if they're controversial simply because they take on the President
-- just isn't right.
(If you want to skip the ad and just sign the petition, click
here.)
We'll deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.
You also may want to let your local CBS affiliate know you're
unhappy about this decision. We've attached a list of the CBS
affiliates in your state at the bottom of this email. Remember,
a polite, friendly call will be most effective -- just explain
to them why you believe CBS' decision hurts our democracy.
CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air. But the
message of the ad is a simple statement of fact, supported by
the President's own figures. Compared with 2002's White House
ad which claimed that drug users are supporting terrorism,5 it
hardly even registers.
CBS will also claim that this decision isn't an indication of
political bias. But given the facts, that's hard to believe. CBS
overwhelmingly favored Republicans in its political giving, and
the company spent millions courting the White House to stop FCC
reform.6 According to a well-respected study, CBS News was second
only to Fox in failing to correct common misconceptions about
the Iraq war which benefited the Bush Administration -- for example,
the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11.7
This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media institutions
be fair and open to all speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent,
and unless we speak up, the pattern may continue. Please call
on CBS to air ads which address issues of public importance today.
Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and
Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
January 22nd, 2003
P.S. Our friends at Free Press have put together a page which
explains simply how CBS and the FCC rule change are integrally
linked. Check it out at: http://www.mediareform.net/media/
P.P.S Here are the CBS affiliates in your state:
KCBS-TV, Los Angeles: (323) 460-3000
KFMB-TV, San Diego: (858) 571-8888
KPSP-TV, Thousand Palms: (760) 343-5700
KBAK-TV, Bakersfield: (661) 327-7955
KCOY-TV, Santa Maria: (805) 925-1200
KGPE-TV, Fresno: (559) 222-2411
KION-TV, Salinas: (831) 784-1702
KPIX-TV, San Francisco: (415) 362-5550
KVIQ-TV, Eureka: (707) 443-3061
KOVR-TV, West Sacramento: (916) 374-1313
KHSL-TV, Chico: (530) 342-0141
AUSTIN, Texas -- This being the season, let us give thanks for
freedom. As President Bush said in London: "Freedom is beautiful.
It is a fantastic thing to come to a country where people are
able to express their views." Indeed, freedom is so beautiful,
so precious that one needs to be zealous, to be watchful, lest
this priceless beauty come to harm.
Imagine my surprise to see in the headlines this Thanksgiving
week that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is "targeting
peace groups." Operation Cointelpro is back. Now, of the
various menaces faced by our republic, I must admit peace groups
are not high on my list. A motley assortment of vegetarians, Unitarians,
Quakers, miscellaneous pacifists, unclassified idealists, sweet
damn fools, followers of Gandhi and Dr. King, and some others
I suspect are far ahead of the rest of us both morally and politically.
I have watched peace people sitting in ditches in the Texas Panhandle
in August singing "Kumbayah" in hopes of stopping nuclear
war. I have seen them give blood and get arrested for trespassing
on their government's property. I have seen them keep silent vigils
and hold candlelight marches for peace. I have heard them sing
and pray for peace. I have watched them carry funny and touching
signs in demonstrations for peace. One thing I have never seen
them do is anything that calls for investigation by the FBI.
Clearly, being in favor of peace is not sufficient grounds for
an FBI surveillance effort -- right? We don't investigate and
start files on people in this country for their political opinions,
even opinions so extreme, so extraordinary, so unheard of as believing
that war -- on the whole, really -- is not a good thing.
Ah, but perhaps these peace people -- these lovely, gentle, harmless,
pacific peace people -- perhaps they are being infiltrated by
people who are not real peace people. This has in fact happened
in the past -- people with no real interest in peace join peace
groups and try to manipulate them for their own purposes.
I am pleased to report that peace people are perfectly well of
aware of this, on the qui vive, en garde, ready, prepared to fend
off these interlopers. Their rule is simple: "Anyone Who
Suggests That a Peace Group Do Anything Illegal Is Automatically
Assumed to Be an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
This rule stems from years of painful practical experience with
FBI efforts to spoil, stain and blacken the reputation of the
peace movement. Consequently, you can understand the peace people
being ill at ease over the news that their tax dollars are now
being used by the FBI to spy on them.
But don't peaceniks get arrested a lot? A few of them do -- the
American Civil Liberties Union is now investigating over 300 cases
of peace protesters who were arrested unfairly and-or violently
during the lead-up to the war in Iraq, using videotape of the
arrests -- a tactic that the FBI memo outlining the new crackdown
describes as "intimidation" against the police.
Some peace people also use civil disobedience as a tactic. For
those who need a refresher course, civil disobedience -- as opposed
to just getting arrested at a demo -- is deliberately breaking
a law you consider unjust and being prepared to pay the legal
penalty for doing so. Those engaging in civil disobedience do
not attempt to avoid or evade arrest, they go willingly, often
limply, and stay in jail singing "Kumbayah" as long
as the law prescribes. Not a public menace.
So just whom is the FBI attempting to infiltrate and foil here?
Why, it turns out, anarchists -- anarchists have been associated
with demonstrations against world trade agreements, it says right
in the FBI memo, and protests against the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank. Furthermore, these anarchists wear black
masks and run around breaking store windows, a tactic that is
not only a breach of the peace but also considerably less effective
against GATT and NAFTA than singing "Kumbayah."
So, I have a question -- really just a suggestion here: If the
FBI is worried about anarchists opposed to free trade agreements,
why doesn't the FBI infiltrate anarchist groups that are opposed
to free trade agreements, instead of the peace movement? Eh? Why
should one's freedom be undermined or should one be a suspect
because one is for peace? Are we not allowed to be for peace?
What would Jesus say?
In a repeated pattern -- Phoenix; Evansville, Ind.; Kalamazoo,
Mich.; St. Louis; Trenton, N.J.; Albuquerque, N.M.; Neville Island,
Pa.; Columbia, S.C.; Houston; Richmond, Va.; and Washington, D.C.
-- protesters holding anti-Bush signs or antiwar signs have been
either arrested or segregated further away, often into so-called
"free speech zones," while demonstrators with pro-Bush
signs are allowed within hollering distance of the president.
Since when have one's constitutional rights depended on one's
political opinions? I have news for the Bush administration: This
country is a free speech zone. There are no zoning ordinances
that apply to our rights. Freedom is a beautiful thing, and it
is fantastic to come to a country where people are free to express
their views. Let us give thanks.
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
Today I read the Sunday Chronicle's article on page A12,
"FBI SCRUTINIZING ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS." I understand
why the FBI might feel the need to scrutinize us, but I really
don't think it's necessary. I believe the following memo could
save the FBI a lot of time and trouble.
TO: FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, Police, Sheriff, and
the hundreds of open or secret, legal or illegal organizations
of the U.S.A. or its shadow government.
FROM: Roger Stoll (Member: Marin Peace and Justice Coalition;
Social Justice Center of Marin; Marin Interfaith Task Force; Presente!
Affinity Group; Not In Our Name; International ANSWER; United
for Peace and Justice; Direct Action to Stop the War; The Green
Party; The Labor Party; Food First; Oxfam America; Voices in the
Wilderness; National Lawyers Guild; American Civil Liberties Union;
various solidarity groups concerned with people's movements and
rebellions in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East; and other
organizations, which you could no doubt list more completely than
I.)
(Subscriber:
The Nation; Monthly Review; Left Business Observer; Z Magazine;
Covert Action Quarterly; North Bay Progressive; War Times /Tiempo
de Guerra; The Hightower Lowdown; Workers World; Revolutionary
Worker; Workers Vanguard; The People; and a few more.)
DATE: Sunday, November 23, 2003
RE: The Peace Movement, etc.
As you know, I am a member of several of the antiwar, single-issue,
and multi-issue organizations you already have under scrutiny.
Among these organizations are many which openly advocate fundamental
change in our government, society and way of life -- a "revolution,"
if you like, in most of the traditional and modern senses of that
still lively idea. These organizations criticize most if not all
existing governments here and around the world. They criticize
the actions and motives of the people who run governments and,
especially here, the vastly wealthy private entities that control
them. They criticize countless laws, criminal and civil, and how
these laws are interpreted by the courts and enforced by the authorities.
Even when one of these groups may be fond of a law here and there
(say, the 4th Amendment), or advocates for the return of an old
favorite (say, the 4th Amendment), it often criticizes how and
when and for whom the law is enforced.
The overwhelming majority of people in the antiwar and issue
organizations I belong to, whether they say so or not, would like
to see power and wealth out of the hands of those who have too
much of each, and spread around. We call that democracy. We want
everyone in the world to have enough good food to eat, decent
health care, decent housing and education, real public transportation,
a healthy planet, and work for everyone, organized in a way that
gives life meaning, beauty and self-expression. That too we call
democracy. We would very much like all this to happen, right away.
We work in these groups in order to make it happen sooner rather
than later. This is true even of organizations with modest, issue-specific
names such as "Fight the FTAA," or "U.S. Out of
Iraq" (not actual organizations, as far as I know, but here
again, you would know better than I).
There is now a great effort underway by people in this country
-- not to mention, around the world -- to change just about everything
you desperately defend: the overweening power of the wealthiest
classes, endless predatory wars, the universal barbarities and
cruel exploitation of every imaginable kind resulting from obscene
inequality of wealth and power. We are a Movement. We will not
stop or give up. We will use every means we know, understand and
believe in. And if we don't quite succeed, our children certainly
will.
Right now just about everything our groups do is considered legal
by the courts, even "good citizenship" by many. Some
of us may, on occasion, do illegal things, such as peacefully
blocking streets or entranceways to buildings. We are often arrested
and, somewhat less often, criminally charged and convicted. Thus,
we count among our number convicted criminals. Would this make
us all members of something like a Criminal Conspiracy? And does
that terrify you? If so, I hereby rat out our Criminal Terrorist
Conspiracy. Sound the alarm!
So there you have my report on the state of our Movement. I realize
I have not been trained in domestic espionage, nor do I have a
staff -- I'm a lone mole, so to speak. But my report has the advantage
of being truly from the inside, like those old "I WAS A TEENAGE
COMMUNIST!" confessional pieces. The point is, our Movement
is overflowing with ardent revolutionaries of every imaginable
-- and imaginative -- variety. In other words, your espionage
model is hopelessly out of date.
We know that in the good old days things were much simpler. You
had the Communist Party, civil rights groups, Students for a Democratic
Society, anti-Vietnam War groups, the Black Panthers, a few other
organizations. Fewer groups, limited access, and limited numbers
meant it was easy to get your people into them, dog their leaders,
and get your work done. In those days there were the dissembling
front groups, shadow groups, secret alliances, complicated and
arcane disputes to uncover, nurture and exploit. There were provocateurs,
false leaders, false followers, smears and whispering campaigns.
But we're past all that now, in no small part thanks to you. Yes
you. You showed us how vulnerable such things render us, and we
thank you.
Today you face insurmountable difficulties. There are tens of
millions of us in a thousand organizations, all accessible to
a fault. Perhaps half of us might be called "leaders,"
if that word retains any meaning. And by your standards, we all
think like revolutionaries, so there's really no one to sniff
out, isolate, set-up and nail. If you tried, you'd be like that
mythical character who attempted to hold back the tide with a
whisk broom. Happy sweeping!
Your other problem is that everything you really need to know
is already public knowledge. We make sure of that, again, thanks
to lessons you taught us. Thus it would be a huge waste of time
having your secret agents write reports, since our newsletters,
leaflets, and meetings are much more accurate and revealing. And,
not to be immodest, but you're not likely to get many surveillance
memos as comprehensive as this one.
All that said, please do send us your agents. Send them to our
meetings, rallies, vigils, even our sit-ins and blockades. Of
course, we know you already do. Maybe you've even initiated some
of our organizations or written some of the periodicals I subscribe
to -- or at least a few articles. If so, well done!
This time, you see, things are different. You may have come to
us as an adversary, but you have already been "turned,"
as you say in the biz. You just don't know it yet.
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
White House's Cynical Iraq Ploy
'Misspeak' first for the frontpage, 'correct'
it later
in the back
Robert Scheer
September 16, 2003
It's hard to believe that it was just a slip of the tongue rather
than a calculated lie when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
sullied the memory of those who died on 9/11 by exploiting their
deaths for propaganda purposes. The brainwashing of Americans,
two-thirds of whom believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the
attacks, is too effective a political ploy for the Bush regime
to suddenly let the truth get in the way.
"We know [Iraq] had a great deal to do with terrorism in
general and with Al Qaeda in particular and we know a great many
of [Osama] bin Laden's key lieutenants are now trying to organize
in cooperation with old loyalists from the Saddam regime,"
Wolfowitz told ABC on this year's 9/11 anniversary.
We know nothing of the sort, of course, and the next day Wolfowitz
was forced to admit it. He told Associated Press that his remarks
referred not to a "great many" of Bin Laden's lieutenants
but rather to a single Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. "[I]
should have been more precise," Wolfowitz admitted.
Even if the leaders of the Bush team were half as smart as they
think they are, it would be amazing that they "misspoke"
as often as they have. As happened Sunday when Tim Russert challenged
Vice President Dick Cheney to defend his claim, made on "Meet
the Press" before the war, that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons.
"Yeah, I did misspeak," Cheney admitted. "We never
had any evidence that [Hussein] had acquired a nuclear weapon."
The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for
the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction
or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious
in its cynical effectiveness, and Wolfowitz's latest performance
is a classic example — even his correction needs correcting.
The Zarqawi connection has been a red herring since Colin Powell
emphasized it in his prewar presentation to the United Nations
Security Council, telling the world how Zarqawi was running a
chemical weapons lab. Problem was, the site was not in Iraqi control
but was in the U.S.-patrolled no-fly zone, and when reporters
visited it in the days immediately after Powell's speech they
found nothing that indicated anything like a chemical weapons
lab.
The fundamentalist militia known as Ansar al Islam that controlled
the area, meanwhile, was supported by Hussein's enemies in Iran.
Nor has any evidence of connections between Ansar al Islam and
Hussein's regime surfaced since the U.S invasion, as Wolfowitz
conceded in congressional testimony last Tuesday.
At that same Senate hearing, Vincent Cannistraro, formerly the
CIA's director of counter-terrorism operations and analysis, testified:
"There was no substantive itelligence information linking
Saddam to international terrorism before the war. Now we've created
the conditions that have made Iraq the place to come to attack
Americans."
So, Wolfowitz and the administration might prove to be right
after all. Not about Iraq's ties with Bin Laden before the invasion.
Nor about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction the president
used to scare up support for war. But by turning its claim that
Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism
into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Without this claim, the president's men would be revealed as
imperial adventurers who wasted the lives and resources of this
country to redraw the map of the world. That scheme, including
"preemptive military intervention," can be traced to
a "Defense Planning Guidance" document prepared by Wolfowitz
in 1992 when he was Cheney's undersecretary of Defense for policy.
Thus, it was not too surprising that the bodies recovered after
the 9/11 attacks were barely in the ground before Cheney and Wolfowitz
were arguing that a proper response to 9/11 was to go after Iraq
-- whether or not it had anything to do with the plot. They were
willing to say anything to convince us they were right, even trying
to sell this as a war without cost.
In March, one week into the war, Wolfowitz told Congress, "We're
dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction
and relatively soon." Now we find that Iraq can't pay for
its own reconstruction and since we went to war unilaterally,
defying world opinion, we are unlikely to convince anybody else
to chip in.
Last week, a Washington Post poll showed that 60% of the American
people opposed the president's plan to throw $87 billion more
into this quagmire, on top of the $79 billion budgeted already.
Perhaps, like people blinking in the sun after a long hibernation,
Americans are finally awakening to the stupid and craven things
being done in the name of protecting us.
The President says things that are misleading or just plain wrong
every day, but most of these statements are never challenged.
That's why we're launching Misleader.org, a new website and free
daily email service for journalists and the general public to
track George Bush's false statements.
The daily dispatches will take a "Just the Facts, Ma'am"
approach -- no rhetoric, just a couple of paragraphs we'll email
each morning on what the President said and why it was misleading
or untrue. It's our hope that by doing some of the research for
the press corps, we can ensure better coverage of President Bush's
lies. If you know someone who could use this kind of information,
please point him or her to the site.
To launch the site, we've taken out a full page ad in the New
York Times titled "Mis-State of the Union." The ad reveals
how the President mislead the nation in his State of the Union
speech -- not just on Iraq, but on the economy, the environment,
and other important issues. You can check the ad out at: http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf
Here are a few juicy tidbits from our New York Times ad:
ON TAX CUTS:
George Bush: "The tax relief is for everyone who pays income
taxes...Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000
more of their own money." The Truth: Nearly half of all taxpayers get less than $100.
And 31% of all taxpayers get nothing at all.
ON JOBS:
George Bush: "Our first goal is...an economy that grows fast
enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job." The Truth: Bush is the first President since Hoover to preside
over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them - more than
2.9 million since 2001.
ON THE ENVIRONMENT:
George Bush: "[My] Clear Skies legislation...mandates a 70%
cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years." The Truth: The Bush plan will allow more than 100,000 additional
premature deaths by 2020 than alternative legislation developed
by the Environmental Protection Agency. The plan does not regulate
carbon emissions and allows far more sulfur and mercury emissions.
ON EDUCATION:
George Bush: "[W]e achieved historic education reform - which
must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom." The Truth: Bush cut $8 billion from the promised funds for
education.
When Bush was running for President, he said, "I believe
everyone should be held responsible for their own personal behavior."
We agree. The President has repeatedly mislead the country. Now
it's time for Americans and the press to hold him responsible.
Sincerely,
--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn Team
September 15th, 2003
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
The Masters of Spin
Why the Bush administration is the most arrogant in memory
June 20, 2003— The long, hot summer has begun in Iraq. American
GIs are dying almost daily. So are Iraqis. But that hasn’t
stopped President Bush from embarking on a fund-raising spree
premised on his triumphal role as commander in chief. Who needs
reality when you’ve got spin?
The pre-war spin was all about weapons of mass destruction and
the price of U.S. inaction. Bush said we couldn’t afford
to wait until there was a mushroom cloud. Critics who suspect
the intelligence data about Saddam’s nuclear program was
hyped are brushed aside like gnats on an elephant. Bush says they’re
engaging in “revisionist history,” which is on a par
with calling Watergate a third-rate burglary.
Bush wins the spin for now. The debate over weapons of mass destruction
is an inside-the-Beltway story; it’s not resonating with
the public. The bigger question is existential: do the gods punish
hubris?
This is the most arrogant administration in memory. Every day
brings another issue where a careful observer of the political
scene cannot believe what’s happening. The latest outrage
has the White House spinmeisters editing a report by the EPA on
the status of the environment to omit mounting concern about climate
change. The spinners have already stricken the phrase “global
warming” in favor of the more benign “climate change.”
The offending line declared, “Climate change has global consequences
for human health and the environment.” In its place, the
White House inserted a bunch of gobbledygook about how the “complexity
of the Earth system” and various “interconnections”
make it a challenge to render scientific judgments.
Online Mail Call: Our Readers Discuss the Truth-Free Presidency
Howls from environmentalists go unanswered. The administration’s
attitude is like the phone company before the breakup of AT&T
when Lily Tomlin, the comedic actress, appeared on stage as a
telephone operator telling irate customers, “We don’t
care. We don’t have to. We’re the phone company.”
Karl Rove, the grand wizard of spin, is a smart man with a historical
perspective. He is a student of the American consciousness, and
he knows that the American public is disengaged from politics.
That’s the reality that makes voters today uniquely susceptible
to such deceptive spin. Apocalyptic assertions by Bush and other
administration officials in the months leading up to the war created
the impression of such an imminent threat that it’s not surprising
Americans got confused. One third of those questioned in a poll
taken by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the
University of Maryland believe that U.S. forces have found weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq. Twenty-two percent said Iraq actually
used chemical or biological weapons in the recent war.
Most Americans have no idea who the Democratic candidates are,
and Bush’s fund-raising blitz is designed to envelop his
re-election in an aura of inevitability. It’s summer in Washington
even though the dreary, wet weather feels like April. If by Labor
Day, U.S. inspection teams haven’t found WMD and Iraq is
looking like a quagmire, then the public might wake up and credibility
could become a serious issue for Bush. As insurance against that
outcome, Bush is shifting the political conversation to a looming
confrontation with Iran, which will keep war alive as an issue
for 2004. An uninformed public disengaged from politics and an
administration that knows no shame are the ideal conditions for
Bush to win a second term.
Democrats once hoped that a return to domestic issues, where
they hold an advantage, would be Bush’s undoing. But the
White House spin machine succeeds here, as well. Republicans who
ordinarily deplore big government are cheering the potential expansion
of Medicare to provide a prescription-drug benefit to senior citizens.
Never mind that the Rube Goldberg scheme under discussion in Congress
won’t go into effect until 2006 or that millions of seniors
would pay more for their drugs with the benefit than they currently
do without it, Bush will strut like the greatest savior of seniors
since FDR brought us Social Security.
The House just voted to repeal the estate tax permanently, a windfall
for trust-fund kids that was sold on the false premise that it
saves farm families from destitution at the hands of the IRS.
Reporters in the farm belt failed to find a farmer with a hardship
story that would illustrate the GOP’s argument. Even the
American Farm Bureau Federation said it couldn’t cite a single
example of a farm lost because of estate taxes. The House votes
tax breaks for millionaires while children of low-income families
and military families get left behind.
One of the key strategies of the GOP is to portray Democratic
critics as un-American. Remember the anonymous Bush strategist
quoted some months ago suggesting Sen. John Kerry looks French.
There will be two GOP campaigns: the flag-waving one on the surface
that Bush is involved with, and then the sub-rosa campaign waged
by surrogates that will be less gentlemanly. A very strong point
in Bush’s favor is that there hasn’t been another attack
on U.S. soil. He’s kept us safe, and he’s kept us fearful,
a potent combination that Democrats haven’t yet figured how
to crack.
ONE OF the great classics of contemporary literature is George
Orwell's 1984, a novel that is routinely taught in English classes
in this country. Many readers are riveted by 1984 and by Mr.
Orwell's terrifying vision of a totalitarian society, ruled by
Big
Brother and dominated by control of all citizens' reading
material, actions and even thoughts. Doublespeak - saying
one thing and meaning another - dominates in 1984, and the
government's three doublespeak mottoes are posted everwhere:
"WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," "IGNORANCE
IS
STRENGTH."
A depressing and cautionary novel, 1984 has an enduringy
appeal that has been confirmed by actions taken in the past year
by the U.S. Education Department; 1984 is just as relevant now
as it has ever been. A May 31, 2002 internal memo from the
Education Department, "Criterion and Process for Removing
Old
Content from www.ed.gov,"
the department's Web site, is
strangely akin to what occurs in 1984.
According to the memo, a justification for removing content is
not
just that it is out of date or a duplicate of other materials
but that it
"runs counter to current administration priorities ... [and]
does not
reflect the priorities, philosophies or goals of the present
administration." According to this memo, items on www.ed.gov
will be deleted unless they meet five criteria, two of which
specifically involve support for administration priorities and
initiatives and consistency with administration philosophy. It
has been estimated that, using these criteria, up to 13,000
documents of the total 50,000 will be removed.
In addition, this ideological purging is also being done on the
Department of Health and Human Services Web site, where
scientific information is being deleted if it does not adhere
to the
administration's stands on issues such as abortion, risky
behavior in youth and contraception. In 1984, the government
controls all of its citizens in their daily activities and,
ultimately, in their thoughts. Part of the work of Winston Smith,
1984's main character, is his job with the ironically named
Ministry of Truth. In the ministry's Records Department, Mr. Smith
routinely either destroys or alters printed information so that
whatever stand the government has taken or is taking is always
consistent with all printed information.
The government's head, Big Brother, is prone to making errors
in
his pronouncements, and official policy is ever changing. But
in
the Ministry of Truth, Mr. Smith cleans up the facts, altering
and
destroying "every kind of literature or documentation which
might
conceivably hold any political or ideological significance."
And
when Mr. Smith can no longer stomach his job, he begins secret
acts of rebellion that ultimately end in his arrest, torture
