Aggression Abroad Requires Repression at Home:
The Slow Slide into American-Style Fascism
David Glick
June 14, 2003
Back in January of 2002, when Attorney General John Ashcroft
covered up the semi-nude statutes depicting the "Spirit of
Justice" and the "Majesty of Law" which are in
the Great Hall of the Department of Justice, many thought at the
time that this was simply evidence of his uptight, puritanical
nature. What we can see now, in retrospect, is that this symbolic
gesture had a more sinister meaning--it signaled an attack on
the very notion of justice itself--on our Constitution and its
Bill of Rights.
Albert Camus, the French existentialist once said, "I should
like to be able to love my country and still love justice."
I am sure many of us in this hall echo that sentiment about our
own country. For today in America authoritarian rule is on the
ascendance and justice, for the moment, is on the wane.
The very foundation of our democracy, as codified in the Bill
of Rights and in those parts of the Constitution that establish
a separation and balance of powers, is under fierce attack by
the Bush administration. And lest we forget, we are talking about
an administration without any legitimacy whatsoever. Bush lost
the popular vote and was placed in office by a right-wing Supreme
Court helped along by a fraudulent vote count in Brother Jeb Bush's
Florida, where some 50,000 legally registered voters, most of
whom were African Americans registered as democrats, were expunged
from the voting rolls.
It is no exaggeration to state that our civil rights and liberties
are on the chopping block. What we choose to do about it matters
greatly--for our democracy hangs in the balance and if we fail
to wrest it back, the specter of an American-style fascism looms
on the horizon.
The tragedy that befell our country on September 11 afforded
the Bush administration the opportunity to launch a two-front
war--an ill-conceived war on terrorism abroad and a war against
our civil rights and liberties at home.
Many pundits have commented that the United States lost its innocence
on September 11. But the U.S. never was innocent. What we lost
was the naive, misguided belief in our innocence. Our nation was
founded on the physical and cultural genocide of Native Americans
and the kidnapping, enslavement and genocide of Africans. America
has waged imperialist wars against Mexico, the Philippines and
Vietnam, has supported the apartheid regime of South Africa and
the Israeli apartheid occupation of Palestine, and has supported
authoritarian and dictatorial regimes throughout Africa, Latin
America, Central America, Asia and the Middle East. And this,
unfortunately is the short list of American atrocities. Tens upon
tens of millions of people have been murdered as a result of our
imperialist expansion at home and our imperialist foreign policy.
It should come as no surprise that the Bush administration cynically
exploited the fear, rage and wounded pride felt after the tragedy
of September 11 to implement a series of reckless imperialist
wars disguised as a war against terrorism, initially directed
against Afghanistan and Iraq, with Syria and Iran now in the crosshairs
of America's pitiless might.
The National Security Strategy of the United States released
in September of 2002 unabashedly articulates the U.S. goal of
global hegemony. In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent
military and economic domination of every region of the globe,
unrestrained by international law. The U.S. will exploit its military
dominance by employing pre-emptive military strikes to ensure
that no regional or global rivals ever arise.
Furthermore, in its disdain for the UN, international law, and
international treaties, this administration rejected the Kyoto
Treaty on global warming, withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, scuttled the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Land
Mine Treaty, did everything possible to subvert the International
Criminal Court, and withdrew from the historic World Conference
on Racism in South Africa because the conference insisted on addressing
the issues of reparations for Africa and Israel's oppression of
the Palestinians.
In addition, the Bush administration is enacting legislation
that provides obscene tax breaks to corporations and the very
wealthiest Americans at a time when many families are working
two jobs to stay afloat, when 42 million Americans have no health
insurance, when the rates of homelessness and children living
in extreme poverty are on the rise, and cities and states are
facing severe budget deficits resulting in drastic cuts in health
care, education, housing, public transportation, and welfare benefits.
True to its elitist ideology, the Bush administration intends
to use massive tax breaks for the rich to drive the economy into
financial ruin to justify the elimination of federal funding for
social programs that serve the broader public good. The intention
of this ruling elite is to privatize as much as possible and destroy
what little safety net we have left in this country.
The recent decision by the Republican majority on the FCC to
loosen long standing media ownership rules bodes ill for our threatened
democracy. The ruling will inevitably lead to further media consolidation
on the part of the handful of media conglomerates that control
the public airways from which they derive enormous profits without
even paying rent. Further media consolidation across the broadcast
and newspaper industries will lead to a further shrinking of diversity
of political expression and analysis and an even greater lack
of objective and investigative news coverage--all of which have
disastrous consequences for a functioning democracy.
The obsession with secrecy and the contempt for democracy and
the public good so characteristic of the Bush administration permeated
the FCC hearings. Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, consented
to hold only one official public hearing on this critical issue
and he refused to even publish ahead of time the change in rules
that were under consideration. Furthermore, the final ruling ignored
the public outcry overwhelmingly opposed to the decision. Once
again commercial interests have trumped the public good and democracy
is the loser.
Each day 30,000 people across the globe die of hunger largely
due to the anti-people, pro-corporation trade agreements institutionalized
in the WTO, the effects of the U.S. model of corporate industrial
agriculture, our refusal to support Third World debt relief, and
the economic, environmental and health effects of our pushing
genetically modified food on an unwilling world. Yet none of this
gets reported in the corporate controlled media. Nor does the
hubris and insanity of the administration's push to militarize
outer space ever receive scrutiny in our mass media.
I mention all of this to provide a context for understanding
the connection to the war at home--the war against our civil rights
and liberties. The war against the poor and working class, the
war against the environment, the war against democratic media,
and the imperialist wars disguised as wars against terrorism--all
require repression at home in the form of a crackdown on the exercise
of our constitutional rights of free speech, association and dissent.
Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole corrupt gang are
trying to sell this crackdown as part of the war against terrorism.
But we know it is a war against us, the people. For there is only
one way to address terrorism. One must first have the moral courage
to ask if there are any legitimate grievances that underlie the
helplessness, rage and despair that boils over into these horrific
and unconscionable acts of terrorism. And once we look we indeed
discover there are legitimate grievances and those grievances
have to do with our government's foreign policy, especially our
foreign policy in the Middle East.
Among those grievances are U.S. support for Israel's brutal 36-year-long
military occupation of Palestinian land, U.S. support for corrupt
and dictatorial Arab regimes, and the stationing of U.S. troops
in Saudi Arabia where Islam's holiest sites reside.
We need only recall the infamous 1996 interview of former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright by Leslie Stahl which was broadcast
all over the Arab world. Leslie Stahl pointed out to Albright
that a UN report had said that 500,000 Iraqi children had died
from starvation and preventable diseases because of the U.S.-driven,
UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq.
She then asked Albright if she felt the price was worth it and
Albright responded, "This is a very hard choice, but we think
the price is worth it." So there you have it. The U.S. Secretary
of State saying that the lives of 500,000 Ira<~ children don't
mean a damn to us if they get in the way of our efforts to topple
Saddam Hussein. Dare we wonder why people hate us?
Given the refusal of this administration to deal with the root
causes of terrorism against this country, we can only conclude
that the real purpose of these incursions into our civil rights
and liberties is to shrink the allowable space for political mobilization
and dissent. The political and corporate elite have always feared
the people, the mettlesome unwashed masses--in other words us.
To the neo-conservatives in the saddle, the role of the populace
in a democracy is to simply acquiesce to the wisdom of those in
power. We are to be spectators not actors. We are not to question,
think critically, protest or participate meaningfully in the decisions
that affect our lives. That dreaded outcome would be what the
Trilateral Commission once referred to as an "excess of democracy"
and it must not be tolerated.
Those in power have eviscerated the political content of democracy
and, with linguistic sleight of hand, have redefined it and morphed
it into nothing other than the savage, unregulated capitalism
of the free market. Likewise they have redefined freedom. Freedom
is not "participation in power" as the Roman statesman
Cicero would have it. Rather freedom has become no more than the
freedom to choose from among thirty brands of toothpaste or fifty
brands of cereal. But in the political realm where it really counts,
voters must choose between the two wings of a single capitalist
party with little to differentiate them.
And so, six weeks after September 11, the Bush junta rushed through
Congress the hypocritically named USA Patriot Act. Many of the
changes regarding surveillance were part of a long standing law
enforcement wish list previously rejected by Congress. Few copies
of the Act were available for Congress to read. The Senate version
of the Act which closely resembled the legislation requested by
Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor
with no discussion, debate or public hearings and without Senators
and their staff having time to read and analyze it before voting.
Hearings were held in the House and a compromise bill watering
down some of the most egregious aspects of the Act emerged from
the House Judiciary Committee. But then, without consulting rank-and-file
members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and
replaced it with legislation virtually identical to the Senate
version. No discussion, amendments or public hearings were allowed
and once again members had no opportunity to read the Act before
voting.
Members of Congress were literally bullied into voting for the
Act with the threat hanging over their heads that they would be
blamed for any further acts of terrorism if the bill was defeated.
As Attorney General Ashcroft implied, opposition to the Patriot
Act was considered treasonous. And as President Bush said, "You
are either with us or with the terrorists." Thus a law gutting
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was passed with less scrutiny
and deliberation than a run-of-the-mill Congressional resolution
establishing something as innocuous as flag day.
Among our rights endangered by the USA Patriot Act are:
* freedom of speech, assembly, association and privacy;
* protection from unreasonable searches and seizures;
* equality before the law and the presumption of innocence;
* access to legal representation and due process in judicial proceedings,
including a speedy and public trial.
Section 802 of the Patriot Act should be of grave concern to
all of us. It creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism"
which it defines so broadly that legal scholars across the political
spectrum--from the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights
and the National Lawyers Guild on the left, to the libertarian
Cato Institute, to the American Conservative Union on the right--all
fear it will convert legitimate protest into acts of domestic
terrorism, thereby chilling political dissent without which we
will have lost the foundation of our democracy. This domestic
terrorism clause could easily have been used to criminalize many
of the acts of protest of the civil rights movement that led to
the abolishment of segregation in the South and the passage of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
As many of you have heard, Ashcroft has called for even broader
powers of investigation, detention and punishment in his recent
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His twin goals
are to make sure none of the provisions of the Patriot Act sunset
in 2005 and to promote passage of Patriot Act II, the Domestic
Security Enhancement Act, which is like Patriot Act I on steroids.
Patriot Act II was drawn up in secret by the Justice Department
and only became public when it was leaked by someone in the department
alarmed by its further erosion of our civil liberties. Ashcroft's
disdain for the Congress in which he once served can be seen in
the fact that when asked if there was any further legislation
in the pipeline he lied and answered that there was none. This
grab for power by the executive branch is an attempt to dismantle
the wisely crafted balance of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
We must never forget that many of the rights and freedoms we
take for granted today came out of the committed struggles of
the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement
and the women's movement, all of which were forced to use civil
disobedience to secure for us the very rights and freedoms we
now enjoy without question.
An authoritarian regime like that of the Bush administration
could easily use the Patriot Act to criminalize the actions of
anti-globalization protesters, those protesting the war against
Iraq, those sitting in Redwood trees to prevent the clearcutting
of old growth forests, those protesting the killing of whales
or the use of animals in medical experiments, or even, should
it wish, those protesting abortions.
Free speech, the right of association and assembly, and the right
to dissent are the bedrock of our democracy. The Patriot Act,
the Homeland Security Act, the recently released Domestic Security
Enhancement Act, and various executive orders and Attorney General
directives, all portend a dangerous shift from the fast disappearing
democracy we still have to a virtual democracy with a decorative
outer shell, but with no real substance on the inside.
Those who are most vulnerable to this onslaught of repressive
legislation Post September 11 are immigrants of the Muslim, Arab
and South Asian communities, thousands of whom were subjected
to so-called "voluntary" FBI interviews in a disgraceful
act of ethnic profiling that is part of Bush's war on terrorism.
Thousands from these communities have been held in secret detention
without access to attorneys for nothing more than immigration
violations. Many were subjected to physical abuse by guards. Deportation
hearings were held in secret which resulted in an unknown number
of deportations. It is incumbent on those of us who are less vulnerable
to stand in solidarity with this beleaguered community.
Pastor Martin Niemoller's words, uttered about Hitler's regime
of terror, have a disturbing relevance for us today: "In
Germany they came first for the Communists and I did not speak
out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came
for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was
not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I
did not speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for
me and by that time no one was left to speak up."
I do not think it is overly dramatic to say that we are in a
period of incipient fascism. The Bush administration shares many
of the characteristics of previous fascist regimes, among which
are the following:
* The use of scapegoats to unify the country and distract it
from problems it would otherwise have to face.
* A belligerent nationalism, a militarized foreign policy, and
the use of the military to express jingoistic national pride.
* A disdain for human rights
* An obsession with national security and the suppression of civil
liberties.
* Control of the mass media.
* The suppression of labor rights and the protection of corporations
from any restraints on their behavior.
* Suppression of academic freedom.
* Suppression of intellectual and artistic pursuits.
* Corrupt elections.
* The cynical use of religion to bolster authoritarian rule and
a black-and-white view of the world.
In this dangerous period of incipient fascism, we must not allow
our voices to be silenced. We must not be frightened into submission.
We must organize and mobilize and protest and dissent and put
forth a vision of the world we want--for another world is possible.
Our most urgent task in this historical moment is to reclaim
the word "patriotism" and infuse it with a different
meaning, its true meaning: a commitment to the values America
professes but has not yet learned to live up to. Apropos of that
I have written an oath called the Patriot Oath. It goes like this:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully fulfill the
role of patriot of the United States, and that I will, to the
best of my ability, resist U.S. militarism and imperialism; resist
the corporate exploitation of workers and the destruction of the
environment; resist racism, sexism, and intolerance in all forms;
resist the assault on our civil liberties; resist illegitimate
authority; and work to create a just, peaceful and sustainable
world."
CONTENTS:
1. Eli Pariser: The Big Choice
2. Don Hazen: A 12-Step Program for Regime Change
3. Jan Schakowsky: How Badly Do You Want to Win?
4. Robert Borosage: Cracking the Conservatives
5. Bracken Hendricks: An Energy/Jobs Program
6. Liz Langley: Abba Cadabra
7. Jim Motavalli: Getting Out the Vote
8. Farai Chideya: Dreaming a New America
9. Roberto Vargas: Reclaiming America
10. Ruy Teixeira: Deciphering the Democrats' Debacle
11. Granny D: Don't Stand in the Way of Our Joy
12. John Moyers & Elizabeth Ready: Ballots can Keep Bullets
from Flying
13. About the Bulletin
------------------------------
THE BIG CHOICE
MoveOn Bulletin Op-Ed
by Eli Pariser
We recently invited all MoveOn members to join together and articulate
a positive vision for our nation, based from the ground up on
core principles. To kick off the process, members were asked to
take an hour to interview each other about their fears and hopes
for our country. People paired up randomly: folks in Maine called
folks in Texas; nineteen-year-old college students called septuagenarians.
I've spent the last few days reading through the thousands of
pages of reports from these thousands of calls. Read together,
these interviews highlight the stark choice we face.
When we asked participants to talk about the values that the
Bush Administration lacks, integrity, honesty, respect, compassion,
and fairness were at the top of the list. Interviewees were furious
at the duplicity and secrecy of the Bush Administration; so many
of them mentioned lies that one could pick out the word scores
of times on a single page.
It's no coincidence that these attributes occur together. The
President's ideology is predicated on the idea that society is
essentially a group of selfish individuals scrambling for power.
Respect, compassion and fairness, in this view, are attributes
of the weak: in order to "win," individuals must seize
every competitive advantage. And truthfulness is less important
than the appearance of credibility. Communications are just a
means to an end.
What's the alternative? We asked folks what American values they
resonated most strongly with. "Compassion, equality, fairness
and respect," they responded. These also begin to shape a
positive worldview, a view based on the idea that collaboration
and community build stronger societies -- that if we strengthen
the bonds between each other, if we trust, respect, and empathize
with each other, we will be more creative, more resilient, more
fair, and ultimately more collectively powerful.
Political strategists like to talk about swing states and target
demographics for voter turnout. These tactics are important, but
it's also important to keep at least one eye on the big question:
In 2004, do we want a President who believes in trust, respect,
and community, or one who believes in power?
------------------------------
A 12-STEP PROGRAM FOR REGIME CHANGE
Don Hazen, AlterNet
How we engage this election will speak volumes about the future
of our country. By focusing on what we have in common -- the clear-cut
goal of regime change at home -- we can all succeed. We need to
dedicate ourselves to the task ahead fully, without ambivalence,
minimizing squabbling, knowing we are right. How important is
this? It feels more important than anything we will do for a very
long time. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16050
------------------------------
HOW BADLY DO YOU WANT TO WIN?
U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky
The Illinois congresswoman issued this clarion call at the recent
Take Back America conference: "If we are serious about getting
rid of George W. Bush in 17 months, then we have to make some
decisions and some commitments. ...If we are to win, it's clear
we need to do more, do it louder, do it faster and do it better.
And if we don't, in 2008 we will live in a country and a world
far different from the one we have had and the one to which we
aspire." http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16099
------------------------------
CRACKING THE CONSERVATIVES
Robert Borosage, TomPaine.com
Over the past two years, the United States has witnessed a staggering
reversal of fortune. We need a big argument about the course this
country's on -- and Democrats would benefit most from forcing
it. Democrats would do well to learn from how the New Right responded
to life in the political wilderness in the mid-1970s, when Nixon
was in disgrace and Democrats controlled everything. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7985
------------------------------
AN ENERGY/JOBS PROGRAM
Bracken Hendricks, The Nation
The time is right for a national commitment to energy independence.
Enter the Apollo Alliance: a broad coalition including labor unions,
green groups, consumer advocates and socially responsible businesses.
By focusing on good jobs and new investment to solve persistent
energy and environmental problems, Apollo offers common ground
both for labor unions and for environmental advocates. Such a
project is attractive to swing voters, and could also unite the
progressive base. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030609&s=hendricks
------------------------------
ABBA CADABRA
Liz Langley, AlterNet
My new political party, ABBA (Anyone But Bush Again), is an SOS
to those who didn't want George W. Bush the first time, which
was most of us, and those who don't want an encore. All you have
to do is one thing: vote for the one guy running against Bush
who has a shot of winning. And if anyone tries to Naderize this
thing, we lob stuff at them -- old fruit, chairs, opened paint
cans -- until they quit. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16088
------------------------------
GETTING OUT THE VOTE
Jim Motavalli, E Magazine
The election of George W. Bush has been a disaster for the environment.
With polluters holding the upper hand in Congress, a newfound
interest in electoral politics has persuaded many environmental
groups and their funders to take a look at the tactics of fighters
like the League of Conservation Voters. With basic environmental
protections under attack, an electoral role for environmental
groups is essential, argues the author. http://www.emagazine.com/may-june_2003/0503feat1.html
------------------------------
DREAMING A NEW AMERICA: PEACEFUL REGIME CHANGE
IN 2004
Farai Chideya, AlterNet
The anti-war movement provided a blueprint for mapping constituencies
that can collaboratively restore democracy. It would be a shame
if the National Council of Churches and American Muslims, the
hip hop activists and the suburban anti-war moms never met on
common ground again. We must find a way of convening Americans
with an interest in peaceful regime change at home -- what we
call an election -- and make plans for 2004. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15433
------------------------------
RECLAIMING AMERICA
Roberto Vargas, YES! Magazine
A Chicano community activist asks himself some tough questions:
"Why had I developed such a disdain for this country? How
many more people felt similarly disconnected? If I had instead
chosen to be politically involved, how much more could I have
contributed to advancing justice, respect, and wellness for my
own community and the larger U.S. community? If millions like
me had not surrendered their connection to an American national
identity, could we have evolved a more caring, just, and respectful
nation?" http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16036
------------------------------
DECIPHERING THE DEMOCRATS' DEBACLE
Ruy Teixeira, Washington Monthly
Last year the author argued that a series of economic, demographic,
and ideological changes was laying the basis for a new Democratic
majority that would materialize by decade's end. After poring
over post 2002 election survey data, county-by-county voting returns,
and a great deal of underlying demographic data, the evidence
suggests that Bush and the Republicans are vulnerable sooner,
if Democrats can exploit those weaknesses. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15792
------------------------------
DON'T STAND IN THE WAY OF OUR JOY
Doris 'Granny D' Haddock
Says the 93-year-old activist: "Politics is about winning.
It is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty
and illness and loneliness and injustice. Those posturing on the
left sometimes forget that. Don't tell me that you can't support
a particular candidate because of this or that. This isn't about
you and your precious political standards. When we have reasonable
people in power, let us start our arguments again, for we can
not move forward unless we have a decent government underneath
us and a Bill of Rights to let us speak freely." http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15789
------------------------------
BALLOTS CAN KEEP BULLETS FROM FLYING
John Moyers and Elizabeth Ready, TomPaine.com
"Peace" means more than just "anti-war." It
summarizes in a word the concepts of economic and environmental
justice, civil rights, equality, democracy and compassion. With
that understanding in mind, peace organizers can broaden the call
for a massive registration and Get Out the Vote effort. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15693
------------------------------
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues.
The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/;
you can subscribe to it at that address. The MoveOn Bulletin is
a project of MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their
lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the
Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising
public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots
advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can
help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the
discussion forum at: http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
Bad Iraq Data From Start to Finish
Americans were duped: Evidence of administration
manipulation and mendacity just keeps rolling in
June 3, 2003 — Ever since the tragedy of Sept. 11, the Bush
administration has relied on selective and distorted intelligence
data to make the case for invading Iraq. But the truth will out,
and the White House is now scrambling to explain away its mendacity.
On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice admitted that President Bush had
used a forged document in his State of the Union speech to prove
Iraq represented a nuclear threat: "We did not know at the
time — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency
— but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and
suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information
that was mistaken."
United Nations inspectors, belatedly presented with the same
document, realized within hours it was a crude forgery.
While this garbage and much else like it got rushed into the
light, the Bush administration protected its continuing lie about
a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein by repressing the
results of interrogations of captured top Al Qaeda leaders.
As Monday's New York Times reported, Al Qaeda honchos in separate
interrogations told a consistent story a year ago: The terrorist
group, and Osama bin Laden in particular, had shunned any connection
with Hussein and his government.
In going to war, the administration was unable to come up with
a shred of verifiable evidence linking Hussein with Bin Laden.
The closest it came was a purported meeting in Prague between
an Al Qaeda member and an Iraqi diplomat, which has been fully
repudiated by the Czech government.
Keeping secret any information that contradicted the pro-war
line of the administration allowed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
to fabricate what he called a "bulletproof" connection
between Al Qaeda and Hussein. We were expected to believe that
our government had hard, definitive intelligence we couldn't be
shown — just as we were told to trust that U.N. inspectors
wouldn't be able to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
in time to avert disaster.
Thus, with the pattern established, it was not surprising last
week to read in the Los Angeles Times of a leaked report from
the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency — secret since
its completion last September — that indicated the depth
of our government's confusion as to the nature of the Iraq WMD
threat.
The report stated that "there is no reliable information
on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,
or whether Iraq has — or will — establish its chemical
warfare agent production facilities," according to U.S. officials
interviewed by The Times. Yet that very month, Rumsfeld told Congress
that Hussein's "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles
of chemical weapons — including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and
mustard gas."
Did Rumsfeld know of the DIA report? If so, did he keep that
information from the president? Or did he and Bush knowingly deceive
the American people? And isn't that an impeachable offense?
Unfortunately, the president still hasn't learned his lesson.
Only last week, on his trip to Europe, he pointed to two mobile
trailers the U.S. had seized in Iraq as proof of Iraq's threatening
WMD program. Yet, as emerged over the weekend in newspapers on
both sides of the Atlantic, Bush's claims rest on intelligence
that is again unable to withstand scrutiny: Some leading weapons
experts summoned by the administration to make the case for the
ominous trailers take issue with the Bush administration's interpretation
of their design and use.
On Saturday, the New York Times, which had originally hyped the
trailer story based on official U.S. sources, published a front-page
report quoting experts who repudiated the administration's claims.
One such expert went so far as to say the government's "white
paper" on the labs "was a rushed job and looks political."
Others questioned myriad technical claims and suppositions in
the report that led to the government's conclusion that the trailers
were germ labs that could be used to cook up anthrax or other
bioweapons.
"It's not built and designed as a standard fermenter,"
one top U.S. scientist told the New York Times. "Certainly,
if you modify it enough you could use it. But that's true of any
tin can."
On Sunday, the London Observer, citing British intelligence sources,
reported that it "is increasingly likely that the units were
designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery
balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain
in 1987."
The British Parliament is in an uproar, but so far the U.S. Congress
has failed to exercise its obligation to hold the executive branch
accountable.
SPECIAL FEATURE: GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW WITH
DANIEL ELLSBERG
In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg was working at the Defense Department.
Recognizing that the public was being deceived about Vietnam and
anticipating that President Nixon was about to escalate the war,
Ellsberg risked imprisonment to leak the Pentagon Papers -- 7,000
pages of top-secret memoranda -- to the New York Times. This would
ultimately force Nixon to resign rather than face impeachment.
Ellsberg's recent book, "Secrets," undermines the naive
assumption of many Americans that political leaders' inexplicable
actions in times of war are based on accurate information from
reliable sources. "Secrets" provides much needed insight
for today's situation as many question the information President
Bush used to base his claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction: The Nuclear Future
2. One Link
3. No More Hawks and Doves
4. Reviewing the Nuclear Posture
5. The Direction Since Sept. 11
6. The Bush-Putin Treaty
7. Mini-Nukes
8. Nuclear Weapons Go Underground
9. Credits
10. About the Bulletin
------------------------------
INTRODUCTION: THE NUCLEAR FUTURE
For years, the threat of nuclear catastrophe consumed the energies
of many activists. Washington and Moscow both seemed willing to
risk the lives of millions of human beings in order to maintain
nuclear superiority. And then the Cold War ended.
Once rhetoric shifted to understanding the post-Cold War strategic
environment, talk of nuclear expansion subsided. The assumption
was that the weapons were no longer necessary and would be cooperatively
dismantled by the now-friendly nuclear powers. This was, after
all, in everyone's interest.
Yet de-escalation has not ruled the day. The focus has shifted
from communists to terrorists and while there is no evidence that
terrorists have nuclear weapons, there is evidence they are trying
to procure them. Precisely because dismantling never occurred,
Russia still possesses nuclear weapons in great numbers, but they
are now less securely protected. Once again, nuclear weapons must
be preserved as a deterrent.
More frighteningly, smaller nuclear weapons must be developed
which would serve not as a deterrent, but as a usable complement
to conventional weapons. These changes are immediate history --
the Bush-Putin nuclear arms treaty signed this week, the ban on
developing small nukes lifted only last month -- and that history
continues to unfold. This week's bulletin will prepare you to
participate in the history to come.
------------------------------
ONE LINK
If you read nothing else in this week's bulletin, read this article
from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
"[President Bush] should ask whether adopting a military
posture right now to counter aggressive 'peer competitors' that
might arise in the invisible future could create a self-fulfilling
prophecy, while also aggravating the dangers that exist today.
He should, instead, move towards an unambiguous and whole-hearted
endorsement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and demonstrate
this commitment by asking the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty." http://www.moveon.org/r?444
------------------------------
NO MORE HAWKS AND DOVES
"Forget hawks and doves. The post-Cold War political struggle
is between 'dominators' and 'conciliators.' Right now, thanks
especially to Osama bin Laden, those who believe U.S. national
security lies in raw military power, not cooperative agreements,
are in control." http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/jf03/jf03krepon.html
------------------------------
REVIEWING THE NUCLEAR POSTURE
The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is a military planning document
Congress mandated in 2000. The Bush administration delivered the
NPR in 2002, but its contents were classified. Leaked versions
reveal the NPR recommends a greater role for nuclear weapons and
missile defense.
THE DIRECTION SINCE SEPT. 11
"While there is much the Bush administration might have done
to make nuclear terrorism less likely, the path they have chosen
increases the risks of nuclear terrorism. It also undermines our
relationship with countries we need in the fight against terrorism
in general and nuclear terrorism in particular." http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.01/020114kriegernucpolicy.htm
------------------------------
THE BUSH-PUTIN TREATY
In 2002, President Bush met with Russian President Vladimir Putin
to discuss reducing deployable nuclear warheads. They drafted
the Treaty of Moscow which has since been ratified by the U.S.
Senate and Russian parliament. On Sunday, Bush and Putin signed
the treaty in St. Petersburg, bringing it into full effect.
Questions remain as to the seriousness of this arms reduction.
This Chicago Tribune op-ed challenges Bush's claim that the treaty
will "liquidate the legacy of the Cold War":
"Moving [nuclear] weapons from silos, where they are extremely
secure, to warehouses, where they may not be, would be a gift
to Al Qaeda and every other outlaw group that lusts after Russia's
'loose nukes.' If we want to reduce the danger, we have to persuade
the Russians to destroy nuclear weapons so that no one can ever
use them. But they won't do that unless we agree to do the same." http://backfromthebrink.org/newsroom/tribunev2.html
------------------------------
MINI-NUKES
The Bush administration has lobbied for the repeal of a 10-year
ban on research and development of "low-yield" nuclear
weapons. Opponents have argued these smaller nukes would blur
the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear weaponry, making
nuclear warfare more palatable.
In a late May vote, Senators Edward Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein
were unable to preserve the ban. On the Senate floor, Kennedy
asked: "Is half a Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter Hiroshima OK?
Is a little mushroom cloud OK? That's absurd. The issue is too
important. If we build it, we'll use it." http://www.moveon.org/r?445
Senator Feinstein on low-yield nuclear weapons:
"The political effects of U.S. pursuit of new nuclear weapons
could well be to legitimize nuclear weapons, and U.S. nuclear
planning could serve as a pretext for other countries and, worse,
terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, to build or acquire their own
bombs." http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-arms.htm
Slate magazine on the Pentagon's Dr. Strangelove, Keith Payne,
whose nuclear infatuation is now making policy. Of nuclear war,
Payne once wrote: "an intelligent United States offensive
[nuclear] strategy, wedded to homeland defenses, should reduce
U.S. casualties to approximately 20 million ... a level compatible
with national survival and recovery." http://slate.msn.com/id/2082846
------------------------------
NUCLEAR WEAPONS GO UNDERGROUND
From Popular Science magazine:
"[T]he Pentagon has begun to consider the previously unthinkable:
developing specially designed nuclear weapons for attacking buried
caves and tunnels.... Such a move would represent the most significant
rewriting of U.S. nuclear strategy in decades, because its intended
purpose violates the two cornerstones of current policy: to use
nuclear weapons only as a last resort and never to use them against
non-nuclear nations." http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,351094,00.html
------------------------------
CREDITS
Research team:
Leah Appet, Russ Juskalian, Janelle Miau, Kim Plofker, and Bland
Whitley.
Editing team:
David Taub Bancroft, Melinda Coyle, Eileen Gillan, Judy Green,
Mary Anne Henry, and Rita A. Weinstein.
------------------------------
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues.
The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/
moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it at that address. The
MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their
lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the
Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising
public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots
advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can
help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the
discussion forum at: http:/
/www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223
