ELF to shut down today

Deep Blade has received a comment from an excellent, helpful Michigan blogger (site named Vacuum) to my post on Nukewatch: 25 years later. He posts today on a September 20 Ashland, Wisconsin news story: Navy plans to scrap ELF; Transmissions to end at Clam Lake September 30. Please click through his Daily Press link to read a detailed news story giving lots of history on the ELF system.

This is good news, as it fulfills the wishes of hundreds of activists who have over the years conducted numerous demonstrations and civil disobedience actions against this transmitter.

The transmitter was designed to broadcast Extremely Low Frequency electromagnetic waves that would direct submarines during the conduct of a nuclear war. It is good to see that this particular Cold War symbol of planetary destruction will be put to rest.

Hersh on Daily Show

Saw Seymour Hersh on the Daily Show last night (replays at 10am and 7pm Eastern). Thank goodness for Jon Stewart. He put in just the right touch of levity on what otherwise was the most deadly serious seven minutes in Comedy Central history. Hersh's new book is Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib.

Stewart: ...I read it, and I have to tell you sir, not funny....Do you think that it's sticking? Do you think that any of the accusations or mistakes they have made are sticking to this administration?

Hersh: Absolutely not.

Stewart: Absolutely not? Why do you think that might be?

Hersh: Because they live in their own world. This is a president, a vice president... they don't care what books say or the New Yorker, ... , or your show...

Stewart: I hope not! (laughter)

Hersh: ...or the New York Times or the Washington Post... These are guys that have their own mantra, they have their own thing. I mean, you know as far as I'm concerned, I watch 'em, I talk to people on the inside who are as concerned as you are, as I am, about these guys...

Stewart: When you say "these guys", ... , your also sort of this group in the Pentagon...sort of this "neocon" group...

Hersh: They took over the country, like a coup. Eight or nine guys came. They overran the press, the Congress, the bureaucracy. And we all fell down so easy. Now the question you have to ask...the one I don't have an answer for...Is our democracy that fragile, that it can be taken over so quickly by people who are zealots, who are ideologues, utopians, if you will? The only problem was...you know they didn't go into Iraq because of oil or Israel, they went in because they really believed they could go in with 10,000 American soldiers, a few bombs, a lot of American flags, Saddam would fall, a new government would come in, democracy would flow like, like ah, water out of a fountain...

Stewart: And how did that work out? (laughter)

Hersh is so right, Bush does not have to care. No one is able to hold him responsible, least not Kerry. Kerry has been a miserable failure in delivering a sharp, winning critique. Bush just laughs at him, mocks him for being indecisive, then goes for the jugular with charges of preferring a dictator to freedom and failing to support the troops in war – treason, in other words.

As an example, hear are a few quotes from Bush in Bangor, Maine one week ago (yes, I'm ashamed he came to my home town to squeal this Stalinist propaganda):

[Kerry said] well, I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it. I don't think a lot of people speak that way in Bangor, Maine. (Applause.) They kept pressing him and he said he was proud of vote. Finally, he said, the whole thing was a complicated matter. There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat. (Applause.) ...

Incredibly, this week, my opponent said he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today. (Booo!)

You cannot lead the war on terror if you wilt when times are tough. (Applause.) You cannot expect the Iraqi people to stand up and do the hard work of democracy if you are pessimistic about their abilities. You cannot expect the Iraqi people to do the hard work if you say that they'd be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. (Applause.) What kind of message does it send our troops, who are risking their lives and who see firsthand the mission is hard, but know the mission is critical to our success? Mixed signals are the wrong signals. I will continue to lead with clarity, and when I say something, I'll mean what I say. (Applause.)

Kerry's Iraq critique is bogging down. Some of the huge issues Hersh raises – the neocon takeover & torture of prisoners, for example – are off the table. Kerry forces himself to speak in roundabout phrases. He might be understood by the small percentage of voters who have a firm grasp of history and follow events closely through journals...

But...picture Jon Stewart slumped on his desk following some footage of Kerry in a deadly interview with Diane Sawyer (from a segment in last night's show prior to the Hersh interview). He can't give a clear answer on whether or not the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong! That slumped reaction is what Kerry can't help but cause. I'm worried about Kerry's ability to win!

Deep Blade calls for fuel conservation

Deep Blade Journal calls on government officials of all levels to issue an immediate request for all members of the community to voluntarily conserve fuel. A small amount of restraint by fuel consumers at this critical time could really help avoid a fuel supply and cost crisis.

Oil barrier breached

November light sweet crude touches $50

The Daily Star: "This is a major problem we don't need. There is just not enough sweet crude".

Some of the current rationales given for the latest spike in oil prices include

· Unrest in Nigeria – Shell evacuated 200 workers from the Niger Delta due to insecurity

· Unrest in Saudi Arabia – firefight in Riyadh's Shifa district, Frenchman killed in Jeddah

· More sabotage attacks on Iraqi pipelines – two Iraqis were killed near Kirkuk when a bomb they were planning to plant exploded

· Tropical storm Jeanne – any news suggesting an oil supply threat moves traders, because...

· ...U.S. oil inventories are at the lowest levels since February.

"There is beginning to be a problem with inventories", a trader quoted in the Bloomberg piece said. He continued, "$50 is a psychological shock, and it could climb to $60. It's definitely something that could happen".

Additional reporting from the New Zealand Herald lays out a grim future:

The lack of a supply cushion has reinforced the view among some investors that oil near $50 is not overpriced, despite a 50 per cent jump in crude prices since the start of the year.

"The market faces the prospect of years without sufficient flexibility or insulation from shocks during a period of extreme geopolitical stress," said analyst Paul Horsnell of Barclays Capital.

But here's the real kicker. Demand is so high that

Extra crude from Opec, now pumping at a 25-year high, has failed to make any impact. The group produced 30.5 million bpd in September, the highest since 1979, tanker-tracking consultancy Petrologistics said Monday.

The people who watch tankers suggest that OPEC has succeeded in increasing output by 2.5 million bpd, but it doesn't matter, due to the Nigerian problems and other strains making the highest output rates unsustainable, growing demand still hasn't been slaked.

The story that moved the markets last week, Yukos cuts in China deliveries, barely makes the radar compared to this week's oil problems.

I really need to finish that "next posting" I promised two months ago, as energy could sharply rise as an issue in the presidential campaign. Could the October surprise be gas lines?

Meanwhile, it is time to review the Matthew Simmons material I cited in July.

Update 9:45am: Oil is up sharply at $50.47 in early Tuesday trading. According to this updated version of the Bloomberg story cited, Robert Mabro, president of the U.K.-based Oxford Institute for Energy Studies is quoted:

With geopolitical uncertainty, large demand growth and limitations to capacity, the surprise isn't that oil reached $50 but that it hasn't gone to $70.

Also,

The Niger Delta People's Volunteer Force plans to extend the fighting across the delta and will target Agip, a unit of Rome-based Eni SpA, Reuters reported, citing an interview with rebel leader Mujahid Dokubo-Asari. In March 2003, Shell, ChevronTexaco Corp. and Total were forced to idle more than a third of Nigeria's output because of violence around the town of Warri.

"Given the fact that we have such a tight supply-demand balance and that Nigeria is one of the major oil producers in OPEC, any potential disruption there at this moment in time would be very significant for prices", said Simon Wardell, an analyst at World Markets Research Centre in London.

Daily oil output in the Gulf of Mexico, home to a quarter of U.S. oil production, remains about 500,000 barrels below normal two weeks after Hurricane Ivan, the U.S. Minerals Management Service said. More than 11 million barrels of production have been lost in the past two weeks.

Funny how the Bush campaign is basically mum about how high oil prices may affect the election, preferring instead to push the terror panic button. All we know is the Whitehouse is keeping "a close eye on" the oil price, according to spokesman Scott McClellan. I really feel secure knowing that.

Bush loyalists reveal the unvarnished America

CSPAN is a treasure trove of wonders. Washington Journal, the 7am – 10am call-in show, receives its share of crackpot callers. A few days ago, a transcript (credit: Sinfonian/Blast Off!) of a call into Washington Journal by an obviously disturbed individual made the rounds of blogspace commentary. Atrios was particularly impressed.

This "housewife" began

I'm going to vote for President Bush because, after all, you know, God made us there, you know, in His image, free from any black color and all [Host looks up, surprised]....

Click through for the rest of the incredible ride.

Some time ago (August 2003), I posted this, also a Washington Journal transcription.

CSPAN: Memphis, Tennessee, our next caller, good morning.

BUSH LOYALIST: Good morning. Yes, I'd like to say that I totally support George Bush as he reshapes the Middle East. People don't understand it's necessary that we throw all these countries into chaos, and kill all the Arabs as much as possible, so that we can have a greater Zion in that area, and have more glory and power for the United States of America.

CSPAN: Thank you for the call.

Note the intense Bush support. Back in 2003 I asked, "Why is it that George W. Bush inspires such loyalty from this warped crowd?", and lamented the "bizarre spread of Zionist-American religious right extremism promoting a new kind of final solution".

I still wonder how it is that Bush has locked in this most extreme cross-section of reactionary America – those holding the most rabidly racist views along with a willingness to give them out loud to a national audience. George W. Bush has called out kooks of this strain in droves. How? Why?

Today I will engage in some new speculation on this matter. I recalled an article I read in American Demographics magazine a very long time ago. It dealt with of all things, bug spray and low-income consumers. But it's something that's stuck with me. A bit of searching unearthed a quote from this article in American Demographics for Nov. 1991:

Psychographic marketing techniques helped Raid roach spray marketers discover that the reason low-income Southern women were the heaviest users of roach spray was that "a lot of their feelings about the roach were very similar to the feelings that they had about the men in their lives," said the advertising executive on the account. They said the roach, like the man in their life, "only comes around when he wants food." The act of spraying roaches and seeing them die was satisfying to this frustrated, powerless group.

Here's my speculation – Bush engenders, in essentially powerless people who are vulnerable to his propaganda, feelings similar to what they get with a spray weapon in their hands while exterminating insects.

There are oh so many of those little devils – brown people, followers of Islam.... George W. Bush promises to spray them back, put them down. He's been molded to fit in the hand and give just the right satisfactions. Meanwhile, Democrats like Kerry are just leechy wimps who'll eat you out of house and home while giving everything away to the insects.

My hypothesis is that this is a technique through which the Republicans control people of different races and cultures with low resources to act against their own interests by turning them against each other. Bush becomes the satisfying exterminator of terrorists and other leeches. The targets are dehumanized through racist transmogrification into insects while a thick layer of supernatural belief forms a barrier through which no rational thought can go.

It's just speculation. Anyone have further thoughts?

Telegraph: Ministers were told Allawi a "stooge"

Ministers were told premier was seen as stooge
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 24/09/2004)

British officials gave warning more than two years ago that Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, was seen as "a western stooge" who "lacked domestic credibility", secret documents seen by The Telegraph reveal.

The Cabinet Office told ministers a year before the war in Iraq that the external opposition, made up of Mr Allawi's Iraqi National Accord and Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, was "weak, divided and lacks domestic credibility".

Mr Allawi, who was closely aligned with the CIA, and Mr Chalabi, who was initially the choice of many within the administration as Iraqi leader, were regarded by most Iraqis as "western stooges", warned a "Secret UK Eyes Only" options paper.

A coup attempt in 1996 allegedly organised by Mr Allawi, a neurosurgeon who was trained in Britain, in tandem with the CIA ended in "wholesale executions", according to the paper, which was prepared by the Overseas and Defence Secretariat in March 2002.

The documents also expressed concern over the possibility that the Americans would choose Mr Chalabi as the leader of Iraq after the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

They described Mr Chalabi as "a convicted fraudster popular on Capitol Hill".

Mr Chalabi was convicted in absentia for fraud in a Jordanian banking scandal in 1991 and was sentenced to 22 years in jail.

There you have it. Warning flags waving brightly over two years ago. Huh? The Brits knew in early 2002 that America would remove Saddam and put an American "stooge" in charge of Iraq??

When the truth is radioactive...

It should be clear to anyone observing current events with half a brain engaged that interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is a puppet of the United States. I have recent entries that assume this point.

But when John Kerry presented mild critiques of Mr. Allawi's upbeat message, vociferous reaction from President Bush and Vice President Cheney lit into Kerry's pessimism, and worse. Kerry said Thursday in Columbus, Ohio,

The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story.... I think the prime minister is, obviously, contradicting his own statement when he said, "Terrorists are pouring into the country".

Here is the Vice President's reply in a Louisiana speech:

Prime Minister Allawi is a brave man. Some years ago, Saddam Hussein sent killers after him with axes. They tried to hack him to death in his bed. He is a brave and a determined leader, and I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage when he rushed out to hold a press conference and attack the Prime Minister, yesterday right after his speech. Ayad Allawi is our ally. He stands beside us in the war against terror. John Kerry is trying to tear him down and to trash all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive. As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech, and I quote, "When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence".

Interesting, nowhere does Cheney say Allawi is not a puppet.

But now the wingnut side of the blogosphere has latched onto a quote from Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart

The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips

Click that link to see what free speech in America allows the wing to say about the challenger to the Republican dynasty.

Dwight Meredith at Wampum has an excellent analysis that gives clear examples of how the administration pulls the puppet strings.

And look also at the somewhat convoluted New York Times story, Iraqi With Close U.S. Ties Chosen to Be Prime Minister, by Dexter Filkins and Warren Hoge from last May 28. Here, the mysterious US-directed end-run around the UN in the Allawi selection is kind of explained:

Dr. Allawi is the leader of a group called the Iraqi National Accord. But he has a somewhat limited base among Iraqis, being viewed by many as an outsider because he lived in London for the past 20 years or so....

The United States turned to the United Nations for help with the transition in January, after months of shunning the world organization, because its own credibility in Iraq had declined dangerously and it needed the international imprimatur that the United Nations can confer.

The decision to name Dr. Allawi was made with the approval of Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy, though it was unclear how enthusiastic his support was. At United Nations headquarters in New York, officials contended that they were caught unawares by the announcement but said that they endorsed the choice....[They] had been expecting Mr. Brahimi to deliver the names by the end of this month. They had also been told that the names would be made public as a group, not in the sporadic and individual manner that Dr. Allawi's name emerged today.

Can there be even the slightest doubt that Allawi really is a puppet?

So let's review and extend the main lesson of this episode – hinting at certain radioactive truths about Iraq leads automatically to strong backlash and charges of pessimism, disloyalty, or worse from the Bush loyalist wing.

Below is an incomplete list of such truths. Look for any of these in mainstream media discourse. If you happen to see one discussed, you can be sure that the appropriate dismissal or loyalist backlash is included:

· Allawi is a puppet.
· Sovereignty turnover was a sham.
· The planned Iraqi elections are being set up to be a sham.
· The United States desires control of Iraqi oil.
· Saddam Hussein was not in March 2003 any sort of threat to the United States.
· The United States is less safe after the invasion of Iraq.
· The invasion of Iraq was illegal.
· Iraq is not better off than it was before the invasion.
· The invasion of Iraq does not make the world more peaceful.
· The likelihood of civilian deaths does not impede US military operations.
· Widespread torture of US prisoners is conducted under the color of authority.
· Iraqis have a right to resist occupation
· Bush, Blair, and their collaborators are war criminals
· People labeled "Islamic fanatics" do not deserve summary execution

Look for additional discussion of some of these in later posts.

Thievery underlies invasion of Iraq

Essential article by Naomi Klein lays it out with clarity in the September issue of Harpers

Everyone needs to read Baghdad Year Zero published in the September 2004 issue of Harpers Magazine. It is absolutely crucial for understanding the underlying planning for the conquest of Iraq.

Deep Blade has reported extensively on the illegality of the planned economic transformation of Iraq here and here, especially in connection with the indefinitely-postponed US-Iraq Business Alliance Conference -- co-sponsored by the University of Maine School of Business -- that was to have been held November 13, 2003.

It turns out now that events during this mid-fall period last year are absolutely pivotal to understanding the current situation. In the face of rising Iraqi resistance, the article explains the decisions taken by the Bush administration resulting in the 180 degree policy shift of last fall, where Coalition Provisional Authority head Bremer went from insisting on an in-place constitution and elections before the occupation could be ended, to the sham sovereignty hand-off and appointed puppet government there now.

Klein's article zeros in on the critical moments as the forces of resistance in Iraq rose up to derail neocon economic planning:

By November, trade lawyers started to advise their corporate clients not to go into Iraq just yet....Insurance companies were so spooked that not a single one of the big firms would insure investors for "political risk".

While "international law prohibits occupiers from selling state assets," it says nothing about puppet governments. So the risky plan was to officially end the occupation by the end of June, "but not really. It would be an appointed government chosen by Washington." And the timimg was set with the US election in mind.

The UN role in the plan, led by envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, was a sham, as the UN was cut out of the loop towards the end of May at the very last second.

But the plan also hinged partly on the interim constitution. Here's a major thing I didn't realize at the time -- barely reported if at all -- that I learned from the Klein article: Article 26 said, "The laws, regulations, orders, and directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority...shall remain in force." After al Sistani had intervened to prevent this article from being included, five bombs exploded in front of mosques in Baghdad and Karbala on March 2, killing 200. Sistani backed down and the interim constitution, with Bremer's legal loophole was signed.

BUT, "The final blow to the neocon dream came in the weeks before the handover." The Whitehouse and CPA "had twisted arms to give the top job to former CIA agent Iyad Allawi, a move that will ensure that Iraq becomes, at the very least, the 'coaling station' that Jay Garner originally envisioned."

However, UNSCR 1546 does not ratify the interim constitution! This was reported as a blow to the Kurds, but it also puts the neocon privatization contracts in limbo, while "Iraqi ministers are already talking about breaking contracts signed by the CPA."

It looks to me that as a trade-off last June, the US decided authority over military operations and the election-year "Let Freedom Reign" propaganda front were more important than Kurdish autonomy or affirmation of the legality of Bremer's orders.

Klein concludes that the resistance to US-backed corporate thievery and privatization has won round one, as "Businessmen threatened by Bremers investment laws have decided to make investments of their own--in the resistance".

On the other hand, it's far from over, because "...while the Iraqi resistance has managed to scare off the first wave of corporate raiders, there is little doubt that they will return".

Nukewatch: 25 years later

Venerable Wisconsin-based organization celebrated anniversary last month

One of the formative experiences of my youth was a trip I took with a friend in July 1979. We left Minneapolis on a Friday, reaching Madison, Wisconsin in time for speeches and a concert given by Pete Seeger and other musicians in the UW Stock Pavillion. This concert kicked off a weekend-long Nukewatch Rally & Symposium Against Nuclear Secrecy. The messages from that event 25 years ago reverberate today.

It was there – in the wake of the Iranian revolution, US-Soviet Cold War machinations (soon to be underlined in Afghanistan), a festering energy crisis, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor incident, and the 1st Amendment/prior restraint case concerning the US government's attempt to stop publication in The Progressive magazine of an article describing the conceptual (not technical) "secrets" of hydrogen fusion weapons – that I received some early political wings.

We heard in person the likes of Nicholas von Hoffman, Barbara Ehrenreich, John Trudell, and the now dearly departed Dave Dellinger, Sidney Lens, Sam Day, and Erwin Knoll.

Knoll was then editor of The Progressive. At the Madison event with Knoll was the author of the H-Bomb Secret article, Howard Morland. I recall being at a session with Morland that was deadly serious – the lawyers had what he could say under strict control and there was a palpable feeling of the national security state in the air — a year-and-a-half before Reagan took office.


Poster for Nukewatch Rally & Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin, July 13–15, 1979

Fast forward to August 2004. While visiting Duluth, Minnesota, I picked up a free newspaper. It was the Summer 2004 issue of Nukewatch Pathfinder. I was so happy to see that they still exist and to read about their current activities while I filled with memories of that summer 25 years ago.

These days, Nukewatch continues with its mission of opposing the nuclear march towards planetary destruction. For many years running now, Nukewatch activists have stood steadfast in protection of the world from nuclear war planning still underway over a decade after the end of the Cold War. Perhaps their most important project has been to demonstrate for peace at the US Navy ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) communications site in northern Wisconsin, an installation designed to direct Trident submarines during the execution of a nuclear war.

Keep up the good fight, Nukewatch. The people of the world are counting on you.

Friday vegetable blogging

Brandywine tomato

After being sluggish, they're coming in too fast now. September weather has been excellent. The flavors from these beauties have been exquisite, every bit as good as advertised.

Allawi gems

Josh Marshall has posted on this "amazing exchange" on Thursday's PBS Newshour between Jim Lehrer and Iraqi puppet Prime Minister Iyad Allawi:

LEHRER: What would you say to somebody in the United States who questions whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the cost of more than a thousand lives now and billions and billions of U.S. dollars?

ALLAWI: Well, I assure you if Saddam was still there, terrorists will be hitting there again at Washington and New York, as they did in the murderous attack in September; they'll be hitting also on other places in Europe and the Middle East.

When I heard this, I wanted to shake the softballs out of Lehrer's throat, as he at least could of asked Allawi how his answers might square with the 9/11 Commission report:

to date we have seen no evidence that [Iraq-al Qaeda] contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p. 66)

Here are a couple more neo-agitprop gems from Allawi's performance:

LEHRER: How many Iraqis have died since the U.S. military operation began?

ALLAWI: The figures we have so far, this is the ministry of health figures... in the last five months, this is taking into account the most recent ones, deaths, three-thousand-six hundred and something, I can't remember the fractions over six hundred. Civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks in the last five months by terrorists, and more than twelve thousand injured now.

You have to be killed by the bad guys to be mentionable. Iraq Body Count has about 13,000 civilian deaths recorded since early 2003, mostly from US bombing and other military operations.

ALLAWI: ...there are a lot of areas in Iraq, the majority of areas are free of such violence.

Juan Cole eloquently refuted this oft-used nonsense tack by asking, "If America were Iraq, What would it be Like"??:

...What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll....[What if the rulers] maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

The Bush people are ballsy to trot out this brutal intelligence asset and have him maintain these fantasies of success that the recent CIA intelligence estimate (signed onto even by some Republicans) has declared are really "pitiful" failures.

Racicot: We're there for our children

Former Montana governor Marc Racicot, who heads the Bush campaign, gave the real purpose of the American invasion of Iraq in a Wednesday interview with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart. Racicot slipped this in as he chatted up family life with Stewart: We invaded Iraq for our children, "So they won't have to."

Hmmmm....The way it's going, American newborns today -- not to mention Iraqi children -- will two decades from now still be paying with their lives for America's arrogance.

Bush to release strategic oil

"The strategic reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election....It should not be used for short-tem political gain at the cost of long-term national security." (Presidential candidate George W. Bush, in September 2000)

A story is out this afternoon that the US Energy Department will "loan" oil to refineries from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to make up for hurricane-related supply problems. The BBC story cited suggests this is routine and legitimate, as it was done following hurricane Lili in 2002.

Meanwhile, crude prices are almost touching $50 again. Let's see how this policy develops. Will Bush benefit from a pre-election drive-down of oil prices? Yes or no, don't expect Bush to be criticized from reactionary quarters like NewsMax.

Bush running against Saddam Kerry

As soon as John Kerry yesterday at New York University opened his mouth to level his strongest criticism yet of the conduct of the invasion of Iraq by President Bush, the president in reply sprung a heavy steel-jawed trap, smashing and holding Kerry's bloody, crippled legs.

Kerry decried that, "The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective – a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve".

Okay, some voters may buy Kerry's promise to be a better imperialist than Bush. But here is how the president, laying in wait for the tentative Kerry, swung back with a visceral appeal to base emotion:

Another lesson of September the 11th, another lesson is that we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. (Applause.) Prior to September the 11th, if we saw a threat, we could deal with it if we felt like it, or not, because we never dreamt it would come home to hurt us. So if we saw a gathering threat overseas, maybe it's something to pay attention to, maybe it wasn't. Today, that world changed. Today, we've got to take every threat seriously because we saw the consequences of what can happen. We're still vulnerable.

So I looked at the world and saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. (Applause.) I'll tell you why I saw a threat. He was a sworn enemy of the United States of America; he had ties to terrorist networks....

Saddam Hussein was a threat. We had been to war with him once. Many politicians prior to my arrival in Washington had said we better -- it would be naive, to the point of grave danger, not to confront Saddam Hussein -- that would be Senator John Kerry -- "naive to the point of grave danger"....

The world had given Saddam Hussein a chance, a last chance to listen to the demands of the free world. And he made the decision -- and so did I. I had to either trust a madman, or forget the lessons of September 11th, or take the touch decision to defend our country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

Thank you all. Today, my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind, with new contradictions of his old positions on Iraq. He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, no, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he still would have voted for force, even knowing everything we know today. Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison.

Whoa. Take that Saddam Kerry! You aint ever gonna protect this country like I will you, you TRAITOR!!

Kerry is in a box of his own making. Bush has expertly thrown Kerry's war support straight back at him – in a manner designed to resonate like a laser into the minds of the electorate. As I warned in two postings from last fall – one before the capture of Saddam (Nov.3, Saddam is Back! Bush Re-Election Strategy Emerges); and one after (Dec.16, Saddam may be useful) – "Progressives who want to use the bloody occupation of Iraq as an election issue against Bush better look out. The president and his rich campaign/advertising machine will have a powerful answer for us".

Now with some news outlets reporting, "Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi says the trial of the Saddam Hussein is likely to begin next month" – that is, before the election – Kerry better get some kind of treatment for those wounded campaign legs. He's got a very, very tough last stand ahead of him.

Update 10:45am: I just read Juan Cole's posting on the Bush New Hampshire remarks. Cole says

Bush attempted to turn [Kerry's] statement around and suggest that Kerry was preferring dictatorship to democracy.

Iraq, however, does not have a democracy, and cannot possibly have a democracy any time soon because of events such as those described below (and they are only 24 hours' worth)-- that is, because of a failed state and a hot guerrilla war.

Yep, Professor Cole is exactly right, but it doesn't matter. Bush plays to emotions and uses people's emotions to lie to them. The truth about Iraq will have a very difficult time emerging, and Kerry is a flawed messenger. Kerry oughta just say, yes, Saddam probably still would be in power. But he'd be in a box and couldn't hurt anyone. Meanwhile tens of thousands of people, ours and theirs, would still be alive and the Iraqi people would have a chance to make their own history. That would have to be better than allowing Bush to pummel him like this.

Professor Cole finishes with this lament: "I have a sinking feeling that the American public may like Bush's cynical misuse of Wilsonian idealism precisely because it covers the embarrassment of their having gone to war, killed perhaps 25,000 people, and made a perfect mess of the Persian Gulf region, all out of a kind of paranoia fed by dirty tricks and bad intelligence.... How deep a hole are they going to dig themselves in order to get out of the bright sunlight of so much embarrassment"??

I'd offer that I think the American people certainly have a clue that the Iraq thing is a mess. But I think challenger Kerry has done a terrible job conveying the horror of the death and destruction the invasion has brought. That's the gut-wrenching truth we must act on to save ourselves from Bush.

Report: Iraq now has Taliban Emirate

According to a posting in the Angry Arab News Service, a marvelous blog site run by Professor As'ad AbuKhalil, Al-Mustaqbal newspaper is reporting today that the Taliban has established an Emirate in districts south of Baghdad and is conducting "acts of assassinations and kidnapping on the road near those districts which extends to Najaf and Karbala".

Hmmmm, somebody forgot to tell the president. At a campaign event in Derry, New Hampshire, he puffed up his great success in eliminating the Taliban:

So I said, if you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. I was speaking to the Taliban at this point in time. And they ignored what we said. And thanks to a great military, the Taliban are no longer in power. (Applause.)

Okay, a couple of other points -- we've got too much work to do here. (Applause.) Thank you all -- too much work here. And so we went in and removed the Taliban from power. Now, remember, al Qaeda was training there. They trained thousands of killers. And al Qaeda no longer has a safe haven, they're on the run in that part of the world. And we're safer for it. We're safer for it. (Applause.) We're safer because people now are free in Afghanistan, as well.

My GOD. How out-of-touch is Bush when the country he invaded has become a magnet for this? I wonder how many Americans understand that MOST of Iraq is outside the control of the US and its puppet government?

Meanwhile, Kerry talks about how he's gonna take control of it from mismanaging Bush, bring in allies, train Iraqis, etc. It's bullshit, of course. "Fresh leadership" will not convince Iraqis to accept peace on US terms.

State terror is terror

The US-led Terror War quickly devolved into exactly what I feared it would in my September 14, 2001 essay entitled Why? Examining the roots of the September 11, 2001 terror attack on the United States. At that time I wrote

Naturally, our first reaction is that we want those responsible punished. And they should be punished. But I have a great deal of fear that the U.S. will retaliate, blindly, with actions that would put us on the same disgusting moral level of terrorism of the hijackers. If we as a generous, free, peace-loving people, want justice, there should be justice, not just vengeance. This is no time for blind patriotism that could become the justification for the killing of innocents in the manner of the hijackers.

The jingoes and commissars who stake claim for an America-centered moralism – justifying infliction of unimaginable horror while covering American eyes with a sheet of propaganda – most certainly will accuse me of the crime of moral relativism. I reject the exisistance of such a crime. Instead I believe in the one lesson I remember from Lutheran Sunday school – The Golden Rule set forth by Jesus in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 7:12) – Treat others as I myself wish to be treated.

A fine blogger producing Past Peak: Cause for Alarm started me off on this post. Please see his post on this subject, referencing a fine New Statesman article by John Pilger.

From the West Bank and Gaza to Fallujah, the US and its allies are engaged in "systematic, murderous assault on civilian populations". Take a look at recent reporting from Fallujah, Iraq. The standard copy stamps an imprimatur of righteousness upon recent actions where the US has blown up homes from cowardly 1000-meter stances with aerial launched bombs, saying "intelligence" told them groups of "terrorists" were there. But when an honest journalist like Patrick Cockburn of the Independent investigates, the hospitals are found to be filled with shattered noncombatants, including many, many women and children.

Reality, America, reality. We better get back to it, witness our true effects on the world, and start trying to redeem our souls before we are lost for eternity. Rational, rapid withdrawl of our troops from Iraq would be a good start.

Seen in Orono: 1027 flags

Please donate to Deep Blade Journal

Deep Blade began in February 2003 during the run-up to the Iraq conquest. It is written by Eric T. Olson aka Deep Blade, a long-time peace and justice activist living in the Bangor, Maine area.

The blog site dates to August 21, 2003 when it was initiated at tripod.com. New postings moved to Blogger in May 2004. The tripod.com archives will remain for a few more months.

Significant postings in the "old blog" include the entire saga of the proposed -- then indefinitely postponed -- University of Maine School of Business, US-Iraq Business Alliance conference; and the Energy/hydrocarbon depletion thread.

With all this history of great research & information and edgy opinion posted, I feel it is time to ask people who benefit from this blog for a small donation. An amount like $2 or $5 from a few of the approximately 100 readers I get per day would really help out and inspire me to dig deeper and put up more great stuff.

My expenses are very low. Right now we pay for hosting of two sites, deepblade.net and practicalpantry.com (an excellent food-related website). We buy plenty of bandwidth for about $12 per month. Our major expense is equipment. We've lucked out in 2004, having no major drive or motherboard meltdowns like we did in 2003. Any donations will first go towards defraying hosting expenses, then to an equipment replacement fund, as this string of luck is unlikely to continue forever. Right now I can forsee the need for at least one new monitor in the coming months.

Help from readers for these purposes will be greeted with immense gratitude from both of us at deepblade.net and practicalpantry.com. We both toil in a low-income world of contingent labor (freelance editing & writing and part-time teaching). Even a little bit of support for the good things we try to bring you would not only be flattering, but would really help us bring you more.

Using PayPal to donate is easy. Please just click the PayPal/Donate button in the left-side pane to initiate a donation. The best thing for you to use is your own PayPal account. They are really handy for small transactions, believe me. So open one if you don't already have one. The PayPal site provides complete explanation/instructions. Otherwise, you can also use a credit card to send us your donation through PayPal by clicking through the appropriate link.

Thank you in advance so very, very much!!

Friday vegetable blogging

Scarlet nantes carrots

We do not have many of these because of poor germination. Apart from a few oddballs, most of the ones that have come in are champions -- flavor is unbelievable when compared to the blankness of store-bought carrots.

More on Korean nuclear ambitions

Empire Notes today has an excellent explanation of the US-North Korea foreign policy stand-off, faulting policy of both the Republican administration and the alternatives the Democrats propose:

Far from the narrative that Republicans and Democrats agree on, it was the Bush administration, not North Korea, that provoked this crisis. North Korea is a less-than-admirable state internally, but it has no interest in a suicidal confrontation with the United States. It just understands that weakness is not the best way to keep the United States from attacking you.

Mahajan attacks further the central foreign policy canard of Bush camapaign rhetoric, where it continually highlights the demonstration value of the conquest of Iraq:

One of the most absurd moments in a very absurd post-9/11 world came on April 9, 2003, when John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, used the war on Iraq to warn Iran, Syria, and North Korea: "With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest".

This is an odd lesson to learn from a war in which Iraq was quite obviously attacked because it couldn’t defend itself, and the attack occurred while it was disarming, in particular while it was destroying its al-Samoud 2 missiles. The lesson that those countries, and virtually every other one in the Third World, obviously learned from the war was the opposite, articulated straightforwardly by North Korea: "The Iraqi war shows that to allow disarming through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it. This suggests that even the signing of a nonaggression treaty with the U.S. would not help avert a war". (April 7, 2003, Howard French, New York Times)

On one perfectly valid point Mahajan makes, I too want to distance myself from the tough-minded liberal concensus:

The obvious implication being that the way to deal with North Korea's weapons was to be able to threaten them with the maximal number of troops. And in general he makes it a staple of his analysis that Bush has "underestimated" the threat from North Korea and Iran.

It's actually become quite a common refrain among liberals. Sometimes they imply we should have gone to war against Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq; sometimes that we should have gone to war against North Korea instead.

Careful readers of this blog might remember that a few posts ago, even I argued that,

Perhaps Pakistan or Saudi Arabia could have been better selections for last year's invasion, as the more likely source of such a surprise attack exists within these countries -- noting that the 911 plot was arguably centered there. And Pakistan is known to have nukes -- they tested one, remember? But Pakistan is President Bush's Terror War "ally", even as it is wrapped in layer after layer of secret machinations. What is the truth? Is the US afraid of Pakistan? Is that why it receives treatment far different than that given Iraq?

I just want to clarify that I agree fully with Mahajan and doubt the Kerry/tough-minded-liberal solutions to these confrontations -- troop strength and military threats -- are much better than the inflammatory approach of the Bush administration. In the earlier post, I merely was extending the internal logic of the administration's rhetoric, thereby highlighting the contradictions.

South Korean nuclear program
We have yet to hear much more about this very significant story:

South Korea - a strong ally of the US in its continuing quest to get North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions - stunned the region on 2 September when it revealed that, like its neighbour, it too had fallen foul of international nuclear accords.

A small number of South Korean scientists had conducted secret tests to produce 0.2g of enriched uranium in 2000, the government admitted. (BBC, 13.Sep.2004)

Doesn't this tell us that we need calming diplomacy, truth-seeking, international cooperation, and American willingness to back off of military solutions? Get-tough approaches will one day backfire as the United States neither today nor ever will have the power to put an iron lid on everyone elses ambitions to defend themselves from ill-considered use of that power, or from each other.

Essential Hersh

Sy Hersh has a new book coming out, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib.

Today Hersh gave an extensive 45-minute interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! This interview is profoundly essential for understanding our wars, our foreign policy, our administration's secret behavior, and our effect on the world; in short – everything about our country. People in Eastern/Central/Midcoast Maine can hear this program from 5–6pm TODAY on WERU 89.9 (or 102.9 FM within a mile or two of downtown Bangor). Highly recommended!

Korea: Nuclear escalation

South Korean news agency reports giant explosion and crater in North Korea

Denials from US officials are probably true – this large smoke cloud and crater in the North Korean province of Yanggang near the Chinese border was not a nuclear test. No one is saying radioactive fallout has been detected, nor were signature seismic waves reported.

Still, Colin Powell on the Sunday news shows and ubiquitous military and intelligence "officials" quoted in a New York Times story (Huge Blast in North Korea Not a 'Nuclear Event,' Powell Says, New York Times 9/12/2004) were somewhat circumspect. According to Powell, there are "some activities taking place at some sites that we are watching carefully, but it is not conclusive that they're moving toward a test or they're just doing some maintenance at that site".

Seems less than candid to me – he seems to know more than he's saying. "Maintenance" indeed!

Condoleeza Rice also weighed in with boilerplate coded warnings that a North Korean bomb would be a "mistake". No other administration source is named by reporters Sanger and Broad. They tell us what they heard "in private". And that is unsettling – there is "little they could do other than let the North know that it is being watched".

It almost seems that someone in the administration wants us to believe the North is about to test, as Sanger and Broad report that there exists intelligence concerning "a confusing series of actions by North Korea that some experts believe could indicate the country is preparing to conduct its first test explosion of a nuclear weapon".

Even Colin Powell confirmed on Fox News "that the United States has been monitoring activities at a 'potential nuclear test site'".

But what no named official seems to be talking about is the recent disclosure of a South Korean nuclear program. Sanger and Broad write, "Government officials throughout Asia and members of Mr. Bush's national security team have also feared it could change the nuclear politics of Asia, fueling political pressure in South Korea and Japan to develop a nuclear deterrent independent of the United States".

Seems they're already doing it in South Korea. "Fear" probably is the right word.

Overall, I believe that the George W. Bush Administration is divided and paralyzed on Korea – with one group desiring provocation and confrontation, the other attempting to calm the situation and negotiate – while an empty-headed clown supposedly is the decision maker. This situation is incredibly dangerous.

Democracy Now! has for at least two years provided solid coverage of the conditions under which the incapable Bush is floundering to make policy. One of several such segments, aired on August 29, 2003, featured University of Chicago professor, Korea expert, and long-time friend of University of Maine peace activists, Bruce Cummings.


Bruce Cummings speaks at the Maine Peace Action Committee 20th Anniversary event in 1994.

In the Democracy Now! segment, North Korea Threatens To Test Nuclear Weapons Citing U.S. Hostility, Cummings said,

...the North Koreans have responded to the Bush Administration policies and to [Assistant Secretary of State James] Kelly's discussions with them by saying if the United States doesn't stop its hostile policies toward North Korea, North Korea is going to do a variety of things....

It is true that since July there have been reports that on September 9, which is the 55th anniversary of the establishment of that regime, they may declare themselves to be a nuclear power. However, testing is really the acid test of whether a country can make nuclear weapons or not. And I can't remember a country that announced in advance it was going to test, because the test may not work....

If you were country X and had been targeted for preemptive attack last September by the National Security Council of the United and then that preemptive doctrine turned out to be a preventive war doctrine against Iraq, then I think any country or any set of generals running an Army would take notice of this – and want somehow to assure themselves that the United States is not going to attack them. What the North Koreans have been proposing last October, again in April and now again today is a package deal to settle all major outstanding problems with the United States. And that package deal includes their stated willingness to give up whatever nuclear weapons or nuclear program they have, to give up their missiles exporting and selling medium and long range missiles - in return for recognition - diplomatic recognition by the U.S. and nonaggression pact, formal end to the Korean war and aid for their economy or at least they want U.S. not to stand in the way of other countries like south Korea and Japan aiding North Korea....

...failing any movement on the Bush administration toward including or even negotiating that package deal, they may well think they have to have a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves just as Iran seems to think.

This is the sad end result of that doctrine which has created an enormous mess in Iraq that we will not recover from for years. And has goaded North Korea and Iran into rapid development into the nuclear deterrent.

The key problem here seems to be the total incompetence of President Bush. Professor Cummings is clear that the current US administration is totally intransigent in negotiations, unwilling to send a signal that a deal can be made, even though giving the North the small assurances it wants will cost zero, yet yield enormous security dividends. Security of America and the world is a low priority in the present administration.

But you do not need to listen to a liberal professor to learn this while recognizing the limitations and dangers of the Bush non-approach. Instead, please turn to Donald P. Gregg, a former official in office of Vice President George H. W. Bush and US Ambassador to South Korea during the George H. W. Bush Administration. (Gregg was in charge of US aid to the murderous right-wing regime in El Salvador and also was an Iran-Contra figure during the 1980s. He is noted for denying knowledge of the Contra re-supply operation, claiming in Senate confirmation testimony for his South Korea post that a memo mentioning "re-supply of the contras" really should have read "re-supply of the copters".)

Recently a World Affairs Council speech by Gregg appeared on Maine Public Radio. This was a fascinating speech. I couldn't find a transcript easily. But I did find this testimony Gregg gave before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate on February 4, 2003. It's not too different from what was in the radio program. Gregg describes his 2002 trips to North Korea where he met with government officials:

The North Koreans were full of questions, mostly about President Bush. Why is he so different from his father? Why does he hate President Clinton? Why does he use such insulting rhetoric to describe our country and our leaders"?

[One] general, in particular, was very cynical about the US. He showed little trust in dialogue, and was harsh in his criticism of our implementation of the 1994 Agreed Framework. Still, at the end of our meeting he thanked me for coming such a long way, and said our talks had been, in part, beneficial.

[A] vice minister bemoaned the lack of high-level talks with the U.S., such as had been held at the end of the Clinton administration. He expressed regret that President Clinton had not visited Pyongyang, asserting that a visit at that level would have solved many difficult issues. He said to me: "You and I cannot solve the problems between our countries. Talks have to be held at a much higher level."

From mid to late October, the U.S. government released information on Assistant Secretary of State [James] Kelly's visit to Pyongyang that had taken place in early October. The visit had not gone well from the North Korean point of view as Kelly had confronted them about the development of a secret highly enriched uranium program using equipment acquired from Pakistan.

...

We urged [the Whitehouse] that a positive dialogue with North Korea be started. In response, we were told only that initiating a dialogue would serve only to "reward bad behavior" on the part of the North Koreans. On November 15, the U.S. and its KEDO allies announced a cut-off of future oil shipments to North Korea. North Korea was quick to respond by evicting IAEA inspectors, shutting off surveillance cameras, announcing its withdrawal from the NPT and making a number of other moves suggesting that they may have decided to develop a nuclear weapons capacity – most notably, the recent indications of a possible movement of spent fuel rods from the containment pond at Yongbyon.

Why has this happened? I believe it is because the North Koreans take seriously the harsh rhetoric applied to them by many prominent Americans, including leading members of the Republican Party since the congressional elections of 1994 and the Bush administration since 2000. From their long association with Pakistani nuclear scientists and technicians, the North Koreans have most probably observed the sense of security that Pakistan derives from its nuclear weapons. In addition, the North Koreans appear to perceive President Bush as a tough and effective war leader, and probably assume that the Iraq war will be short, leaving North Korea next in line for military action.

...

In my view, it would be a miscalculation of unprecedented proportions if we failed to pursue the only viable option to change the course of a morally repugnant regime, and avoid a catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula, solely out of an understandable but ultimately shortsighted refusal to "reward bad behavior".

Donald Gregg is right. Could I have possibly imagined a day when I would have wished the elder Bush and his willing-to-get-dirty but it turns out more thoughtful operatives were running the show? Amazing, isn't it.

Update 07:30 Monday 9/13: The North Koreans are reported to say that the "huge explosion close to its border with China was part of the planned destruction of a mountain for a hydroelectric project", according to a Guardian story.

Furthermore, "British foreign office minister Bill Rammell, who is visiting Pyongyang, said to the BBC that Mr Paek told him 'that it wasn't an accident, that it wasn't a nuclear explosion, that it was a deliberate detonation of a mountain as part of a hydroelectric project'".

The gist of the reports is that North Korea wants to calm everybody down. Will the Bush provocateurs listen?

Friday vegetable blogging

Salad

Well, yes, it's Saturday. But we had to wait so we could show some great produce from the Saturday morning farmer's market in Orono. We wanted to be life-affirming on this infamous day. Check out the celery! The tomato and cukes come from the backyard, but all else is from Orono.

Edwards in Maine

Democratic candidate for vice president rallies 6800 in Orono



Wednesday's 5pm rally around the Fogler Library steps and University of Maine mall drew an excellent crowd. We required nearly 20 minutes to snake around in the very long line to the entrance gate. After we got in, we were sort of in the middle of the sea, but we could see just enough over all of the heads.


Author and beloved Bangor Democrat Stephen King warmed up the crowd with Governor John Baldacci by his side, railing on the "most dangerous and unpleasant bunch" to occupy the Whitehouse since the Nixon administration.

King: "I want you to go back and find one uncommitted voter. And I want you to sit down with that man or that woman. And talk to them about John Kerry and John Edwards...."

mpeg video clip of Stephen King (1/2 megabit broadband required to stream)

With the crowd pumped, the senator from North Carolina came out directly.


John Edwards got a big cheer for taking off the jacket on a cloudy, muggy, slightly tropical afternoon.

Senator Edwards made a bit of news right off, as he had been chosen to rebut Vice President Cheney's Terror War provocation issued Tuesday in Iowa (see previous post).

Edwards: "George Bush and Dick Cheney [said] to the American people [that] if America is hit by another terrorist attack, it's the fault of the American people. This statement was calculated to divide us about an issue of the safety and security of the American people...it's un-American, is what it is....George Bush came into office saying he was going to unite this country, not divide it – saying he was going to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse. So he was asked today by a reporter about what Dick Cheney had said. His response was to stare back at the reporter and say nothing".

An excellent quote, to be sure, though few news organizations picked up much of it, usually only the "calculated to divide" part. Well, good response nonetheless.

I am now a bit happier with the way Kerry and Edwards have increased criticism of the cost in lives, cost in treasure, and Bush mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Pointing out how far $200 billion of war funds would go towards fixing the health care mess and other domestic security priorities is right on in my estimation. Why did it take so long?

Edwards: "The problem is $200 billion and counting....At the same time, so many things that are important in the lives of the American people are not taking place. But $200 billion and counting in Iraq. These things are completely connected".

Still, I'd like to know what he means by "committed to success in Iraq". What, we take down all opposition, run a sham election, put in a puppet government, control the oil, and place military bases in the manner the current Pentagon envisions "success"? Well, I guess I have to support for the moment the "fresh start" idea, though I see many, many reasons the months after the election will be very painful for everyone invloved because of the war crimes on which the conquest of Iraq is based, not least the Iraqi people.

mpeg video clip of John Edwards (1/2 megabit broadband required to stream)

After staying overnight in Bangor, Edwards surprised working class diners at Dysarts, a truck stop along I-95 just south of town.

Protofascism anybody?

Running dog Cheney says vote against Kerry or risk deadly attack



The full Cheney quote is well worth reading:

I think every American cares about, our ability to be able to ensure that our children and grandchildren are going to be able to live in a safe and secure world depends upon the basic fundamental decisions we're making now.

We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike – Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

We have to understand it is a war. It's different than anything we've ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don't agree with our view of the world. They've got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don't believe women ought to have any rights. They've got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter – as they demonstrated on 9/11 – anybody who stands in their way. So we've got to get it right. We've got to succeed here. We've got to prevail. And that's what is at stake in this election. (Applause.)

Steve Gilliard, expressive in a way unique amongst bloggers, points out that Cheney's carefully-worded warning to the electorate, "Vote for us or die is reminiscent of the darkest kind of fascist campaigning".

Gilliard's reaction? "Disgust isn't even the term I would use...Utter revulsion". Agreed.

Meanwhile, I've been hearing comments by sources with very interesting backgrounds in historical studies and in the military describing the emotional level of first night of the Republican convention as "exactly like the Nuremberg rally of 1937, with the same kind of responses. What we are seeing is a faith exercise, not a rational one – these are the true believers...scary".

Concern is palpable that there is a dark Bush campaign strategy meant to equate opposition to, or even holding questions about Bush – the two seem to be conflated in the strategy – with disloyalty.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times strikes pretty hard today on the ugly nature of the Cheney attack, pointing out the countervailing truth that 911 happened during the tenure of Bush:

Without Zell Miller around to out-crazy him, and unplugged after a convention that tried to "humanize'' him with grandchildren, horses and wifely anecdotes about his inability to dance the twist, Mr. Cheney is back as Terrifier in Chief....

Mr. Cheney implies that John Kerry couldn't protect us from an attack like 9/11, blithely ignoring the fact that he and President Bush didn't protect us from the real 9/11. Think of what brass-knuckled Republicans could have made of a 9/11 tape of an uncertain Democratic president giving a shaky statement that looked like a hostage tape and flying randomly from air base to air base, as the veep ordered that planes be shot down.

I want to go much further and call attention to some contemporary thought suggesting we should be very, very concerned about the political strains lurking under the Cheney remarks.

Does fascism apply?
An article by Robert O. Paxton, "The Five Stages of Fascism" [The Journal of Modern History 70 (March 1998): pp. 3–5] is highlighted in a marvelous book-length examination of the true nature of fascism versus common use of the term, partly addressing the question, Could real fascism happen here and now? This piece on the Cursor site: Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis, by the author of the weblog Ornicus, David Neiwert, is highly recommended by Deep Blade. Please explore also the numerous links on Ornicus to many informed discussions of these issues.

Neiwert, following Paxton, writes

Feelings propel fascism more than thought does. We might call them mobilizing passions, since they function in fascist movements to recruit followers in fascist movements, and in fascist regimes to "weld" the fascist "tribe" to its leader. The following mobilizing passions are present in fascisms, though they may sometimes be articulated only implicitly:

1. The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual.

2. The belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against the group's enemies, internal as well as external.

3. Dread of the group's decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan liberalism.

4. Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood (fascio) whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary.

5. An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces individual self-esteem.

6. Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny.

7. The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle.

Going down Paxton's list, it is fairly easy to identify these "passions" at play today....

Neiwert provides an annotated list current in 2003. Now it's 2004 and we're in the midst of the election home stretch. All of these items remain in play (quotes are directly from Cheney):

1. Group primacy: We have to "get it right".

2. Victimhood: "They've [Muslims?] got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter – as they demonstrated on 9/11 – anybody who stands in their way".

3. Dread of libralism: Kerry is the most liberal senator, a big flip-flopping pussy.

4–6. Community, Identity, Authority: Questioning Bush's decisions itself is a disloyal act – so Kerry is a lying traitor, a notion driven into the public mind through nutwing discourse. Loyalty to Bush as carrier of authority therefore is fundamental to community and identity – reinforced throughout the campaign by brownshirt Bush rallies and cadres of mindless Bush-loyal hecklers at Kerry rallies.

7. Aesthetic of violence: War, not criminal justice, is the form the struggle must assume – Kerry thinks that "... terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us".

It is this kicked-up-a-notch strain of fascism that has, as Maureen Dowd wrote, stopped cold thought processes where "Americans were realizing they'd been flimflammed by the Bushies" while the "swaggering Bush juggernaut brazenly went back to boasting about its pre-emption doctrine, tracing imaginary connections between 9/11 and Saddam, and calling all our foes terrorists".

Bottom line, I believe the Cheney remarks fit into the Morissian strategy I discussed a couple of posts ago. He wants to be somewhat controversial in his attack because that enhances Terror War coverage, and any Terror War coverage showing the War to be an unfinished job helps Bush and hurts Kerry. Kerry and Edwards are forced to take the bait – they have no other choice.

There is not much else to do now except to work hard for election of John Kerry in November. Let's hope that this Cheney attack is a Terror War campaign strategy gone too far – that it makes voters reject being threatened with death unless they vote correctly.

Meanwhile, the real threat is ratification of the fascist slope Cheney/Bush now openly declare. I pray for our country and the world to which we belong.

Essential from Juan Cole

Cheney Implies Perpetual War
On endless war: "...the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq has certainly been good for al-Qaeda, and has expanded the recruiting pool by creating large numbers of angry young Muslim men".

Dual Loyalties
On Douglas Feith and Likud:

I don't think there is anything a priori wrong with Feith being so devoted to the Likud Party. That is his prerogative. But as an American, I don't want a person with those sentiments to serve as the number 3 man in the Pentagon. I frankly don't trust him to put America first....

Unless the Israeli Palestinian issue is resolved, there will be more September 11s on US soil. So they should resolve it already. And, it is resolvable. If there were a Palestinian state with leaders who would certify that they are happy with Israel, then 99% of Muslims would accept that.

It can't be resolved as long as the Likud Party has an aggressive colonialist agenda. It cannot be resolved as long as the United States government is afraid to say "boo" to Ariel Sharon. The taboo erected against saying what I have been saying is a way of ensuring that the Likud gets its way without American interference, even if it means America suffers from the fall-out of Likud aggression.

Cheney, Halliburton and Iraq: The Purloined Letter
Also on endless war: "Turning the Republic into a praetorian state would permanently yield profits for the military industrial complex in such a way as to create a permanent Republican dominance of all the branches of the US government".

Terror War swallowing Kerry

A recent speech by former Clinton political consultant and now self-purported Bush loyalist Dick Morris has troubled me over the last couple of weeks. Now the scene where Bush is bouncing happily out of the RNC with the wind of his Terror War message behind his sails while Kerry is clearly on the run bears this out.

First know that I despise Dick Morris and found about half of these August 10 remarks before the Commonwealth Club of California to be a reactionary rant. However, part of what he said presents a simple, straightforward political theory of the 2004 US presidential election that is hard to dismiss. After hearing the speech twice, I have started to see a Morissian logic behind the RNC speakers' messages and also recent Bush media comments concerning the winability of the Terror War.

The Morris Theory says that any sort of intellectual arguments or nuances about what will move the most important voters are basically irrelevant to whether Bush or Kerry will win. Even if the political conversation tries to move into territory where Bush is portrayed as weak, stupid, a flip-flopper, or depraved in his conduct of the Terror War, this makes no difference because ANY discussion about the Terror War helps Bush and hurts Kerry.

Kerry can't win the Terror War argument in any terms. The metaphorical goose-stepping of the jingoist consensus Kerry simply cannot resist. Witness his pathetic cave-in when asked if, knowing what is known now about the cost in lives and treasure of the Iraq operation and failure of Bush's much-hyped weapons to materialize, Kerry would vote for war, Kerry said, "Yes".

It's just impossible for the challenger to take on Bush when he talks his nonsense about the Iraq conquest being "the right thing to do" because when considering how to handle a "madman" like Saddam Hussein, he will "choose to defend America every time". The Democrat just sees little space to make cogent the anti-war argument. And Kerry has very badly bungled the space he did have by throwing the peace movement out of his convention, ceding the peace field to Bush, and saluting like a play-acting boy.

Morris went on to say, "...the key question that will decide this election is, 'Are we at war, or are we at peace?' If there's a clear perception we're at war, I think Bush is going to win."

Having John McCain bring up (without actually naming) the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 made sense for the RNC in this regard because, "Everything that is said about terror helps George Bush. Michael Moore's movie helps George Bush, because of it's subject -- it's about 911...."

Bush's now-retracted notion that the Terror War cannot be won falls right into this context. A perception that Bush succeeded in the first term and that the Terror War is over or could be soon rolls votes to Kerry's side. Was it a mistake for Bush to release the statement he did a week ago Monday morning? I don't. It's calculated. Kerry and Edwards took the bait. Meanwhile, the Democrats took quite a hit several key-state polls.

As long as Edwards and Kerry each day are forced to take the bait by reacting to whatever Bush says about the Terror War, the Morris theory posits advantage Bush. If what Bush presents is somewhat controversial, all the better -- more Terror War coverage results. So far it's working for Bush.

I hope to God I'm wrong and Steve Gilliard is right that Bush’s real problems and troubled history will rise to bite him, but the Kerry slippage in key-state polls is undeniable. The numbers don't lie as much as we'd all like them to. Minnesota is trending Bush, for heavens sake. Dug-up allegations, like those in a new Kitty Kelley book, about cocaine and other character flaws have a way of bouncing off the Shrub, while the clear Terror War message he wanted from the RNC was the one that got out. Little else, including the protests, did. Those in the electorate who hate politics (most of 'em) will process in the heart those God and country messages while voting for the guy who they see sincerely promising to "defend America every time."

Kerry is the one whose base is at risk along the soft edges. I think the vile Pat Buchanan described the situation correctly on Bill Maher's HBO show when he said that Kerry's toast now unless he can come up with stunning victories in the debates.

Friday vegetable blogging

Sluggish

Tomatoes, get going! A few are coming in, but it's time for more to ripen. They have been very slow. The complaints were even worse in Minnesota where widespread frost on the morning of August 21 shut down a lot of stuff.