Despite DeLay's "Partisan Zealot" Claim, Most Politicians Investigated By Texas Prosecutor Have Been Democrats

By MARC MCDONALD

Tom DeLay, the first House leader to be indicted while in office in at least a century, has been quick to dismiss charges against him as driven by partisan politics.

DeLay and his friends and allies have been quick to denounce the prosecutor in the case, Ronnie Earle, as an "unabashed partisan zealot."

However, it's important to note that 12 of the 15 politicians investigated by Earle over the years have been Democrats.

Since 1978, Earle, has investigated a number of high-profile Democrats, including: Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough, State Treasurer Warren Harding, Attorney General Jim Mattox, House Speaker Gib Lewis, former state Rep. Betty Denton and former state Rep. Lane Denton.

Despite this, DeLay and his allies have wasted no time in portraying the indictment as politically motivated.

Typical of the comments Wednesday was that made by DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden:

"This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat."

DeLay chimed in with his own attacks during a rambling press conference in which he labeled Earle as a "zealot" and a "partisan fanatic."

I expect the great Republican slime machine to kick into action in full force in an effort to tar the name of Ronnie Earle, a former Eagle scout, who has held office for 27 years.

But it's clear that DeLay and his goons are going to have to find another flaming necklace to put around Earle's neck besides the tired cliche of "partisan politics," as this investigation moves forward.

For The Truth, Forget The Media And Listen To The Protesters

By MARC MCDONALD

In the build-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the world saw the largest series of demonstrations ever, as millions of anti-war protesters took to the streets around the globe.

Fast-forward to Sept. 24, 2005. Once again, anti-war protesters are taking to the streets in Washington, D.C. and London, and elsewhere.

Bush will, of course, ignore the marching masses this weekend who oppose his evil war for oil---just as he ignored the protesters of 2003. That much is given---but what worries me more is whether the mainstream media in this country will cover the demonstrations, or give them the same short shrift it gave the massive demonstrations of 2003.

The largely middle-class, pampered and carefully groomed members of the mainstream media have already made a startling discovery about this country when they were rooting around in New Orleans, looking for sensational video footage opportunities in Katrina's aftermath. That is: that there are desperately poor people in this country.

If the mainstream media bothers to do much reporting on this weekend's demonstrations, it might also be enlightened to another fact: that a majority of the American and British people are sick and tired of this evil war and they want our troops brought home now.

One thing that I will give the Republicans credit for is that they are determined and relentless. If Clinton had launched this war and later found that it was all based on lies, there would've been a lot of agonized soul-searching within the Democratic Party.

By contrast, now that Bush's war rationale has been exposed as a fraud, he continues to draw fanatical support from his rabid followers. None of the Bush partisans seem to remember why Bush said we needed to invade Iraq in the first place. The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (easily the most common phrase appearing in the mainstream media in 2003) has completely disappeared from the White House's vocabulary (except to pop up on one occasion during a truly sick "comedy skit," in which Bush made light of the whole issue).

Now, the Bush Bots and the mainstream media have gone into overdrive trying to convince the American people that the Iraq war was about bringing democracy to the Iraqis all along. The media has worked hard to portray the war as an endeavor that, while perhaps somewhat flawed, is based on noble, lofty ideals.

This weekend, as thousands again march in the streets to protest the war, it's important to remember a crucial fact that's been overlooked over the past two years.

That is: the Iraq war is, and always was, about one thing: oil.

Anyone who believes otherwise is simply naive.

Are we really to believe that if a Saddam-like figure had emerged in some obscure (and resource-poor) region of the world, that the U.S. would really care?

Oh, sure, the U.S. might file a diplomatic protest, or denounce the dictator at a press conference. But there's no way on earth that we'd spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of U.S. soldiers' lives to launch an invasion.

Bush and his fanatical followers can babble on all day about the "noble" mission to bring peace and democracy to Iraq. But this war never had anything to do with lofty ideals. It's all about the oil.

If Bush was really a friend of democracy, he might do the following:

1. Stop trying to overthrow the democratically-elected (and genuinely popular) Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela.
2. Stop propping up the evil dictatorship of Saudi Arabia---a nation where beheadings and torture are rife. (While he's at it, Bush should ask the Saudis to let our investigators examine the Al-Qaeda money trail).
3. Repeal the "USA Patriot Act," the most serious assault on American democracy in our nation's history.
4. Stop stealing elections, which, of course, the Bush team did in 2000 and 2004, with the help of a crooked partisan Supreme Court and a rabidly pro-GOP corporation, Diebold, which "counted" the 2004 votes.
5. Last, but not least, Bush ought to stop dragging the noble ideal of democracy through the mud by trying to associate it with this evil war in Iraq.

Hey, Bush: Stop Digging

By MANIFESTO JOE

There's an old saying that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. George W. Bush apparently never heard that one.

In recently announcing what could become the biggest federal public works program since the New Deal, it wasn't surprising that Bush is prepared to buy his way out of yet another fiasco -- with borrowed money.

Not that I'm opposed to rebuilding New Orleans. America would be stupid to let such a rich part of our cultural heritage just wash out into the Gulf of Mexico (a la Dennis Hastert's philistine remark).

The obvious question -- or at least it should be obvious -- is how the "president" plans to pay for $200 billion worth of reconstruction without raising anybody's taxes.

Not only is he not answering the question sensibly, he's actually proposing new tax breaks for businesses to build in the hurricane-ravaged areas. And Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root subsidiary, already $9 billion richer from no-bid contracts in Iraq, is up for similar deals in the stricken region, as are other companies with administration ties.

In July 2003, Nobel laureate economist George A. Akerlof told the German magazine Der Spiegel, "I think this is the worst government the U.S. has ever had ... What we have here is a form of looting." Akerlof's words are ironic now, considering the media outcry about The Big Easy's impoverished black looters, and the relative media silence about Bush sweetheart deals with corporate cronies.

It's bad enough that American "capitalism" has been largely transformed into socialism for the rich. And it's bad enough to see corporate friends of this administration given a near blank check to exploit the Treasury.

The worst part, with regard to our nation's future, is that this "president" is offering no plan to pay for this largesse, other than perhaps to strip the poor and the working class of what social safety net they have left. True, he hasn't been very specific about what cuts are planned; but don't expect shared sacrifice. With a war to pay for, and possibly more tax bonanzas on the way, it's pretty obvious who's going to be in the crosshairs -- the same people who have been since Jan. 20, 2001.

Of course, they still won't find enough money to do the rebuilding. So they'll borrow the rest, putting the U.S. economy in even greater peril.

Mr. Bush, unless it is your intention to put this economy 6 feet under -- please, quit digging.

MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.

Of Course Bush Is Responsible. Now, How About Some Action?

By MARC MCDONALD

The biggest non-news story this week involves Bush saying that he takes "responsibility" for failures in dealing with Hurricane Katrina.

There's only one problem. Bush is supposed to be president of the United States. Of course, he's responsible for the disastrous federal response. Responsibility is supposed to come with the job. Bush has simply never conceded this point before on anything else--from the disastrous Iraq war to 9/11 to the exploding federal deficit.

It's a bit of a media novelty now that Bush is claiming responsibility for a change---but one thing that should not be overlooked is the fact that Bush had already full responsibility, whether or not he admitted it.

This latest development is nothing more than yet another cynical ploy on Karl Rove's part. It would be significant only if it were accompanied by some sort of concrete action. But of course, it won't be.

In many nations around the world (Japan, for example), a leader would have stepped down in the aftermath of a Katrina-like fiasco. Of course, we cannot expect that of Bush. But it would be nice if Bush would follow up his PR ploy with some real action for a change.

After all, it's easy to mouth empty platitudes at press conferences. It's quite another thing to, say, end White House-connected crony capitalism in the Katrina recovery effort.

Millions of disillusioned Americans are asking why it is that companies with ties to the Bush White House are grabbing some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts.

Since Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast, shares of Halliburton have climbed 10 percent. Fresh from raking in billions of dollars in non-competitive contracts in Iraq, Halliburton is expected rake in billions in Katrina's aftermath. As Britain's Observer newspaper pointed out, "...Halliburton has shone in the markets partly because it is expected to do well out of the catastrophe."

In short, Bush may think he's being a bold leader by taking "responsibility" for a change. But the thing he's never realized is that responsibility is supposed to come with the job of president. And responsibility is something that he's always shirked.

Bush's Rove-scripted "responsibility" PR moment aside, does anyone seriously think that anything will change with this administration?

In the end, nothing will change. In fact, I'd bet money that, come next August, Bush will again be luxuriating in yet another European-style 5-week vacation, oblivious to the worries and concerns of ordinary working Americans.

For Bush, "Damage Control" Involves PR, Not Dealing With Katrina's Aftermath

By MARC MCDONALD

In the aftermath of one of the worst disasters in the history of the United States, the Bush White House's top priority is to contain the damage.

No, not the damage to the Katrina-ravaged areas.

Instead, we're referring to the damage done to Bush's image.

In the early going of Katrina's aftermath, Bush took a black eye in the PR stakes via a series of blunders. This resulted in something we've not seen in the mainstream media for years: stories that are actually critical of the Bush White House.

With echoes of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, a nation watched in amazement as a vacationing Bush strummed a guitar as Katrina unleashed its fury. We then watched in disbelief as Bush made astonishingly idiotic comments.

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," Bush said with a straight face to ABC's Diane Sawyer.

It seems to me that the nation's budget-starved emergency planning officials could have told Bush this years ago. (Indeed, they tried to tell him, but their cries were ignored, as billions of dollars were shifted from urgent levee projects to the quicksands of the bloody Iraq quagmire).

Bush's PR took a further beating with the growing realization that many of the thousands of expected deaths were avoidable and could be chalked up to the inept relief efforts, much of which came far too late. It's important to note that experts have long warned that the first 72 hours after a natural disaster are the vital time-frame during which lives can be saved with quick action.

The inadequate and delayed relief efforts actually prompted our nation's media to start asking sharply critical questions about Bush's leadership role in coping with the crisis. Bush's PR image tumbled further when Michael Brown, the man Bush appointed to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency, showed himself to be disconnected from reality.

Brown professed in an interview that he was unaware until Thursday that there were 15,000 starving, desperate hurricane victims housed at the New Orleans Convention Center---even though this had been widely reported for days.

Bush has definitely lost Round One of the all-important PR battle.

But Bush spin-doctors like Karl Rove have long known that you can lose a few early rounds and still win the war in the PR sweepstakes.

What's important is not the image in people's minds right now. It's how this whole episode will be recalled a year or two down the road.

The White House damage control and PR machine cranked into action this weekend in an effort to contain the political damage.

The New York Times reported Sept. 4 that the Rove-directed PR effort seeks to shift the blame for the slow disaster aid response from the White House to Louisiana and New Orleans officials, (who as it turns out, are Democrats).

We're already seeing the first rotten fruits of Bush/Rove's "shift-the-blame" smear campaign

On Sept. 4, The Washington Post, in remarks attributed to "a senior Bush official," reported that, as of Saturday, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, had "still had not declared a state of emergency."

This, of course, is a crock. In fact, on Aug. 28, Blanco sent an urgent, detailed letter, requesting that Bush declare "an expedited major disaster for the State of Louisiana."

We can expect the Bush White House to continue to spew lies and misinformation about its bungled Katrina response in the weeks and months to come, as Rove works to keep ahead of the PR curve.

The question is, will the mainstream media play along with this? Will the press let the Bush White House continue to slime the Democrats and shift all blame elsewhere?

In the first few days after Katrina hit, we saw a rare glimpse of this nation's media breaking out of its cozy slumber and asking tough questions for a change. For a moment there, it gave many of us a sense of deja vu as we watched the sort of media that we once admired and respected many years ago.

Now, the siren song of Bush's PR and blame-game blitz is slithering out of the White House once more---will it lull our media back into a sense of complacency and cooperation? Or will we have to continue to rely on the European media and the blogosphere to get the unvarnished truth about the White House?

Bush White House Balked at Plan That Could Protect U.S. Against Hurricanes

BY MARC MCDONALD

We all knew it was coming. Officials have been sounding the alarm for years about how vulnerable Louisiana is to the threat of a hurricane.

Not only did we know it was coming, but we've known for a long time exactly what is needed to protect New Orleans from a hurricane. In a word: wetlands.

Wetlands have long served as a natural shield to protect New Orleans from the wrath of hurricanes. Wetlands are vital to protect a city that has 80 percent of its area located below sea level. And America's wetlands, under the Bush administration, have been deteriorating at an alarming rate.

The loss of wetlands in Louisiana in recent years has been staggering: the state has lost around 25 square miles of wetlands each year (or around one acre every 30 minutes).

In recent years, alarmed officials put together a plan to protect Louisiana's wetlands, called the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project. But, predictably, the Bush White House balked at the projected price tag of $14 billion over the next 30 years.

Indeed, that sum appears to be a lot of money. That is, until you consider that the Bush White House has already squandered a staggering $200 billion in embroiling our nation in the current bloody quagmire in Iraq.

But fiddling while our nation's wetlands disappear is only one way in which the Bush team let America down before Katrina hit.

A growing number of scientists are pointing the finger at global warming as a main culprit behind the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina. After all, warm oceans are a key component in the formation of hurricanes.

In early August, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Kerry Emanuel published a study that showed that hurricanes have vastly increased in intensity over the past 30 years---a trend, he said, that appears to be directly linked to rising ocean surface temperatures.

And, of course, on global warming, the Bush White House has let America down. Refusing to even accept the science behind global warming, Bush declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol (thus telling the other 180 nations who signed to go screw themselves).

Bush has long argued that the costs of complying with international climate protection goals would harm the U.S. economy. But it's clear that the costs of dealing with disasters like Katrina will dwarf what the U.S. would have needed to spend to get on-board with Kyoto.

What is certain is that America's reckless use of fossil fuels is unsustainable. Americans make up only 4 percent of the world's population and yet we're responsible for one quarter of the planet's emissions.

I find it rich how neocons buy Bush's argument that Kyoto would "harm" America's economy. Since when has Bush ever understood anything about economics or finances?

The U.S. is already facing unprecedented and soaring fiscal deficits and is on the verge of bankruptcy. The dollar is posed for meltdown. And New Orleans has turned into an uninhabitable toxic cesspool that's going to cost us all billions of dollars---all because of a disaster that could have been avoided.

Is "Conservatism" a New Kind Of Mental Illness?

By Manifesto Joe

When I heard the title of Michael Savage's latest screed -- Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions -- the irony wasn't lost on me. This is from a man who:

• Was fired from MSNBC for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die" among other things.
  
• Has referred to Iraqi prisoners as "subhumans" and called for them to be summarily executed by the thousands.
  
• Said the tsunami that struck East Asian countries was not a tragedy but rather a message from God.
  
• Says women should be denied the vote because they are too emotional -- their hormones rage.
  

But Savage isn't the only "conservative" who's been waxing psychopathic lately. The vilification of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan has shown a zany viciousness once heard only from the most demented elements of the right. The typically milder-mannered Fred Barnes called her a "crackpot." Rush Limbaugh said Sheehan's story is "nothing more than forged documents." (Two days later Limbaugh denied saying anything like this, whatever it was that he meant.) One-time Trotskyite turned right-wing straitjacket candidate David Horowitz described Sheehan's protest as "hateful" and said she is dishonoring the memory of her fallen son. A political consultant and blogger named Erick Erickson said Sheehan is "a whore in the form of a grieving mother."

Savage is right about one thing: There is a strain of mental illness spreading in America. Problem is, he's pointing in the wrong direction, as usual. Many of those who call themselves "conservatives" are not merely dangerous radicals. They could use a dose of anti-psychotic drugs.

I've been wondering about the sanity of "conservatives" since the days of Lee Atwater, when it became apparent that these self-styled paragons of virtue would say and do just about anything to win an election. Atwater later died, reportedly of a brain tumor; but I'm convinced that the tumor was benign. It's the brain that was malignant.

It's gotten worse since then. Consider a political landscape in which:

• A Republican congressman, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, suggests that if terrorists attack the United States with a nuke, we could "take out their holy sites." (Presumably he would hold all Muslims responsible.)
  
• The Rev. Pat Robertson, one of our best-known "Christian" broadcasters, suggests that we assassinate a legally elected foreign head of state because we don't like his policies or the company he keeps. (But hey, keep that oil coming.)
  
• Bestselling commentator Ann Coulter says, quite seriously, about Islamic nations that we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." (Millions buy this shrill woman's books. I suppose these are the readers who cut class the day the professor lectured on The Crusades.)
  

Barry Goldwater, after leaving politics, lamented that the Republican Party had been taken over by "a bunch of kooks." This was ironic when one recalls LBJ supporters in 1964 saying about rival candidate Goldwater, "In your guts you know he's nuts." If Goldwater scared people back then, what does that say about some of the loonies who hold high office now?

I suggest something further: That pretty much describes the whole contemporary "conservative" movement. It's not just some of the top politicos, pundits and preachers who are spouting rubber-room rhetoric. It's become like a bizarre cult of millions. The only positive aspect about how many of these fanatical weirdos there are is that they could never have all fit into the compound at Mount Carmel.

The Texas Republican Party, in its delusional 2004 platform, for example, urges that the IRS be eliminated, along with "income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, payroll tax and property tax." The state GOP would also kill "the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor." (I guess when you believe that The Rapture is coming soon, who needs a government?)

The comparably deranged 2000 platform calls for America to return to the gold standard and supports "individual teachers' right to teach creation science in Texas public schools." It also calls for the United States to quit the United Nations and re-establish control of the Panama Canal. (It stops short of unleashing Chiang Kai-shek's skeletal remains on mainland China.)

Consider that this is the political party that is governing Texas, virtually unchallenged.

Then there are the assorted lunatics who blog, argue in chat rooms, etc. A "Christian conservative" who identified himself (herself?) as "frogribs" posted a reply to an earlier article of mine on this blog in which he wrote:

"Yes, it is better `to have the London subway system be a battleground than to have al Qaeda blowing up folks over here.' The duty of the president is to place the lives and well being of Americans above all others." (I'm glad Bush was thinking that when he misled the country into a needless war in Iraq. And I'm certain the British will be thrilled to know we're willing to use them, and other allied civilians, as human shields.)

"Iraqi civilian casualties have occurred, but at a rate lower than anyone expected." (Was this person here, on this planet, in March 2003? We were hearing that this would be a cakewalk, and that Iraqis would be tossing rose petals at our soldiers' feet. Since then, dozens of suicide bombings later, the cake's been decorated with entrails, and the petals look curiously like toenails.)

"The U.S. still faces an insurgency, but they must remain to complete the mission in order to avoid the disastrous result learned in Vietnam. Napoleon said it best, 'If you decide to take Paris, take Paris.' Finish the job. ..." (This person evidently never heard about Waterloo. Or Nixon's hapless "Vietnamization" policy. What should we call this now -- "Iraqification"?)

"Does anyone remember how we got this country? We got it by force. We decimated the Indians ... We invaded the Spanish and the Mexicans and we took the spoils. We exploited slaves until the error was purged with the blood of 500,000 of our countrymen ... Manifest Destiny still runs in my veins and the veins of the free and the brave ..."

(Gosh, so America really was largely built on genocide, slavery and military aggression? Since it worked so well in the past, why don't we do all that stuff again? And when they bring back the slave auctions, I wonder -- how much would Jesus bid?)

If this person is a sincere, believing, born-again Christian, then someone must have slipped a couple of books by Nietzsche and Machiavelli into his Bible. I can envision The Prince, and Beyond Good and Evil, bound in there somewhere between Galatians and Revelation, no doubt by Godless nihilistic conspirators.

But seriously, crazy people don't perceive even such basic ideological contradictions. I've seen this firsthand in paranoid schizophrenics. They feel quite free to just make it up as they go along.

I think we've identified a unique personality disorder. It isn't hard to diagnose, because most of the patients call themselves "conservatives."

Charge nurse, call the orderlies, and break out the Thorazine. This is no problem that a little heavy sedation won't fix.

MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.

Bush's Failures Vindicate Policies, According to Bizarre Logic of "Wall Street Journal"

By MARC MCDONALD

The Aug. 22 edition of The Wall Street Journal features an article that is so breathtakingly stupid and devoid of logic that it's likely even causing this right-wing rag's own readers to scratch their heads in puzzlement.

In the article, "How Oil Dependence Fuels U.S. Policies," author Gerald Seib starts off with a fairly reasonable, sober assessment of America's voracious appetite for foreign oil.

So far, so good.

However, midway through the piece, Seib lets loose with a stunning lapse of logic that has to be one of the stupidest comments made in the right-wing media this year (and that's going up against some formidable competition).

After apparently checking his brain at the door, Seib makes the following observation:

"Cynics, of course, thought President Bush decided to invade Iraq to acquire its oil cheaply, but it turns out they were exactly wrong. Whatever the president's motivations in Iraq, one can hardly claim now that inexpensive oil was one of them."

You don't have to be a Bush-hating "cynic" to realize that this has got to be one of the stupidest justifications for Bush's Iraq policy to come down the pike in years.

To be fair to Seib, though, it's important to note that variations of this argument have been floating around the right-wing blogosphere and media for several months now. And it only shows how desperate the neocons are in their efforts to defend their leader as Bush's approval ratings hit new lows every month and as an increasingly skeptical America takes a cold, hard look at the Iraq fiasco.

Why, exactly, is oil not gushing from Iraq these days? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that it's hard to pump oil from a country that is in the midst of chaos and looming civil war. (In fact, oil production in Iraq is lower than it was before the U.S. invasion).

Which brings us to the question: why is Iraq in chaos in the first place? Could it have something to do with the fact that the Bush team rushed into war in Iraq without doing the slightest bit of homework in planning for America's post-invasion occupation of the country? The fact is, the current mess in Iraq is totally the result of the Bush team's ineptness and lack of foresight.

The Bush team waved off all warnings from America's intelligence and military experts who warned of the looming catastrophe in post-invasion Iraq. But it shouldn't really be surprising: this is the same administration that promised America that the Iraq war would be a "cakewalk" that would result in zero casualties.

So, to recap: the Bush team rushes into the Iraq war on false pretenses and then proceeds to thoroughly screw up the post-invasion administration of the country. Oil production in Iraq then tumbles as the country descends into chaos.

And then the likes of The Wall Street Journal come along and make the bizarre argument that Iraq's falling oil production amidst anarchy must somehow mean that Bush's rationale for rushing into war couldn't have had anything to do with oil.

Over the past five years, the Bush team and its lackeys in the right-wing media have resorted to all sorts of tricks to defend the White House's policies. From paying money to right-wing columnists to fabricating "news" stories to bringing in non-journalists to lob softball questions at press conferences, there is no depth to which the right-wing goons haven't sunk.

Gerald Seib's The Wall Street Journal piece shows a right-wing media that is increasingly out of touch with reality in its desperate scramble to defend Bush at any cost.

Remembering a Real American Hero: Smedley D. Butler

BY MANIFESTO JOE

In an age of faux heroism, illustrated by the swagger and tough talk of our "president," we should perhaps take time to remember a real American hero.

July 30 was the birthday of Smedley D. Butler, born in 1881. Few Americans have heard of this two-time Medal of Honor winner, who rose to the rank of major general in the Marine Corps. But history teachers ought to note that Butler probably thwarted the first serious conspiracy toward a coup in the United States.

In 1933, soon after he retired from active duty, Butler alleged that he was approached by a representative of a group of super-rich business interests, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan industrial empires, with a proposition. The representative, a top Wall Street bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire, was said to have tried to recruit Butler to lead a move to strip recently inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt of his political power.

Butler testified before a congressional committee that he was promised a militia of 500,000 men for a coup, after which Butler would assume near-absolute power as "secretary of general affairs," with Roosevelt retained as a figurehead. The men behind MacGuire feared a major redistribution of wealth by an FDR administration, and they were prepared to bankroll the force needed to prevent it.

The outcome of Butler's testimony was predictable. The press, at the time mostly owned by business-friendly conservatives, generally played the story way down. The tiny "reports" that did run ridiculed Butler and said he lacked evidence. Those whom he accused of the conspiracy, including former Democratic presidential nominees Al Smith and John W. Davis, professed innocence and did not come under public scrutiny. MacGuire -- known through his correspondence to have been an admirer of Mussolini's fascist rule in Italy -- was the panel's only open-session witness besides Butler. Of course, he told the lawmakers he never made such a proposition. The allegations are now a footnote in history.

But in 1967, journalist John Spivak vindicated Butler (who died in 1940) when he uncovered the House committee's internal, secret report. It clearly confirmed the story. The panel's public report was a whitewash and even omitted the names of the powerful men whom Butler accused.

This was not the only time Butler tangled with the early U.S. military-industrial complex. He had seen its operations firsthand many times, and blew the whistle on it. In a speech delivered in 1933, the same year he went public about the conspiracy, Butler told his audience:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the few at the expense of the masses. ...

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a 'Big Boss' Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

"I helped make Mexico ... safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. ... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. ... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Today we have other names -- Iraq, Halliburton, Diebold, Rove. We've had two Bush administrations; the first was at best legally questionable, the second possibly elected through voting irregularities in the deciding state and high-tech rigging in others. The stench of war for profit, and of crypto-fascism, is in the air.

Those who discuss this odor are being either ridiculed or ignored by the mainstream media. Perhaps they will be vindicated one day, as Butler was.

Meanwhile, let's honor a real hero, a man who blew the whistle on nascent American fascism.


HISTORICAL SOURCES: Wikipedia; excerpts from an online transcript of a 1933 speech by Smedley D. Butler


MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.

Why Doesn't the Media Take a Look at Whether Bush Arranged an Abortion For His Girlfriend in 1971?

By MARC MCDONALD

These days, George W. Bush gets lots of brownie points from fundamentalist Christians over his "Pro-Life" stance. Indeed, Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, John Roberts, almost certainly sounds the death knell for Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that effectively overturned all state laws outlawing abortion.

Given the current political climate, this might be a good time for the media to pull its thumb out of its ass and finally get around to examining a murky story from Bush's past that's remained in the shadows for three decades.

According to the story, in 1971, Bush got his then-girlfriend, a woman named Robin Lowman (now Robin Garner) pregnant and then arranged for her to have an abortion. (Note that in 1971, abortions were illegal in Texas).

In 2000, publisher Larry Flynt tried to encourage the media to examine this bombshell story. But, predictably, he got nowhere. The same mainstream media that gave 18 months of saturation, around-the-clock coverage to the Monica Lewinsky story, refused to touch the Bush/abortion story.

This is the same media that never tires of giving acres of coverage to smutty, sleazy topics like the ridiculous Janet Jackson/Super Bowl "controversy." Who's the real smut peddler these days: Flynt (who once took a bullet for the First Amendment) or the corporate controlled, cowardly U.S. media?

It's downright eerie and Orwellian, the way the Bush/abortion story has been consistently ignored and even covered up by our nation's media. Few Americans have even heard of this story.

One interesting episode on CNN a few years back neatly sums the media's approach to this story. On November 7, 2000, Flynt briefly spoke about the Bush/abortion case during an appearance on CNN's "Crossfire." Bizarrely, CNN later deleted Flynt's comments from the show's official transcripts, in an unprecedented move that indicates that the media in this country have received orders from their corporate owners to not touch this story.

Flynt was later interviewed on the Bernie Ward radio talk show on KGO radio in San Francisco, where he mentioned the CNN transcript issue and then lambasted the media:

"The mainstream media is scared to death of this story. They won't even check out the facts that I already have, much less ask Bush the question."

The mainstream media snoozed through this story during the 2000 election. And I suppose there's little reason that the media will look into it now.

But one thing Americans need to be aware of with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, is that if he is appointed to the high court, Roe v. Wade is history. To get an idea of where Roberts stands on Roe v. Wade, it's important to note that he was listed as a coauthor on a brief before the high court in the Rust v. Sullivan case in 1991, which stated the following:

"We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

It seems that Bush has come a long ways in his position on abortion since the 1970s. Talk about being a flip-flopper.

Black Box Voting's Bev Harris "Not At All Confident" U.S. Voting System Will Be Fixed in Time For 2006 Elections

By MARC McDONALD

In the following interview with BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, Bev Harris, executive director of Black Box Voting talked about what her "consumer protection group for elections" has been up to lately.

Harris, who popularized the term "Black Box Voting," (which refers to voting on electronic machines that do not print paper ballots) said she is "not at all confident" that America's voting system woes will be fixed in time for the 2006 elections. Harris said election officials haven't taken the necessary steps to fix security issues and "to protect our votes properly."

Harris said the fixes that have been made to date have been "token efforts, Band-Aids, cosmetics, putting makeup on a broken system."

Currently, Black Box Voting is doing work on several fronts, including producing audit material to show that voting machines did not perform reliably in November 2004, Harris said. The organization is also working on specific investigations to prove fraudulent certification of the voting machines.

First of all, for the people out there who've not heard of your Web site and work, can you briefly explain what Black Box Voting is all about and what its purpose is?

Harris: Black Box Voting is a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer protection group for elections. We investigate problems with election integrity, focusing especially on new technologies and on local situations which illustrate generic problems affecting elections nationwide. The most active section of our site is the "Forums" section, which provides interactive information on investigations and latest news. We post a new, original-research consumer report on elections problems about once a week, sometimes more often.

How did you first get involved in this field?

Harris: Investigative writing, which led to breaking many stories on election integrity problems in the U.S. After a number of breakthrough investigations, I founded a nonprofit group, funded by public donations, which allow two full time investigators to do field work. You cannot just study this issue on the Internet. Going out into the field to review documents, interview citizens and candidates, and visit elections officials is of critical importance, and what you learn often doesn't quite match what you read on the Internet. Our nonprofit organization has been active for a little over a year, and we are working on several important new consumer reports right now.

What is the main task that you are working on these days?

Harris: We are very interesting in the money trail driving procurement. We are also working on specific investigations to prove fraudulent certification of the voting machines, and we are producing audit material showing that the machines did not perform reliably in November 2004.

For a while after the 2004 election, we saw the media pay some attention to election controversies and irregularities. But there hasn't been much follow through and the issue seems to have faded away. Do you feel confident that the American people will ever learn the truth about the 2004 election problems?

Harris: Interest will always ebb and flow, but we are pleased that this story now has "legs" -- weak ones, but as the evidence is growing, so is media interest, even in off-years for elections.

The biggest problem with the media is that they fail to do the homework needed (takes too much time, budgets generally do not provide for that) -- and therefore, fail to ask effective follow up questions. Instead of learning the truth, therefore, what we see is spin. The progress we have made is that there is now some spin on both sides, but most media coverage is still largely spin.
Another problem is that no single major publication has done an effective series on voting machines and procurement. This is a multifaceted, agenda-ridden issue that will become bigger than Watergate, when a publication finally embarks on a
quest for the truth.

Do you feel confident that our nation's voting system will be in any better shape for the 2006 elections?

Harris: I hope so, but I am not at all confident about this. There is not a will to engage in real reform by elected officials (small wonder; they owe their power because of the current flawed system). There is not a will to engage in real investigative journalism among any of the mainstream outlets (although Adam Cohen, of The New York Times, did an outstanding job in the summer of 2004).
There is not a will among election officials to learn about the security problems with their systems, and certainly not a will to take the correct steps to protect our votes properly. There is a will among ordinary citizens to correct electoral problems, but many have been led to easy, politically correct "solutions" that don't really address core problems.

What is needed, first and foremost, is willingness to fight. Too often, we are told to "be polite" and "work within the system." That only works if the system is responsive to real reform efforts. What we are seeing is token efforts,
Band-Aids, cosmetics, putting makeup on a broken system.

No doubt, there are many frustrated citizens out there who are concerned about the future of fair and honest elections in America. What can they do to help your cause?

Harris: Get involved. You can hook up with others in your area who are interested in reform by going to the forums at Black Box Voting, where each state has a section. The forums also have the latest suggestions for actions to take, and ways to help "be the media."

One of the most important things to do is to start showing up at meetings, with a video camera. This will put local officials on notice that you are watching them, and will help you meet others in your town who share your interests. When
you go, focus on getting public officials to commit to answers (or non-answers, fibs, or evasions) -- that's why you need the video camera.

We have a primer on the voting machines, quite readable and very thorough, online. Go to Black Box Voting and look for the Black Box Voting book, available chapter-by-chapter in free downloads. You will find the chapters on the right hand column of the home page.

Now, let's go take back our republic.

An Open Letter To Bush: Are We Fighting The "Trrrr-ists" In London So We Do Not Have To Face Them At Home?

BY MANIFESTO JOE

It was bad enough for one of the journalism charlatans at Fox News to talk about the London bombing in terms of how one could profit from it. (The swinelike Brit Hume suggested this would be a good time to buy futures.) But for loutish insensitivity, he was topped by our own "president," who told his Saturday morning radio audience that we are "fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home."

Mr. Bush, did you imply that it's better to have the London subway system be a battleground than to have al Qaeda blowing up folks over here?

This mantra of your was insulting enough in the context of the Iraq war. Never mind that it was your foolhardiness that turned that country into a terrorist magnet, and the best training ground al Qaeda ever had. What you expressed is sort of a not-in-my-back-yard school of anti-terrorism -- essentially, let's keep them on the run so they can only hit foreign targets!

Mr. Bush, I never quite understood how shallow you really are until you invoked this mantra of yours in this particular address. Despite all the gushing rhetoric, this shows a ludicrous lack of respect and empathy for the civilians who are being killed daily in this conflict, whether Britons or Iraqis. You have denigrated the value of their lives; indeed, those of everyone, except "Murkans."

It is bad enough that neither you nor Mr. Blair seem to understand that your totally unrelated invasion of Iraq actually played into the hands of terrorists the world over. Thanks to this needless quagmire:

• The U.S. is militarily overextended, unable to deal effectively with those actually responsible for 9-11, the London bombing, and the other atrocities.
  
  
• Terrorist recruitment has probably spiked greatly because of outrage in the Muslim world over your poorly veiled oil grab.
  
  
• Terrorist activity, in any case, has definitely increased. MSNBC reported that a RAND Corp. database shows that the number of deaths from terrorism worldwide has sharply risen since the Iraq invasion.
  
  
• Again, Iraq is a perfect training ground for the recruits.
  
  
• World opinion of the United States has probably never been worse.
  
  
• And, all in all, the world is much more dangerous -- and, your mantra aside, it is likely only a matter of time before our own infrastructure, and people, come under attack again. Our Coast Guard and border patrol aren't good enough to keep our real enemies at bay much longer.
  

What would you say if they bombed the port of Los Angeles, or took out the Golden Gate Bridge during rush hour? That we're fighting the "trrrr-ists" in California so we do not have to face them in Washington? Or Crawford? Your mantra was disrespectful enough to the nearly 1,800 soldiers who have died so far in your and Mr. Blair's extracurricular misadventure. But in this radio address -- well, I thought I had already heard as much bovine excrement as you could muster for one speech. I was wrong. Mr. Bush, you owe the British people an apology. And your fellow "Murkans" your resignation. Then we'll see if Cheney can be impeached. MANIFESTO JOE IS AN UNDERGROUND WRITER LIVING IN TEXAS.