portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

9.11 investigation

How to defeat Bushism in 2004

The defeat of Bush in 2004 should be a global obligation.
Suggestions for a serious opposition to Bushism.
By Joseph P. Diaferia
February 13, 2004

Reply to  Jdiaferia@columnist.com

Immediately following the admirable results of the 2000 presidential "election", the term "Bushism" quickly came into vogue. Bushisms, as they are known in everyday parlance, are anything from G.W. Bush's malapropisms and hilarious errors in grammar or syntax, to waving to Stevie Wonder—as Bush is reported to have done. Many disenfranchised Americans, who voted against the Texas governor's bid for the presidency in 2000 quickly sought consolation by taking humor in the new "president's" notorious social and oratory incoherence.

However, given a new and more realistic meaning, "Bushism" would not be a subject for cocktail party joviality, but one of stark revulsion and fear. Bushism should be taken as synonymous with American fascism—a system of militarized corporate and state power, and the abandonment of any pretense of representative government. From the repressive provisions of the USA/PATRIOT Act, to George W. Bush's frank desire for absolute power, the trappings of democracy and the very limited constitutional protections Americans have enjoyed for two centuries now lie moribund.

While the abolition of representative government on behalf of executive absolutism may be an inevitability of the "free enterprise" system, the chronic disease of global capitalism has entered an acute stage—and must be treated accordingly. Certainly, capitalism and organized crime can be viewed as interchangeable and indistinguishable concepts. However, the present guardians of global capitalism can and should be regarded as miscreant, even among other capitalists.

In November of 2003, in what was at the same time, one of the most celebrated and most denounced public statements made by a political figure in recent memory, Mayor Ken Livingstone of London, U.K., referred to George W. Bush as the "greatest threat to life on this planet". While progressive political commentators and activists welcomed this comment from the British official, conservatives hurriedly and predictably sought to discredit both the statement and Mayor Livingstone himself, by making irrelevant references to his political past. He was once a "socialist"—we kept hearing.

However, the haste and pugnacity of the political right's dismissal of Livingstone are, if anything, indicative of the accuracy of his statement. For it is not an overstatement to speak of this U.S. president, his family and their associates, in these terms.

The Bush family is a sinister political institution. Their venality is underscored not only by the barbaric foreign policies of our forty-first and forty-third presidents, but also by decades of nefarious activities and affiliations, including the current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush's cordial ties to Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.

The defeat of the Bush dynasty in 2004 must not be seen as merely a national obligation but a global one, to be undertaken by the hundreds of millions of people committed to peace. The Bush axis has asserted, with the utmost clarity, its intention to destroy any political formation that hobbles its agenda, and therefore, the entire world has a duty to work for the political defeat of this un-elected syndicate.

Initially, Americans could be forgiven for the installation of George W. Bush as president of the United States. After all, this family's restoration to power was rejected by the American electorate. Unfortunately, American sentiment was made irrelevant by mass voter suppression, fraud, deception and the detestable (and illegal) ruling of a renegade Supreme Court. However, since then Americans have obviously fallen into a state of political slumber, with their uncritical acceptance of the official explanations of the events of September 11, 2001, and the attendant invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While some Americans have finally begun to doubt the veracity of the administration's claims about Iraq, many—perhaps still a majority—believe the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to be part of a genuine and unambiguous war against terror. To the "United We Stand" coadunation, the idea that ulterior motives may lurk behind the administration's actions is a seditious outrage. This is due at least in part, to the culture created by the spectacular horror of 9/11. The flag-waving extravaganza and the seductive appeal of such presidential pig grunts as "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" have made the call for political sense and reason virtually impossible, and even damaging to many careers and reputations.

Therefore, political progressives in both the United States and abroad, have a responsibility to educate and inform the more gullible elements in American society, by raising serious questions about the state of American politics and by warning of the global dangers a second G.W. Bush term would pose.

Because the defeat of Bushism is such an urgent necessity, it is an effort that requires the application of all legal political means, including the introduction of some highly opprobrious data regarding the Bush family to our political discourse. At this moment in history, circumstances are too dire for us to conform to every canon of political etiquette, and it is both justified and necessary to visit some of the crimes of other Bush personages upon the current president—as should have been done by the campaigns of Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton in 1988 and 1992, respectively. Now is not the time for political forbearance for the benefit of decorum or "taking the high road". A true opposition must expose the entire Bush family history and lay open what may very well be a globally catastrophic agenda.

True, some activists may have concerns about political campaigns that indulge in excessive castigation of the opposition. It is hardly improper for decent political activists to deplore the use of Republican tactics, and one could understandably ask: "Why resort to Republican chicanery to defeat Republicans?" Although, Democrats seldom offer bona fide redistributive alternatives, some substance can occasionally be discerned from their national and local platforms (However, this is usually intended to diffuse popular discontent and not as a strategy for serious progressive change). On the other hand, in recent years the philosophy of the dominant wing of the Republican party has become so flawed and so corrupt that Republican candidates, when not enshrouding themselves in the American flag, apple pie, baseball and other virtues of "true-blue" Americanism, must turn to character assassination and mud slinging in order to enhance their political appeal—shallow and false though it may be. With few exceptions, Republican electoral victories do not result from the espousal of legitimate issues or policies, but rather by leading the public into a blind state of irrelevant and abstract sensationalism. For Republicans, it is usually necessary to lie, embellish and distort as the political climate may indicate. Fortunately, we need not do any such thing, since the Bush family and their capo régimes offer so much genuine ignominy and scandal that it is not necessary to conjure up any. Indeed, a movement committed to ending Bushism would not be resorting to falsehood and deception, and would in fact, be performing an immense and truthful global service by publicly raising the following issues—among others—and demanding explanations:

September 11, 2001:

- The Bush administration clearly had foreknowledge, and may very well have taken a direct hand in the attacks of September 11, 2001, as evidenced by the stand down orders that Air Force fighter pilots were given that morning, and the president's appalling inaction as events unfolded. It must also be noted that the administration's decision to invade Afghanistan was taken months before the attacks because of the Taliban's destruction of their opium crops and their intransigence in oil pipeline negotiations.

- The president's father, a former president, met with Osama bin Laden's brother on the morning of September 11, 2001, and less than a week after the attacks, members of the bin Laden family were quietly spirited out of the United States aboard a government aircraft. Why?

- On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden received treatment at the military hospital at Rawalpindi, Pakistan (America's close ally in the "war on terrorism") and was not taken into custody. Why not?

- In July 2001, Osama bin Laden met with the CIA while receiving treatment for a kidney infection at the American hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and was then free to leave. Was he not already wanted in connection with the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole?

- In January 2001 the Bush administration ordered the FBI to desist in its investigation of the bin Laden family. Interestingly, an FBI bureau chief who resigned in protest over the president's edict was later hired as director of security for the World Trade Center. He was killed in the September 11th attacks—his second day on the job. Why was the FBI ordered off the bin Laden family, and is it feasible to conclude that the former FBI bureau chief's death was simply a coincidence?

- Marvin Bush, the president's youngest brother sat on the board of directors of a company that provided electronic security to the World Trade Center. Marvin Bush is also reported to have been in New York City, only a matter of blocks from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. More recently, Marvin Bush's babysitter reportedly died under questionable circumstances. Did his babysitter, hear or see something she should not have? Might Marvin or anyone in the Bush clan (did someone say Klan?) care to comment on this?

- Shortly after the attacks, when questions were raised regarding the massive failure of military intelligence on that fateful morning, the president warned against "despicable conspiracy theories", and another presidential aide sharply advised journalists (and, in effect, Americans in general) to watch what they write and what they say. Such stern admonitions would seem oddly superfluous from an administration that has nothing to hide. Therefore, why did the administration reject the idea of an independent commission to investigate 9/11, and now that it has finally acquiesced to its creation, why has the administration provided the commission with only scant and selective cooperation? In addition, why is the administration is paying hush money—yes, bribes—to some families of 9/11 victims?

-We must also consider who exactly benefited from the attacks. The Bush administration was able to improve its public approval ratings (significant given the public's correct perception of Bush as an illegitimate president), take the nation to war, secure exponential increases in defense spending from Congress, divert the American public's attention away from economic turmoil for which the administration had no answer, and abridge our civil rights by ramming repressive legislation through Congress. What does Osama bin Laden have to show for the 9/11 attacks besides the bounty on his head?

Bush Family Treason and Corruption:

- The Enron scandal, to no one's surprise has been reported perfunctorily by the corporate media. However, even most of the alternative press coverage of the Enron scandal continues to bear a glaring omission—the convenient destruction of most of the Security and Exchange Commission's investigative records on Enron in the World Trade Center disaster. Conspiracy or coincidence?

- The current president's grandfather Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money launderer for the Nazis. This cozy relationship continued even after Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States. What might the president have to say about his grandfather's associations?

- While the president has characterized his domestic agenda as one of "compassionate conservatism", it should be noted that much of it was formulated by the CIA's Manhattan Institute, a racist think tank founded by former CIA director William Casey, who helped bring thousands of former Nazis to the US following WWII. The Manhattan Institute is dedicated to the promotion of eugenics-based politics. Eugenics are racist theories that ascribe lesser intelligence to people of color, hence, presumptions of racial inferiority. While eugenics theories are damnably fraudulent, they are nonetheless treated as justification for the elimination of human services and other programs intended to enhance life's chances for people of color. Reportedly, President Bush, when not receiving his instructions from God directly (just ask U.S. Army Lt. General William Boykin), takes considerable political guidance from Manhattan Institute publications. It would be fair to ask the president to publicly explain his affiliation with this organization and to clarify which of his policies are Manhattan Institute directed, and which are communicated to him via celestial long distance telephone call.

- The president, his father and brothers Jeb and Neil reportedly have over two dozen secret bank accounts worldwide, through which they have laundered tens of billions of dollars of illicit funds from drug trafficking from weapons smuggling, and clandestine and illegal gold smuggling overseas. If this is found to be true, can we count on the Bushes to surrender to the DEA before the November elections?

- Anyone old enough, remembers exactly what he or she was doing as the nation learned of President John F. Kennedy's assassination. Yet, former President George H.W. Bush (reportedly a member of the CIA at the time) has had a repeated tendency to develop amnesia when asked of his whereabouts on that day. Has the current president ever attempted to jog his father's memory regarding this matter?

- The president, his father and his brothers are personally acquainted with would be Reagan assassin John Hinckley and his family. In fact, the president's brother Neil was scheduled to have dinner with John Hinckley's brother Scott on the evening of March 30, 1981—the very day of the assassination attempt. Could then Vice-President George H.W. Bush have had some foreknowledge of this assassination attempt? Could this have been a warning to President Ronald Reagan that political forces more powerful than he were already unhappy with some of his policies? Could this have been an attempt at the coup d'etat that finally succeeded in 2000? Did then Secretary of State Alexander Haig declare himself "in charge" because he suspected a coup d'etat was underway?

- In what could be regarded as the ultimate sex scandal, teenage male prostitutes were invited and given late night "tours" of the White House in 1989. Former President George H.W. Bush clearly owes the American people an explanation here. If the former president is not willing to provide one, then the current president should demand that his father do so—especially given the president's preoccupation with sexual "morality". Additionally, since congressional Republicans used a far less serious sexual indiscretion to impeach a sitting president, should they not have to answer for something as potentially obscene as this?

- The president must also explain his father's involvement in the assassination of exiled Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier, in 1976. Letelier, an outspoken critic of U.S. support for the murderous Pinochet regime in Chile, and his personal aide Ronni Moffit were killed in a car bombing in Washington, D.C. The elder Bush was director of the CIA at the time and years later, as the CIA cover-up began to unravel, the Chilean Supreme Court (in the post-Pinochet era) asked Bush to submit questioning. To no one's surprise, Bush refused. Will the current U.S. president cooperate with Chilean authorities if inquiries into the Letelier assassination (or the Allende assassination for that matter) are resumed?

- Vice-President Dick Cheney is currently the target of a criminal investigation for his role in a massive bribery scandal while he was CEO of Halliburton Inc. While the investigation is being conducted by French law enforcement agencies, it would be prosecuted under international statutes agrees to by a 1997 treaty, which the United States has signed. In the event of an indictment, would the president agree to extradite his vice-president to stand trial?

- It has been reported that on July 9, 1999, an assassination attempt was made on then Vice-President Al Gore. While the source of this information—Sherman Skolnick, may be easy to dismiss (Skolnick also believes former president Bill Clinton, to be an illegitimate descendant of John D. Rockefeller), this should, nevertheless be the subject of inquiry. According to Skolnick, Air Force Two, with Vice-President Gore on board was deliberately put on a collision course with two other aircraft over Chicago, Illinois.
If Al Gore were perceived as a threat to the Bush re-emergence, would it be so incredible to consider him a possible target? Could Al Gore have chosen not to run in 2004 for fear of his life? Should any challenger with the popularity and support to defeat Bush harbor the same fear? These questions need answers.

If it can be proven that there was, indeed an attempt on Gore's life, it would be interesting to note that the attempt preceded the death of John F. Kennedy Jr., in an air mishap, by only eight days. While the death of the son of the 35th president appears to be nothing more than a tragic accident, no suspicion of foul play should ever be dismissed as outlandish. If George Bush Sr.—in his capacity as a CIA agent or asset—did play a role in President Kennedy's assassination, he and Bush Jr. might well have felt the need to silence JFK Jr. Indeed, as much as the American public knows or suspects about the events of 11/22/63, the son of the murdered president probably knew much more. In addition, it has been reported that John F. Kennedy Jr. was eyeing a possible run for the United States Senate in 2000, the prospect of which might have caused serious consternation to the Bushes and other members of the national security establishment. To be sure, there has been little evidence or public discussion of JFK Jr.'s death being anything more than an accident. Moreover, even if evidence of a conspiracy were adduced, it should be approached with caution, as it might be reckless to conclude that the Bushes were immediately involved, since there are other political personalities whose careers would have been entrammeled by a Kennedy candidacy.

Nevertheless, these are serious questions, and just as a responsible physician might seek to rule out a disease that he or she does not fully suspect a patient of having, a serious and determined opposition must take the same approach. After all, there are believed to be many instances in American history of political leaders arranging air disasters to dispatch "troublesome" encumbrances to the hereafter. Possible examples include, among others, the deaths of Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002, Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan in 2000, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown in 1995, Senator John Tower in 1991, Panamanian President Omar Torrijos in 1981, Representative Jerry Litton in 1976, Dorothy Hunt, wife of JFK/Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt in 1972, Representatives Hale Boggs and Nick Begich together in 1972, and United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold in 1961.

- The Bush family has long been involved with the Rockefeller family in population control experiments. First, it is worth inquiring if involvement in these experiments bears any relation to the direct ties the president has to vaccine and drug manufacturers. Secondly, since much of the African continent's capacity to produce its own medicine has been destroyed (thanks to Clinton's missile attack on the pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan in 1998) we must be very wary of Bush Jr.'s sudden concern for African AIDS victims. While we should obviously provide whatever care possible for all AIDS victims worldwide, we must determine if the drugs the U.S. is sending to Africa are indeed therapeutic, or part of some sinister population control strategy similar to MK-NAOMI. Certain AIDS drugs such as AZT, while ostensibly intended to preserve the human immune system, reportedly destroy the immune system. According to some researchers, AZT is a toxic and potentially carcinogenic chemical. Many AIDS patients who have stopped taking AZT have actually recovered their health, and many AIDS deaths are actually believed to be the result of AZT poisoning. Is AZT (or similar drugs) slated for delivery to Africa?

We must also take note of the sudden appearances and re-appearances of SARS, mad cow disease and anthrax. The past two years have brought compulsory vaccination for some federal employees and others in certain health care fields. Definitive information regarding the origins of these diseases has not been forthcoming. A serious opposition must seek answers, and should raise questions about the sweeping provisions of the Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA), and the recent deaths of microbiologists under mysterious circumstances. Some forty-four microbiologists have met premature deaths since 9/11/01. All were known to be expert in such communicable diseases as HIV, Ebola and mad cow disease.

- On the afternoon of August 14, 2003, a massive blackout over a large swath of North America left some fifty million people without electrical power. Interestingly, the Bush administration rushed to the conclusion that terrorism was not the culprit—long before the source of the cascading power failure had been established. How could anyone in the administration have drawn any such conclusion, so early on? There has been some speculation that the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) was activated on that day, shortly after 4:00PM EST. Reportedly, HAARP is a phased-array ionospheric heater that is capable of directing large quantities of electromagnetic energy into localized areas, far away from its source. Some scientists believe it possible, that HAARP heaters were directed at the northeast power grid's choke points while the grid was operating at, or near capacity. The sudden burst of electromagnetic energy could have forced an unexpected surge in the power flow, which could then have resulted in the catastrophic electrical failure.

Why would our government do this? HAARP is a U.S. Air Force Weather Agency operation, and many non-military observers have postulated ionospheric warfare as its purpose. If in fact HAARP is a weapon, some maintain that the blackout of August 14, 2003 was a test of the scope of its military capability.

Granted, the HAARP theory is highly controversial; and while the sci-fi orientation of such a theory might only find favor among X-Files fanatics, neither the administration nor any other federal agency have advanced a more prosaic explanation (such as a lightening strike, or rodents in a transformer) of the events of that mid-summer afternoon. This should be investigated further.

Global Designs and Domestic Implications:

- G.W. Bush needs to be seriously challenged on his maniacal drive to war, and not by the bogus commission that he himself has appointed to investigate intelligence relating to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The United States invaded Iraq on the pretext that the Hussein government possessed WMDs and posed a threat to U.S. security. Thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American military personnel have died because of this spectacular lie (this is not to overlook the nearly two million Iraqis who had already died as a result of the first Gulf War followed by twelve years of the genocidal sanctions). A serious opposition will expose the war in Iraq for what it truly is—a wanton, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. It is a grave fallacy to suggest that the administration's invasion of Iraq is simply a mistake, misdirected, poorly timed, or premature as some Democrats have argued. The administration new exactly what it was doing and exactly why. There was no failure of military intelligence, and to cite control of oil as the administration's motive for going to war with Iraq is to state the obvious. No serious or educated observer of United States politics could possibly conclude that the administration's policy is driven by anything else. Yes, Saddam Hussein has many crimes he must answer for, and the Iraqi military may have at one time possessed an arsenal that ideally, no country should. However, why would these facts alone have been reason for the United States to want to change the Iraqi leadership? The United States has supported, and in many cases, brought to power, some of the most brutal dictators the world has ever known, including Hussein himself.

Furthermore, it is palpably hypocritical for a U.S. President to demand that any nation disarm. History has shown that countries whose internal policies deviate from the whims and wishes of the U.S. government have every reason to want to develop the best means of defense.

Early in his administration, President G.W. Bush ordered certain presidential records sealed, including many from his father's and Ronald Reagan's presidencies. Indeed, Bush feels he has a great deal to hide from the American people, for fear of mass public outrage and quite possibly, criminal prosecution. Accordingly, Bush has engaged in some remarkably gymnastic subterfuge to conceal the directly criminal character of U.S. policy with Iraq. A mere glimpse into the presidential records of the Reagan and Bush administrations would likely reveal mass collusion between the United States and the reviled regime of the former Iraqi leader both before and after Operation Desert Storm in 1991. During the first Gulf War, the elder Bush—to the astonishment of many observers—ordered a cease-fire, and abruptly shut down the U.S. offensive against Saddam Hussein's forces. At the time, U.S. military intelligence reported an internal revolt among Iraqis, against the Hussein government. The cease-fire allowed Saddam Hussein to divert his much vaunted Republican Guards from the Iraqi-Kuwaiti frontier to be used to crush the rebellion that threatened to supplant the his regime with a more popular government. Such a government, it was feared, might have been even more hostile to U.S. interests. In effect, The Bush and Hussein governments were working in tandem, albeit briefly.

- In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban—its former theocratic government accused of harboring Osama bin Laden's Al Quaida network—was midwifed into existence by the United States. As already noted, the Taliban fell out of favor with the administration as a result of their obstinacy in oil pipeline negotiations and their non-participation in the heroin trade. Ergo, the U.S invasion of Afghanistan is no more a search for Osama bin Laden and Al Quaida than it is a search for Jimmy Hoffa (Hey... has anyone thought to look for Osama under the end zone at Giants Stadium in New Jersey?).

It may also be useful to ask what Secretary of State Colin Powell's purpose was in releasing $43 million to the Taliban in May 2001. Could it have been to induce them to resume heroin production, without which the U.S. banking industry might have collapsed?

- The Bush regime plans to expand its "war on terror" to include the rest of central Asia, Syria, North Korea, Iran, South America and the Far East; and they have not been demure about their intentions. First, we should be reminded of Bush's and Cheney's forewarning of a perpetual war—one that may not end in our lifetime. This is further underscored by the president' s declaration of some of the aforementioned countries as constituting an "axis of evil". In addition, there is reason to believe that in the near future, young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six will be conscripted for military service, as U.S. troop strength appears insufficient to carry out the administration's imperial designs. Recently the Defense Department's website bore an advertisement seeking volunteers to sit on local draft boards. Other indications include the publications of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the highly influential Zbigniew Brzezinski, that warn of a baneful erosion of U.S. world "primacy" without the total conquest of the earth's energy resources. As far back as 1998, PNAC correspondence urged then President Clinton to take more conclusive action against the Hussein government. Many original PNAC signatories now serve in the Bush administration, and given the petroleum industry's lopsided representation in the Bush cabinet, it is impossible not to conclude that the administration's foremost concern is theft and control of what remains of the world's oil.

- The size and scale of military deployment necessary for Bush's jingoistic ventures to succeed may not immediately meet the countenance of the American people. Therefore, it is feared that a second and much larger terrorist attack may be staged or permitted in order to compel an increasingly reluctant American public into a renewed frenzy of recriminatory militarism. Moreover, some media pundits—including conservative columnist William Safire—have openly speculated that such a terrorist attack may be timed to result in the cancellation of the 2004 election. In such a scenario, the president might suspend the U.S. Constitution, declare martial law and rule by decree. A similar plan, code-named Rex 84 Alpha was devised during the Reagan administration and would have enabled the federal government to arrest and detain political dissidents without the benefit of a trial or without any formal criminal charge. Reagan was also reported to be drafting plans to detain over 21 million African Americans in "assembly centers" (read: concentration camps) across the United States. Fortunately, Reagan's plans for extra-constitutional action were exposed by U.S. Representative Jack Brooks (D-Texas) during the Iran-Contra hearings. It is believed that documents relating to Rex 84 Alpha and the plans for mass internment of African Americans are among those ordered sealed by President G.W. Bush.

- The Bush regime has surely taken note of the enthusiasm and determination of the anti-globalization and peace movements in recent years (referring to the latter as a focus group—as one recalls). Millions have turned out in U.S. cities and around the world to demand an end the marginalization of millions due to the ruthless globalization of capital and the Bush administration's imperial brinksmanship. Therefore, the institution of martial law should be regarded as a genuine and perhaps immediate possibility, as it is easy to understand the administrations desperate need to silence any and all opposition.

- The need for political quiescence, along with G.W. Bush's candid desire for dictatorial power, helps to clarify the purpose of the administration's shadow government. Known euphemistically as a program to assure "continuity of government", the shadow government consists entirely of Executive branch officials, which directly violates the concept of separation of powers. No member of either of the other two branches of the U.S. government is included in this shadow government. In the event of a national emergency such as a terrorist attack (staged or otherwise), the shadow government would become an openly dictatorial regime without any judicial or legislative check on their actions. Moreover, Bush's shadow government plan is not based on the constitutional requirement of presidential succession. With the exclusion of the other two branches of government, Vice-President Cheney, who would assume the presidency in the event of Bush's death or incapacity, would be in charge of the entire operation. The speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate President Pro Tempore, respectively third and fourth in the line of succession are not a part of this program.

The Defeat of Bushism as a National and International Obligation:

- As previously stated, G.W. Bush could suspend the U.S. Constitution in the event of a national "emergency" such as a terrorist attack. However, such a catalyzing event might not only be used as a pretext for war, but also, if Bush's re-election prospects begin to deteriorate. Therefore, we must remain vigilant and not allow ourselves to be swept up in another maelstrom of "patriotic" inebriety while our rights are replaced by the shouted commands of M-16 wielding national guardsmen. We must reach out to and inform members of our military—to the extent possible—that a declaration of martial law in the United States would only be serving the self-interested goals of a single crime family, and would have nothing to do with "protecting Americans". Surely, a declaration of martial law would be meaningless should enough of our military refuse to cooperate.

- Since neither the defeat of G.W. Bush nor the 2004 election itself, are inevitable, the defeat of Bushism will require a much greater effort than television ads and distributing campaign literature between Labor Day and Election Day. Informed Americans must communicate, via every possible medium, the information necessary to expose and end the Bush criminal reign. With the same energy and commitment that it acted against the administration's policies with Iraq and Afghanistan, the peace movement must organize and take to the streets by the millions to demand the removal of this lawless cabal. In addition, activists in foreign capitals must stage demonstrations at U.S. embassies, and at there own seats of government and demand that their leaders adopt resolutions calling for the defeat of the Bush administration. The international peace movement could also demand a United Nations resolution calling upon the American people to either defeat the administration or at least reject a fraudulent electoral outcome. Furthermore, in what would certainly be an ironic role reversal, foreign governments, if they were so pressured by their people, could institute trade sanctions against the United States, should political dissent be criminalized here. While such a proposal may seem far-fetched, we could take some encouragement from the Brazilian government's newly adopted response in-kind to the U.S. policy of photographing and fingerprinting Brazilians visiting this country.

Global action taken either to influence, or in response to national elections is not without precedent. Global public opinion helped to overturn the fraudulent "re-election" of Ferdinand Marcos as President of the Philippines, in 1986 (where were these activists in 2000?). Also in 1986, former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim's bid to become president of Austria was met with intense international opposition after it was revealed that Waldheim had been an active Nazi during World War II. Although Waldheim was elected, Austria's international standing plummeted afterwards. World opposition to South Africa's racist apartheid government eventuated Nelson Mandela's election to the presidency of that country in 1994 (Note: let us not overlook that while apartheid as codified law has been abolished, only minimal and incremental economic change for South Africa's majority population has taken place). In 1999, extreme rightist Joerg Haider's election to a provincial governorship in Austria earned his country seven months of diplomatic sanctions from the European Union.

Furthermore, the United Nations and other world bodies should insist upon the monitoring of the American elections by international observers, and categorically reject the use of computerized balloting. Electronic voting machines can be easily manipulated, especially if they are manufactured by a company that has a stake in the outcome of an election. Thus, in 1996, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska won re-election by a landslide on electronic voting machines manufactured by a company of which he was once part owner.

Lest this be seen as an unwelcome intrusion by foreign governments into American politics, let us recall the numerous instances of the U.S government's criminal meddling in the internal affairs of other countries since World War II—beginning with Operation Gladio in Italy in 1948, followed by Korea in 1950, Iran (then called Persia) in 1953, Guyana (formerly British Guiana) from 1953 to 1964, Guatemala in 1954, Lebanon in 1958 and again in 1983, Haiti from 1959 through 1963 and again in 1994, Cuba in 1961 (continuing to this day), Brazil from 1960 to 1964, The Congo from 1961 to 1964, Iraq in 1963 and again from 1990 to the present, Uruguay from 1964 to 1970, the Dominican Republic in 1965, Indonesia in 1965, Greece in 1967, Vietnam throughout the 1960s and into the early 1970s, Chile in 1973, Jamaica from 1976 to 1970, Grenada in 1983, Nicaragua throughout the 1980s, Panama in 1989, the former Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s and many more. In the case of Yugoslavia, a U.S law occasioned the dissolution of that republic, as it was so intended. On November 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed Foreign Appropriations Law 101-513, which required that election procedures and results in the individual Yugoslav republics meet the approval of the U.S. State Department. Those republics that could not pass muster with the U.S. lost federal aid and could not secure loans from the U.S. controlled International Monetary Fund. As a result, disparities in wealth and privilege began to emerge, and shortly thereafter, the country lapsed into a horrendous civil war.

Millions of innocent people have died because of overt and covert U.S. action in foreign lands. All that was ever at stake in any one country was private investment and the profits of a hand full of U.S. billionaires. At this point, the people of the world have a stake in the result of the 2004 U.S. election, and it is very simple: the survival of humankind. The people of the world have not only the right, but also a responsibility to become every bit as involved in our political process as we must be.

- Many Americans hold the view that Bush Jr. became Governor of Texas, and then President of the United States simply to avenge his father (Ann Richards, the former Governor of Texas whom G.W. Bush defeated in 1994, rose to national political celebrity by lambasting Bush Sr. with a series of blunt metaphors at the Republican national convention in 1988). While this is not an unsound notion, it is more likely that the Bush axis and its close associates are avenging themselves. Back in 1990 when an obscure southern governor named Bill Clinton accompanied David Rockefeller to the Bilderberg Conference, it was suddenly clear to the Bush family and their cohorts, that their ouster was being planned by the dominant component of the ruling elite. The Franklin Cover-up and the savings and loan scandals—among other things may have caused some in the ruling class to want a new administration, one that could rightly claim to have not been involved in either scandal. With the help of H. Ross Perot's candidacy, the Bush regime was temporarily sidelined in 1992. However, their absence from power was to be brief. The Bush family, with their corporate ties and close association to the CIA and other levers of national security, by deception and duplicity, regained power. There is every reason to believe that they will attempt to retain power by any means necessary—including extra-constitution action and martial law.

The criminality of the Bush regime is out of the closet. Its mendacious and duplicitous character is breathtaking. A regime that professes to be fighting a war against terror, yet has such close ties to the very terrorist groups it claims to be fighting, might have made Joseph Goebbels proud. However, it should remind us that millions could die for the greater glory of this clique of reprobate scoundrels who seek unbounded wealth through the subjugation of human beings and the appropriation of the fruits of the earth, and that they have thus far succeeded through the use of lies, image manipulation, propaganda and vilification of truth.

As previously stated, Mayor Livingstone of London did not speak in hyperbole by warning of the Bush regime's omnicidal potential. The most strident statements about the Bushes have usually been the most precise. The defeat of Bushism is an obligation the American people have to the world; and, it is an obligation the world has to itself.

Let us begin our work—forthwith.

address: address: New York City

How do we beat Bush? 13.Feb.2004 22:47


We've lost 2.3 million jobs. We have a 600 billion + defecit (when you add war costs). We have lost our constitutional rights. We've went from the most respected nation to the most despised in the world and have entered into a war that will go on for generations after having blown up large portions of New York and ravaged two counties.

How are we going to beat this guy?