The Bush League of Nations by James A. Swanson

The Bush League of Nations
Also by James A. Swanson
Engineering Your Start-Up: A Guide for the High-Tech Entrepreneur

(second edition—Michael L. Baird, co-author)
The Bush League
of Nations
The Coalition of the Unwilling,

the Bullied and the Bribed—
The GOP’s War on Iraq and America
James A. Swanson
Copyright © James A. Swanson, 2008. All rights reserved.
Published by CreateSpace Publishing
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 1-438211-95-3
ISBN: 978-1-4382-1195-4
Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval sys-
tem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or via
any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and pun-
ishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and do
not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted materials.
Your support of the author’s rights is appreciated.
Dedication and Dead–ication
Dedication
This book is dedicated to the Dixie Chicks: Natalie Maines, Martie Maguire
and Emily Robison.
“Six Strong Hands on the Steering Wheel”
Dead-ication
This book is dead–icated to the Dixie Chickens: George W. Bush, Dick Che-
ney and Don Rumsfeld.
“Six Wrong Hands on the Steering Wheel”
RIP: January 20, 2009—or earlier, God and the U.S. Congress willing.
Contents
Introduction i
PART I The Road to American Imperialism 1
1. Asleep at the Wheel 3

An Historic Opportunity Squandered
2. A Just War vs. Just War 27

Hard Power, Soft Power and Stupid Power
3. Afghanistan 41
Losing the Just War
4. The Unjust War in Iraq 51

Christianity is Bombing in Iraq
PART II The Bush League of Nations 89
5. The Bush League of Nations 91

A Web of Deceit for the Gullible
6. Members of the Bush League of Nations 123

Lost in the Wilderness—A Leader Without Followers
7. Private Military Contractors 153

Making a Killing in Iraq
PART III Bush, the GOP and Bush League Religion 165
8. The Religious Wrong 167

Creating the Neo-Jesus—Pro-Rich and Pro-War
9. Eschatology and The Book of Revelation 195

Weapons of Mass Deception on the Road to Armageddon
10. A Call to Christians and Other People of Faith 211

Don’t Give Up—Embrace Your Faith and Continue Your
Faith Journey
PART IV The GOP’s War on America 223
11. The GOP’s War on America’s Workers, the Poor and

Disadvantaged 225
Of the Rich, By the Rich, For the Rich
12. The GOP’s Bankruptcy of America 265

Living from Grandchild’s Paycheck to Grandchild’s Paycheck
PART V Tools of the Trade 295
13. An Outlaw Presidency—From Crimes Against Humanity

to the Rape of the U.S. Constitution 297
The George Orwell Party (GOP) at Work
14. Fear Mongering 311

Chickenhawk Lies, Lies and More Lies
15. Puppetry in the White House 321

A Blind Man in a Roomful of Deaf People
16. Control and Bullying of the Media 333

America’s Corporate Media—Right, But Not Correct
17. Treason, Electoral Fraud—Anything to Maintain Power 351

The Most Insidious of Traitors
18. Corruption in America and Iraq—GOP Style 365

Profiles in Corruption
PART VI Out of the Wilderness 389
19. Out of the Wilderness—Three Plans 391

Blessed Are the Peacemakers
I. Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan 393

II. Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan 397
III. A 6-Point Plan to Support America’s Troops 399
Appendix A: A Doubleheader—Impeach Bush

and Cheney 401
Index 407
Introduction
SIDEBAR: San Jose Mercury News, Letter to the Editor, March 25, 2003—
“Replacing the U.N.”
“Charles Krauthammer (Opinion, March 21, 2003) recommends that the United
States turn its back on the United Nations. He asserts, ‘The Security Council is noth-
ing more than the victory coalition of 1945. That was six decades ago. Let a new
structure be born out of the Iraq coalition. Maybe it will acquire a name, maybe it
won’t.’ Well, let me suggest a name. Let’s call it the Bush League of Nations.”
—Jim Swanson, Los Altos
George W. Bush is surprisingly articulate and engaging when he discusses base-

ball. He loves the game, and he speaks about it with passion, confidence and even
some knowledge. This is in sharp contrast to the way he thinks and talks about virtu-
ally any other topic—to which the label bush league applies perfectly.
SIDEBAR: Definitions
bush league (noun)—a league of teams (especially baseball teams) that are not part
of a major league.
bush-league, or bush (adjective)—amateur, unprofessional, not of the highest so-
phistication or quality.
bush, also “bush league”—“an amateur play or behavior.” (From a list of common
baseball terms at MLB.com, the official website of Major League Baseball)
Bush League of Nations—The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the
Bribed in Iraq.
Noah Webster slams George W. Bush and the Bush League of Nations: “Never
have an American president and his policies been so aptly named.”1
Note: The Oxford English Dictionary cites bush league’s first use in baseball as
1906, and its first non-baseball use as 1914.
On August 26, 2001—less than three weeks before the September 11, 2001, ter-
rorist attacks (9/11)—Bush attended the Little League Baseball World Series, the
first sitting president to do so. Earlier in the year he also spent some vacation time at
the NCAA Division I College World Series in Omaha, Nebraska.
In retrospect, it would have been better if Bush had spent more time—even a few
minutes between innings—trying to protect America from terrorist attacks such as
9/11, and less time:
1
Just kidding. Noah Webster, the author of America’s first dictionary, died in 1843.
ii THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS
• watching baseball,
• vacationing,2
• pushing massive tax cuts for the Super Rich,
• turning the White House into a parsonage and pulpit exclusively for right-
wing Christians,3
• scheming about ways to milk the U.S. government (versus thinking about
how to improve its performance), and
• scheming how best to get the United States to invade and occupy Iraq.
Following 9/11 Bush greatly reduced the amount of time he spent at baseball
games. Appearances do count.
SIDEBAR: The Real League of Nations
The League of Nations (1920-46), formed in the aftermath of World War I, was in-
tended to promote international security and peace throughout the world. President
Woodrow Wilson was the most prominent supporter of the League, and he passion-
ately pushed for the United States to join and support it. However, after many
months of intense public debate and lobbying by groups with widely varying views,
congressional approval was lacking, and the United States never joined.
This failure of the United States to join the League of Nations was a key reason
the League ultimately failed in its central mission of resolving disputes peacefully
and avoiding another world war. Within one generation after World War I the world
again was inflamed in another world war, this one even more deadly than the first.
Other reasons for the League of Nation’s failure included:
• the desire of each major power to go its own unfettered way;
• difficulty in achieving consensus among the member states, especially when the
interests of the major powers were involved;
• reluctance of member nations to embrace collective security versus pursuing their
own individual interests;
• the lack of any military capability on the part of the League;
• a weakening caused by the GOP Great Depression;
• a disrespect for international law; and
• the fact that the nations defeated in World War I were not consulted about the
League’s structure and powers.
2
From his inauguration to 9/11, Bush spent more than 40% of his time on vacation. Average
American workers—Joe and Sally Lunchpail—typically get only two weeks of vacation per
year, and frequently they can’t take any vacation during the first year of employment. “W”
does not stand for “worker” or “work” or “workaholic.”
3
Regarding White House activities, constitutional scholars agree that Bush’s “presidential
pandering in the pulpit and parsonage” is 666 times greater a threat to America’s constitutional
protections—including freedom of religion, and separation of church and state—than Monica
Lewinsky’s “presidential pants pulling and peter pumping.”
INTRODUCTION iii
In short, the League suffered from an incomplete roster of members and lacked
the necessary ingredients—mutual trust, shared objectives, political courage and
military power—to achieve its purposes.
Upon the creation of the United Nations at the end of World War II, the League
of Nations was officially disbanded.
In the run-up to World War II the world community, including the League of Na-
tions, was unable to prevent major imperial powers from invading and occupying
weak nations—exactly the vulnerable position of Iraq in 2003—that had done noth-
ing to justify invasion and occupation, other than having something an imperial
power wanted. Specifically, Japan under Emperor Hirohito invaded Manchuria in
1931, Italy under Benito Mussolini attacked Ethiopia in 1935, and Germany under
Adolph Hitler annexed Austria in 1938 and invaded Poland in 1939. The vast major-
ity of the rest of the world opposed these military actions, but their opinions and
“votes” did not count. In each case the big bully did what it wanted—supported by
the “patriotic” cheering of its domestic propaganda media—and the rest is history.
Unfortunately, history repeats itself. Welcome to Bush World.
The Bush League of Nations was doomed to failure, just as the League of Na-
tions was in the run-up to World War II, and in both cases the United States is the
central cause of the failure, but for different reasons.
The Bush League of Nations is the polar opposite of the League of Nations. The
League of Nations was a noble international effort to promote peace and prosperity
for the entire world. The Bush League of Nations is a charade run by the United
States, the world’s one remaining superpower—of, by, and for itself—to remold the
world into a structure that’s the dream of its delusional, rightwing, unilateralist, anti-
democratic, militaristic neoconservatives, sometimes called neocons, the term we use
in this book. Perhaps you prefer loonies or conservatives or wackos. Yes, “W” stands
for many things, including “wacko.”
The League of Nations failed as an organization largely because the United
States was not a member. The Bush League of Nations is a failure because the
United States—led by that international pariah, George W. Bush—is the organiza-
tion.
As was the case with the great powers during the time of the League of Nations, a
great power—the United States—is now making its own way, by waging war in Iraq,
without any pretense that it is a just war necessary for self-defense or the defense of
any other nation. In waging this unnecessary war—a war at the top of the neocon
agenda many years before 9/11—Bush greatly damaged America’s credibility, val-
ues and influence, and he undercut America’s moral right to object when other rogue
nations misbehave. America lost far more than what the neocons had hoped to gain
in their wildest faith-based fantasies.
The Bush League of Nations is a charade created for tens of millions of gullible
American voters. In this Machiavellian sense, it was hugely successful. The charade
helped the neocons successfully accomplish their initial goal—control of Iraq and its
iv THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS
resources—by illegally using the American military to invade and occupy that na-
tion, and the war hysteria helped Bush win reelection in 2004.
The Republican Party (GOP) that controlled Congress enthusiastically supported
the charade every step of the way, and in doing so, it put the GOP stamp of approval
on it. Bush’s war on Iraq is the GOP’s war on Iraq. It is the worst foreign policy dis-
aster in America’s history, and Bush and the GOP must be held accountable for it.
After the horrendous 9/11 attacks on America, Bush had the opportunity to lead
the world and become one of the most successful American statesmen of all time.
Unfortunately, he chose poorly and executed poorly, and became the most hated per-
son on Earth.
September 11 was a severe body blow to all Americans. However, Bush—
through ideological, faith-based, no-critical-thinking-allowed policies and deci-
sions—delivered America an even more severe blow, a low blow that will cause
America and the world many more deaths and much more damage over the years
than bin Laden and all the bin Laden wannabes could have imagined possible. As the
most effective recruiter for terrorists and other enemies of America, Bush has made
the job of future American presidents incredibly more difficult, and although some of
the enormous havoc he wrought can be reversed with years of effort, much of the
damage is permanent. The immediate impeachment and removal of Bush and Che-
ney from office is the best first step America can take to heal itself. Protection of
America’s Constitution and democracy demands it.
During the Cold War, when America made a mistake—and every nation makes
mistakes—America nevertheless looked good in comparison to the dictatorial empire
of the Soviet Union. However, as the only remaining superpower, America is now
rightly viewed more closely and skeptically, and it should and must hold itself to
higher standards. Unfortunately, Bush dropped America’s standards into a Bush
League sewer, and it will take a long time and much work by others to clean up the
toxic and lethal mess.
Invading a country simply because we want to and can is arrogance run amok
and is not going to cut it as a viable American strategy in the 21st century. Unfortu-
nately for America, Bush and the GOP became the new standard for arrogance.4
Although it belatedly became obvious to most of America what was long ago ob-
vious to the world—namely that America’s King George III is wearing no clothes—
Bush’s arrogance and self-delusion continued unabated. Prior to the invasion of
Iraq—which the GOP and the neocons predicted would be a cakewalk, a glorious
quick victory for which they alone would reap the glory and the booty—Bush and his
neocons gleefully heaped disrespect and scorn on the United Nations and NATO.
Bush’s message to the United Nations, NATO and the rest of the world was the
same words that Dick “Shooter” Cheney spat at a U.S. senator on the floor of the
U.S. Senate: “Go fuck yourself.” With their testosterone levels thus cranked up, the
Bush neocons then proceeded to Iraq and did exactly that to themselves. Such bi-
4
During the campaign before the 2000 presidential election, the main feature of Bush’s almost
nonexistent foreign policy was his statement that if America were “humble,” other nations
would respect us. Well, he said it right then, and his words are still apt today. Bush correctly
recognized that to be humble is not to be weak. Unfortunately, he forgot his own words, and
he and America lost their way.
INTRODUCTION v
zarre self-indulgent group activity by Bush’s cocooned circle of jerks might have
been acceptable if confined to its individual deviant participants, but it wasn’t, and
they gave their biggest screwing not to themselves, but to America, Iraq and the
world.
Since everyone makes mistakes, including rightwing Christians, one might have
expected many sincere Christian apologies from Bush regarding his Iraq lies, distor-
tions and blunders. In Christian theology, repentance is not simply saying, “I’m
sorry,” but rather it requires a sincere turning around of one’s life, which is neces-
sary before one can receive forgiveness.
But, no, Bush never repents for anything. Far short of true repentance, he never
even says he’s sorry, and he never truly admits making a mistake. These are not
characteristics of a true Christian.
Repentance and personal responsibility were never part of Bush’s education.
When Bush did one of his 180-degree turns and went hat in hand back to the interna-
tional community—with that bewildered “How did I get here?” look on his face,
much like that of a hooked, flip-flopping, wiggling walleyed5 pike finding itself in
the bottom of a fishing boat—Bush’s incredible condescending message to the
United Nations and NATO was that they now had the responsibility to clean up his
mess. It was a message right out of “Alice in Wonderland.”
“Bush League of Nations,” as used in this book, refers specifically to that so-
called Coalition of the Willing created by George W. Bush in 2003 to invade and
occupy Iraq.
During the initial phases of the 2003 Iraq invasion, while the U.S. military was
doing a superb job in the rush to Baghdad, Bush’s easy-chair, never-served-in-the-
military neocons were busy pumping out their chests and making “You’re next!”
threats against other nations in the region, especially Syria and Iran.
Fortunately, additional sham coalitions by Bush beyond the Iraq disaster appear
unlikely for many reasons. First, we are now involved in two unfinished wars that
are part of Bush’s and the GOP’s legacy of “Mission Not Accomplished.” Rather
than properly fighting and winning one just war and one just peace—the war and
peace in Afghanistan—the civilian bomb-and-go Bushies mis-seized the moment and
jumped into Iraq, their primary target after all. Carpe diem became “crapa diem.”
This catastrophic blunder made it much more difficult for America and its allies to
prosecute and win the war in Afghanistan, let alone to seriously attempt the huge
long-term job of helping Afghanis build a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan, a
nation-building function for which the Bush bombers and their GOP enablers have
neither heart nor aptitude.
Second, although it is doubtful Bush and his cloistered neocons learned any use-
ful lessons from their unfortunate encounters with reality in Iraq, America’s citizenry
and perhaps even America’s Big Media will be less likely to cheerlead such folly the
next time around.
Third, America has run out of troops for additional battlegrounds, and Bush and
the GOP do not have the backbone to implement a military draft. This effectively
precludes Bush from also invading and occupying Iran—a nation three times the size
5
Yes, “W” also means “wiggling walleyed.”
vi THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS
of Iraq, with four times the population, and much more united against any U.S. inter-
vention—although it does not rule out other Bush folly such as a catastrophic air
campaign against Iran, which is something he might do in a heartbeat—without a
plan and without concern about the consequences—if he thought it would somehow
miraculously give himself even a one percent chance of having a positive “legacy”
when he finally slithers out of the White House.
Curiously, when Bush threatens this or that nation, he seems to enjoy saying that
all military options remain on the table. However, his folly in Iraq has handcuffed
America’s military and reduced America’s military options should another war break
out, whether just or not.
In the meantime, the so-called “war on terrorism”—a misleading fear-mongering
slogan used to justify anything and everything—gives Bush several political advan-
tages, including the stifling of dissent and the creation of a false façade of a “tough
president.”
More important, the “war on terrorism” provides distraction and cover for the
Bush administration as it relentlessly pushes its domestic political agenda of doing
everything possible for the Super Rich, while it panders to the extreme Christian
right.
On behalf of the neo-GOP, Bush proudly carries two banners:
• Banner No. 1: “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich”
• Banner No. 2: “The Prince of War—Pandering Warmonger for the Reli-
gious Right”
It is precisely these two banners that make Bush and the GOP unfit to lead a
global war on terrorism. These two banners represent their War on America and their
War on the World.6
Regarding international coalitions, for example, why would any nation or people
trust Bush enough to support his Bush League of Nations in a major league way?
Why would poor oppressed people living under dictators rally behind a man who
represents the Super Rich and whose extended family is Exhibit A for crony capital-
ism?
Why would oppressed Muslims anywhere in the world trust this rightwing Chris-
tian crusader who knows you are going to Hell unless you convert to his particular
flavor of rightwing political Christianity, and who enjoys sleepovers at his Texas
ranch with Super Rich princes of Saudi Arabia, the most vile and dangerous dictator-
ship in the Middle East?
Why would workers and the unemployed in Iraq expect anything good from this
two-Americas man who joyfully stiffs America’s working class and America’s poor
so that he can give unprecedented tax breaks and advantages, even during war, to the
Super Rich, large corporations and his donating cronies?
A natural divider, Bush has done more than any other president to divide the
world and to divide America. His two banners gained him millions of votes at home
and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, but they cost America
billions of “votes” internationally. Thanks to Bush, America lost the moral high
ground and lost its way.
6
“W” also stands for both “War on America” and “War on the World.”
INTRODUCTION vii
Bush’s two banners have also cost lower-and middle-income Americans dearly.
It is class warfare in Bush’s America, and the Super Rich and the powerful have
won.
While giving massive tax cuts to the Super Rich and greatly expanding corporate
welfare, Bush and the GOP—the Cons—have:
• presided over the largest job destruction program since the GOP Great De-
pression;
• cut and under funded dozens of programs that benefit low- and middle-
income working Americans;
• turned the largest budget surplus in history into the largest deficit ever;
• put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid at risk;
• greatly increased spending and bloated the size of the federal government to
record levels;
• increased pork-barrel spending and earmarks for crony contributors to re-
cord levels;
• pursued a two-Americas strategy while greatly widening the chasm between
the Super Rich and everyone else;
• exploded the national debt to catastrophically dangerous levels; and
• sent America on the road to bankruptcy and financial Armageddon.
No president and no party have done more to damage generations of America’s
unborn. Under the GOP’s reckless mismanagement, the United States lives not from
paycheck to paycheck, but from grandchild’s paycheck to grandchild’s paycheck.
Bush eschews critical thinking, fact-based analysis, inclusion of people with
varying perspectives, and respectful debate. Living in an ideological cocoon, he is a
weak puppet for Dick Cheney and a small circle of neocons and faith-based advisors
who have taken groupthink and ideology to new lows.
Regarding his plan to wage war on Iraq, Bush talked to God for direction rather
than to his earthly father, the former American president who actually successfully
created and led a legitimate coalition against Iraq in 1991. Bush’s weak leadership
and childlike naiveté resulted in the sham Bush League of Nations invading Iraq in
2003—and the subsequent loss of that unjust war.
Bush leads an unprecedented assault on religious freedom and separation of
church and state in America. His elitist, warmongering, exclusionary approach to
religion must get warm nods of approval from bin Laden, the Taliban and Iran’s dic-
tatorial ayatollahs, except, of course, that they all disagree with his chosen brand of
rightwing religion. Militant rightwing religions are like different brands of ciga-
rettes—they all kill, and it matters little what particular brand you select as your can-
cer vehicle.
America’s Religious Right abandoned the most essential principles of Christian-
ity, especially: (1) Christ’s compassion for the poor and the outcast, and (2) Christ’s
role as Prince of Peace. It turned Christianity upside down, to America’s and the
world’s great loss. Mainstream Christians—including millions of evangelicals—are
ashamed, as are people of other faiths in America and throughout the world.
The world yearns for America to come to its senses. But America’s Prince of
War, George W. Bush, like a Don Quixote at the head of a Bush League of Nations
in nowhere land—except for the nuclear weapons, of course—blindly trudges on.
viii THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS
SIDEBAR: Bush League Sportsmanship—Texas Style
On Sunday, June 27, 2004, the University of Texas Longhorns college baseball team
lost 3-2 to Cal State Fullerton, which gave the Titans a two-game sweep in the
championship series of the 2004 NCAA Division I College World Series. The long-
faced Longhorns—ranked number one for part of the season and heavily favored to
win the championship series—were obviously disappointed. Texas coach Augie Gar-
rido took the high road in talking about the game and his pride in the team. “I’m
proud of them for the efforts they’ve made to do what’s right, in all environments….
I’m proud of them, and I think the university should be proud of them as well.
They’ve represented the university, the State of Texas, the athletic department and
themselves like champions.”
Well, not exactly.
Notwithstanding two requests from NCAA officials, the Longhorns and their
coach refused to be part of the post-game trophy presentation, thus becoming the
first team in 17 years to refuse to accept its second-place trophy and congratulate the
winners. They also refused to give the media access to their locker room after the
game, a violation of NCAA rules. These post-game antics created more controversy
than the loss, and many fans questioned the team’s sportsmanship.
There’s a nasty rumor—which I’m now starting—as to why the Longhorns
couldn’t attend the awards ceremony: They had just received a congratulatory call
from the White House regarding their win in the upcoming recount, with Bush ex-
plaining how votes—well, runs—scored by black Titans wouldn’t be counted. Bush
said the Republican judges controlling the U.S. Supreme Court were standing by,
just in case.
Fortunately, the many liberal and progressive stars on the Longhorn team told
Bush to take a hike. “We play by the rules—you should try that sometime.”
The story has a happy ending. One year later, in 2005, the Longhorns once again
won the NCAA title, fair and square, by the rules, between the lines. Definitely not
Bush League.
Of course, this book is not about a baseball game or the sport of baseball. Rather
it is about war and peace, life and death, the decline of America’s democracy, and
the decline of America on the world stage.
We end this introduction with a call to action to America’s youth. One day your
children and grandchildren may ask you what you did during this time of national
crisis to help end the war on Iraq and restore America’s democracy and Constitution.
We hope you’ll be able to say you tried your best.
Make no mistake about it. The world and America are under attack by the worst
presidency in America’s history, and every action by America’s citizenry, however
large or small, truly counts. The occupation of Iraq must end immediately, and Bush
and Cheney must be impeached and removed from office.
PART I
The Road to
American Imperialism
CHAPTER 1
Asleep at the Wheel

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we.
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
On the morning of 9/11 (September 11, 2001), George W. Bush was reading a chil-
dren’s book with a group of preschoolers at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in
Sarasota, Florida. Well, he wasn’t actually reading it—he was holding it. Bush’s
thoughts were understandably elsewhere, as he was basking in the glow of the up-
coming release of My Pet Goat—written by Dick Cheney in 2001—a thrilling biog-
raphy of America’s 43rd president that focused on 43’s many heroic accomplish-
ments during his upcoming administration.
The official story of Bush’s meeting with the preschoolers was that he quickly
left the room when informed of the 9/11 attacks and acted decisively throughout in
fighting the war against terror, which was natural behavior for such a great leader of
the free world.
The official story changed later. Before entering the school Bush had been in-
formed of a plane hitting the World Trade Center (WTC). He decided nevertheless to
go ahead with the photo opportunity. Later informed of a second plane hitting the
WTC, Bush incredibly sat bewildered with the children for another seven minutes,
until someone suggested he leave.
The press chose not to cover this incident—or, more accurately, they chose to
cover it up. In the days and months ahead they were going to get countless opportu-
nities to practice such cowardly, docile behavior. After all, America was “at war,”
and it would be unpatriotic for journalists to think critically and independently, to
ask the obvious tough questions that had to be asked, and to tell the truth. The Bush
Family Pass system was operating efficiently at top speed. America’s rightwing cor-
porate media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, were com-
peting for the coveted Pravda Prize.
On the other hand, Fahrenheit 9/11, released in 2004 and strongly pointed, al-
lowed viewers to see video of the incident and draw their own conclusions. “The
4 THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS
look on Bush’s face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting,”
reported Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, in a review of the movie.
In June 2004—almost three years after the 9/11 attacks—a partial report of the
9/11 Commission provided some additional information (but certainly not the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.) Bush told the commission in closed-door
testimony that he sat there in the school because “he should project strength and
calm until he could better understand what was happening.” What a peculiar state-
ment.
The most disturbing aspect is not really what Bush did or didn’t do in the first
minutes. After all, most of the world knows Bush is an incompetent leader who is
managed by a small circle of handlers who shield him from reality and critical think-
ing. No, what is most disturbing is the fawning willingness of America’s Big Media
to filter and censor the news, bending over backwards and doing mental gymnas-
tics—as good cheerleaders—to show Bush in a positive light, accepting uncritically
whatever information the Bush administration shovels out of the corral, thereby ab-
rogating the media’s essential independent role in America’s democracy.

Virtually the entire world was horrified by the slaughter on September 11, 2001. The
world was with us and behind us, ready to follow American’s lead in making the
world a better and safer place for all the peoples of the world.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush was at the helm, more or less, and he and his
neocon team squandered this unprecedented historic opportunity. Theirs is the great-
est blunder in the history of American foreign policy.
SIDEBAR: Bush’s Crusade
In the days after 9/11, millions of people were astounded to hear the Bush admini-
stration describe its planned war against terrorism as a “crusade.” Also astounded,
your author thought: “This is incredible. They’ve decided to make it a religious war
against Islam. This is outrageously stupid, dangerous, and very much against Ameri-
can moral values and strategic interests. They must know something I don’t.”
But the problem was that the Bush team knew and understood less. It never oc-
curred to your author that the administration’s use of the word “crusade” was other
that premeditated and intentional. Even later, with the benefit of hindsight, your au-
thor wanted to believe the administration spoke intentionally, because to believe oth-
erwise would be to admit that the Bush team was far more ignorant about the world
than generally thought.
In a flip-flop, better known in Great Britain as a U-turn, the Bush administration
correctly backed away from the “crusade” characterization.
CHAPTER 1 — ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL 5
But significant damage had already been done. The blunder added to Bush’s
growing reputation in the world as a not-too-bright cowboy crusader against Islam, a
reputation especially prevalent among the more than one billion Muslims in the
world. In contrast, any British schoolchild would have known that Bush talking “cru-
sade” after 9/11 was definitely stupid.
Bush supporters argued that the use of the word “crusade” was merely a slip of
the tongue, an innocent mistake that anyone could make.
Unfortunately, the word “crusade” was used repeatedly, thus demonstrating an
incredible lack of understanding by the Bush neocons as to the Islamic world and the
tangled history of Christianity and Islam. It was one of countless gaffes that show-
cased the narrow groupthink of the Bush team.
Yes, everyone makes slips of the tongue and minor mistakes. But suppose your
auto mechanic tells you that your spare tire should be mounted on the steering wheel,
or that transmission fluid goes in the radiator. These basic mistakes would not just be
innocent slips of the tongue, but instead—like the “crusade mistake”—evidence of
utter ignorance and gross incompetence.
Other observers thought Bush was just throwing some raw red meat to millions
of his supporters on the Religious Right who believe that a reduction in tension in the
Holy Land—worst case, God forbid, that peace break out between Israel and the
Palestinians—would interfere with God’s Plan for the end of the world by delaying
the rapture, the Battle of Armageddon and the rest of their fantastic End Times
schedule of biblical prophecy.
In any case, from the first day, Bush got off on the wrong foot, and his false steps
only worsened as time marched on, eventually causing much of the Muslim world to
conclude that his regime in fact was engaged in a crusade against Islam.
It did not have to be that way. On 9/11 virtually the entire world united behind
America not only in sympathy but also in a sincere desire to find and punish the re-
sponsible criminals.
The September 13, 2001, headline in France’s Le Monde read: “Nous sommes
tous Americains” (“We are all Americans”). We had the sympathy and support of
virtually every country, and poll after poll showed extremely positive attitudes to-
wards the United States and Americans.
Muslims throughout the world were appalled that members of the Islamic faith
were the criminals behind 9/11. Bush had a golden opportunity to help end the Is-
raeli/Palestinian conflict, improve relations with Arab and Islamic nations through-
out the world, and help spread democracy and social justice. He didn’t even try.
NATO immediately met and on September 12, 2001, invoked Article 5 of the
NATO Treaty, calling on all NATO nations to treat the 9/11 attacks as attacks on
each and every NATO nation. The United Nations quickly voted to support military
action by the United States against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
There was deep worldwide support for the use of overwhelming military force
against al Qaeda and its ally, the Taliban, in Afghanistan, notwithstanding doubts
about Bush’s appreciation of the critical strategic issues involved, as well as doubts
about his willingness to walk the entire difficult road ahead and make the major-
league commitment necessary to help build a new Afghanistan.
History would show that the doubts about Bush were well placed. During the
2000 presidential campaign Bush indicated no appetite for nation building, and the
years following 9/11—years of lost opportunity—demonstrated that he had neither
the appetite nor the ability to nation build, whether in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or in
America.
The years of Bush’s presidency will be known as “the years that the locust hath
eaten.” (Joel 2:25)
SIDEBAR: President Nixon and New York City
Additional secret Watergate tapes from the administration of GOP President Richard
Nixon were made available to the public in December 2003. Nixon’s hateful state-
ments in 1972 about New York City were among the most gut wrenching of the new
revelations.
“Goddamn New York,” he complains, noting that New York is filled with “Jews
and Catholics and blacks and Puerto Ricans.” In chilling words, Nixon then says
there is “a law of the jungle where some things don’t survive. Maybe New York
shouldn’t survive. Maybe it should go through a cycle of destruction.”
Among modern American leaders, Nixon and his vice president, Spiro Agnew,
were the most divisive, corrupt and mean-spirited, that is, until Bush and Cheney
galloped in from Texas. To Nixon’s credit, he inherited—versus created, although he
greatly worsened—a war and divisive times, but poke-em-in-the-eye Bush intention-
ally created division at a time—following 9/11—when there was tremendous na-
tional and international unity, and, more important, a compelling need for coopera-
tive action.
Nixon’s lies and misdeeds leading to his threatened impeachment and resignation
are miniscule compared to those of Bush. As for the large cash bribes taken by
Agnew—which led to his resignation in disgrace—they are small beans compared to
the “perfectly legal” loot gathered in by Cheney and his Halliburton cronies.
Although Nixon’s Vietnam War policies ultimately failed, he does deserve credit
for visiting and improving relations with the People’s Republic of China. In that ef-
fort, he was a statesman, something absent from Bush’s DNA.
Before we take a closer look at how Bush and the GOP botched things so horri-
bly first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, let’s pause briefly to reflect upon the Bush
administration’s actions and inactions before 9/11 and its posture regarding truth and
open government in the days following 9/11.
Asleep at the Wheel

Several months before 9/11, at a terror conference in late February 2001, Ambassa-
dor Paul Bremer noted: “The new administration seems to be paying no attention to
the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major
incident, and then suddenly say, ‘Oh, my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal
with this?’”
These are not the words of a Bush hater. To the contrary, Bremer was later sent
to Iraq by Bush, in May 2003, as Bush’s U.S. Presidential Envoy to Iraq, and one
month later Bush appointed him to lead (as the Director of Reconstruction and Hu-
manitarian Assistance) the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that ran Iraq.
The general threat of terrorism simply wasn’t on Bush’s agenda. Nor were spe-
cific threats from bin Laden and al Qaeda. The Clinton team, including its transition
team, tried to get Bush to focus on bin Laden and other terrorist threats, but it was
like talking to a man asleep at the wheel.
In the eight months from Bush’s inauguration to 9/11, the Bush White House re-
ceived dozens of warnings about bin Laden and al Qaeda, but the White House con-
tinued to snooze in its self-imposed “bubble.”
On July 10, 2001, Condoleezza Rice received an urgent visit from then CIA chief
George Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator, J. Cofer Black, who called the
extraordinary “out of cycle” meeting to warn that a major terrorist attack was im-
pending. (See Bob Woodward’s 2006 No. 1 best-selling book, State of Denial.) Re-
cent mounting intelligence about an al Qaeda attack greatly worried Tenet. “It’s my
sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one.” Woodward reports
that Rice gave them “the brush-off.” He quotes Black: “The only thing we didn’t do
was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.”
Tenet gives a similar account of the extraordinary meeting in his 2007 book, At
the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. The former CIA chief writes that he
had received intelligence that very day (July 10, two months before 9/11) about al
Qaeda that “literally made my hair stand on end,” and that, after calling Rice’s office
to demand an immediate meeting, he rushed to the White House with Black and a
third person (an agent he did not identify.) Rice was advised that Bush should give
the CIA new action authorities to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda. She was told
there would be “a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months,” that it
would be “spectacular,” and that, “[t]his country needs to go on a war footing now.”
Even the alarming Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) of August 26, 2001, was
ignored. Entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,” this daily summary given
to the president, only 16 days before 9/11, specifically focused on the threat of al
Qaeda hijacking airplanes and attacking the United States.
More details about the handoff from Clinton to Bush came to light in July 2004.
Clinton told the 9/11 Commission that he warned Bush, during a two-hour meeting
before Bush took office, “by far your biggest threat is bin Laden and the al Qaeda.”
Bush told the Commission he couldn’t recall this warning but that Clinton had em-
phasized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and North Korea.
Let’s take a big leap of faith here and assume for the sake of argument that Bush,
contrary to his character, was telling the truth—that he was warned about the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and Korea, but perhaps not about bin Laden and al Qaeda. The
sad truth is that Bush demonstrated incompetence in handling all of these foreign
policy problems.
As for the various feeble and incomplete 9/11 investigations, let’s return for a
moment to Bob Woodward, who writes in State of Denial:
The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the vari-
ous reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of
Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin
Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the
meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and
things they didn’t want to know about.
Following 9/11 the Bush administration adopted a “Don’t Ask—Don’t Tell” de-
fense regarding all 9/11 truth inquiries. It firmly opposed all proposed investigations
into intelligence and policy failures that led up to 9/11, asserting that such investiga-
tions would be a distraction in the war on terrorism, and the GOP-controlled
Congress actively conspired in the ongoing cover-up to keep the truth from the
American people.
As the various feeble investigations nevertheless went ahead, the Bush admini-
stration obstructed and stonewalled. Cheney and Bush refused to testify because they
were “too busy,” but they flip-flopped later and agreed to appear provided they could
do their Edgar Bergen and Charley McCarthy act, which they did. In another flip-
flop motivated by public indignation, the Bush administration finally agreed—after
much stonewalling—that Condoleezza Rice would testify before the 9/11 Commis-
sion.
One of the low points of Rice’s career was her testifying—in response to ques-
tions about specific threats from bin Laden and al Qaeda (including the “Bin Laden
Determined to Strike in US” PDB warning just two weeks before 9/11)—that if
someone had told her what to do, she would have done it! What a nice ducking of
responsibility by the president’s National Security Advisor, whose role was to help
set security policy and take action, not to be a grunt waiting passively for orders to
follow.
One rule in the Bush White House is that truth tellers get fired, while liars and
sycophants get promoted. Accordingly, Bush promoted Rice to Secretary of State in
2005, a good example of the Peter Principle at work.
SIDEBAR: 9/11—the Luckiest Day in Bush’s Life?
Before September 11 most of the world viewed Bush as a not-so-bright, lazy Texas
cowboy wannabe who hopefully would not cause too much damage. In his own faux
words, he was “misunderestimated.”
The enormous tide of sympathy and goodwill towards the United States caused
by 9/11 handed Bush the opportunity to transform himself and his administration and
lead the United States and the world in a sane, safer direction. September 11 became
his defining moment and opportunity.
It could prove to be the luckiest day in his life: (1) if he could receive one more
Bush Family Pass, one that would allow him to avoid personal responsibility for
failing to recognize and address the al Qaeda threat and possibly prevent September
11; and (2) if he could somehow courageously and effectively lead the world in bat-
tling terrorism and building a safer world for all.
On the first point, America’s media and most Americans gave the president the
Bush Family Pass that he desired and had received so many times during his profli-
gate life. Let bygones be bygones. Why look backward and learn lessons for the fu-
ture? Why assess responsibility? Rather, let’s all be fearful together, forget the past,
and go fight “evil.”
The stonewalling and prevarication campaign of the Bush White House and the
Republican-led Congress, coupled with America’s docile corporate media, buried the
truth and bought Bush time to dodge responsibility.
By comparison, it took the Bush administration only a few hours after 9/11 to:
(1) conclude that bin Laden’s Saudi relatives then living in the United States had no
information that might be helpful in identifying and finding the murderers of more
than 3,000 people; and (2) whisk them out of the country and thus outside the reach
of an American investigation.
Regarding the second point—that Bush would courageously and effectively lead
the world—Bush unfortunately earned only failing and incomplete grades. He mas-
sively bungled the job, squandered a unique historic opportunity to lead a sympa-
thetic world on the high road, and instead left America and the world exposed to
greater dangers and much more divided.
Ironically, if the Bush administration had done a competent job before 9/11 fo-
cusing on bin Laden and al Qaeda and had actually prevented 9/11, then the principal
excuse for the Iraq invasion would not have existed. More broadly stated, the incom-
petence of the Bush team in not adequately addressing the terrorist threats before
9/11 enabled them to show even greater incompetence in the war in Afghanistan, in
the war on Iraq, and in the broader so-called war on terrorism.
The Neocons
Let’s take a closer look at “the bad and the ugly.” We refer here of course to the neo-
cons—the never-served-in-the-military, rightwing swashbucklers who, long before
9/11, dreamed up detailed plans to invade and occupy Iraq, with the broader goal of
making the United States the dominant power in the region. Spreading freedom had
nothing to do with it, at least not freedom for the Iraqi people. Of course, there would
be freedom for an imperial America to control Iraq’s oil resources and run Iraq
through a client government, and freedom of the Super Rich and crony capitalists to
make a killing.
The neocons, also called the Vulcans, believe that power is meant to be used. If
you have power, you use it to grab whatever you want for yourself and your cronies,
not to arrive at the greatest good for America or for the greatest number of people,
not to protect individual rights and freedoms from the tyranny of the majority or a
powerful and privileged minority. Saddam was a charter member of this school of
thought and could have co-authored the bloody neocon cookbook. The neocons
should dedicate the new edition to him.
Compromise is not on the agenda. Open honest debate of diverse perspectives is
not permitted. Nor is the use of facts and expertise to arrive at the best decisions. The
neocons’ ideology and groupthink is all that is needed. It is certain, and it sustains
them, much like the prospect of enjoying unlimited sex with 72 virgins in Heaven
sustains some extremist Islamic martyrs.
Although the focus of this chapter is international, we note here that the Cheney-
directed Bush administration also applied the same arrogant style domestically as it
did internationally, by eschewing broad policy debates and compromise, by dividing
to gain more power, by engaging in class warfare, and by transforming America to
benefit the Super Rich.
The following was written in the DNA of the neocons and the new GOP: “We
control the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the
U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, we will take what we want. It is our due.”
This Machiavellian style, because it has so little outside influence to check it,
gives heightened meaning to the axiom that, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.” It is arrogance rooted in ungrateful entitlement, and it
ignores individual guarantees reflected in America’s Bill of Rights. Bush’s back-
ground—an aristocratic arrogant life of entitlement, devoid of responsibility and
consequences—was a match made in Heaven for Cheney and the neocons.
The Shiites in Iraq—with about 60% of the population—are natural supporters of
this neocon philosophy of abusing power and taking “their due.” Civil war anyone?
On the international side, the neocons themselves have openly used various re-
vealing terms to refer to the worldwide American empire they want to create. One
favorite is “Pax Americana,” which derives from “Pax Romana,” which refers to the
Roman peace that was imposed on all the subjects and states in the Roman Empire.
“Pax Britannia” is used in a similar fashion to describe the British colonial empire
during its heyday. “Beneficent hegemony” and “benign dictatorship” are also close
to the mark in describing the neocons’ lunatic vision. So is “Pox Americana.” So is
the “Bush League of Nations.”
At the core of the neocons’ imperial agenda is the rejection of cornerstone alli-
ances and policies that had been supported for more than 65 years by all American
presidents since the end of World War II: Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush’s father, and Clinton—but not Bush the
Son. These alliances and policies, based on shared values and shared decision-
making, ultimately prevailed over the Soviet Union, which finally collapsed of its
own weight and decay, greatly helped by courageous Russian patriots like Mikhail
Gorbachev, who charted a new direction for his country, and courageous liberal pa-
triots like the Polish dockworkers. It didn’t hurt that Reagan called the Soviet Union
an “evil empire,” which it was.
Forget NATO, even though the United States is its most important pillar and
wields the most influence. Forget the United Nations, even though the United States
has much more influence over it than any other nation, in addition to its veto power
as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Act unilaterally and insult important allies and friends such as France and Ger-
many. Behave like a spoiled bully and politicize everything. Lie, cheat, commit trea-
son and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Claim to be Christian but act in a most
unchristian manner whenever convenient. Know that might makes right. Know that
the rules that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to the United States.
At the center of neocon history is The Project for the New American Century
(PNAC), a rightwing, nonprofit, “think” tank that was formally created in 1997 when
about 30 influential rightwing individuals signed its mission statement. It has oper-
ated as a magnet and garbage can for incestuous, wild-eyed influential individuals
specializing in extreme rightwing political and military groupthink. Their greatest
success was seizing control of the Bush White House.
It was PNAC neocons who long before 9/11 wrote the delusional playbook for
the invasion of Iraq. One would have little objection to any of these men or their fine
fraternal order if they were engaged merely in Fantasy Baseball or drunken private
parties that didn’t hurt anyone other than themselves. The problem is that they run
the United States government and have been busy screwing America and the world.
Their power was guaranteed when Dick Cheney—who in 2000 was tasked by Bush
to choose Bush’s vice presidential running mate—picked himself to be the power
behind the throne. The fox was in charge of the henhouse. Bush’s puppeteer had ar-
rived.
The name itself—The Project for the New American Century—says a mouthful
and hints at its imperial nature. Is it possible that other nations and other peoples of
the world might be a tad skeptical about this organization?
Upon assuming the presidency in 2001, Bush quickly appointed more than a
dozen PNAC members to key senior positions in his administration. This ensured a
quixotic rightwing echo chamber in the White House, and, as they say, the rest is
history.
In addition to Cheney—a PNAC founder—the senior appointees from PNAC in-
cluded Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary
of Defense), Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Peter Rodman (Assistant
Secretary of Defense), Zalmay Khalilzad (a special envoy for Afghanistan, and later
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq), Richard Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State, who was
one of several Bush underlings who leaked Valerie Plame’s CIA identity in the
Plamegate scandal), John Bolton (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations), I. Lewis
“Scooter” Libby (Cheney’s Chief of Staff, who resigned in October 2005 after being
indicted by a grand jury, and who was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four of five
counts—two counts for perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making
false statements to federal investigators), and Robert Zoellick (Deputy Secretary of
State.)
If Bush had appointed a team of Iranian ayatollahs to his administration, rather
than these PNAC ayatollahs, he would have inflicted much less damage on America.
Several other influential rightwing politicians, editors and so-called defense ex-
perts also signed the PNAC’s mission statement, including Jeb Bush (later Governor
of Florida), Steve Forbes (Forbes magazine), and William Kristol (editor of the ex-
treme right propaganda magazine The Weekly Standard and regular political con-
tributor to Fox News Channel.)
George W. Bush himself was not a member of the PNAC, nor was he a good
candidate for membership, since he had no knowledge, interest or aptitude regarding
defense matters or world affairs. However, when he later staggered into the presi-
dency, his fine resume, including 25 years of college living, did make him clueless
and malleable, the perfect soft clay for the “neo-con job.”
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States was in the unique position of
being the only superpower. The neocons saw this as a “unipolar” moment in history,
i.e., the best and perhaps only chance for America to achieve permanent domination
of the world through a Pax Americana, an analogue to the GOP’s domestic strategy
of achieving permanent GOP control of America’s government. Paul Wolfowitz,
who was then serving in the Defense Department in the administration of Bush’s
father, wrote “Defense Planning Guidance,” a classified 1992 Pentagon document
that was leaked to newspapers early that year. At its core, the paper outlined the op-
portunity and need for a new world order, something that could be realized through
military force. Perhaps you are thinking this is a nightmare. Yes, it is, but you are not
dreaming.
The Propaganda War

Both before and after 9/11, the neocons running the Bush White House had three
primary audiences to consider in their stubborn campaign to craft a case for an inva-
sion and occupation of Iraq:
• President Bush himself
• The U.S. Congress and the American people
• The rest of the world, including the United Nations and NATO
The neocons had an incredibly easy job selling an Iraq war to Bush, due to his
predisposition to this war and his many personal shortcomings, a few of which are
discussed later in this book. Bush was, and remains, a weak pushover—a blank slate
who became president without an independent foreign policy framework regarding
Iraq, the Middle East, or the rest of the world—and his intellect and personality
matched well those of the gullible, lazy, all-trusting puppet desired by his neocon
handlers.
All accounts indicate that Bush eagerly drank the neocon Kool-Aid. The years-
old plan to invade Iraq was much more grandiose than merely catching bin Laden,
and it thus appealed to Bush’s dormant megalomania tendencies. Bush willingly en-
tered the groupthink echo chamber—a rehabilitation center of sorts—where dissent-
ing views and critical thinking are not allowed.
As for the second audience to be swayed, it was harder, but still not very diffi-
cult, for the neocons to sell their bogus bill of goods to Congress and the American
people. Lies and distortion, not facts and debate, were the weapons of choice in this
campaign, coupled with the careful cultivation of fear following 9/11. America’s
obsequious press, both wittingly and unwittingly, played an important supporting
role by fanning the winds of war, not asking the hard questions, and acting as stenog-
raphers as they simply passed along to the world whatever propaganda the Bush ad-
ministration was shoveling out of the corral. The New York Times is the most promi-
nent member of America’s media that later apologized for their journalistic short-
comings. A cheerleading attitude ran through the rubber-stamping Congress, both
branches of which were controlled by the partisan, do-nothing-good, ask-no-

questions, criminal-infested Republican Party (GOP).
As for selling the Iraq war to the third audience, the rest of the world, the neo-
cons had an impossible job, or, more accurately, they would have had an impossible
job if they had really wanted to try, but they didn’t. As unilateralists, the neocons did
not care what the rest of the world thought, and they relished letting the world know
this. The neocons alone knew what was best, and by acting unilaterally the United
States would reap for itself all the easy glory and the lion’s share of the oily spoils.
Eventually, the neocon fantasy predictably collided with reality. By late 2004, af-
ter eighteen months of war in Iraq, the neocons were reeling from the mess they had
created and were busy trying to figure out how to duck responsibility for the cleanup
while somehow still grabbing the imperial benefits that drove them to Iraq in the first
place. It was another “mission unaccomplished,” but the neocons—ideologues to the
core—never admit to mistakes in policy or execution. Rather than apologizing for
mistakes made and insults given, the Bush administration demanded that the United
Nations and NATO clean up the Bush League mess in Iraq, asserting it was “their
responsibility.”
Thanks to unprecedented arrogance and incompetence, the vast majority of the
world now despises Bush and his policies. Thanks to Bush, respect for America and
trust in America are at all-time lows. The impeachment and removal of Bush and
Cheney from office is the single most important action Congress can take in the war
on terrorism and in restoring America’s influence, credibility, power and values in
the world. Likewise, voting out of office the senators and representatives who
shielded Bush and Cheney is the single most important direct action American voters
can take—second only to demanding the impeachment of America’s worst president
and worst vice president ever.
In the several months from Bush’s inauguration to 9/11 the Cheney-led neocons
were busy stoking the fires for a war on Iraq. Iraq was their principal obsession, and
it remains an open unanswerable question whether they could have successfully sold
their Iraq war if the attacks of 9/11 had not occurred. But the question is moot, be-
cause 9/11 gave the giddy neocons just enough to hang their lies and deceit upon.
To be clear, the enormous crimes committed on 9/11 did not diminish America’s
strategic position one iota or alter in the slightest any balance of power in the world.
To the contrary, 9/11 gave America the opportunity to enhance its position, reputa-
tion and influence in the world and emerge enormously stronger. America’s strategic
position following 9/11 could only have been weakened by America’s missteps, and
that’s where Bush came in.
Bush ultimately has no one but himself to blame for the disasters during his
watch. Yes, Bush received huge assists from the neocons and the GOP-controlled
Congress, but even with only a rudimentary grounding in foreign affairs, he might
have been able to understand some of the implications of the advice he was getting,
to ask a few of the right questions, and to seek expert advice from others. He might
have been able to hold his ground if he had had some firm ground to stand upon. But
he didn’t. He simply did not know enough to be an effective leader, and he had no
interest in learning. The world has known this cold reality for some time, but it has
been a longer painful journey for a majority of Americans to finally arrive at the
same obvious conclusion.
If Bush had served even a couple of years in some worthwhile public or private
building effort overseas, he would have been much better prepared to do his job as
president. But he chose to know virtually nothing about other nations and world af-
fairs. He learned virtually nothing about the diverse, wonderful world outside Amer-
ica’s front door because during his spoiled indulgent life he simply had zero interest
in going through that door and seeing the world for himself. Clueless as to the rich
but challenging multi-dimensional reality of the world’s nations and peoples, he still
believes the world is black and white—and flat. Yes, “W” also stands for “witless.”
Bush thus brought to the White House a virtually blank foreign policy slate—a
slate on which someone was going to write. Unfortunately, the neocons did the writ-
ing, notwithstanding the feeble efforts of a minority in Bush’s inner circle, princi-
pally Colin Powell, to stop them.
SIDEBAR: Bush the Decider
Bush prides himself on not reading newspapers. He summed it up nicely on Septem-

ber 21, 2003: “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving.
I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news
themselves.”
In addition to inventing facts, Bush also invents words, such as decider. On April
18, 2006, while Bush was defending embattled Rumsfeld against the growing num-
ber of calls by retired American generals for Rumsfeld’s resignation, Bush was able
to squeeze multiple Bushisms into two short sentences when he told reporters, “I
hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the
decider, and I decide what is best.” Truly weird.
But wait a second. According to Wikipedia, there is one obscure definition of
“decider,” as follows: “In computability theory, a machine that always halts—also
called a decider (Sipser, 1996)—is any abstract machine or model of computation
that, contrary to the most general Turing machines, is guaranteed to halt for any par-
ticular description and input (see halting problem).”
Perhaps Bush intended to extend this “machine” definition of decider to himself,
thus creating a second definition for decider, namely: “a dimwitted political leader
who always halts and stops thinking when reaching a point where serious analysis is
required.”
The Bush clan long realized Bush was a cipher when it came to basic geography,
let alone international relations and diplomacy. Therefore, in the late 1990s Condo-
leezza Rice visited Kennebunkport to tutor Bush in subjects best described as “Geog-
raphy 101 For Dummies” and “Foreign Affairs 101 For Dummies.” By the way, if
you aspire to be president of the United States, but don’t know or care much about
the world and foreign affairs, just email Condoleezza Rice and ask her to stay at your
home and “school” you.
An increasing number of Bush’s own supporters in Congress criticize him and
his Iraq policies. These include Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a critic of Bush’s Iraq
war, who said in May 2004 that Bush “must reach out. He must understand a bigger
view, wider-lens view of the world. To essentially hold himself hostage to two or
three key advisers and never reach beyond that is very dangerous for a president.”
Hagel accused Bush of developing and running Iraq policy “in a vacuum.” It’s
unclear whether Hagel was referring to that space in Bush’s cranium between his
ears, but “vacuum” is certainly an apt metaphor. That would sum it up “in a nut-
shell.”
Reagan and Clinton Rejected the Neocons—Bush Follows Them

Bush neocons liked to draw flattering comparisons between themselves and Presi-
dent Reagan. They hoped that some of Reagan’s undeserved luster would rub off on
Bush, cover Bush’s numerous defects, and turn him into something he is not. How-
ever, the comparisons miss the mark by a mile. The battered and rusted Bush jalopy
has flat tires and is off the road skidding wildly in the wrong direction. Bush is more
or less “at the wheel,” but he ignores the GPS navigation system because he doesn’t
understand it, and he is instead fearfully driving by the faith-based seat of his pants,
which he has badly soiled. Both car and driver are last in the world NASCAR stand-
ings. Regrettably, none of America’s long-term friends are willing to jump on board
and try to help—at least not while Bush is in the driver’s seat.
Several of the Bush neocons—including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and
Paul Wolfowitz—also served under Reagan. Fortunately, Reagan had enough per-
sonal strength and common sense to ultimately reject their advice, and to set his own
reality-based course for America. In sharp contrast, Bush after 9/11 docilely acqui-
esced to his neocons, rarely asking tough questions and never seeking expert opin-
ion. Yes, God works in mysterious ways. But so does the Devil.
The Bush neocons mucked and stirred the “war-is-best” pot during the entire pe-
riod from Reagan’s presidency through that of Clinton and into that of Bush. The
neocons desperately wanted a hot war in Iraq and were fearful that a peaceful solu-
tion might emerge before they—or more accurately, America’s soldiers—started
shooting. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and it would be a sin not to use it,
especially if the fools and cowards calling the shots are not in harm’s way.
Reagan wisely believed in hard power—and certainly a key goal of any Ameri-
can president is to ensure that U.S. military power remains head and shoulders above
that of any potential adversary—but Reagan used it very infrequently and never once
in a major way. Notwithstanding his image, Reagan’s actions were grounded in
Harry Truman’s wisdom, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” Reagan believed in
diplomacy.
Reagan learned through experience that one of the easiest ways for a nation to
reduce its power is to use it unnecessarily, unwisely or ineffectively. The Big Stick
that is used rarely or not at all, but is visible to all and within easy reach, can project
an enormous amount of power—typically more power that it exerts through actual
use—but its power dissipates when it is used drunkenly. Unfortunately, Bush has
used America’s military power unnecessarily, unwisely and ineffectively—and

drunkenly—especially in Iraq, and the world now looks at America’s Big Stick with
much less awe and respect than it did following 9/11.
America’s enemies, including terrorists and potential terrorists, now see inherent
limitations and weaknesses in how America uses its Big Stick and have developed
coping strategies, such as suicide bombings, roadside bombs, and guerilla warfare.
They are rapidly evolving and improving their skills in the crucible known as Bush’s
Iraq Civil War. This is bad enough in itself, of course, but things are much worse
than that. Of much greater damage to America is the fact that Bush’s blunders effec-
tively transferred much of the moral high ground from America to Islamic extremists
and terrorists. Bush himself is the main character in their “See, we told you so!”
propaganda campaign portraying America as the evil Satan. Thanks to Bush, count-
less tens of millions of peaceful Muslims who respected and liked America both be-
fore and after 9/11 have learned to hate America.
SIDEBAR: October 23, 1983—Ronald Reagan’s 9/11
From a marketing perspective, bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists viewed Sunday,
October 23, 1983, as the most significant date in their campaign against Western
powers—that is, until the 9/11 attacks. October 23, 1983, was the day a Mercedes
truck packed with high explosives drove into the four-story U.S. marine barracks in
the marines’ compound at Beirut International airport and exploded, killing 220 ma-
rines and 21 other service personnel.
For years terrorists hailed that attack as the best example of what could be ac-
complished against the world’s number one military power. That October 23 during
Reagan’s watch was the deadliest day for the Marine Corps since the battle of Iwo
Jima in February 1945.
The U.S. marines were in Beirut in 1983 with good intentions as part of an inter-
national peacekeeping force, albeit without a clear mission, rules of engagement, or
exit strategy. In another suicide truck bombing on the same date, approximately 60
French soldiers died when a 9-story building housing their paratroopers was de-
stroyed. By the way, Lebanon is just one of many examples of France and America
working together for peace. So don’t believe all the spiteful rightwing lies you hear
about France. Vive la France!
About six months earlier, on April 18, 1983, another attack by a suicide bomber
in a van destroyed a portion of the American embassy in Beirut, killing more than 60
people, including 17 Americans.
The disaster of October 23, 1983, taught Reagan a hard lesson about the haphaz-
ard use of military force, and it was one of the lowest points of his administration.
Although he vowed that the terrible attack on the marine barracks “would not stand,”
his main worry was to control the political fallout in his upcoming reelection cam-
paign.
Accordingly, Reagan ordered a U.S. battleship to shell some random hills near
Beirut, which was totally ineffective from a military perspective, although the U.S.
media lapped it up, which really was the objective. A few months later, Reagan qui-
etly ordered the marines to pull out of Lebanon, and thus the attacks on America’s
marines in fact “did stand.” Reagan “cut and ran.”
The timing of the U.S. invasion of hapless and defenseless Grenada on October
25, 1983—only two days after the killing of the 241 marines in Beirut—was, of
course, merely a serendipitous coincidence that distracted attention from the Beirut
disaster and demonstrated “Reagan’s strength.”
At the beginning of his presidency in 1981, Reagan initially took a hard line with
the Soviet Union. He accurately called it an “evil empire,” increased U.S. military
spending, and temporarily broke off arms control talks with the Soviets. But it was
Reagan’s use of soft power, not hard power, that reaped the biggest rewards.
Later, near the end of his first term, Reagan, with urging from Britain’s Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher and other trusted non-neocon confidants, reopened arms
control negotiations with the Soviet leaders and began building a relationship based
on trust. In short, Reagan adopted a realist position, assuring Soviet leaders that the
United States had no intention of starting a war with the Soviet Union and proposing
that the two nations work together to reduce their nuclear arsenals and the risk of
war. Reagan even proposed to Gorbachev in 1986 that all offensive nuclear ballistic
missiles be eliminated within a decade—a proposal that drove the neocons “ballis-
tic.” Reagan empowered realists like George Shultz to promote America’s interests
through peace initiatives.
Contrary to rightwing folklore, Reagan was not an aggressive “shoot-first” war-
rior when it came to dealing with the Soviet Union. Although he believed in a strong
military, not one American soldier lost his or her life in combat with the Soviet Un-
ion during Reagan’s eight years as president. Not one. This greatly offended the
warmongering neocons, dozens of whom later wedged their way into the Bush re-
gime.
Reagan—like Bush, Cheney and the neocons—never served in the active mili-
tary. However—in sharp contrast to that neocon gang of artful dodgers—Reagan was
not a warrior wannabe with a deep demented need to use America’s soldiers as
pawns in a devil’s game of unjust illegal war.
Reagan pursued peace through strength. Bush and the neo-GOP pursue weakness
through war.7
Reagan helped nudge Gorbachev and the Soviet Union in the right direction—
away from a rightwing totalitarian empire and toward an open, capitalistic, democ-
ratic state. He did this not by military action, but by speaking clearly and building
personal rapport with his Soviet counterparts, and by pursuing a trust-based policy of
7
Yes, “W” also stands for “Weakness through War.”
rapprochement. Reagan the realist triumphed over the neocons who tried to pull his
strings and wage war.
The neocons in the Reagan administration—the same dangerous and incompetent
fools who later manipulated Bush to create the mess in Iraq—opposed Reagan’s ef-
forts to build trust and dialogue with the Soviet Union. Several of these neocons had
served on the so-called “Team B” that, prior to Reagan’s presidency, had been ap-
pointed by Bush’s father when he was CIA director to assess and prepare a strategy
different from that of the CIA. Team B opposed Reagan’s rapprochement policies
and drew very black, erroneous conclusions about the Soviet Union and its inten-
tions. Team B wrongly believed that the totalitarian Soviet regime would not change,
that it was pursuing world domination through a massive military buildup, and that it
was preparing to engage in a preemptive nuclear war against the West.
The CIA later concluded that almost all of Team B’s assessments were wrong.
Although Team B didn’t get what it wanted, it did get valuable practice in cooking
the books and manufacturing faulty intelligence—skills that proved invaluable years
later, during the run-up to Bush’s catastrophic invasion of Iraq, when neocon Paul
Wolfowitz set up the novel Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to cherry pick
and brew faux intelligence.
Over time Reagan distanced himself from the neocons. He grew to distrust their
advice and doomsday jargon about nuclear warheads and kill ratios. Reagan under-
stood that war was not just a game of Bush League baseball. In pursuing peace,
Reagan knew he had to win the confidence of the Soviet leaders, and he thus rejected
the neocons and their dangerous nonsense.
The neocons were wrong then—thank God Reagan knew it—and they were
wrong again later when they manipulated Bush to order the invasion and occupation
of Iraq.
Even many years later, the neocons remained upset that there had been a cold end
to the Cold War, and specifically that the United States and its allies had won it
without firing a single shot or losing a single soldier in direct combat with the Soviet
Union. The strong alliance led by the United States did this by continuing the con-
tainment policies followed by all American presidents since Harry Truman, waiting
until the Soviet Union collapsed due to its internal weaknesses and rot. Fortunately,
neither Reagan nor any other American president approved the neocons’ favored
strategy of using military force to “roll back” the Soviet Union.
The neocons continued to criticize Reagan after he left office, unhappy that the
communist system was still in place. They preferred a hot war. Dick “Shooter” Che-
ney, who served as Secretary of Defense to Bush’ father, erroneously believed that
Gorbachev would be replaced with a militaristic leader, leading to a resumption of
the Cold War, and that Gorbachev’s liberal policy of glasnost (“an opening”) was
just a trick. History repeated itself years later when Vice President Dick Shooter took
command of the Bush White House and once again made wrong strategic judgments,
spawned faulty intelligence, and cast his warmongering spell over the White House
and the spineless GOP-controlled Congress.
In addition to conning the American public, the Bush neocons also conned them-
selves. They began to believe their own propaganda that the Iraqi invasion and af-
termath would be a cakewalk. A swift and decisive military victory, coupled with
cheering friendly crowds throughout Iraq, would cause the American public to for-
give all the lies and crimes on the road to war. Bewildered and dazed by reality,
however, the Bush neocons staggered and flip-flopped as they desperately tried to
undo the horrendous damage they spawned in Iraq.
Bush is no Reagan. He is no Truman, no Kennedy, and no Clinton. When Bush
tries to play the Reagan part, he comes across as a bumbling inarticulate pretender, a
caricature, an inept actor. Bush’s phrase “axis of evil” was intended to hark back to
Reagan’s “evil empire,” but it was a silly nonsensical attempt to make Bush sound
like Reagan. Imagine that—a foreign policy plan based on trying to make Bush
sound like a Hollywood actor.
Regarding Iraq, the neocons’ shoot-first DNA—coupled with their ideologically-
driven groupthink—prevented them from drawing any useful lessons from either
America’s defeat in the hot war in Vietnam or America’s victory in the Cold War.
Unfortunately, clueless blank-slate Bush sat in the White House, and the Cheney-led
neocons held all the chalk and were writing all the plans, in a bubble, without analy-
sis or direction from America’s commander in chief or anyone else.
The world hoped Bush would be equal to the challenges and opportunities pre-
sented by 9/11. He was not. Neither was the GOP that controlled all branches of the
U.S. government. The world hoped Bush would discard his growing reputation as a
not-too-bright, disengaged oilman and pretend-cowboy from Texas. He could not.
The world hoped Bush would decisively take the high road and—based on a founda-
tion of shared values and mutual respect—lead the world to a place of greater secu-
rity, peace and prosperity. He did not.
Instead Bush chose a low imperial road leading to the mirage of The Project for
the New American Century, in which America would impose its will and have its
way. Well, that was the general idea, but things didn’t quite work out right.
The Bush neocons are sometimes called hawks or super-hawks, but many com-
mentators prefer chickenhawks, which is more accurate. It is easy for a weakling8 to
be a bully when the armed forces of the United States stand behind him or, well, in
front of him. America needs a leader with backbone and values equal to that of its
soldiers, but Bush falls miles short of that mark. The vast majority of America’s sol-
diers are patriotic working-class men and women. They are not of America’s favored
Super Rich class, for whom Bush has them working.
It is encouraging that there is a growing list of extremely wealthy people who not
only oppose the Bush administration’s economic policies that favor the Super Rich,
but also are extremely upset with its unilateral militaristic policies. One of the more
prominent opponents is billionaire George Soros, author of The Bubble of American
Supremacy, who writes:
We have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000, President Bush prom-
ised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the Bush administration has deliberately
exploited September 11 to pursue policies that the American public would not have
otherwise tolerated. The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mis-
takes. At present the country is in the process of committing such mistakes because
8
Yes, “W” also stands for “weakling.”
it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense of mission is matched

only by their false sense of certitude.
This distorted view postulates that because we are stronger than others, we
must know better and we must have right on our side. That is where religious
fundamentalism comes together with market fundamentalism to form the ideology
of American supremacy.
The neocons’ efforts to make America the one imperial superpower are not only
doomed to failure, they also are making the world more unstable. We see this play-
ing out in every nation in the Middle East, and the biggest loser—except for America
and Iraq—is Israel.
At the core of the imperial agenda is the belief that the United States may—and
should—use its unrivaled military power in any way it unilaterally chooses to pursue
American interests. America has the military power, and therefore the right, to create
a world that is more exploitable by huge corporations and the Super Rich.
Is it possible that other peoples and nations of the world might look at this differ-
ently? Is it possible they might have a large measure of distrust and fear? Even be-
fore the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States—generally for the common
good but sometimes not—made the biggest footprints in the world regarding so
many aspects of human life: technology, language, business, environment, use of
limited natural resources, culture, products, religion, military, geopolitics, science,
travel, trade, education, medicine, human rights, and the list goes on.
Given this American influence and domination, which is felt in virtually every
part of every nation, it is remarkable that so many Americans are rabidly critical and
fearful of foreigners and any real or imagined foreign influence in the United States.
These fearful complainers—America’s bedwetting conservatives—consist by and
large of the cocooned and fearful on America’s political extreme right. They want
the world to be a one-way street on which only Americans can drive. Perhaps you’ve
even heard some of them gripe about the way foreigners talk. “Why can’t they speak
English like Jesus did?”
The War on Terrorism—the Slogan that Means Nothing and Jus-

tifies Anything
The Bush neocons use the “war on terrorism” slogan to gain several advantages, all
politically motivated.
• First, by calling it a war, the Bush neocons spread fear and receive a freer
hand in using military force, their tool of first choice for any real or imag-
ined international problem.
• Second, the “fact” that we’re at war is used to stifle dissent, whether from
the media, American citizens, or America’s elected representatives. Dis-
senters, even war heroes, are venomously labeled unpatriotic. Striving to
avoid debate of its unilateralist policies, the Bush administration and its
lackeys attack those who exercise their first amendment rights. The princi-
pal victim of Bush’s war on terrorism is America’s democracy.
• Third, rightwing Orwellian propagandists use the “at war” label to repaint
Bush as a strong leader, a real commander in chief.
• Fourth—and most important—the war on terrorism provides both distrac-

tion and cover for the Bush regime as it pursues its domestic agenda of do-
ing everything possible for the Super Rich and favored corporate interests.
In addition to increasing the likelihood of actual war by promoting a war climate,
the term itself—war on terrorism—undoubtedly further biases the Bush neocons
themselves in the wrong direction with respect to the policies they set and the deci-
sions they make. Already harboring a misguided bloodlust for military action, they
hardly need further encouragement.
Since terror is simply a tactic, not an enemy or foe, numerous military experts
have pointed out the inherent absurdity of the “war on terrorism” slogan. Declaring
war on terrorism is like declaring war on bombs or boomerangs.
Jon Stewart summed it up nicely in his 2004 commencement address at The Col-
lege of William and Mary: “We declared war on terror—it’s not even a noun, so,
good luck. After we defeat it, I’m sure we’ll take on that bastard ennui.” (OK, so
“terror” is in fact a noun, but nevertheless we understand exactly what Comedy News
Central’s Resident Expert on Grammar meant.)
The slogan “war on terrorism” (sometimes expanded to the “global war on terror-
ism”) is not a policy, but rather a misleading substitute for thinking and hard work. It
is a fear-evoking bromide by cocooned warmongers who declare that the outside
world is evil, dangerous and dark, when in fact it is their own behavior that causes
the world to see them that way. Never looking in the mirror, and misguided by their
own ignorance and incompetence, the Bush neocons turned America’s foreign policy
into a splattering of deadly unguided missiles that promote the evil world of their
fantasies. In short, they create evil self-fulfilling prophecies because they don’t know
Shiite from shinola.
The world is appalled at Bush’s simplistic binary “us vs. them” and “good vs.
evil” formulations that do not address underlying complexities and always make
things worse. Consider the perspective of Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN envoy to Iraq,
who criticized the Bush administration for its militaristic policies in Iraq and diplo-
matically referred to Bremer as “the dictator of Iraq.” In June 2004, Brahimi said: “I
think it’s a little bit too easy to call everybody a terrorist. And I think if you find out
that there are people who are not terrorists who are respectable, genuine Iraqi patri-
ots, you must find a way of talking to them.”
Bombs alone, or bombs as a first choice, will not win the so-called war on terror-
ism. In sharp contrast to the Bush neocons, the nations of the world understand that
the war on terrorism is really much different from a “war” and that there must be a
dedicated long-term multilateral strategy focused on underlying problems and solu-
tions. However, the Bush regime prefers bombing to building. After all, bombing is
easy, whereas helping to build human lives and nations is difficult, in addition to
being incompatible with neocon DNA.
America cannot on its own win the so-called war on terrorism. Bush League ef-
forts will not win it. America needs the cooperation of the world, which takes moral
leadership. A central problem is that Bush and his GOP policies are highly radioac-
tive, especially in the Islamic world and among our allies. As the least respected and
most hated leader in the world, Bush would handily win the “Biggest Liar” and
“Most Dangerous World Leader” awards in virtually every nation in our small world.
SIDEBAR: A National Day of Mourning for Bush League Incompetence
May 19, 2005, was a milestone in Bush League incompetence, but no one noticed.
Three years, 8 months and 8 days: This is the time span from December 7,
1941—the date of Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor, marking America’s entrance into
World War II—to August 15, 1945, which was Victory over Japan Day, or V-J Day,
marking the end of WWII.9
From 9/11 to May 19, 2005, is the same length of time—3 years, 8 months, and 8
days.
The contrast between the America led by President Roosevelt in World War II
against the world-class military powers of Germany and Japan, and the America mis-
led by President Bush after 9/11 is astonishing. America and its many allies had
much to celebrate on August 15, 1945. As for May 19, 2005, it passed silently with-
out commemoration or note—other than the death of three more American soldiers
in Iraq, which is roughly the daily average during Bush’s and the GOP’s war on Iraq.
May 19 deserves to be a National Day of Mourning for America, a sad day of
commemoration marking opportunities lost, an America gone astray.
Let’s be clear. In working to promote peace and eliminate terrorism in the world,
the United States and its allies from time to time may be required to declare and
fight conventional wars against specific nations or other foes, or to intervene in par-
ticular countries or regions of the world.
Arguably, the war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban was one such
justified case, although the bomb-and-go Bush administration waged it with dis-
heartening incompetence and lack of sustained will. This war should be renamed
Osama bin Forgotten.
America would be better served if the “war” label were reserved for real wars—
military campaigns waged against specific nations for justifiable reasons—that fol-
low a declaration of war, have the advice and consent of Congress, and are supported
by a clear majority of the American people.
One obvious problem with the so-called war on terrorism is its perpetual nature.
Given the domestic political advantages of being at war, do the Bush neocons really
want it to end? Perhaps they have grown too fond of the mistaken notion that they
can keep the domestic fear index higher if bin Laden remains on the loose.
On March 13, 2002, at a rare press conference, Bush admitted, “I don’t know
where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him ... I truly am not
that concerned about him.” With such a weak warrior in charge, it has taken the Bush
regime much longer to find bin Laden than it did for America to win World War II.
One day your grandchildren may ask how such an incompetent fool managed to
become America’s president, and why Americans kept him in office so long. What-
9
Three months earlier, on May 7, 1945—Victory in Europe Day, or V-E Day—Germany
capitulated to the Allied powers, marking the end of WWII in Europe.
ever your answer, may it include the fact that you tried your best to support Bush’s
impeachment and removal from office.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was a leader. George W. Bush is a fool, a disgrace to
America and the men and women who wear its uniform.
A conventional war—at least one with a likelihood of being followed by true
peace—has a clear end-date milestone, which typically consists of the surrender by
one side and the signing of a peace treaty by both sides. In any case, there’s a clear
end date. On the other hand, Bush’s war on terrorism, in addition to suffering from
the fundamental flaw that it has never been defined, will never end because there will
always be criminals and terrorists in the world, whether or not we have leaders like
Bush creating and inspiring so many of them.
It is noteworthy that America’s enemy in Afghanistan did not surrender or sign a
peace treaty, which is a huge red flag indicating that lots of unfinished work re-
mained. Bush, however, foolishly claimed victory and moved on Iraq. Likewise,
Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq did not surrender or sign a peace treaty, an obvious
but overlooked fact that underlies Bush’s foolish “Mission Accomplished” declara-
tion.
The Bush neocons have never leveled with the American people regarding how
long they think their so-called war on terrorism will last. The Bush neocons—living
in their groupthink echo chambers—refuse to be candid. Why bother? The tough
“war on terrorism” slogan helps enable their militant antidemocratic policies, both
abroad and at home.
Even regarding specific shooting wars claimed to be within the scope of their so-
called war on terrorism—Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran next, and counting—the Bush ad-
ministration never levels with the American people, or themselves, as to how long
they believe each war will last.
The term “war on terrorism” is reminiscent of many other open-ended “wars”
that aren’t wars: the “War on Drugs,” the “War on Poverty,” and so forth. However,
everyone understands in these other cases that the word “war” does not refer to ac-
tual military warfare.
In sharp contrast, the Bush neocons use their so-called war on terrorism as a
broad, all encompassing, ill-defined umbrella that empowers them to wage actual
warfare whenever and wherever they choose, while psychologically conditioning the
American populace to be fearful and compliant.
The so-called war on terrorism is simply not a war in any traditional or correct
sense of the word. It is not a World War I, or a World War II, or a Vietnam War, or
any other war. As misused by the Bush neocons it is pure propaganda and thus
should be dropped.
That won’t happen. The “war on terrorism” slogan is tailor-made doublespeak for
Fox News and other rightwing propaganda pushers, who work diligently to promote
Bush and the GOP’s extreme rightwing agenda. America’s corporate media love the
slogan.
We note in passing that, in marketing its war agenda, the Bush regime and its
propaganda pushers in America’s media tried other variations of the “war on terror-
ism” slogan, including “The Long War” and even “World War IV,” but these adven-
turesome slogans attained little traction.
SIDEBAR: America the Weakened
There are three principal sources of America’s strength and positive influence in
the world: (1) progressive moral values, (2) economic strength, and (3) military
strength. Bush severely damaged all three during his GOP reign of error.
1) Progressive Moral Values. Thanks to Bush and the GOP, America is no
longer the world’s bright beacon of hope, freedom and peace. They replaced the
torch on the Statue of Liberty with a huge middle finger. Distrust of America has
never been higher. Foreigners, both friend and foe, increasingly question America’s
morals and motivations. They see the rotten fruit resulting from America’s turn to
the Dark Right: the massive corruption and cronyism within the Bush administration
and the GOP; the spiteful divisiveness; the attack on Americans’ constitutional rights
and liberties while corporate power is expanded; the crusade that favors one Right
Religion while attacking religious freedom and the separation of church and state;
the rightwing warmongering in violation of just war principles; the squandering of
the universal support for America following 9/11; the growing chasm in America
between the Super Rich and the poor; the culture of lies and deceit; and the unwill-
ingness to address America’s own moral problems of poverty and discrimination.
Bush and his Confederate Party no longer represent—and cannot be trusted to pro-
tect—America’s true moral values.
2) Economic strength. By every significant financial measure, Bush and the
GOP have put America on the Road to Economic Armageddon. Unless there is a
huge change of course, the coming GOP Great Depression II will make the GOP
Great Depression of the 1930s look like a Sunday picnic. Bush’s and the GOP’s fi-
nancial “accomplishments” are truly staggering: record federal spending; record re-
duction in federal income; record tax cuts for the Super Rich; record federal budget
deficits; record loss of manufacturing jobs for middle-class Americans; record in-
creases in illegal aliens; record trade deficits; record national debt; record interest
payments on the national debt; record borrowing from foreign powers; record num-
ber of Americans who lost health insurance coverage; record number of children
living in poverty; record deficit in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; record
corporate welfare; record corruption and cronyism in government; and the list goes
on. Bin Laden in the White House instead of Bush—and the Taliban running Con-
gress in place of the GOP—could not have inflicted more economic damage on
America. Bush and his Confederate Party are incompetent to run the U.S. govern-
ment and cannot be trusted with America’s economic future.
3) Military strength. By immorally invading Iraq and incompetently waging that

war, Bush foolishly exposed inherent weaknesses and limitations regarding Amer-
ica’s military strength, in addition to absolutely weakening it. He failed to adequately
equip and support America’s troops. He also greatly diminished the perception of
America’s military strength. His failures emboldened and united America’s enemies,
and discouraged and divided America’s allies. Bush is the world’s number one
breeder of terrorists. He favored guns to the exclusion of diplomacy. He replaced the
strength of alliances with the weakness of unilateralism. Like the Vietnam Syn-
drome, the Iraq Syndrome will have an enduring negative impact on America’s mili-
tary and foreign policy. An America with only one-fifth of its current military
strength under an American president with just average morals and competency
would be much stronger that the current “full-strength” America under Bush. He and
his Confederate Party cannot be trusted with America’s security. They are a disgrace
to America’s finest.
In pursuing its imperial agenda in Iraq, the Bush regime gave no meaningful con-
sideration to the fundamental concept of a just war, and it had no desire to build a
strong coalition before pushing forward. America and the world will pay dearly for
decades for this catastrophic failure of leadership. Blithely ignoring history and the
best military and diplomatic advice, the Bush neocons maliciously and foolishly did
what they had wanted to do for many years. In the next chapter we will do what the
Bush neocons never did, which is to pay some attention to the important related con-
cepts of a just war and a strong coalition.
CHAPTER 2
A Just War Versus Just War

Hard Power, Soft Power and Stupid Power
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone
who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he
will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once
the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of un-
foreseeable and uncontrollable events.
—Winston Churchill (1874-1965).
The concept of a just war is intended to place moral restraints on warfare. Developed
in the West over many centuries it sets criteria for whether and how warfare should
be conducted. It is based in religion, politics, and the experience of countless human
conflicts. There are certainly many situations in which a war is both justified and
moral.
Whether a proposed war is a just war depends upon whether it meets all of the
just war principles set forth in international law regarding armed conflict, including
the Geneva Conventions.10 These general principles include:
• legitimate authority,
• just cause,
• right intention,
• last resort,
• reasonable chance for success, and
• proportionality.
In addition to determining whether a proposed war is a just war, the general prin-
ciples also determine how a just war must be waged. These additional principles in-
clude noncombatant immunity and proportionate means.
Reasonable people may disagree in a particular case how the above principles
should be applied. However, even the most casual observer would conclude that
Bush’s war in Iraq failed the test in not only one way—which would be enough to
flunk it—but in multiple ways, namely it failed to meet any of the five following
10
If the United States is contemplating warfare, the proposed war must also meet principles
set forth in American military doctrine. Bush also ignored this.
general principles: legitimate authority; just cause; right intention; last resort; and
proportionality.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Bush even considered the principles of a
just war before attacking Iraq, which appears unlikely, it is possible that his brain
simply misunderstood them—thinking that the goal was “just war,” not “a just war.”
That would explain a lot.
The Five Pillars of a Strong Coalition

Under the general principles (set forth above) for determining whether a proposed
war is a just war, there is no requirement that a nation assemble a coalition, although
even cavemen understood the benefits of united effort. A nation may act unilaterally
if all the general principles are met. Of course, common sense and other considera-
tions come into play. These include treaty obligations, organizations such as NATO
and the United Nations, other commitments and obligations under international law,
and an astute sense of military conflict and geopolitics.
In most major conflicts—especially culturally complex conflicts such as the Iraq
war—a strong diverse coalition is a common sense necessity. However, the Bush
neocons had no desire or need—or so they thought—for a coalition of any kind. As
imperialists who knew what they wanted, the Bush neocons saw an effective coali-
tion for Iraq as a distraction that would only complicate unilateral action and lead to
unnecessary sharing of glory and plunder. So why did the Bush regime assemble the
Bush League of Nations? It did so because it needed propaganda to sell the Iraq war
to America.
Assuming that a coalition is appropriate in the particular case, proposed here are
five essential pillars of a strong coalition:
1. A Just War—The proposed war must meet all just war principles set forth in
international law regarding armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions. As
set forth in the previous section, these include: legitimate authority, just cause, right
intention, last resort, reasonable chance for success, and proportionality. Each and
every member of the coalition should independently determine on the merits that the
proposed conflict is a just war, without reference to unrelated matters, such as
threats, or payments or other benefits received or promised, from other coalition
members.
2. Clear Goals—Clear goals are the raison d’être of the coalition and must be pre-
cisely stated with sufficient detail: (1) to permit meaningful analysis, discussion, and
agreement among the coalition members, (2) to permit the development of detailed
plans to achieve the goals, and (3) to allow the coalition members to later determine
unequivocally whether or not the goals have been met. The goals must not be so
general—say, for example, “to promote peace”—that they provide little basis for
meaningful guidance, planning and agreement.
3. Trustworthy Leadership—The chosen leaders of the coalition must be trustwor-

thy and widely viewed as such. It is especially problematic if coalition leaders or
coalition member nations have, or are believed to have, an agenda different from the
stated goals of the coalition.
CHAPTER 2 — A JUST WAR VERSUS JUST WAR 29
4. A Sensible Plan—A detailed plan must be developed and agreed upon, based on
the best available information and analysis, including respect for divergent views. It
must include sufficient resources to ensure winning the war, as well as winning the
peace that follows the war, and it must include a clear exit or endpoint, together with
a timeline. The informed consent of the citizens of each coalition nation should be
obtained in some meaningful direct or indirect fashion.
5. Excellent Execution—The sensible plan must be properly executed, with a clear

chain of command, and with a process for making necessary adjustments along the
way.
The requirement of a just war is included as the first of these five essential pillars
because it is the starting point and the most important point. If the Bush administra-
tion had allowed—or better yet, led—a national discussion of the application of just
war principles to the proposed Iraq war, the war would not have occurred, and Amer-
ica and its allies and friends would have been miles ahead in the so-called war on
terrorism. Regarding a possible war in Iraq, a strong coalition would have developed
a plan of action to accomplish desired goals through strong peaceful steps, with the
possibility of war only as a last resort, and only if all of the just war general princi-
ples were first met, which they never were.
Incredibly, even after more than four years of war in Iraq, the Bush regime and
its GOP enablers had not established a single one of the five essential pillars of a
strong successful coalition.
The mere process of considering the five pillars of a strong coalition would have
led to better decisions and better plans regarding Iraq. However, Bush and Cheney
were driven by the neocon groupthink. Already knowing the “answer,” they had no
need for the hard work of analysis and critical thinking. They saw no need for a plan
to win the peace. They did not earn their pay. They were guilty of dereliction of duty.
They were guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Their hardcore true believers described them as strong, but the right word is stu-
pid, which brings us to the next section.
Hard Power and Soft Power—plus Smart Power and Stupid

Power
Joseph Nye, the dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, wrote a book
that should be required reading for Bush and the neocons: Soft Power: The Means to
Success in World Politics. Hard power is using military power and economic power
to achieve desired results. Soft power is using various measures short of military
power—such as economic assistance, diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and other
forms of international persuasion—to achieve desired ends. Nye describes soft power
as the “ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion.”
Nye believes that, ideally, neither hard power nor soft power should be used ex-
clusively. Rather, it is usually best to combine the two—what Nye calls smart power.
During the several decades of the Cold War, the United States led by several presi-
dents, both Democratic and Republican, used a mixture of hard power and soft
power—primarily the hard power of military deterrence (vs. its actual use) combined
with the soft power of broad international cooperation and pressure—to help speed
the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Although Nye doesn’t use this term or have an additional category, it is apparent
that Bush and the GOP have created a fourth category—stupid power—which we
define here as “using either hard power or soft power in an incompetent, ideological,
faith-based, non-analytical fashion, especially where military decisions are made by
civilian bureaucrats without active military experience who intentionally ignore pro-
fessional military advice.”
Bush and his neocons use hard power in a knee-jerk fashion, without understand-
ing its limits. They do not understand, and choose to ignore, the benefits of soft
power, thereby undercutting America’s hard power and gutting America’s capacity
to lead a cooperative international effort against terrorism. Nye believes the United
States must not proceed unilaterally but must return to the hard and soft power blend
that was the foundation of the U.S.-led Western alliance that prevailed in the Cold
War.
If fewer than 50 criminals carried out a 9/11-type slaughter, what would be the
sense of America declaring war on Islam? If Canada attacked America, what would
be the sense of the United States bombing Argentina or Venezuela? Well, perhaps
we shouldn’t use Venezuela in this example—since Bush might just take that oppor-
tunity to invade Venezuela, given that America’s rightwing neocons and oil compa-
nies hated the results of Venezuela’s presidential recall referendum in August 2004,
overwhelmingly won by Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s democratically elected president
whom the Bush neocons had previously tried to depose.11
SIDEBAR: A Key Question
Why do bystanders in Iraq—average Mohammeds—cheer the attacks on American

forces and the killing of American soldiers? That is a question Bush doesn’t like to
think about.
In Bush’s simple black-and-white fantasy world, we got rid of Saddam, and
therefore all Iraqis should love us. Bush cannot grasp a simple reality—that Iraqis
who are grateful that American troops deposed Saddam are entitled to be violently
opposed to the occupation of Iraq by American forces.
The Bush regime and its GOP supporters apparently believe that self-appointed
vigilantes who catch the murderous thug in your neighborhood are justified in mov-
ing in with your family, eating the best food off your table, and joining your wife and
daughters in bed.
Then, of course, there’s Iraq’s oil, which virtually all Iraqis believe, for some
crazy reason, had something to do with Bush’s decision to invade.
11
Chavez’s subsequent reelection as Venezuela’s president was fueled in part by the Bush
administration’s clumsy anti-democratic posturing regarding Chavez and Venezuela.
If the situation were reversed, and foreign soldiers—say, Islamic troops who
didn’t speak English—occupied North Dakota or Massachusetts, the good patriotic
citizens of those great states would take up arms and fight to kick them out. On the
other hand, pseudo-cowboy rightwing Texans like Bush and Cheney would recog-
nize the quisling, crony-capitalism opportunities in collaborating with the enemy—
and cozily do business with them, just as they already do with the princely Saudis
and a host of other rightwing dictators. Bush and Cheney certainly wouldn’t sign up
for any combat duty, nor would any of their offspring.
The Bush neocons are virtually clueless in determining whether we are winning
or losing the war on terrorism, perhaps in part because they spend most of their time
trying to put the right political spin on their accomplishments or, more accurately,
lack thereof. One of the numerous Bush fantasy spinners is former Attorney General
John Ashcroft, who resigned on November 9, 2004. In his resignation letter to Bush,
Ashcroft stated, “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and
terror has been achieved.”
In April 2004 the U.S. State Department issued its annual counter-terrorism re-
port, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” which stated that terrorist attacks in 2003 had
declined to 190, the lowest level reported in 34 years, and a 45% reduction from
Bush’s first year as president (2001). The Bush administration triumphantly claimed
the report showed their policies were working. Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage
said, “Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in
the fight.” Another State Department official predicted that the trend would continue.
But, oops! The 2003 report was very wrong. On June 10, 2004—after outsiders
had questioned the data—the State Department acknowledged it had made a mistake
in reporting a drop in terrorism and that, in fact, both the number of terrorist attacks
and the number of victims had increased sharply in 2003. However, don’t hold your
breath waiting for the Bush administration to correct its prior statement and say,
“You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are not prevailing in the fight.”
The Bush administration believes that bombing is the first and only medicine in
addressing terrorism or fabricated terrorism, so long as we are doing the bombing.
This faith-based belief is similar to their belief that America can simply drill its way
out of its energy problems, which we will discuss later.
There is a role for smart bombs, but smart bombs become dumb bombs when
dropped by dumb leaders who make dumb decisions.
Al Qaeda and other evolving terrorist groups have changed their tactics and are
now less susceptible to attack and eradication by military power alone. More effec-
tive are the cooperative proactive efforts by intelligence agencies and police around
the world, coupled with the cooperation of the vast majority of the citizens of the
world. Unilateral military efforts by an isolated, go-it-alone America have failed, and
they will continue to fail.
The willing cooperation of as many people as possible in our joint anti-terror ef-
forts will help us understand the whats, whys and hows of terrorism. Many plots are
uncovered and foiled thanks to an unexpected tip from someone who has stumbled
upon relevant information, disagrees with the terrorist agenda, and believes that
America and its allies are on a higher moral ground. Therefore a key priority is for
America to act in such a way that it truly deserves the willing support of the world.
In this regard, Bush has utterly failed America and its soldiers.
SIDEBAR: San Jose Mercury News, Letter to the Editor, September 10, 2003,
“Millions for peace, billions on Iraq”
“Seventy-five billion dollars is a conservative estimate of our projected 2004 military

expenditures for Iraq. This is based on current spending levels as well as the figures
presented by President Bush in his address to the nation, and it excludes additional
tens of billions for reconstruction, support of coalition partners, and other costs.
“On the other hand, the U.S. Peace Corps’ annual budget for 2003 is only $295
million, notwithstanding bipartisan congressional support and increased funding.
“In other words, we spend more for 35 hours of our military occupation of Iraq
than we do for the worldwide operations of the Peace Corps for an entire year.
“Although I want to believe that all of our military efforts are intended to pro-
mote peace, we do sometimes err in pulling the war lever, with tragic unintended
consequences.
“The people of the world, especially Americans, reap huge peace dividends from
the work of the Peace Corps. The peace dividends from our military campaign in
Iraq are dubious at best.”
—Jim Swanson
The Bush neocons have been staggered by reality in Iraq. Their struggle to even
find words to explain the resulting mess is palpable. Rumsfeld, for example, in dis-
cussing the so-called war on terrorism at a security conference in June 2004, said,
“It’s quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this.” He acknowl-
edged that America might not be winning the war on terror. He didn’t know if terror-
ists were being trained at a faster rate than we can kill or capture them, and noted:
“How many more of those folks are being trained and developed and organized and
deployed and sent out to work the seams and the shadows and the caves?”
Sadly, the Bush regime has aggravated and complicated the threat by midwifing
countless terrorist snakes, each like Hydra, the nine-headed snake in Greek mythol-
ogy, and there is no one snake—say bin Laden or a bin Laden wannabe—who con-
trols all heads of all Hydras. Yes, it will be a great joy to see bin Laden dead—an
important job that must be done, a job that Bush botched—but at this sad point in
history it won’t make much difference.
The United States and the world are paying dearly for the real-world education of
the amateur Bush neocons. Never have Diplomacy 101 and War Strategy and Tactics
101 courses been so expensive, and never have the students been so ill prepared and
resistant to learning. How do you teach “Diplomacy 101 for Dummies” and “War
Strategy and Tactics 101 for Dummies” to blockhead students who already have
their faith-based answers before they even understand the questions?
Over a period of several months in 2006 Jeff Stein, National Security Editor for
the Congressional Quarterly and frequent contributor to The New York Times, con-
ducted lengthy interviews with counterterrorism experts in Washington, as well as
with several U.S. Congressmen having oversight responsibilities regarding terrorism
and America’s spy agencies. The fundamental question he raised was, “Do you know
the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” The appalling results were that many
of America’s experts and oversight congressmen don’t even know the basics, such
as, for example, whether Iran is predominantly Sunni or Shiite. Stein sums it up in
his October 17, 2006, piece in The New York Times: “But so far, most American of-
ficials I’ve interviewed don’t have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law
enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles over-
seeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?”
SIDEBAR: Just a Deck of Cards
Do you remember all the fun the Bush chickenhawks had with that famous deck of
52 playing cards, with Saddam as the ace of spades, and so forth? It was exhilarat-
ing! America just had to capture or kill the 52 thugs, and the job would be done—
mission accomplished. We just had to shred that deck. It was a tidy and simple solu-
tion for the gullible.
This all made perfect sense to the armchair civilian Bush neocons, who ignored
professional military and diplomatic advice in pursuing their warmongering fanta-
sies. But they neo-conned themselves and the American people. They lied, and
countless hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children died.
By misplaying the hand—by cheating—Bush continues to create countless new
decks of militants, who—unlike those in the Saddam Deck—are a real and present
danger to America and the world. The new decks should be called Bush Terrorist
Decks. They were created because Bush dealt from the bottom of the deck. What
card is Bush? He’s the joker, of course, the deadly joker.
When an American soldier dies in Iraq, one might ask: Did the killer come from
a brand-new Bush Terrorist Deck that did not even exist before Bush started dealing
from the bottom of the deck? The answer in each case is almost certain to be “yes.”
It is not surprising that the Bush neocons and America’s rightwing media no
longer talk about the original Saddam Deck of Cards, given that Bush’s Iraq plans
collapsed like a house of cards.
When adversaries stand up and go head to head with the United States military in
conventional open field combat, they die. The kill ratios favor America by a large
margin, as they should, and most of the enemy die without knowing what hit them.
Without sensing the immediate threat, they are breathing one second and dead the
next.
Like British King George III’s experience during the American Revolutionary
War, the enemy’s evolving military tactics in Iraq surprised America’s King George
III and his cocooned advisors. Britain’s King George III expected America’s pro-
gressive revolutionary patriots from Massachusetts to “fight like men” in open-field
battle in fixed formations, while wearing brightly colored uniforms with a big “X”
on each. That was the conventional warfare style of that era.
Likewise, the unconventional tactics used by insurgents in Iraq shocked our King
George III and his neocons. Ignoring America’s best military minds and a host of
other dissenting voices, the Bush neocons instead put on their own special fantasy
eye glasses, which caused them to conclude wrongly that the Iraq war would be a
short war won by the massive use of shock-and-awe power. Because such explosive
action is the type of warfare that dominates television coverage—and bearing in
mind that television coverage was the closest any of the Bush neocons had ever
come to actual warfare—perhaps America should forgive them for their myopic
views. Or not.
Definitely not. High crimes and misdemeanors by warmongers must not be for-
gotten or forgiven.
Sadly, in addition to eschewing soft power, the Bush neocons had a limited and
warped view of how the use of hard power would play out. They chose to ignore the
realities of other forms of hard power such as guerilla warfare, improvised explosive
devices (IEDs) and other roadside bombs, kidnappings, assassinations, improved
IEDs, beheadings, booby traps, sabotage, even more improved IEDs, and so forth.
They chose to ignore the tremendous uncertainties and unintended consequences that
are inherently part of the “fog of war.”
Unfortunately, the unprecedented damage caused by the Bush regime’s addiction
to “stupid power” is not limited to Afghanistan and Iraq. A fool on Monday is a fool
on Friday. A fool with head lice carries the lice wherever he meanders.
In the next section we consider the Bush regime’s failed nuclear weapons poli-
cies.
Bush League Nuclear Weapons Policies: An Exercise in Stupid

Power
Unlike the risk of Saddam’s WMDs, which existed only in the propaganda used to
sell Bush’s war on Iraq, the risk of nuclear weapons being used against America and
its friends is real, and America’s allies are rightly dismayed by Bush’s failure of
leadership in this arena.
A single nuclear explosion in an American city would be catastrophic in terms of
lives lost and lives shattered, and it would change America forever. It would also
severely impact America’s civil liberties, likely causing even more damage to the
Constitution than that inflicted by the Bush regime during its GOP Reign of Error.
Bush’s efforts have been a combination of insufficient—in failing to safeguard
and reduce the stockpiles of existing nuclear weapons and materials—and counter-
productive—in implementing Bush League policies that encourage, rather than pre-
vent, the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons.
One necessary first step is for America to aggressively support and fully fund the
joint Russian/American program to reduce Russia’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons
and to prevent them from getting into terrorist hands.
SIDEBAR: Safeguarding Nuclear Materials
The Iraq war diverted attention from a hugely important national and world security
concern, namely the identification and safeguarding of dangerous nuclear materials
at hundreds of sites around the world. Researchers at Harvard’s Kennedy School of
Government reported that less potential nuclear bomb material was safeguarded dur-
ing the two years after September 11 than in the two years before. They note that the
safeguarding would be progressing much more quickly if only one-tenth of the cost
of just the first year of the Iraq war were devoted to securing nuclear material around
the world.
The 2001 Baker-Cutler Commission estimated that a total of $30 billion spent
over ten years would pay for the destruction of most of the loose lethal nuclear mate-
rials, as well as the secure containment of the rest. Effective programs exist to ac-
complish this, but they must be funded. Thirty billion dollars is an enormous sum of
money, but it is less than 3% of the projected direct cost of Bush’s war on Iraq.
Thanks to a Bush administration that is widely seen as imperialistic and hostile to
Islam, the risk of a nuclear bomb exploding in a western city has greatly increased.
In advance, let’s name it the “Bush Bomb.”
It is at least one thousand times more likely that a nuclear bomb will be delivered
via a container ship or truck into an American city than by a long-range missile. Yet,
Bush and the GOP continue to push the fantasy of a Star Wars nuclear shield for
ideological reasons, while hundreds of ships arrive each week in America without
inspection, and while Bush drags his feet on the program to safeguard nuclear mate-
rials.
In the so-called war on terrorism, which side are Bush and the GOP really on?
America’s allies and friends want America to stop developing “better” nuclear
weapons, as there is no such thing. Proliferator Bush rants against the evils of
WMDs, while he pushes dangerous programs to create new ones.
America must immediately abandon the expensive rightwing boondoggle and
fantasy know as Star Wars, which, in addition to not working, encourages America’s
potential enemies to respond by developing and deploying more nuclear weapons.
Many current and potential rogue nations want nuclear weapons and other
WMDs precisely because they have seen Bush in action and heard his threats.
SIDEBAR: What Was He Thinking?
“See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free
nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.”
—George W. Bush
When Bush uttered these words in Milwaukee on October 3, 2003, what was he
really thinking? Perhaps he was thinking his statements did not apply to America
because America was no longer a “free nation.” Or was he thinking that America is
the exceptional nation—just like himself, above the law, a rogue, and an outlaw. Or
is it possible he had consumed one too many Milwaukee brews that morning and
wasn’t thinking at all?
Bush is America’s problem in a nutshell. America needs to devote more re-
sources to building and sustaining nuclear families throughout the world, and less on
nuclear bombs. America needs a better balance between guns and butter. But anyone
who advocates even a modest shift away from GWB—“guns, warmongering and
bombs”—gets a bullet in the heart from America’s rightwing propaganda machine.
Recommendations regarding America’s nuclear policies are set forth in Beyond

Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan in Chapter 19 of this book.
Guns Versus Butter:

First in Guns …
There is an enormous guns-versus-butter imbalance in America’s foreign policy, one
consequence of which is a simple rightwing recipe for war that might be called
“Wrong Wicked Warmongering.” Here’s that simple recipe for war:
Start with 400 parts guns and 1 part butter12 … stir in GOP foreign policy incom-
petence … cook and sugarcoat … serve hot … and surprise! … you get WAR.
America’s total military spending is more than the combined total of the next 14
most militarized nations, at least 10 of which are either NATO allies or close friends
of America. America’s military spending is more than 45% of the world’s total. It is
more than six times the military spending of either Russia or China.
America is by far the world’s No. 1 arms dealer, providing almost half of the
weapons sold to militaries and militias in the developing world. There is probably
more public debate about America’s international sale of cigarettes—another deadly
market in which America is number one—than about America’s arms sales. The vast
majority of these arms sales is handled routinely by large corporations with virtually
12
Joseph Nye, author of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, noted that
America spends only about one billion dollars annually on public diplomacy, meaning that we
spend about 400 times as much delivering bombs through the Department of Defense budget
than we spend delivering ideas through diplomacy.
no fanfare or pubic debate, much like other commercial transactions. After all, busi-
ness is business. So-called capitalism is America’s God and is not to be questioned.
Principal beneficiaries of America’s 400-to-1 imbalance in guns-versus-butter in-
clude numerous corrupt governments and ruthless dictators. The principal losers are
the least, the last, and the lost of the world. All Americans should be ashamed, espe-
cially the leadership of the Southern Baptists in America. In many civil wars and
other bloody conflicts, both sides use American weaponry. This includes even Iraq,
where Iraqis trained by Americans are using American weapons to kill Americans, as
well as countless thousands of Iraqi civilians.
SIDEBAR: Bloody Irony: Telling Questions Never Asked
How many American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq have been inflicted by bul-
lets, explosives and other weaponry manufactured in the United States by American
workers or elsewhere under the direction of America’s defense industry? How many
such casualties have been inflicted by armaments manufactured by America’s allies?
GOP leaders do not even want to think about—or you to think about—the answers to
these embarrassing moral questions.
Although no American leader plans for Americans to be killed by American
weaponry, the law of unintended consequences does apply, and this law extracts an
especially enormous cost when American foreign policy is myopic, faith-based, uni-
lateral and militaristic. “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” Or perhaps
more accurately in these Bush League times, “Those nations that live by the sword
cause lots of innocent people to die by the sword, including their own finest.”
According to a U.S. Defense Department report for fiscal year 2003, America has
over 700 military bases outside the United States in 130 countries. This does not
include secret torture facilities run by foreign governments and contractors for the
Bush regime’s gulag. In comparison, America’s emerging principal rival, the com-
munist People’s Republic of China, has no bases outside its borders. Even the three
evil nations included in Bush’s nonsensical moniker, the Axis of Evil—North Korea,
Iran and Iraq—have zero military bases outside their own borders.
America’s huge military footprint in the Islamic world was not established with
the intent of jeopardizing America’s strategic interests, but that has sadly occurred
because of weak leadership in the Bush White House and GOP Congress. Now is the
time to greatly reduce America’s military presence in the Middle East. Iraq espe-
cially needs more butter and fewer guns.
A better balance between guns and butter would help America fight more effec-
tively the fewer wars it would need to fight.
… and Last in Butter

According to a 2005 report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 852 million people are chronically hungry, an increase of 10 million
from the previous year. These people cannot find adequate nutritious food for their
families and themselves and are undernourished. Their hand-to-mouth struggle to
find enough food is a daily one, and many starve to death. More than 16,000 children
die each day from hunger-related causes.
More than one billion of God’s 6.5 billion people earn less than $1 per day, the
international poverty line, and more than 3 billion people, about half of the Earth’s
population, earn less than $2 per day.
America must return to leading international efforts to focus on the least, the last,
and the lost throughout the world. The industrialized nations—except for the United
States—eagerly seek a united effort to reduce world poverty and starvation by half
within two decades, but the Bush administration became obstructionist and went
AWOL.
By invading Iraq, Bush greatly reduced America’s capability and desire to ad-
dress more urgent problems afflicting Christ’s people—“the least, the last, and the
lost”—around the world. These problems include starvation, rampant disease, wars,
genocide, the growing gap between first and third world nations, and the growing
gap between the haves and the have-nots in third world nations.
Bush’s efforts on behalf of the world’s poor are dwarfed by his efforts to help
America’s Super Rich. He delivers far more sound bites than commitments to the
world’s poor, and he later substantially shortchanges his meager commitments to
them. On the other hand, Bush “religiously” gives record pork, record tax cuts, and
record corporate welfare to America’s Milking Class, which he affectionately refers
to as his “base.” Jesus weeps.
Massive government subsidies for agriculture in America and Europe greatly
damage subsistence farmers in the third world, causing many to fall below the “sur-
vival line.” America’s agricultural subsidies are not designed for America’s working
farmers, but are designed as corporate welfare for huge agribusiness companies and
wealthy people who often do not even live on their land.
Even using hyped White House figures intended to buff Bush’s “compassion,”
the total worldwide cost of all his efforts to help Christ’s most needy is only a tiny
fraction of what he wastes on his war on Iraq. Christ’s forgotten people need bread,
but Bush delivers bombs.
Tragically, America is the leader—without followers—in the Bush League War
on Iraq, when America could have been the leader—with a world of followers—in
efforts to save the helpless and forgotten.
America must engage the world community in nation building, with justice and
freedom for all the citizens of each nation, not just the freedom of ruling elites and
international corporations to have their way.
America can and should use its soldiers to wage peace. When called on to par-
ticipate in humanitarian efforts, America’s soldiers perform heroically and magnifi-
cently. In this role, America’s “soldiers for peace” are America’s best ambassadors
and truly America’s finest. Few doubt their intentions and cost effectiveness, in
sharp contrast to the performance of public trough companies like Halliburton.
America’s troops bring credibility and accountability, not cronyism and corruption.
Deploying thousands more specially-trained National Guard and active-duty troops
after the December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, and in Pakistan and Kashmir
after the devastating October 2005 earthquakes, would have advanced world peace,
in addition to promoting America’s own self interests.
The United States must use consistent verifiable metrics to measure the amount
of non-military humanitarian assistance it provides to the rest of the world. It must
track its effectiveness, make process improvements, and publish the results—the
good along with the bad. The assistance should not be provided unless the host na-
tion allows the United States to implement accounting and anti-fraud systems at least
as rigorous as the United States uses at home.
One central pillar of the Bush administration’s “success” is misinformation. Ac-
cording to one poll, Americans think the United States spends 24% of its national
budget on assistance for poor countries! This is almost 100 times the meager one-
fourth of one percent that the United States actually spends, which is the lowest per-
centage among major industrialized nations.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of America’s assistance is typically reduced by
misguided political considerations, inadequate oversight and corruption. Too often
the assistance comes with strings attached that effectively funnel money back to fa-
vored rightwing corporations in the United States.
The same public-trough principle holds true in a war setting. If American assis-
tance to Iraq is viewed as a gold mining operation, then Halliburton gets the gold,
and the Iraqi people get the shaft.
In the next chapter, we turn our attention to the “almost forgotten war” in
Afghanistan, that center stage in the war on terrorism that Bush and his GOP “Mis-
sion Accomplices” catastrophically turned into another “Mission Not Accom-
plished.”
CHAPTER 3
Afghanistan
Losing the Just War
As a result of the American military the Taliban is no longer in existence.

—George W. Bush, September 2004 (before the U.S. elections)
Across Afghanistan last year, the number of roadside bomb attacks almost
doubled, direct fire attacks on international forces almost tripled, and sui-
cide bombings grew nearly fivefold.
—George W. Bush, February 15, 2007
The Afghanistan war launched in 2001 arguably met all six principles of a just war,
which, as discussed in the previous chapter, are: legitimate authority; just cause;
right intention; last resort; reasonable chance for success; and proportionality (with
the weakest link being the argument supporting the reasonable chance for success
principle.) The Taliban government had harbored and supported bin Laden and al
Qaeda, and following 9/11 it refused to cooperate in broad international efforts to
bring bin Laden and al Qaeda to justice. The United Nations approved the subse-
quent invasion, and it had worldwide support, in sharp contrast to Bush’s later volun-
tary invasion of Iraq.
Although the six principles of a just war were present in Afghanistan, Bush ut-
terly failed as a leader in its planning and execution. Regarding the “reasonable
chance for success” principle, Bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Regarding the five pillars of a strong coalition also discussed in Chapter 2, Bush
failed on the last four: clear goals; trustworthy leadership; a sensible plan; and ex-
cellent execution. But no one should have been surprised. After all, Bush—neither a
builder of nations nor a builder of coalitions—didn’t want a coalition in the first
place, and he did not insist on expert planning.
International political efforts to create a provisional Afghani government pro-
ceeded in parallel with the military campaign. In accordance with the Bonn Agree-
ment of December 5, 2001, a Loya Jirga—meaning “grand council” in the Pashto
language—attended by 1,500 delegates was held in June 2002, and a transitional
government headed by Hamid Karzai was established. A special commission created
under the Bonn Agreement had established procedures and rules governing this Loya
Jirga, including a process to select delegates and ensure the fair representation of
women and other groups in Afghan society. Loya Jirgas, which are quasi-
democratic, have been used for centuries in Afghanistan to choose new leaders and
decide other important matters. Tribal leaders and influential elders from the various
tribes and ethnic and religious groups traditionally attend the Loya Jirgas.
The American-led military operation—at least, initially—proved to be a show-
case for American military might. The strategy relied principally on sophisticated
modern high-tech weaponry and the use of special operations forces. America’s
smart bombs and other weaponry had advanced considerably from those used in Gulf
War I in 1991, a point highlighted by Bush’s father while discussing the much
greater military strength available to his son in 2001 than that available to him during
Gulf War I in 1991.
In short, the power of America’s military increased substantially during the eight
years of the Clinton administration, as it did during prior administrations.
Notwithstanding the initial military successes in Afghanistan, and notwithstand-
ing the fact that the conflict there arguably met all requirements of a just war, the
overall operation in Afghanistan under Bush deserves a grade of “F,” or at best an
“I” for incomplete. The conflict drags on with no end in sight, and Bush certainly has
no plans to end it during his presidency. Corruption and crime are rampant. Osama
bin Laden is still at large directing terrorist activities in various parts of the world,
and many of his followers were neither killed nor captured. Al Qaeda has expanded
its membership, and new leaders have stepped in to replace those killed. More omi-
nously, many new terrorist organizations have been formed throughout the world,
independent of al Qaeda but generally sympathetic to its goals. Local warlords effec-
tively control most of Afghanistan. The drug trade is booming. The Taliban has
made a strong comeback in various parts of the country. The Taliban and al Qaeda
have not said uncle. The criminals responsible for 9/11 have not met their maker.
Bush did not do his job.
SIDEBAR: Opium Production
Although Afghanistan has no oil to feed America’s addiction for petroleum products,
it does supply opium to help feed America’s addiction for heroin, which is derived
from opium. During its several years in power the Taliban outlawed opium poppy
growing in Afghanistan and enforced strict anti-drug policies with draconian meas-
ures that were quite effective.
Unfortunately, opium production in Afghanistan skyrocketed after the fall of the
Taliban, hitting an all-time high in 2003 (double the previous year), followed by ad-
ditional records the next few years. By 2007 Afghanistan supplied more than 90% of
the world’s opium and had virtually no other exports. The United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) estimates that Afghanistan’s opium production is
worth about $2.5 billion a year to Afghanistan—with a street value many times
that—greatly dwarfing the $40 million in official exports to neighboring Pakistan.
CHAPTER 3 — AFGHANISTAN 43
It is estimated that the drug business accounts for 60% of Afghanistan’s gross na-
tional product, employing more than 2 million people. Only a small percentage of the
drug’s value goes to Afghanistan’s poor farmers. The criminals controlling the dis-
tribution channels, including mid-level and senior officials in Karzai’s U.S.-
supported government, take the lion’s share. Even Karzai’s brother has been accused
of having a significant role.
The White House’s own Office of Drug Control Policy acknowledges that the
war on terrorism conflicts with the war on drugs in Afghanistan, with much of the
cash from opium sales being funneled to terrorist groups.
The U.S.-backed Afghani government officially banned opium cultivation but
lacks the power and desire to prevent it, especially in several provinces outside its
control.
Virtually no one would suggest that the hallucinatory Bush neocons wanted Af-
ghanistan’s opium production to skyrocket in order to reduce the price of their rec-
reational drugs. However, the sad story of record opium production in Afghanistan is
another example of unintended consequences, and it does illustrate the Bush admini-
stration’s incompetence in planning the war and prosecuting it to completion, as well
as its wobbly13 halfhearted efforts to win the peace. Bush and his team of amateurs
botched the historic opportunity to turn a just war in Afghanistan into a just peace.
The military shortcomings in Afghanistan were—and still are—strategic, not tac-

tical. The blame rests entirely at the highest levels of the United States government,
with Bush and the neocon civilian leaders who unilaterally chose to conduct the war
on the cheap, on the slow, on the dumb.
In a major defeat for the United States, bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora in the
mountains along Afghanistan’s eastern border with Pakistan in early December
2001. By the following April U.S. intelligence and military personnel in the Bush
administration had concluded and admitted that the failure to commit American
ground troops at Tora Bora—and relying instead on local Afghani militias—was the
gravest error in the war against bin Laden and al Qaeda.
At the tactical level, American and allied soldiers performed superbly in Af-
ghanistan, and they would have eagerly done much more if called upon to do so. If
ordered, they would have done everything possible to seal the border with Pakistan,
block escape routes, and kill as many of the enemy as possible, including bin Laden.
However, our neocon leaders wanted a high-tech media-friendly war without
American casualties, thus protecting bin Laden from a well-deserved lethal blow.
The Taliban and al Qaeda criminals who escaped into Pakistan emerged from the
experience recharged and invigorated. Fighting American occupiers and escaping
over the mountains into Pakistan gave them strength, confidence and prestige. In the
eyes of their followers, they emerged from the great hardship as heroes, much like
George Washington and his hardened troops during the early dark days of America’s
Revolutionary War. The Taliban and al Qaeda survivors became effective recruiters
13
Yes, “W” also stands for “wobbly.”
for their misguided cause. Likewise, Muslim prisoners returning from America’s
prison camps in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere are often treated as heroes.
Michael Scheuer, a central CIA figure in the hunt for Osama bin Laden—and the
author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror—asserts that
the Bush administration acted much too slowly following 9/11. Its response was a
“complete disaster,” he says. By waiting more than three weeks to attack al Qaeda
and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the United States missed an opportunity to kill bin
Laden and other key leaders, who were thus able to escape. The Bush administration
should have had a lethal quick response plan in place, given the prior attacks by al
Qaeda against the USS Cole and two American embassies in Africa.
The Bush administration had little use for the most skilled fighters in Afghani-
stan—the mujahideen—who are seen as war heroes by their people because they
drove the Soviet occupiers out of Afghanistan. The Bush neocons chose to alienate
them—neither killing nor courting them—and they will remain a major threat to the
central Afghani government for a long time.
Later, in Iraq, the Bush neocons made similar but even more catastrophic mis-
takes as they broke their prewar promises to Iraqis by firing both the Iraqi army and
Iraqi police forces, sending them home alienated, angry, without jobs and pay, but
with their weapons and access to hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions.
The Bush administration failed to win the war and peace in Afghanistan because
it failed to devote sufficient military forces to complete the job, and because it failed
to develop and implement comprehensive plans to win the peace. Its central obses-
sion was always Iraq, and the significant American military forces it later diverted to
Iraq helped create a power vacuum in Afghanistan.
Incredibly, even Arabic-speaking Special Forces fighting bin Laden and al Qaeda
in Afghanistan were pulled out and sent to Iraq, to be replaced in part by Spanish-
speaking Special Forces that in turn had been fighting the war on drugs in Latin
America.
Afghanistan is not very important to the neocons because it does not have oil.
Iraq was always their coveted prize. The neocons incorrectly concluded that Af-
ghanistan was of little strategic importance. But consider Afghanistan’s neighbors,
all of which are global hot spots or potential hot spots: nuclear-armed Pakistan on the
south and east; nuclear-armed wannabe and Axis of Evil member Iran on the west;
nuclear-armed China to the east; and the “stans” on the north (Turkmenistan, Uz-
bekistan and Tajikistan.)
Most important, Afghanistan was the number one battleground in the broader war
on terrorism. Regrettably, Bush badly fumbled the ball by not finishing the job in
Afghanistan, and by gratuitously invading Iraq, a country that had nothing—
absolutely zero—to do with 9/11. Only one war was on the calendar of just wars, but
Bush chose to play a doubleheader, and he lost both “games.” As a result, America’s
moral standing, power and influence took a nosedive. Bush painted himself and
America into a corner, with virtually no viable options available, and America’s po-
sition in the so-called war on terror was greatly compromised.
Coalition Deaths in Afghanistan by Year

200
Other Nations
150 U.S. 93
31
Deaths
100
9 6
20
50 99 98
48 48 52
0 12
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year
Like a marriage, a coalition without mutual trust usually results in a train wreck.
Both on the international stage and in America, Bush earned his status as the most
distrusted American president ever, and America and the world will pay the price for
decades.
Bush’s unilateral and insulting foreign policy divided NATO and prevented it
from doing what was necessary, which was to make a strong early commitment to
help build a secure and functional Afghanistan. The departure of Bush and Cheney
from Washington will improve relations with NATO, but the putrid odor left behind
by these two-legged skunks from Texas will last a long time.
On December 20, 2001, the United Nations Security Council authorized the In-
ternational Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan, and by late 2002 about
20 nations had contributed a measly total of 4,650 troops to the cause. The ISAF
would have been much larger but for the omniscient and omnipotent Bush regime,
which called the shots in Afghanistan and exhibited little desire or respect for allied
assistance. Why share the glory of victory? The emperor knew best.
Thanks to bush league policies, NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan were half-hearted
and much less than what the situation demanded, and NATO’s summit meetings
were more ceremonial than productive. When NATO finally assumed command of
the international peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan in August 2003, the ISAF’s
peacekeeping mandate was limited to Kabul. In late 2003 the Security Council ex-
panded the mandate to cover all of Afghanistan, including security for the upcoming
national elections. But by mid-2004 NATO-ISAF still had only 6,500 troops in Af-
ghanistan, only a small fraction of what was required, and most of these troops re-
mained in the Kabul area because of security concerns. Due to deteriorating security,
NATO-ISAF increased its troop levels from 8,000 in early 2005 to 20,000 by Sep-
tember 2006. The following month 12,000 American troops in Afghanistan were
transferred to NATO-ISAF, bringing its total forces to 32,000.
NATO and the United States simply do not have sufficient forces in place to ac-
complish the mission. The border with Pakistan remains porous; warlords run much
of the country and protect the drug trade Columbia-style; the Taliban has rebounded
strongly; and the corrupt Karzai government does not have the military and political
support it needs.
Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq coupled with the diversion of American forces
profoundly compromised NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Given the small size of
America’s presence in Afghanistan, NATO reluctantly committed only token addi-
tional resources.
Unfortunately, the United States has insufficient uncommitted military forces to
commit to Afghanistan, unless it diverts forces from Iraq, which it must do immedi-
ately. America’s armed forces are stretched too thin, and the desperate stopgap ac-
tions by the Bush administration will not make a big enough difference.
W’s premature evacuation in Afghanistan and diversion of forces to Iraq reduced
America’s already insufficient troop levels in Afghanistan to a low of 10,000. A sub-
sequent flip-flop by Bush increased the total to about 20,000 by the third anniversary
of the Taliban’s fall, and to 27,000 by February 2007 (15,000 of which were in
NATO-ISAF), but once again Bush and the rubber-stamping GOP Congress were
“too little, too late.”
Thanks to America’s corporate media, Afghanistan is off the radar, which is
where Bush wants it, as he runs out the clock on his disastrous presidency. Along the
way, Bush feebly claimed—lied—from time to time that the war in Afghanistan had
been won and the people of Afghanistan were free, although after 2006 he reduced
the frequency of such bogus claims.
The road ahead in Afghanistan is orders of magnitude more difficult, uncertain,
and costly than it should have been.
The central government has little authority outside Kabul, causing Afghanis to
refer derisively to President Karzai as the “Mayor of Kabul.” Vast stretches of Af-
ghanistan are under the control of competing warlords. Karzai views many of these
warlords, who cooperated with American forces in the war against the Taliban, as a
bigger threat than the Taliban. Many of these warlords rose to power in the 1980s
when the United States helped them drive Soviet forces out of Afghanistan. In 2001
the Bush administration greatly increased their power by relying on them to battle
the Taliban in Kabul, and he further increased their power and anger by attacking
Iraq. The forces of these warlords are now much greater than those of the central
government, which is inadequately supported by NATO and the United States.
One of the most dangerous, virulently anti-American, anti-west warlords is Ab-
dul Rasul Sayyaf, a Wahhabi Pashtun supported by Saudi Arabia who was elected a
representative at the Loya Jirga in 2003. His militants are responsible for many war
crimes over the years, including the massacre of civilians. Sayyaf, a Wahhabi fun-
damentalist, opposes the expansion of rights for women and wants the new govern-
ment to follow strict fundamentalist Islamic law. Karzai needs international help in
disarming him, a very difficult chore at best. Sayyaf was a member of the Afghani-
stan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and had a close relationship with bin Laden
during the jihad against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. According to the 9/11 Com-
mission Report, Sayyaf was a mentor to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed
the quadruple plane hijackings on 9/11.
In July 2004 Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) announced
that it was leaving Afghanistan, after 24 years of service, because the Karzai gov-
ernment failed to act regarding evidence that local warlords were responsible for the
killing of five members of its staff the previous month. The organization, which had
1,400 Afghani staff and 80 international volunteers in Afghanistan, also denounced
the U.S. military’s new requirement that aid recipients provide information on insur-
gents, because the policy put all aid workers at greater risk. The Nobel Peace Prize-
winning organization relies on neutrality to protect its medical staff in war zones.
As for winning the peace and helping build Afghanistan into a viable nation, the
Bush regime in 2002 quickly went AWOL. At subsequent Afghanistan reconstruc-
tion conferences the United States did increase its pledges, but the total of about $10
billion through 2006, which includes security assistance, is still much less than
needed. It is a pittance compared to the potential long-term costs if Afghanistan does
not emerge as a viable nation, and is less than 1% of the cost of Bush’s and the
GOP’s mad adventure in Iraq.
A large majority of the people of Afghanistan rejoiced at the overthrow of the
Taliban. They desperately needed and wanted assistance, and expectations of Amer-
ica were running high. It was a golden opportunity for America to help transform
Afghanistan, but the Bush neocons failed to recognize that the window of opportu-
nity was short. Bush blissfully sat on his hands—basking in the glow of the corporate
media spin machine—and turned victory into defeat.
The United Nations was ready, willing and able to assist in nation building in Af-
ghanistan, but Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld foolishly told the United Nations to
confine itself to Kabul. Having virtually no interest in nation building, the Bush neo-
cons refused to step aside and let the United Nations do its work.
Following 9/11, Bush also fumbled a long-awaited historic opportunity for the
United States to improve relations with Iran and thus possibly even restore diplo-
matic relations with the strategically most important nation in the greater Middle
East. Notwithstanding three decades of broken diplomatic relations due to the Iranian
takeover of the American embassy in Tehran, Iran was a good candidate to be a
friend and strategic ally of the United States. The Iranian people had great affection
for Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iranians have immigrated to America.
With the exception of Israel, Iran could be America’s number one partner and
ally in the greater Middle East.
Following the 9/11 attacks, Iran offered to fight side by side with American
forces in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. Iran despised the Taliban for many rea-
sons, including the Taliban’s slaughter of 10 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif in
1999, and almost went to war against the Taliban in the 1990s. Negotiations regard-
ing military cooperation in Afghanistan and a possible rapprochement between Iran
and the United States were making progress until Bush included Iran in his bizarre
Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address in January 2002. “Tough cowboy”
Bush preferred militant confrontation with Iran over rapprochement and a possible
historic alliance. The rest is history. Bush’s saber rattling empowered Islamic hard-
liners, weakened the growing pro-modernity democratic movement in Iran, and
caused Iran to look to China as a better strategic partner than the United States. Iran
later emerged as the biggest winner in Bush’s disastrous war on Iraq, and the vast
majority of Iranians reasonably concluded that with Bush on the loose Iran needed
nuclear weapons to ensure respect and security.
Thanks to Bush’s illegal and poorly managed war on Iraq, Iran’s influence in the
region is ascendant, and America’s is declining. In half-hearted, helter-skelter re-
sponse, the Bush regime tried to counter the growing power of Shiite Persian Iran by
cobbling together an alliance of regional Sunni Arab nations, including Egypt, Jor-
dan and Saudi Arabia. However, these nations preferred to work independently of
the Bush regime and its taint. The Bush administration characterized the nations in
this new “Sunni Axis” as moderate, but all three are dictatorships, with Egypt and
Saudi Arabia ranking near the bottom of all nations in respecting human rights.
Thanks to Bush’s bungling of “democracy” in Iraq, democratic reform in these na-
tions is now off the table.
Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the people of Afghanistan had great ex-
pectations that America would rise to the occasion and help transform Afghanistan
and improve the lives of its long-suffering citizens. But Bush was AWOL.
SIDEBAR: Too Little, Too Late
A 2003 study by the Rand Corporation compared America’s nation building efforts
in several countries. Here are some of the findings:
External Assistance for First

Peacekeepers per
Country Two Years
1,000 People
(per capita)
Bosnia 18.6 $1,390
Kosovo 20.0 $814
Afghanistan 0.18 $52
The above data highlight Bush’s foolish decision to do Afghanistan on the cheap.
Incredibly, on a per capita basis, Bush’s peacekeeping commitment was less than 1%
of that in Bosnia.14 Neither Bush’s father nor Bill Clinton would have made this
tragic mistake in Afghanistan.
Bush’s bomb-em-and-leave-em strategy was especially foolish because: (1) The
reality of 9/11 required that America not fail in Afghanistan; (2) Afghanistan pre-
sents an enormously more difficult challenge than either Bosnia or Kosovo, and thus
requires more resources, not less; and (3) Afghanistan is strategically more critical,
given its key crossroads location and its center-stage role in the war on terrorism.
14
If America’s combat troops in Afghanistan are added to the peacekeeper total for Afghani-
stan, the result is still well under one peacekeeper per 1,000 Afghans.
Compounding the problem, Bush’s Iraq war drained U.S. military resources from
Afghanistan at a time when they were still desperately needed there to fight the Tali-
ban. There are more sworn police officers in the New York City Police Department
(NYPD)—about 35,000—than there are U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and only a small
percentage of the residents of New York City shoot at law enforcement.
For the sake of Afghanistan, and in America’s own self interest, America must
take a lead role in helping to build Afghanistan into a viable nation. But neither Bush
nor the Republican Party has the backbone and steadfastness to do it right and see it
though. Unfortunately, thanks to Bush’s mishandling of both Afghanistan and Iraq,
there is no groundswell in America for helping Afghanistan in other than bush league
fashion. Afghanistan—center stage in the war on terrorism—is the forgotten war. It
is another “Mission Not Accomplished.”
Michael Scheuer is right—America is losing the war on terror, and we don’t even
know it. Bin Laden is now seen as a heroic defender of his faith both against Western
powers that have intruded into the Muslim world and also against the many corrupt
Muslim dictatorships that rule that world.
Thanks to the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush neocons in Afghanistan,
in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, bin Laden is now much more loved and re-
spected in the Muslim world than George Bush. The Muslim world was appalled and
shamed by 9/11. But, thanks to Bush, the ruthless murderer of more than 3,000 inno-
cent people on 9/11 now has a better reputation than the so-called “leader” of the
world’s leading democracy.
In the next chapter we turn our attention to Iraq, which, unlike Afghanistan, had
nothing to do with 9/11 or the war on terror.
CHAPTER 4
The Unjust War in Iraq

Christianity is Bombing in Iraq
There is something almost comical about the prospect of George W. Bush

waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international
law. Since Bush came to office, the U.S. government has torn up more inter-
national treaties and disregarded more United Nations’ conventions than the
rest of the world has in 20 years. It has scuppered the biological weapons
convention while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons of its
own. It has refused to grant chemical-weapons inspectors full access to its
laboratories. It has ripped up the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and appears
to be ready to violate the nuclear test-ban treaty.
—The Guardian, London, August 2002
As discussed in the preceding chapter, Bush deserves a grade of “F,” or at best an “I”
for “incomplete,” regarding the war in Afghanistan. However, in every aspect of his
war on Iraq, Bush deserves a grade much worse than an “F.” He deserves a grade of
“W,” which is a new grade created out of necessity to reflect previously unimagin-
able levels of presidential failure, incompetence and wickedness.
The Lancet survey estimated, through July 2006, that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a
consequence of the Iraq war.15 The estimate range was 943,000 at the high end and
393,000 at the low end. The peer-reviewed survey, which was conducted by the
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and published in The Lancet medical journal
in October 2006, concluded that 601,000 of the 655,000 deaths (91%) “were due to
violence, the most common cause being gunfire.” The study compared Iraqi mortal-
ity rates before and after the March 2003 invasion in 47 randomly chosen areas
across Iraq, and it is the most thorough scientific survey to date. Surveyed family
members produced death certificates in more than 90% of the cases.
• The 655,000 Iraqi deaths is an average of 16,375 deaths per month during
the 40-month post-invasion study period (March 2003 to July 2006).
15
The 655,000 estimate is much higher than most other estimates, but it results from the most
rigorous study to date. The Bush administration, which has said it doesn’t do “body counts,”
would argue the total is only about one-tenth of the 655,000 figure. Other studies conclude
more than 1 million died because of the Iraq war. We use the lower 655,000 number above.
• This means that Iraq suffered about 218 9/11 equivalents during the first 40
months of war—an average of more than five 9/11 equivalents each month.
• On a per capita basis, Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 65 9/11s
per month—or one 9/11 every 11 hours, around the clock, 24 hours a day.
• Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 496 Virginia Tech massacres
per month—or one Virginia Tech massacre every 90 minutes.
• On a per capita basis, Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 5,952
Virginia Tech massacres per month—or one Virginia Tech massacre every
7 minutes and 30 seconds, around the clock, 24 hours a day.
The 100 Imperial Orders

When Paul Bremer departed Iraq in haste on June 28, 2004, he left behind his infa-
mous “100 Orders,” a host of imperial decrees and policies intended to remake Iraq
into a rightwing economic paradise open for plundering by corporations and indi-
viduals well connected to the Bush regime and the GOP.
The 100 Orders fulfilled the wildest wet dreams and most extreme economic
“wish list” of the neocons—reflected in their Project for the New American Cen-
tury—and the rightwing of the GOP, including a U.S. Constitution-shredding Amer-
ica president—the GOP’s “unitary executive” wannabe—who wanted to free himself
and his criminal regime from the constitutional checks and balances of America’s
legislative and judicial branches of government. The orders included many laws that
these dangerous gluttons could never have achieved lawfully in any western democ-
racy, not even the United States. Although many Iraqis were initially hopeful and
trusting regarding the occupation, they soon realized they had been royally screwed
by an imperial power that pursued its own fantasies and cared not for them.
The 100 Orders were unilaterally imposed on Iraq and its citizens by the United
States, acting through the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
The will of the Iraqi people was irrelevant to the rightwing planners of what would
become the Iraq Fiasco.
Well, almost irrelevant. Iraqis did retain the power to vote with bullets and
bombs, which they increasingly did. Perhaps you would too if you were in their
shoes. GOP crimes and incompetence do have consequences, including the Iraq civil
war, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Whether Bush and his key supporters are sincere when they talk about “freedom”
for Iraq (and perhaps some are sincere), they intentionally use language that is mis-
leading. When they talk about “freedom,” what they really mean is “corporate free-
dom,” or, more precisely, “freedom for huge, well-connected, at-the-public-trough
corporations.”
Capitalism is not freedom. Democracy is freedom.
Although dunces at planning, the rightwingers in the Bush regime did in fact
have a plan of sorts for Iraq, not a viable plan based on reality and what was best for
the people of Iraq, but rather a simple, grandiose, magically self-executing, “free
enterprise” plan that was based on what was best for the “Big Milkers”—an array of
huge well-connected corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel—and the “Little
Milkers”—a host of smaller well-connected businesses and individuals parasitically
CHAPTER 4 THE UNJUST WAR IN IRAQ 53
attached to the teats of the Big Milkers. Their plan is better known as the “Plunder-
ers’ Plan.”
“Free enterprise” is a wonderful, almost sacred, term, consisting as is does of two
wonderful words, “free” and “enterprise,” which each has almost universal appeal.
When one thinks of “free enterprise,” one thinks of thriving nimble enterprises com-
peting fairly in an environment that exists outside of government regulation and
funding. But such free enterprise is the exact opposite of the landscape in which the
imperial rightwing GOPers and Bushies thrive. It is the exact opposite of the public-
trough world so familiar to the designers and implementers of the “free enterprise”
Plunderers’ Plan for Iraq, who live off government funds of the United States and, to
a lesser extent, the public funds of Iraq, especially oil revenues.
The imperial GOPers and Bushies are public trough experts who know how to
game the system and milk taxpayers. Their real vocabulary and tools of trade in-
clude: K Street and Wall Street (not Main Street); no-compete government contracts;
bribes and influence peddling (whether illegal or perfectly legal); crony favoritism;
government/contractor revolving door; cost-plus guaranteed-profit government con-
tracts; of-by-and-for-the-rich legislation and regulation; elections by auction; plus
America’s friendly corporate media.
The GOPers and Bushies are virtually clueless as to how to create valuable com-
panies in any private competitive environment that exists outside of government lar-
gess and influence. They are like self-righteous individuals who rail against the evils
of prostitution, but live and prosper in whorehouses.
Under Bremer and the 100 Orders, Iraq ironically remained a state-controlled
economy, except that it is now run by the state primarily for the benefit of huge,
crony-connected, multinational corporations, and not for the benefit of the majority
of Iraqis—and Iraqis know this. The occupation and the 100 Orders gave the Big
Milkers and the Little Milkers the freedom to pillage Iraqi resources (oil revenues,
existing Iraqi industrial infrastructure, arms industry, and the like) as well as count-
less billions of dollars in American taxpayers’ money that most Americans incor-
rectly assumed would be used to benefit Iraq and Iraqis.
Many of the orders were absolutely mind boggling and staggeringly stupid. In to-
tal, they ultimately helped ensure the catastrophic destruction of Iraq and the deaths
of thousands of American soldiers and countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Bremer’s first imperial order was to purge several hundred thousand Iraqi work-
ers from the Iraqi government. He established a de-Baathification commission
headed by Ahmed Chalabi, a Shiite and lackey for the Bush regime who carried out
the purge with passion. The Bush regime, acting through Bremer, also disbanded the
Iraqi army. These incredibly naïve actions put the insurgency on steroids, and efforts
over the next several years to undo some of the cuts were ineffective in stopping the
Iraq Civil War. Did Bush and Bremer really believe that a supernatural power—say
the “free enterprise” system—would magically intervene and offer jobs to these
newly unemployed?
Order No. 39 was intended to immediately transition Iraq from a planned econ-
omy to a “free enterprise” economy, all in the stroke of a magical pen. Among its
provisions are the following:
a) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses (a provision that is rarely ac-

complished in balanced negotiations);
b) the privatization (i.e., “pirate-ization”) of Iraq’s state-owned businesses
(about 200);
c) the “national treatment” of foreign firms; and
d) the tax-free, unrestricted, remittance of all profits and other funds out of
Iraq.
Each of the provisions was a Christmas present for huge foreign corporations.
The “national treatment” provision of Order 37 meant that Iraqi workers and
Iraqi companies could not be given preference in the reconstruction of their own
country. This simply takes one’s breath away. The reality, however, was even worse,
as the rightwing American incompetents running the CPA did give enormous prefer-
ence to American Big Milkers like Halliburton. One might suppose that rightwing
Christianist bureaucrats could hardly be expected to award contracts to Iraqi Mus-
lims whom they didn’t understand or trust, or want to understand or trust.
Iraqis received only about 2% of the reconstruction contracts awarded by the
CPA in 2003.
Under Order No. 37, foreign firms could buy Iraqi businesses, refuse to hire
Iraqis, and transfer from Iraq their invested money and profits any time they wished,
all tax-free. There was no requirement that any portion of the funds generated in Iraq
stay in Iraq to help rebuild the nation.
Dozens and dozens of enterprises owned by Iraq’s government were immediately
shut down, with most remaining that way.
Order No. 12 suspended all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees
and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, thereby greatly reducing
the new Iraqi government’s potential revenue stream.
Order No. 49 drastically cut to 15% the corporate tax rate, which previously had
been as high as 40%. The personal income tax was reduced to a high of 15%.
Iraq had denominated its oil transactions in euros, and Bremer changed that back
to dollars.
The 100 Orders covered more than economic matters. For example, a new right-
wing constitution was imposed, and secular family law was replaced with religious
law. The proper use of auto horns was even covered.
The occupation was supposed to end on June 28, 2004, with the handover of
power from the U.S.-run CPA to the new Iraqi government, but the occupation con-
tinued, both militarily and economically. The 100 Orders also continued in effect,
which surprised many observers, as they were handed over to Prime Minister Ayad
Allawi, an exiled Iraqi closely tied to the CIA and the first in a succession of weak
Iraqi figureheads. As for the advertised “handover” to Iraq, what transpired in reality
was a handover and big handout to the foreign Big Milkers and Little Milkers.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 operated to give the United States ongoing control in
every ministry of the Iraqi government through the placement by the United States of
inspector generals (with five-year terms) and a host of other appointees with broad
powers, all to ensure that the 100 Orders would be carried out.
The intended thrust of these orders (Nos. 57 and 77) was not all bad. God knows
there was a need for comprehensive accounting and auditing to ensure that contracts
were properly awarded and implemented, and that funds were properly disbursed.
The orders rightly required this, as did commitments made by the United States to
the United Nations.
However, Bremer and the Bush administration failed to hire qualified internal
auditors and put adequate financial controls in place, thus violating America’s com-
mitment to the United Nations and the Iraqi people. As discussed later in this book,
billions of dollars of actual cash were not accounted for.
Order No. 17 (which we will discuss in Chapter 7, “Private Military Contrac-
tors”) gave full immunity from Iraqi law to foreign contractors, including out-of-
control mercenaries like Blackwater. Iraqis have no recourse in their own country for
damages suffered, or even death, due to foreign contractors. Welcome to Bush
World. Welcome to GOP World. Welcome to the Iraq Civil War and the Iraq War of
Liberation.
No book can do justice to the horrible suffering in Iraq. The bloody descent into
Hell on Earth triggered by Bush’s GOP administration continues, and—pray as one
might—it just continues to get worse.
Similarly, there appears to be no bottom to the immoral cesspool known as the
GOP. Just when we think GOP corruption and moral hypocrisy in Congress cannot
get worse, it does. The hits just keep on coming, even though the GOP leadership, in
Mafia fashion, did everything possible to protect its Culture of Corruption in
Congress and to protect its party members from investigation and justice.
The One-Percent Solution for Iraq

As for the chaos in Iraq, they are no good viable options for America. Bush and his
GOP War Party have endangered and bloodied America by pushing it into a position
where all viable options are terrible. America finds itself in the GOP Restaurant of
Puke, where all menu items are expensive and toxic.
Bush’s and the GOP’s war on Iraq is a lost and immoral cause. Bush never had a
plan for Iraq, and even after five years of chaos in Iraq, he refused to develop a vi-
able plan. The GOP-controlled Congress abdicated its constitutional oversight role,
never pushed for a viable plan, and shamefully provided cover for Bush and all his
deeds and misdeeds.
When Bush trumpeted his new surge campaign for Baghdad in early 2007, it was
simply more of the same old militarism, and far too little, far too late, in addition to
being beyond the capability of a proud U.S. military that he misused, abused, and, in
the words of some military experts, put in a “death spiral.” In March 2007 retired
Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey—after visits to Iraq and meetings with General David
Petraeus, more than a dozen U.S. commanders in Iraq, and several Iraqi command-
ers—reported that the U.S. military was in “strategic peril.”
Bush’s only viable plan was his personal cut and run plan, which called for him
to dump the bloody chaos into the lap of his successor, as he slithered out of the
White House to pursue lucrative opportunities in his crony GOP network.
We propose here in passing, at the beginning of this chapter on Iraq, a plan that
could possibly work if implemented, but which has zero chance of acceptance and
implementation. We call it the One-Percent Solution for Iraq.
The One-Percent in the plan’s name refers to the military enlistment rate Amer-
ica needs in order to field an occupation force for Iraq that is large enough to have a
reasonable shot at simply maintaining the peace. Specifically, it refers to the percent-
age of Americans who voted for Bush in 2004 who need to enlist in order to provide
an American occupation force large enough to do the job.
“Supporting our troops” should mean more to Republicans than displaying a
bumper sticker, bashing gays and lesbians, and voting for humongous tax breaks and
government largess for huge corporations and America’s Super Rich.
“Supporting our troops” should mean more than applauding Bush’s incredibly
stupid, troop-endangering “bring them on” challenge to Iraqi militants.16
Here’s a request to all such weak-kneed Bush supporters: Why not enlist now?
America needs you to fight terrorists in Iraq. Fight “them” there (whoever “them” is)
so you won’t have to fight “them” in Kansas.
More than 62 million Americans voted for Bush in 2004. If just one percent of
these patriotic Americans enlisted, America could field enough troops in Iraq to
properly fight Bush’s and the GOP’s war. Before the Iraq invasion, America’s best
military minds argued for a force of several hundred thousand troops on the ground
in Iraq. This requirement was consistent with professional military methodology
applied by America’s military war colleges. In an odd coincidence, neither Bush nor
Cheney—nor any of their top dozen neocon advisors who advocated war—had ever
served in the military.17
In any case, you get the idea. Among the supporters of Bush and his GOP War on
Iraq, it would be nice to find more backbone and fewer bumper stickers, more cour-
age and less hiding behind the flag. We call upon 620,000 Americans—just one per-
cent of the 62,040,610 Americans who voted for Bush in 2004—to sign up now. We
call upon bedwetting Cons to put themselves where their votes are.
We call upon bedwetting Cons to support their commander in chief and all of his
“never-served,” bedwetting chickenhawk neocons who got America into the Iraq
mess.
Just for fun, here are a couple of riddles answered by America’s Chickenhawk in
Chief:
• “Why did the chicken cross the road?” To get to the Texas Air National
Guard.
• “What’s the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?” Bush had an exit strat-
egy for Vietnam.
By the way, regarding Vietnam, the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budget-
ary Assessments in 2007 calculated that the cost of the Iraq war in inflation-adjusted
dollars was expected to surpass the cost of the Vietnam War by the end of 2008.
16
Uttered July 3, 2003.
17
Admittedly, the Bush-triggered Iraq Civil War does complicate matters and increase the
current requirements, versus the force levels that would have been required if Bush had prop-
erly planned in the first place for the aftermath of the invasion. The need for force rotations
would also further increase the total requirements.
As we said, the One-Percent Solution for Iraq won’t happen. In Appendix B we

do set forth a plan for Iraq, which is the best of rotten alternatives. It calls for the
immediate withdrawal of America’s forces from Iraq.
OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation)—a Slippery Slope

Afghanistan was an inconvenient side trip along the neocon superhighway to Ameri-
can imperialism and its New American Century. The central focus of the neocons’
lust was Iraq—the blushing bride who would soon be theirs, theirs alone. They
would bring Iraq into the 21st century and show the world how a Middle East country
should be run. After all, “Iraq has oil,” which the neocons admiringly pointed out,
and they predicted that Iraqi oil revenues would be more than enough to cover all the
costs of reconstruction and nation building.
America’s invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, was initially called Operation
Iraqi Liberation by some Bush administration officials and supporters. But oops!
Perhaps realizing that the acronym “OIL” was too close to the truth, the name for the
invasion was changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The rest is history—America got
“OIF,” not “OIL.”
Oil—peak oil—is the real casus belli for the GOP’s War on Iraq.
Number of Foreign Military Bases – By Nation
Nation Foreign Military Bases
United States of America 735
America’s Rivals and “Enemies”

(including communist nations):
People’s Republic of China (communist) 018
Russia 0
Axis of Evil Nations
Iraq 0
Iran 0
North Korea (communist) 0
Cuba (communist) 0
Vietnam (communist) 0
France (just kidding)
18
The People’s Republic of China occupies Tibet. For all practical purposes, the world has
given up hope that Tibet will ever be a free independent nation. It is now permanently part of
China.
According to The New York Times, long before the start of war the Bush admini-
stration had selected four sites in Iraq for several permanent American military
bases. The invasion of Iraq was carved in stone, and 200,000 American troops were
assembled in the region long before Bush made the so-called “final” decision to in-
vade, and long before Bush gave Saddam a final 48-hour warning.
The Bush neocons wanted the United Nations and NATO to have no role in Iraq,
since this would diminish American glory and control. They believe the United
States, unlike all other nations, must never be subjected to the slightest hint of for-
eign control or influence. This is one of the great ironies of neocon policy, in view of
the pervasive influence—both legitimate and illegitimate—that the United States
exerts around the world, and considering the more than 700 foreign military bases it
maintains in more than 125 nations around the globe, and considering the numerous
times it has unilaterally invaded other nations.
But for the fact that the United States is a democracy that conducts elections, the
Bush neocons would have had no need for the Bush League of Nations, also known
by its misleading name, the Coalition of the Willing. The coalition was marketing
fluff intended to mislead the American people.
The Bush neocons faced a major roadblock on their path to Baghdad—the truth.
They could not get American and international support for their war on Iraq without
a campaign of deception and lies. If they had told the truth, namely that:
• Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, or bin Laden, or al Qaeda, or the Tali-
ban, or the war on terrorism;
• Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, or bin Laden, or al Qaeda, or the Taliban,
or the war on terrorism;
• bin Laden viewed Saddam as his mortal enemy because Saddam ran a secu-
lar government and rejected radical Islamic goals and policies;
• there was no compelling evidence of WMDs, and that Bush neocons
“fixed,” i.e., made up, intelligence regarding nonexistent WMDs;
• Saddam was already boxed in by UN sanctions and America’s military
presence in no-fly zones in both northern and southern Iraq;
• Saddam’s military strength was a fraction of what it had been before the
first Gulf War I in 1991;
• Saddam and Iraq were not a threat to the United States or any other nation;
• years before 9/11 the neocons planned to invade Iraq;
• Bush and the neocons wanted to invade and occupy Iraq unilaterally with
no coalition other than the sham Bush League of Nations;
• the faith-based Bush regime failed to adequately plan for the invasion and
its aftermath; and
• the invasion was not a just war;
then there would have been almost no support for the war on Iraq. In short, they
needed lies to create their casus belli for this illegal war.
So they lied, expecting to get away with their war crimes, counting on the fog of
war and their glorious victory to cause all sins to be forgiven. They counted on might
to make right. The ends would justify the means. After all, even if all the stated justi-
fications for war were lies, Saddam was an evil leader who had murdered tens of
thousands of his own people, including members of his own family. Above all, the
liberated Iraqi people would all cheer Bush and cover him with flowers in countless
victory parades throughout Iraq. Monuments to Bush would be built in Baghdad.
This happy ending—the only scenario permitted by White House groupthink—
would trump any truth inquiry.
The neocons believed a victory in Iraq would trump everything and make it a just
war. They thus rejected centuries of Christian theology. They counted on enough
Americans to be gullible, or too busy trying to make ends meet to pay attention.
But the Iraq war was not a just war, no matter what the outcome, any more than
an invasion of Canada following 9/11 would have been, or an invasion of Sweden or
Iraq would have been following the Oklahoma City bombing19 by Timothy McVeigh
and Terry Nichols (who murdered 168 innocents, including 19 children, on April 19,
1995.) The Bush administration intentionally made war on the wrong nation. But few
dare call this treason.
Diplomacy is as foreign as French to the Bush regime, which looks to diplomacy
only after all violent means have been exhausted.
Ironically, the world’s only superpower should be capable of imposing its mili-
tary will anytime on any country—and especially on a third-rate, crippled, neutered
military power like Iraq—no matter how flawed and unjust the mission. The Mess in
Messopotamia painfully proves and exemplifies Bush’s incompetence as president
and commander in chief, as well as the incompetence of the do-nothing-good GOP
Congress that rubber stamped his actions.
The UN Security Council correctly refused Bush’s request to go to war against
Iraq. Its inspectors had searched throughout Iraq without finding any weapons of
mass destruction, and effective inspections were continuing. Its senior inspectors,
including Hans Blix, determined before the 2003 invasion that Saddam was not a
significant threat, and so informed the world. Additional arms inspectors handpicked
by the Bush administration confirmed this.
A 400-member U.S. weapons inspection team sent to Iraq after the invasion
withdrew quietly without any publicity in early 2004 after finding absolutely no evi-
dence of weapons of mass destruction or even an active “weapons program.”
A Carnegie Endowment study concluded, “administration officials systematically
misrepresented the threat.” As Jim Hightower puts it, “This is no matter of innocent
little lies. Their lies are stained with blood.”
There has been much discussion, but far less meaningful investigation, regarding
shortcomings in U.S. intelligence activities before the Iraq invasion, and the manipu-
lation thereof. Since much has been written about this, we won’t revisit the issues in
detail here. However, one central truth that has emerged is that the intelligence did
not matter, because Bush and the neocons were going to invade Iraq regardless. In
this sense, the issue of Iraqi intelligence is a red herring. Another certainty is that the
administration lied, cherry picked, distorted, and carefully crafted messages that
were intended to mislead and misinform.20
19
The Oklahoma City bombing, which is the second worst terrorist attack perpetrated on
American soil (the worst at the time), was fueled by poisonous Christian fundamentalism.
20
Bush’s lying and flip-flopping as to the reasons for invading Iraq bring to mind this humor-
ous exchange from Casablanca (the best movie ever), with Bush playing Rick Blaine in this
scene, and Baghdad replacing Casablanca, of course:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are the Book of Revelation’s Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse—the Looter, the Shooter, the Booter and the Hooter—and are
especially adept at this black art of lying. They frequently sprinkle disconnected hot-
button words—such as “war on terrorism,” “Saddam,” “9/11,” “Iraq,” and
“WMDs”—into one sentence to give the listener the impression they are all linked.
In Massachusetts and North Dakota, this is called lying. In red areas of Texas and at
GOP headquarters, it is called talking.
On September 6, 2006, Bush famously noted, “You know, one of the hardest
parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”
If you are not outraged, you have not been paying attention.
The midterm congressional elections in November 2006 sent a shock wave of
fresh air through America’s corrupt GOP-controlled government, triggering the res-
ignation or firing of Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense on November 8, just one day
after the elections, even though Bush just seven days earlier had given Rumsfeld job
protection through the end of Bush’s presidency. Referring at that time to Cheney
and Rumsfeld, Bush oddly noted: “Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I
strongly support them.” “Fantastic?” One does wonder what words Bush would use
to describe excellent job performance.
True to form, the Bush neocons and their supporters play the blame game, driven
by two sacrosanct rules:
1) Bush and his GOP administration never make mistakes.
2) When something terrible happens, someone else is responsible.
The sign on Bush’s desk says, “The Buck Does Not Stop Here.” Of course, when
it comes to real bucks—millions of dollars in crony capitalism and influence ped-
dling—Bush family bank accounts throughout the world are always open for depos-
its.
Even accepting as 100% true all of the lies, distortions and hype (as well as the
few legitimate claims) of the Bush administration, it is truly amazing how miniscule
the pile of so-called evidence is regarding alleged connections between Saddam’s
regime and Iraq, on one hand, and bin Laden, the Taliban and Afghanistan, on the
other. Consider that Iraq and Afghanistan had numerous legitimate reasons to be in
frequent contact with each other. Yet when you examine the “evidence” offered by
the Bush regime, there is nothing there, other than a Bush League pile of bovine ex-
crement.
The rightwing “analysis” of the Iraq “evidence” was nonsensical. Facts and tough
questions were avoided. The GOP-controlled Congress and America’s cheerleading
press went along with the charade.
One meaningful analysis would have been to compare Iraq’s alleged connections
and culpability with that of other possible targets of the administration’s wrath. In
this regard, numerous other countries, including Saudi Arabia, had more contacts
with bin Laden and the Taliban than did Iraq. As a matter of fact, so did Texas.
Captain Louis Renault: What in heaven’s name brought you to Baghdad?

Rick Blaine [Bush]: My health. I came to Baghdad for the waters.
Captain Louis Renault: The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert.
Rick Blaine [Bush]: I was misinformed.
One reasonable approach would have been to assess a potential target’s “suspi-
cious connections” to bin Laden/Taliban/Afghanistan and then place the resulting
score on a “Culpability Scale” of zero to 10, with “0” being “no connection, no cul-
pability,” and “10” being a “slam-dunk bomb-em.”21 Accordingly, Saddam and Iraq
would have rated either a “0” or a “1.” But let’s be generous and give Saddam and
Iraq a “1,” since “0” should be reserved for Antarctica. Saudi Arabia would have
fallen somewhere between “4” and “7,” although it is difficult to make an accurate
assessment since Saudi Arabia has not cooperated with any 9/11 investigation, and
the Bush administration has fully supported Saudi Arabia’s stonewalling and cover
up.
Even the state of Texas—or more accurately, that rotten rightwing red part of
Texas known as “Bush Family&Cronies/Halliburton/Enron/Public-Trough-
Companies/Two-Legged Skunks/Tom DeLay/Crooked Cons Club”—would get a
higher score than Iraq, say a “3” or “4” on the Culpability Scale.22 The Taliban itself
sent official representatives to Texas to meet UNOCAL and Texas oil barons in the
late 1990s to discuss how they could work together on oil deals, including building a
pipeline across Afghanistan to carry oil from the Caspian Sea region. The nice Tali-
ban folk received five-star, red carpet treatment from their salivating Texan cronies-
in-waiting.
Can you imagine the neocon war cries if the Taliban—rather than sending its
delegation to Texas—had sent it to Baghdad (which it never did)? Can you imagine
the blood lust if Saddam had had even one-tenth the sleazy “perfectly legal” and “not
so perfectly legal” business deals with bin Laden’s family that the extended Bush
Family has had?
But Bush bombed Baghdad, not Midland, Texas. Go figure.
No matter how trivial, preposterous or deceitful the Bush regime’s justification
du jour for war on Iraq, America’s corporate media always gave it gravity and re-
spect. If Bush had said, “Saddam has two trucks that drive around suspiciously,” Big
Media would gladly have accepted this statement as another God-given reason for
war. Unlike the media, the patriots of Massachusetts and the many progressives of
Texas know that some things are just plain cow poop and should be treated accord-
ingly.
In this “six degrees of separation” world, everyone is connected to everyone,
every nation is connected to every nation, and everything is connected to everything.
This reality makes the intelligence function very difficult, and its manipulation by
wicked wrongdoers23 very easy.
The Bush administration’s intentional abuse of intelligence regarding Iraq—
lying, distorting and hyping in order to sell predestined illegal military action against
Iraq—is much more culpable and destructive to America’s democracy in the long
run than anything Saddam ever did to America, or could have done.
21
Without any analysis, the neocons obviously gave Iraq a “10.”
22
We should be careful not to disparage all Texans. There are millions of Texans—a growing
number, including lots of Dixie Chicks fans—who are ashamed of Bush, his policies, and the
fact he is from Texas.
23
“W” also stands for “wicked wrongdoer.”
Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the Security Council, dra-
matically hyped bogus information about Iraqi bio-warfare vehicles. He told the Se-
curity Council and the world that they were “one of the most worrisome things that
emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq.” He said there were eye-
witness accounts: “We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on
wheels and on rails.” Powell presented diagrams showing how the vehicles were
configured, misleadingly calling them “highly detailed and extremely accurate.” He
then said the trucks could spray enough toxins (anthrax or botulinus) “in a single
month to kill thousands upon thousands of people.”
Most of this bogus “intelligence” was based on highly suspicious information
from a discredited Iraqi defector with the codename “Curveball.”24 The U.S. gov-
ernment earlier had instructed and paid Chalabi to look for evidence supporting a
theory that Saddam, in order to evade UN weapons inspectors, had built mobile germ
factories. It turned out that Curveball—whom American officials had never met or
talked with, and whose real name they never knew—was related to a key aide to
Chalabi.
International and American inspectors who later searched the site specified by
Powell, as well as countless other sites, found no evidence of what Powell was hyp-
ing, and it is believed that the vehicles in question were just everyday trucks and fire
engines.
David Kay, the former head of the U.S. group looking for WMDs in Iraq, politely
referred to Powell’s testimony as “disingenuous.” This is a polite diplomatic way of
saying Powell lied. Kay noted, “If Powell had said to the Security Council: ‘It’s one
source, we never actually talked to him, and we don’t know his name,’ as he’s de-
scribing this, I think people would have laughed us out of court.”
Powell himself as well as other State Department officials had objected to many
of the allegations appearing in drafts of Powell’s UN speech regarding Iraq. Accord-
ing to US News and World Report, the first draft of Powell’s speech was prepared for
him in late January 2003 by Cheney’s then chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby
(who in March 2007 was found guilty on four counts in a federal criminal case in
connection with the Plame affair, which we discuss in Chapter 17, “Treason, Elec-
toral Fraud—Anything to Maintain Power.”) Many of the unsupported allegations
originated with the Office of Special Plans (OSP)—an extraordinary special unit set
up by Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon to cherry pick and manufacture “intelligence.”
Intelligence analysts objected that Powell was being asked to give the most sinis-
ter of interpretations regarding intelligence information when other more plausible
benign explanations existed. According to US News and World Report, when Powell
read a draft of his speech given to him by Cheney’s office, he threw the draft in the
air and yelled, “I’m not reading this. This is bullshit!” Nevertheless, many of the
allegations survived and were in Powell’s final speech.
Powell, playing the good soldier, carried water for the neocons who ran the
White House, and truth was the victim. Friends of Powell around the world felt sorry
for him and how far he had fallen. Powell also regrets this low point in an otherwise
24
The term “Curveball” is suggestive of the deception pitched by the Bush Cons. “Curveball”
could also be used to describe Bush himself, although “Screwball” is better.
stellar career. Eventually perhaps, he will straighten his spine, step forward and tell
the truth about what really happened as America lost its way during Bush’s watch.
SIDEBAR: General Petraeus or General Betray Us?
In this sidebar we jump forward for a moment more than four years to the week of
September 10, 2007, when another respected American military man, General David
Petraeus, delivered a report on Iraq to Congress. Once again, an American general in
uniform cooked the books for Bush and supported his failed warmongering policies.
At Petraeus’ high level in the military chain of command, he necessarily wears
two hats, one military and one political, but he pretended to be wearing only his mili-
tary hat in September 2007 when he and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified
before Congress. In full military uniform, Petraeus obsequiously supported Bush’s
plans for Iraq, as Bush knew he would. Petraeus has a long history of painting a rosy
picture of Iraq, perhaps because he is the architect of several military blunders in that
nation. In late September 2004—conveniently just weeks before Bush’s reelection—
Petraeus wrote a rosy article for the Washington Post that gushed with praise of pro-
gress in Iraq and gave the impression that victory was just around the corner.
Three years later and once again serving as Bush’s political advocate, Petraeus
distorted events and cherry picked facts to paint a rosy picture of the so-called troop
surge. Ignoring independent reports regarding the failure of the surge, he was any-
thing but independent and balanced. Knowing his own testimony would not be
credible, Bush counted on Petraeus to make the pitch for more of the same—no
deadlines, no new strategy to end America’s military involvement in Iraq, just stay
the course and run out the clock, leaving the mess to Bush’s successor. Petraeus de-
livered—again.
Two further comments regarding Petraeus should be made. First—and most un-
fortunately—Congress and Big Media went along with the charade that because Pet-
raeus wore the uniform he would present his own independent views on Iraq, as if he
operated in a truth bubble independent of policy, politics and Bush. This charade
allowed Bush—who hid behind Petraeus’ uniform—to decisively win that round.
Second, there is a limit, a line, as to how far a senior military leader can go in play-
ing politics, in making decisions inappropriate for the military to make, and in dis-
torting reality—a line that should not be crossed—and history will judge whether
General Petraeus is General Betray Us. The better view is that he did in fact cross
that line.
Even counting the lies and distortions rampant in Powell’s watershed UN speech
in February 2003, it is truly amazing how little “evidence” was presented. “Is that all
you have?” was a common reaction of professional intelligence officers.
Senior officials in the Bush regime pitched the Iraq war much like American to-
bacco companies hyped cigarettes. Here is a small sample of their lies and
propaganda during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq:
• Cheney: “Stated simply, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has

weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use
against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
• Rumsfeld: “We know where they are.”
• Bush and Rice spoke frequently of “mushroom clouds” rising over the
United States.
• Bush: “We have sources that tell us that Saddam recently authorized Iraqi
field commanders to use chemical weapons—the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have.”
• Richard Perle: “There will be dancing in the streets throughout Iraq if we
liberate that country. The idea that it’s going to damage us in the Arab
world is nonsense. We will be seen not as invaders but as liberators.”
• Sticking to GOP sound bites, Cheney: “We will be greeted as liberators ...
the people of Iraq will welcome us as liberators.”
• Cheney: “[M]y belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators … I think it
will go relatively quickly, … (in) weeks rather than months.”
• Bush: “Intelligence … leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to
possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
• Powell: “Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass de-
struction for a few more months or years is not an option.”
• Wolfowitz: According to Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz predicted the
war would last seven days and be relatively easy.
• Rumsfeld, when speaking to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy, on February 7,
2003, said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last
six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Later, at a congressional hearing in early 2004, Wolfowitz was unable to say how
many American troops had already died in Iraq.
Several months before the invasion, British leaders were aware of the Bush ad-
ministration’s deceitful campaign to sell its war on Iraq. Consider for example the
infamous “Downing Street Memo,” a classified British report (marked “SECRET
AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY”) dated July 23, 2002, regarding
a senior British intelligence meeting in the White House. The secret report, which
was published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, makes it clear that Bush
dragged America into war with “fixed” evidence and bogus claims concerning Sad-
dam’s nonexistent WMDs. As for planning, the British report states there “was little
discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
In an October 13, 2006, interview with The Daily Mail, the head of the British
Army in Iraq, Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt, effectively dropped a
political bomb on Tony Blair’s foreign policy when he stated that the presence of
British troops in Iraq “exacerbates the security problems” in Iraq and worldwide for
Britain, and that British troops should “get out some time soon.” His comments fa-
voring withdrawal were widely supported by retired British generals and throughout
the British Army, and they contrasted sharply with the “stay-the-course,” “every-
thing-is-wonderful” talking points coming from the White House and Downing
Street.
The comments from Britain’s top commander in Iraq were especially shocking
because British military leaders generally keep their mouths shut about political mat-
ters. Gen. Dannatt, an evangelical Christian, also questioned the political goals and
planning regarding the Iraq war. “I think history will show that the planning for what
happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based
more on optimism than sound planning.”
Some of the sharpest criticism of the Bush neocons comes from traditional
American conservatives who feel betrayed.
SIDEBAR: Pat Buchanan: The War Party and Anti-Semitism
Ultraconservative Pat Buchanan, a frequent critic of the neocons’ misguided trans-

formation of the conservative cause, writes: “The conservative movement has been
hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology, which is
not the conservative movement I grew up with.”25
Even before the start of the Iraq war, Buchanan frequently referred to the neocon-
controlled Republican Party as the War Party. “A neoconservative clique seeks to
ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.”
One of Buchanan’s personal “mistakes” was to argue that the neocons are pursu-
ing an Israeli agenda, specifically the destructive extreme right agenda pushed by
Sharon and the Likud Party. Unfortunately, this exposed Buchanan to neocon hatch-
ets. Instead of debating Buchanan on the merits, the neocons—many of whom are
Jewish and do support the most extreme rightwing policies of the Likud Party—
labeled him anti-Semitic. Buchanan wrote:
The neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and
impugning their motives. Indeed, it is the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ itself that is toxic.
For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimi-
dating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neo-
cons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because
their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
Eight weeks into the Iraq war, which he opposed, Buchanan once again showed
his usual backbone and independence. In an editorial of June 4, 2003, Buchanan
listed several of the numerous lies told by the Bush Administration in the run-up to
the war, and he then wrote:
Is it possible Iraq never had that vast arsenal of weapons that we were led to believe? Did
the intelligence agencies fail us, or did someone ‘cook the books’ to meet the recipe for
an imperial war? It is time Congress investigated the Office of Special Plans, set up in the
Pentagon to sift and interpret all intelligence, and placed under neoconservative super-
hawk Paul Wolfowitz.
25
New York Times, Sept. 8, 2002.
Unfortunately, it is off limits for America’s corporate media to fairly discuss the
neocons’ connections to Israel and its most rightwing factions, or even the fact that
most of the hardcore neocons are Jewish.
Of the hundreds of special interest groups that lobby the executive branch and
Congress regarding America’s foreign policy, the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) is by far the most influential and feared. Its enormous clout,
coupled with its willingness to kill the messenger if the message is not perceived as
sufficiently pro-Israel, puts the fear of God in any American politician, whether De-
mocrat or Republican, who wishes to be candid and rational regarding Middle East
affairs. The result is that there is much less meaningful debate in the United States
regarding anything affecting Israel than there is anywhere else in the developed
Western world, including Israel itself.
In addition to compromising the war on terrorism, Bush’s Middle East policies

have made things worse for both Israel and the Palestinians, with increased deaths on
both sides, and with no peace in sight. History will prove Bush to be one of Israel’s
worst enemies. Scornful of Clinton’s efforts to help secure permanent
Israeli/Palestinian peace, Bush did nothing “peaceful” other than to refer occasion-
ally to that charade known as the “roadmap” for peace. He and the GOP have been
AWOL. His violence-first policies have especially harmed the long-term strategic
interests of Israel, America’s most steadfast ally in the region, and jeopardized its
very existence. When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it got nothing in return,
definitely a Bush League bargain.
The sad truth is that Bush and the GOP are not honest brokers for peace between
Israel and the Palestinians, or for peace in the broader Middle East, and the world
knows this. As a result, Bush and his War Party are distrusted and worse than inef-
fective. They have in fact harmed Israel’s strategic interests, while also making
things much worse for the Palestinians.
SIDEBAR: Carter and Clinton to the Rescue
America should empower Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to represent America in an
international effort to seriously restart a peace process between Israel and the Pales-
tinians, with the goal of a permanent lasting peace mutually agreeable to Israel and
the Palestinians.
Nothing will promote peace more in the Middle East than for the United States to
take a leadership role in brokering a permanent peace treaty between these two peo-
ples. Yes, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem.
America’s allies and friends would be encouraged if Carter and Clinton were
empowered to help mediate a peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. In sharp
contrast to Bush, both are respected world leaders who devoted enormous personal
effort to the pursuit of peace between Israel and its neighbors, including the Pales-
tinians.
Many observers believe that peace in the Middle East is impossible. We all hear
people say something like, “The people in the Middle East just want to kill each
other, and they’ve been doing it for centuries. There is nothing we can do.” This pes-
simistic—and erroneous—point of view has a certain appeal, and at weak moments
your author sometimes succumbs to it too. But at the end of the day, it is a point of
view—based in rightwing propaganda—that conveniently justifies doing nothing,
while it whitewashes misguided U.S. policies.
Notwithstanding the major setbacks under Bush’s watch, there have been major
achievements in the Middle East over the years, and America must not make the
mistake of thinking the situation regarding Israel and the Palestinians is hopeless.
Peace is possible. Carter and Clinton proved it.
But for the leadership and dedicated efforts of Carter and Clinton, there would
not exist the lasting peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, and the lasting peace
treaty between Israel and Jordan.
Consider Carter’s enormous efforts. Imagine how much worse the situation
would now be for Israel and the region if a permanent peace agreement had not been
signed between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Carter worked tirelessly for that peace
agreement, and it took strength, moral leadership and integrity on his part. In short, it
took diplomacy, something missing from Bush’s and the GOP’s toolkit. Neither
Egypt nor Israel has ever broken this peace agreement. At the same time, no one—no
Jew, Muslim, or Christian—can truthfully say that Carter was not a strong supporter
of Israel and its right to exist and live in peace with its neighbors. Carter—a Navy
veteran, a strong Christian his entire life, and recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace
Prize—earned the respect and trust of both Israelis and Muslims.
What happened to the three heroes of the 1979 peace agreement between Egypt
and Israel? For his efforts, Egyptian President Anwar Al Sadat was assassinated in
1981 by army personnel who were members of the extremist Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Israeli Prime Minister Menachen Begin died of natural causes in 1992. As for Jimmy
Carter, we will discuss in Chapter 8—“The Religious Wrong”—some of his ongoing
unflagging efforts for peace.
Consider Clinton’s enormous efforts for peace in the Middle East. Imagine how
much worse the situation would be for Israel and the region if a permanent peace
agreement had not been signed, during Clinton’s watch, between Israel and Jordan.
The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace of October 26, 1994, ended the state of war that
had existed between Israel and Jordan since the birth of modern Israel in 1948, and it
normalized relations and settled all land disputes between them.
Upon becoming president, Bush immediately put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

on the back burner and thereafter blindly supported the rightwing faction in Israel at
every turn, thus encouraging the killing to escalate. As a result, not even “phase one”
of the “road map” to peace was successfully implemented. This failure scored politi-
cal points for Bush with America’s extreme Christian right, many of whom see the
growing pools of Israeli and Palestinian blood as glorious signposts along the road to
Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. (We discuss this extreme rightwing
influence in Chapter 9, “Eschatology and the Book of Revelation.”)
The Bush presidency will be remembered as the wasted years.
When it comes to matters of peace and war, Bush and the GOP cannot be trusted.
Democratic presidents Carter and Clinton believed in diplomacy, and that war is a
last resort, not a first. They demonstrated “peace through strength.” Republican Bush
believes in war as a first resort, and is clueless regarding diplomacy. He and his GOP
achieved “weakness through war.”
In January 2005 Rice noted, “the time for diplomacy is now.” No, that was incor-
rect. The time for diplomacy regarding the Middle East, including the conflict be-
tween Israel and the Palestinians, was the first day of the Bush regime.
A sad irony imbedded in the End Times prophecy of fundamentalist Christians is
that all Jews and all Muslims will be slaughtered like cattle and burn in Hell for-
ever,26 while the beneficiaries—the chosen few among rightwing Christians—will go
to Heaven to bask in the glory of their treatment of Jews and Muslims here on Earth.
This rightwing crusader theology, supported by a rightwing president who be-
lieves His Heavenly Father directs him, is doing more to radicalize Islam than 1,000
bin Ladens. In bin Laden’s wildest dreams, Allah could not have sent him a better
lap dog and ally than George W. Bush—and by extension, the GOP Congress that
looked the other way when evil was afoot.
The leadership of every major Christian denomination in the world, except for
the Southern Baptists in America, opposed Bush’s war on Iraq because it clearly
violated Christian theology. With unchristian chutzpah, Bush turned a deaf ear to
reason and dissent, including that coming from his own United Methodist denomina-
tion, of which your author is an active and proud member.
Worldwide Christian leadership accurately warned Bush about the enormous
negative consequences that were likely to result if he pursued his immoral war on
Iraq. The hijacking of Christianity to promote a war on Iraq defamed Christianity
and helped torpedo any prospect for a strong coalition.
26
Under some End Times interpretations, Jews and Muslims would have a last-chance oppor-
tunity to convert to Christianity before the Second Coming, but, of course, if they did, they
would no longer be Jews and Muslims.
SIDEBAR: “God Bless the World” and “God Bless Iraq”
Never fans of American exceptionalism being used to justify American imperialism,

America’s friends are especially amazed, at a time when American troops are at war
in the Islamic world, to see the concept so exploited and twisted by America’s
Religious Right, which ignores the biblical dictate that Christianity is a world com-
munity that transcends national boundaries.
Foreigners are both amused and disgusted with the chauvinistic claim that
“America is the best country in the world,” a bromide believed most vociferously by
Americans who have never been outside the United States.
On its face, “God Bless America” is a fine sentiment, but it contradicts Christ’s
teachings when it implies that other peoples are not as worthy of God’s favor as
Americans, or when it reflects blind support for American militarism, whether right
or dead wrong. When America’s cause is right, religious jingoism is not needed.
WWJD—“What Would Jesus Do?” Suppose Jesus needed an automobile with a
bumper sticker that said, “God Bless” something. He might choose “God Bless the
World” for his hybrid. But suppose his Father playfully forced him to pick a particu-
lar nation. It’s a safe bet Jesus would prefer “God Bless Iraq” over “God Bless
America,” for the simple reason that Iraqis are much more in need of blessings from
God.
Yes, let’s keep those “God Bless America” stickers. But let’s also do “a tithe” of
new stickers for “God Bless the World” and “God Bless Iraq.” Love America, yes,
but love the rest of the world too. And for the truly daring, how about a few “God
Bless France” signs too?
Whether Christian or Islamic, there is no constructive role in God’s world for ex-
clusive or militant evangelism. It is especially destructive when pushed by the
world’s only superpower. As he turned the White House into a crusading cockpit,
Bush found it impossible to cobble together even a minor league coalition for his
reckless Iraq adventure. He struck out with the bases loaded and found himself at the
head of the willowy Bush League of Nations.
America’s ability to fight the war on terrorism has been severely crippled by nu-
merous huge Bush blunders, including his occupation of Iraq and his policy of doing
nothing to further peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Another major blunder
is his coddling of nations that support terrorism, while he wages war on Iraq, a nation
that had nothing to do with 9/11 or the war on terrorism.
If the Bush White House were serious about dealing with terrorism, it would—in
addition to taking a hard look in the mirror—focus on autocratic governments with
policies that promote terrorists and terrorism. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are high on
this list, but Bush does little to promote revolutionary, progressive change in these
two countries, other than mouth rhetoric intended for America’s gullible.
Bush and the GOP catastrophically transformed 9/11 into a green light for fascist
leaders and fascist leader wannabes around the world—from Saudi Arabia to Paki-
stan, from Moscow to Beijing, from Washington, D.C. to Iran. They all rejoiced in
the opportunity to consolidate power, restrict individual rights, smash political rivals,
brutalize minorities, and destroy constitutional rights—all in the name of the “war on
terrorism.”
The damage caused by America’s chief sociopathic nitwit is inestimable. When
Bush campaigned for the presidency in 2000, he didn’t even know the name of the
leader of either Pakistan or India, and he thought Greeks were called Grecians.
Much has been written about the decades-long cozy relationship between the
Bush family and the ruling Saudi princes, although the true depth of this cesspool of
oil and money will probably never be known. The Saudi princes, including relatives
of bin Laden, have enjoyed an extraordinary amount of influence in the Bush White
House, including sleepover rights. Although this may be in the best financial inter-
ests of the Bush family—which has pocketed tens of millions in Saudi money—it is
in the worst interests of America.
As for the war on terror, Saudi Arabia has a strong history of directly and indi-
rectly supporting global terrorism, perhaps more than any other nation. Also, its long
robust relationship with the Bush family disproves Bush’ new assertion that he sup-
ports democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East, and it is no surprise that a
huge supermajority of the world’s billion Muslims don’t trust him or his regime.
One of the best books that focuses on the financial and political ties of the Bush
family to the extended Saud family that rules Saudi Arabia is Craig Unger’s House
of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most
Powerful Dynasties, which begins with the special royal treatment given to 140
Saudis within two days after 9/11, at a time when American airspace was severely
restricted. The Bush administration authorized the immediate departure of these
Saudis—many of whom are kin of bin Laden—and thus none of the Saudis were
interrogated by American intelligence. Unger concludes, “Never before has an
American president been so closely tied to a foreign power that harbors and supports
our country’s mortal enemies.” If Bill Clinton had given the Saudis such special
treatment, the GOP would have immediately started impeachment proceedings.
Curiously, there was no such evacuation by the nationals of any other nation,
Muslim or not. Is it too bold—too unfair to Bush and his Saudi cronies—to ask,
“What did bin Laden’s relatives and the other scadaddling Saudis know, and when
did they know it?”
Curiously, it took almost two years for the Bush White House to even acknowl-
edge that it approved the Saudi evacuation. This cover-up would have continued if
Richard Clarke, following his departure from the Bush White House, had not fo-
cused needed sunlight on Bush’s secretive and paranoid inner circle. Clarke said he
agreed to the evacuation plans on behalf of the White House because the FBI had
apparently “determined” that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. This
fails the smell test. How could such a determination—that the Saudis were not linked
to terrorism—be made in just a few hours after 9/11?
Consider how long it takes the Bush government to investigate anything. How
could the departing members of bin Laden’s family be properly investigated and
questioned by the FBI in just hours? They could not and were not. More telling, why
would the White House during the precious hectic hours following 9/11 have even
taken the time to consider such an evacuation request? Why was protection of bin
Laden’s family a top priority?
The White House justified the evacuation by saying it was concerned about the
Saudis’ safety following 9/11. If safety was the real concern—say, as opposed to
protecting the White House from embarrassing disclosures—why weren’t the dozens
of Saudis simply moved to a safe location in the United States where they could be
properly questioned later?
Imagine the uproar in America’s corporate media and in the GOP-controlled
Congress if Bill Clinton or Al Gore had been president and had given cover to bin
Laden’s family as Bush did. Imagine the immediate calls for impeachment.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) demanded that the White House investigate the
departure of dozens of Saudis in the days after 9/11, believing that the Saudis could
have shed light on the 9/11 attacks. “It’s almost as if we didn’t want to find out what
links existed.” Exactly.
Rather than focusing on obvious major-league problems such as Saudi Arabia,
the Bush administration had its eyes on Iraq. Chomping at the bit to control Iraq, and
blinded by his childlike faith that only good things would happen, Bush from the
comfort of his White House Bubble rushed into his Iraq war without adequate plans
for the war or its aftermath.
Blunders in Iraq and the Region

It took more than three years of war in Iraq for a clear majority of Americans to real-
ize that Bush and the GOP never had a plan for Iraq and still don’t.27
The final New York Times/CBS News survey before the November 2006 midterm
elections asked this simple question: “So far, do you think George W. Bush has de-
veloped a clear plan for dealing with the situation in Iraq, or hasn’t he developed
one?” Sixty-nine percent of Americans answered “no,” and 29% answered “yes.”
Unfortunately, the survey did not ask any follow up questions as to what the gullible
29% were thinking. For example, of the 29% who believed Bush had developed a
clear plan, how many believed it would lead to success? How many even had the
foggiest idea as to what the plan might be?
In the meantime, under its rudderless commander in chief and the civilian suits in
the Pentagon and White House, the U.S. military is fighting blind in Iraq, never quite
sure who the “evil doers” are, forced to rely upon unreliable Iraqi “intelligence,” as
various Iraqi factions manipulate and leverage U.S. military power to further their
various personal and sectarian agendas.
Comprehensive planning shaped by reality has never been at home in a Bush
League White House occupied by a gang of myopic incense swingers. These right-
wing fools believed that it is the role of supreme powers to “create history,” not be
27
The “planning phobia” of the Bush regime brings to mind this humorous exchange from
Casablanca:
Yvonne: Where were you last night?
Rick Blaine: That’s so long ago, I don’t remember.
Yvonne: Will I see you tonight?
Rick Blaine: I never make plans that far ahead.
fettered by lessons it might teach. One history lesson they ignored, at America’s
peril, is that patriotic wars against imperial powers have occurred hundreds of times
throughout world history, not only in America during its Revolutionary War but also
numerous times in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world.
In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush neocons isolated and ignored
the U.S. State Department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau because it correctly
expressed major-league skepticism about Iraq’s alleged WMDs. In its “Future of
Iraq” project (17 volumes), the State Department also correctly assessed the enor-
mous complexity and difficulty of construction and reconstruction of Iraq, but the
Bush regime also dismissed this expert work. It threw it on the trash pile.
November 27, 2006, won’t be remembered as a sad milestone in Bush League
imperialism and incompetence, but it should be. On that date Bush’s war on Iraq
became longer than America’s participation in World War II.
Bob Woodward’s book, Plan of Attack, provides much detail about the Bush
neocons’ rushed war plans for Iraq, as well as their cavalier attitude towards plan-
ning the reconstruction and winning the peace. Before the war, countless critics and
experts said the reconstruction of Iraq would be much more difficult than the war,
but the Bush neocons ignored this advice.
According to Woodward, General Tommy Franks called Douglas Feith “the
fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” Feith—the number three civilian at
the Pentagon after Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz—was Bush’s key Iraq “reconstruction”
official at the Pentagon and helped orchestrate the huge mess in Iraq. Unfortunately
for America and Iraq, too much of Bush’s “plan” for Iraq was either Feith-based or
faith-based.
The Bush neocons believed a fairytale in which all Iraqis would be happy, even
those without security, jobs, electricity, medical care, safe drinking water and their
daily bread. Somehow the God of Capitalism would take care of everything. Wood-
ward quotes Cheney as saying that the United States needed “to have a light hand in
the postwar phase.” Planning and hard work were thus not necessary.
Following the huge initial military successes, the Iraqi people eagerly desired and
expected improvement in their lives. At that unique moment in history, America had
an unprecedented opportunity to show it could deliver results. However, Bush and
the Cons failed catastrophically, squandering the historic opportunity through lack of
sensible and comprehensive planning for the peace, and through terrible execution.
• In less than one year after the GOP’s invasion of Iraq, America went from
liberators to occupiers—the enemy of a huge super majority of Iraqis.
• A May 2004 poll taken by the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Au-
thority found that only 2% of Iraqis viewed American forces as “liberators,”
while 92% of Iraqis saw them as “occupiers.” (Although international law is
ignored at will by Bush and the GOP, U.S. forces in Iraq are “occupiers”
under international law, and as such are legally obligated to maintain the
peace.)
• Like most Iraqis, American Muslims also were happy to see Saddam de-
posed, and many were initially optimistic about the prospects for their rela-
tives and friends in Iraq. However, their support for Bush’s policies rapidly
plummeted as the Bush League failures mushroomed day by day in Iraq.
For example, the optimism of the Muslims of Dearborn, Michigan—the

second largest Muslim community in America—quickly turned to disap-
pointment within one year after the invasion.
• According to a Gallup poll in early 2004, about 80% of Iraq’s citizens said
they wanted the United States to leave within two months. Although many
Iraqis were initially hopeful, they soon learned that Bush’s GOP administra-
tion was uncaring and incompetent—anything but compassionate.
• One of the hugest Bush League blunders was the firing of several hundred
thousand Iraqi soldiers, upon whom almost 20% of Iraq’s families depended
for support. The mass firing broke prewar promises made by the top eche-
lons of America’s military to their Iraqi military counterparts.
• Another huge blunder was the failure to secure hundreds of thousands of
tons of munitions in hundreds of locations scattered around Iraq. Everyone
knew Iraq was “one big ammo dump”—according to Robert Gates, who re-
placed Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense in late 2006.
• A government audit released by the GAO in March 2007 revealed the Pen-
tagon did not even create a program to manage and destroy conventional
munitions until well after the declaration that major combat operations were
over.
• The 2007 GAO report, released four years after the invasion, also revealed:
(1) the United States still did not know how many stockpiles of weapons
and munitions remained unsecured; (2) the unaccounted for munitions could
range from “thousands to millions of tons;” and (3) most of the explosives
used in IEDs to kill American troops had been plundered from unsecured
stockpiles of munitions. The GAO report warned that the stockpiles could
still be looted by terrorists and insurgents, and it recommended a nation-
wide survey to locate unsecured munitions, but Bush’s overstretched Penta-
gon resisted this idea. The Bush regime in effect provided orders of magni-
tude more weaponry and explosives to Iraqi insurgents than Iran ever will.
• Iraq, which never had even a single one-room schoolhouse for terrorists, is
now the central campus of Terrorist University, where the graduates who
survive the tough final exams can find rewarding terrorist jobs throughout
the world. As Terrorist University’s founder and number one supporter,
Bush was the perfect catalyst for turning non-terrorists into terrorists and
creating countless new decentralized militant organizations, most with anti-
America objectives.
• According to an extensive report released in January 2005 by the CIA’s Na-
tional Intelligence Council, Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the recruit-
ment, breeding and training ground for the next generation of “professional-
ized” Islamic terrorists.
SIDEBAR: Grand Ayatollah Sistani and Other Powers Behind the Throne
The Bush administration talks only with political leaders who genuflect before
America’s new emperor, a counterproductive policy that only magnifies cluelessness
and incompetence in the Bush White House. Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani is the
most prominent of about a dozen respected Iraqi clerics who neither have nor seek
the ear of the Bush administration. Sistani has a huge following, in sharp contrast
with the line of figurehead Iraqi prime ministers with whom the Bush administration
occasionally deals.28
There is one certainty regarding America’s withdrawal, namely that America will
have nothing but hugely ugly alternatives to withdrawal when a key group of Iraqi
clerics, including especially Sistani, tell America to leave.29
In the meantime, Bush and America’s military are in effect working for Sistani
and other Shiite clerics, helping kill their enemy in the Iraq Civil War, primarily but
not exclusively Sunnis, and giving the Shiite forces time to consolidate power in
Iraq’s military and police. The vast majority of Iraqis being trained and equipped by
America are Shiites and Kurds, not Sunnis, and many Shiite death squads, which are
reminiscent of the death squads that killed tens of thousands during Reagan’s secret
illegal war in Central America in the 1980s, now operate within Iraq’s U.S.-trained
military and police.
Unfortunately, the ongoing bloody occupation has strengthened the hands of the
most militant clerics, especially Muqtada al-Sadr, while undercutting and radicaliz-
ing “moderates” like Sistani.
Sistani, like Sadr, has distanced himself from Bush and America, knowing he
will lose stature if he is even seen with the American imperialist. In contrast with
Bush’s uninformed outside perspective, Sistani does not need to meet with Bush in
order to understand what is happening in Iraq.
28
Saddam Hussein was Iraq’s republican prime minister until the fall of Baghdad in early
2003. No prime minister succeeded him until May 28, 2004, when Ayad Allawi became state
prime minister. During the interim, Iraq was run by American bureaucrats, principally Paul
Bremer. Allawi was succeeded by Ibrahim al-Jaafari on April 7, 2005, and Nouri al-Maliki on
May 20, 2006.
29
There was an ideal window of opportunity—in 2003 or 2004—for the United States to re-
quest an Iraqi referendum in which Iraqi citizens would decide the fate of the occupation, in-
cluding its scale and duration, and including the opportunity to set a firm date for complete
military withdrawal by the United States and its Bush League partners. Such a step would
have exhibited right intentions and improved America’s credibility. Although the ideal time
for this referendum has passed, it should nevertheless be immediately pursued. Unfortunately,
the Bush regime decreed that American forces would be in Iraq for many years, i.e., perpetu-
ally.
Sistani has never met with Bush, never sat with Laura Bush in any State of the
Union photo op, and never even met with Bush administration officials. When Secre-
tary of State Rice flew to Baghdad in May 2005 in a surprise visit, she was unable to
meet with Sistani and other key power brokers and religious leaders of Iraq. Imagine
that. A few days later, however, Sistani demonstrated chutzpah when he graciously
met with the foreign minister of Iran, who had traveled from Tehran to Baghdad to
meet with Sistani and other Iraqi leaders.
Sistani and other Iraqi clerics are biding their time, knowing that America even-
tually will voluntarily withdraw from Iraq or be kicked out. In the meantime Ameri-
can soldiers are dying helping fight the Shiite clerics’ battles.
It was Sistani, over the objections of the Bush administration, who insisted on di-
rect Iraqi elections, rather than the bizarre election alternatives pushed by Bush.
Like the February 2006 destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in
Samarra, the assassination of Sistani or another prominent cleric—a foreseeable and
even likely event—will further ratchet up the violence in Bush’s Iraq.
Although events in Iraq have spiraled out of his or anyone’s control, Sistani has
shown incredible restraint as he plans for the new Iraq. The slaughter in Iraq would
be much worse if he had risen to the bloodlust spawned by Bush’s occupation. In late
2006 it was reported that Sistani—due to severe personal medical problems—had
abandoned politics but would continue responding to religious questions. But let’s
not reserve a Nobel Peace Prize for him. Not a pacifist, Sistani is using the occupa-
tion forces for his own purposes, and no one should be surprised when he and other
“docile” rightwing clerics turn loose their long knives at a time of their choosing.
• Although Congress allocated billions of dollars for reconstruction, Bush’s

unpopularity in Iraq soared. Even when playing Santa Claus, Bush could
not inspire trust and friendship, largely because his regime’s incompetence
fed waste, nepotism, corruption and bloody chaos.
• The Bush neocons failed to prepare for the foreseeable likelihood that Iraqi
insurgents would use guerrilla tactics, rather than getting slaughtered in
conventional combat with U.S. forces. The neocons ignored military his-
tory, which teaches that guerrilla tactics and other expressions of asymmet-
rical warfare are commonly used against a superior occupying force—a
principal reason why America’s best military experts had recommended a
much larger force in the first place.
• Bush greatly increased Iraqi unemployment, and thus poverty and animos-
ity, by immediately firing not only the Iraqi military but also the Iraqi police
force and countless other government workers, including even mid- and
lower-level Baathist Party workers with expertise in running Iraq. These
professionals were viewed as untrustworthy simply because they had
worked for the Iraqi government. This was like firing all American military
personnel, police, firemen and experienced administrators simply because
they worked in Bush’s administration or were members of the GOP.
SIDEBAR: Looters in Iraq Could Learn from Bush and the GOP
As part of a vast looting operation, more than 100 semi-trailers loaded with so-called
“scrap” material cross the border into Jordan each day, according to a May 26, 2004,
New York Times report. The scrap includes quantities of both old and new material,
including components for utility plants and oilrigs, copper and aluminum ingots, as
well as dismantled complexes of older buildings. Much of the scrap is in nearly mint
condition.
Well, that covers just Jordan, only one of five nations bordering Iraq. In addition,
large quantities of looted material never leave Iraq. Based on the satellite monitoring
of hundreds of Iraqi military-industrial complexes, the International Atomic Energy
Agency reported that entire buildings and sometimes entire complexes of buildings
disappeared. The IAEA started this monitoring program in December 2003 after a
uranium-contaminated steel vessel turned up in a scrap yard in the Netherlands.
On a positive note, the looting of Iraq is much smaller in scale than the looting of
America by Bush’s cronies and America’s Super Rich milking class. Of course, there
is much more to steal in America. Also, the looting in Iraq is typically done with
crowbars and trucks, whereas in America the looting was done for the ruling class by
the President, the GOP-controlled Congress, and hordes of lobbyists wearing expen-
sive suits—most of which is, more or less, perfectly legal. WWJD—What would
Jesus do? Jesus would give the moral high ground to the Iraqi looters who are simply
trying to feed their families.
• Average Iraqi citizens quickly learned they would receive little or no benefit
from America’s largess and the GOP-style privatization (i.e., looting) of
Iraqi industry.
• Huge Iraqi contracts were granted to American oil companies by the U.S.-
led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) without the consent of the people
of Iraq.
• The CPA provided no proper accounting as to the use of Iraqi oil revenues,
and Iraqis were entitled to assume the worst. Extraordinary efforts to ensure
transparency and fairness were called for, but the Bush neocons were deaf
and blind to Iraqi sensibilities. After all, whether in America or in Iraq,
oversight and accountability interfere with opportunities for GOP corporate
cronies to loot.
• By 2007 as much as one-half of Iraq’s oil production was being diverted
into a complex black market, with some of the profits being used to fund
Iraq’s insurgency.
• The U.S.-run CPA could not account for $8.8 billion it transferred to vari-
ous government ministries, according to a blistering report released in Janu-
ary 2005 by America’s Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
The CPA’s reconstruction process was “open to fraud, kickbacks and mis-
appropriation of funds.” For example, one Iraqi ministry could account for
only 602 of the 8,200 guards on its payroll.
• The Bush administration chose to work with many discredited Iraqis. At the
top of this Bush League list of rogues is Ahmad Chalabi who was hand-
picked by the Bush administration to be the new leader of Iraq, even though
he had no credibility or following within Iraq. Before Chalabi entered
Baghdad with American forces in early 2003, he had not been seen in that
city in decades. He was widely and accurately viewed as an agent of the
United States. Over several years the United States had paid Chalabi mil-
lions of dollars to provide made-as-instructed phony intelligence on Iraq.
• Bush’s “plan” for Iraq encouraged cronyism and nepotism just like in
Bush’s America. Several Chalabi relatives received plum appointments with
many perks, including the opportunity to get rich at the public trough, just
like in GOP America. One of Chalabi’s nephews became Iraq’s finance
minister. An uncle of Chalabi was picked as one of the judges to try
Saddam. A Chalabi cousin was put in charge of Iraqi oil security. GOP and
Bush Family rules applied.
SIDEBAR: The Wrong Role Model
As a possible role model for Iraq’s new government, the Bush administration is the
antithesis of the liberal, pluralistic, just, democratic government that Iraq so desper-
ately needs.
Iraq’s Shiite leaders, who represent a large supermajority of Iraq’s population,
can legitimately claim a much stronger electoral mandate than that deceptively
claimed by the gloating Bush following his two narrow presidential victories. Ac-
cordingly, why shouldn’t Iraq’s new leaders also brag about their political capital
and then go spend it, pursuing a narrow poke-em-in-the-eye agenda that favors them-
selves, their supporters and their cronies.
An Islamic government in a Middle Eastern nation with a citizenry that is almost
100% Muslim would make more sense—and would have more legitimacy—than a
Christian government in America, a nation whose birth, Constitution and greatness
are anchored in religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
Notwithstanding the absence of any democracy in Iraq during the lifetime of any
living Iraqi, and notwithstanding years of oppression by Saddam and his chosen cro-
nies and neo-conservatives, the new majority in Iraq needs to take the high road, and,
in sharp contrast to the low road taken by Bush and the GOP, represent their entire
nation, uniting rather than dividing, working for the welfare of all Iraqis, and not
favoring their own branch of Islam. In short, they must govern Iraq exactly opposite
from the way Bush and the GOP misgovern America. But don’t bet on that.
Ironically, an Islamic government in Iraq led by Islamic clergy—whether or not

democratic—is likely to cause a fairer distribution of Iraq’s public oil resources than
would either a Bush League puppet regime in Baghdad, or an independent Iraqi gov-
ernment modeled after Bush’s GOP administration. Bush’s and the GOP’s public-
trough approach to governance epitomizes the style made famous by that unholy
trinity of rotten political parties:
1) Saddam’s Republican Guard Party,
2) Texas’ Republican Guard Party, and
3) Bush’s Confederate Party, formerly known as the Republican Party.
Iraqis should pray that their leaders reject Bush’s enrich-the-rich model, which
involves the party apparatus funneling public revenues to its chosen few—to its cro-
nies and coconspirators, to its donors and bribers, to its Enrons and Halliburtons, to
its Chalabis and DeLays, and to its Blackwaters and a host of other public-trough
slime balls.
The situation on the ground in Iraq would be more positive if the United Nations,
or NATO, or the Arab League, or any real well-intentioned coalition not headed by
Bush and the GOP, had been in charge of the Iraq mission. The problem is Bush and
the GOP style of governance.
Corrupt governments, coupled with enormous meddling over several decades by
outside powers, especially Britain and the United States, helped keep the Iraqi people
under the boots of tyrants. The Iraqi people said “NO!” to Saddam, and they are
shouting “NO!” to Bush and the GOP’s designs on Iraq.
Iraq’s best hope, however slim, is that the Iraqi people will recognize and lever-
age the long periods in their often glorious history when Iraq was peaceful, diverse
and tolerant, and that—notwithstanding recent decades of wars, civil unrest, and ex-
ternal and internal repression—the Iraqi people will make their own way to a safer
and more prosperous future.
• To Iraq’s detriment, the Bush regime planned for Iraq to leave OPEC. This
will prove to be another neocon fantasy—an oily pipe dream.
• The supply of electricity in Iraq became so inadequate that by early 2006
there were discussions of having Iran supply electricity to Iraq via new
transmission lines to be constructed.
• During the 2003 invasion, Bush’s armchair civilian commanders ordered
U.S. soldiers to guard the Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad with tanks and ma-
chine guns, while unguarded museums and hospitals were systematically
looted.
• The Bush League incompetence and imperialism caused many unintended
consequences, including violent attacks on Iraq’s Christian community.
During Saddam’s reign, Christians were protected from Islamic extremists
and could serve in government. They could even sell alcohol. Following the
occupation there have been numerous attacks against Iraqi Christians, in-
cluding torture, executions and church bombings, with Christian women
also targeted. The Christian community has no militia to protect itself.
• Evidencing one small piece of the broader ethnic cleansing taking place in
Bush’s Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians fled Iraq after the
2003 invasion, with some estimates of this tragic exodus as high as 120,000
for the first three years. A majority of these Christians want to come to
America, but that door is barred for all but a lucky handful.
• A 1987 Iraqi census placed Iraq’s Christian population at 1.4 million, and
subsequent rough estimates indicate it fell to 600,000 to 800,000 by 2007.
The two largest Christian sects—Assyrian Christians and Chaldean Catho-
lics—continue to worship in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.
• The small community of Iraqis who practice the pacifist, monotheistic
Mandaean religion is also subject to severe repression in the neo-Iraq and is
on a path to extinction. Thanks to murder, rape, forced conversion, and a
massive exodus, Iraq’s Mandaean community—estimated to number more
than 60,000 in the early 1990s—had been reduced to about 7,000 by 2007.
• Even the puppet Iraqi Governing Council established by the United States
was critical of Bush’s policies. For example, the Council objected to the
U.S.-controlled CPA favoring foreign firms over Iraqi firms in awarding re-
construction contracts. Rend Rahim Francke, the Council’s designated am-
bassador to the United States, said in early 2004 that the occupation author-
ity run by Paul Bremer is “opaque to Iraqis. It’s still not transparent.” She
was appalled when American companies imported Asian laborers, while
unemployed Iraqi citizens desperately sought work.
• Wanting time to implement its imperial designs for Iraq, the Bush regime
fought rapid democratization in Iraq at virtually every turn. Bush opposed
early local elections in 2003, while Shiite leaders including Sistani de-
manded a faster path to democracy.
• Under Rumsfeld’s watch, tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq were
given inferior and inadequate flak jackets and body armor. Many turned to
eBay and family and friends to buy the equipment they needed. Reacting to
public outcry, Congress later required the Department of Defense to reim-
burse the troops and their families and friends for their out-of-pocket ex-
penses in purchasing the needed equipment on their own. However, as late
as 2005, the Rumsfeld-mismanaged Department of Defense, which was re-
sponsible for the inadequate equipment in the first place, failed to comply.
• In March 2007 USA Today reported that the Air Force had lost about 40%
of the unmanned Predator aircraft used in Iraq and that it lacked sufficient
trained crews to handle the demand for battlefield surveillance in
Afghanistan and Iraq. American military patrols and convoys are dependent
on Predators for surveillance and firepower, especially in the daily battle
against IEDs, the number one killer of U.S. personnel.
• Bush’s failure in Iraq is likely to destroy or cripple the prospect of America
having favored access to oil in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. A
democratic Iraq, whether or not under the control of rightwing religious
leaders—theirs, not ours—is unlikely to cater to either America or Amer-
ica’s oil industry.
• Because of the escalating sectarian violence, school attendance rates

dropped dramatically in Iraq. According to Iraq’s Ministry of Education,
only 30% of Iraq’s 3.5 million students were attending school at the start of
the 2006-07 school year, compared with 75% the prior year, and almost
100% at the time of the U.S. invasion in 2003. Attendance rates were par-
ticularly low in more violent districts in Baghdad, as well as in the Sunni-
dominated Anbar province and in Kirkuk in the north. The Ministry re-
ported in October 2006 that 310 teachers were killed during the preceding
year.
• Large numbers of Iraq’s educated and professional class—including busi-
nessmen, doctors, lawyers, journalists and teachers—left Iraq because of the
chaos and because they are insurgent targets.
• About 2,000 Iraqi doctors were killed in the first four years of Bush’s occu-
pation, and the medical system is in extreme chaos. One-fourth of Iraq’s
18,000 doctors left Iraq by October 2005, according to Iraq’s Health Minis-
try, and many more leave each month. Sunnis who go to Baghdad hospitals
put their lives at risk, because Shiite militia from time to time enter these
hospitals, even in broad daylight, to torture and kill Sunni patients.
• Hundreds of Iraqi professors and teachers have been killed, and thousands
have quit. Murderers target women for “honor crimes.”
• In October 2006, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) esti-
mated that up to 1.6 million Iraqis had already fled their homes in Iraq “in a
steady, silent exodus” for other nations as a result of the Iraq war and result-
ing sectarian violence. The UN report noted that about 100,000 more Iraqis
were fleeing each month. Other estimates also place the exodus at about 2
million through the end of 2006.
• This flood of two million refugees constitutes almost 8% of Iraq’s popula-
tion. On a per capita basis, this is equivalent to more than 23 million Ameri-
cans fleeing the United States, or about eight times the entire population of
Iowa.
• According to Syrian security officials, about one million of the Iraqi refu-
gees live in Damascus, a city of three million, and Jordanian officials report
that more than 750,000 are in or near Amman, a city of 2.5 million.
• A report of Refugees International in late 2006 stated that the “displacement
of Iraqis from Iraq is now the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.”
• According to the same UN report of October 2006, the Iraqi government
and UNHCR estimate that an additional total of more than 1.5 million
Iraqis were displaced within Iraq since the war started, including “more than
365,000 newly displaced who have fled their homes and communities” in
the preceding seven months. On a per capita basis, this additional flood of
1.5 million internally displaced Iraqis is equivalent to about 18 million
Americans, or six times the population of Iowa, and the number is increas-
ing.
• UNHCR declared in October 2006 that the enormous scale and difficulty of
the problem place it “practically beyond the capacity of humanitarian agen-
cies, including UNHCR.” UNHCR later estimated that about 500,000 Iraqis
were displaced in 2006.
• Estimates of unemployment in the greater Baghdad area in 2006 and 2007
typically ranged from 40 to 60%, with a high level of underemployment.
Staying alive is the most important occupation.
• Iraqis are being killed at a much higher rate during Bush’s occupation than
during that of Saddam before the invasion. Also, thanks to Bush, the worst
likely lies ahead, as the Iraq Civil War and genocide are not yet full-blown,
and regional warfare has not yet broken out.
• Bush and the GOP tried to use America’s military might to “shock and
awe” Iraq and the world, but instead they exposed their own shocking and
awful incompetence. Under grade “W” leadership, America’s A Team be-
came bogged down in a wrong war, and the fault rests entirely with Bush
and the GOP, not with America’s troops.
• The Bush regime did an even worse job controlling Iraq’s borders than it
does controlling America’s own borders.
• The “new Iraq”—whether it remains intact, or fragments into three or more
nations, or evolves into a soft confederation of three or more regions—will
greatly expand its military capability at some point, including possibly the
development of weapons of mass destruction. In the future, Iraq’s perspec-
tive on WMD development could mimic that of Iran, where, thanks to Bush
and his warmongering neocons, the vast majority of Iranians—including
millions of Iranians opposed to their theocratic dictators—now believes Iran
needs its own nuclear weapons.
• The Iraqi forces trained by the United States and Britain have increasingly
been infiltrated by militia forces and death squads loyal not to Iraq, but
rather to powerful Shiite clerics and their private sectarian forces, such as
Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army.
• By arming and training Kurds and Shiites who control the Iraqi govern-
ment, Bush has unwittingly picked sides in Iraq’s Civil War. As the Shred-
der in Chief of the U.S. Constitution, Bush is the worst possible American
leader to counsel Iraq on its form of government and the essentials of an
Iraqi constitution to protect all minorities, including especially the Sunnis.
• By late 2007 Bush had begun also arming, and paying the monthly salaries
of, tens of thousands of Sunnis who previously had fought America’s troops
and may do so again in the future, and who someday may attempt to march
on the Green Zone and seize control of Iraq’s government.
• Even excluding the thousands of insurgent and sectarian bombings and at-
tacks since the 2003 invasion, Bush’s Iraq has a much higher crime rate
than Saddam’s Iraq.
• Having seen every justification for the Iraq war fall by the wayside, Bush
supporters have been reduced to asserting that Iraqis are “better off” with
Saddam dead. (It is good that Saddam is dead, but Iraqis are not “better off”
with him dead.) Such desperate “better than Saddam” arguments on Bush’s
behalf are like a desperate suitor making his last pitch to the beautiful lady
he is unsuccessfully courting: “You really should marry me. I’m not as bru-
tal as Jack the Ripper, and I’m not as crooked as my many Texan buddies
like Tom DeLay.” Now that’s desperate.
• Notwithstanding Bush’s numerous claims that the training of Iraqi security
forces is going well, America’s top two military commanders in the re-
gion—General George Casey and General John Abizaid—in testimony be-
fore the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29, 2005, said
that of the approximately 100 Iraqi battalions, only one was able to operate
independently of U.S. forces, down from the previous grand total of three.
• In the same hearing, General Casey also noted that reducing American
forces in Iraq would “take away one of the elements that fuels the insur-
gency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force.”
• Before Bush’s 2003 invasion there were zero foreign militants operating in
those areas of Iraq controlled by Saddam.
SIDEBAR: How to Immediately Reduce the Foreign Militants in Iraq by 98%
The Bush regime frequently lies about the source, number and role of foreign mili-
tants in Iraq, never pointing out that there were no such militants in Saddam-
controlled Iraq before Bush’s 2003 invasion. Supported by America’s corporate me-
dia, White House spinmeisters painted a picture of foreign militants being the heart,
soul and backbone of the Iraqi insurgency. In late 2005 the Center for Strategic In-
ternational Studies, based in Washington D.C., estimated that foreign militants con-
stituted only 4 to 10% of an estimated 30,000 insurgency militants in Iraq. Even us-
ing the higher 10% figure, there are no more than 3,000 such foreign militants in
Iraq.
But that 3,000 figure for the number of foreign militants ignores approximately
175,000 other foreign troops in Iraq, namely:
• 160,000 U.S. troops, plus
• 15,000 other non-U.S. coalition troops (most of whom remain in secure loca-
tions and do no fighting, but let’s count them anyway.)
The withdrawal by the United States and the rest of the Bush League coalition
therefore would cause the number of foreign troops in Iraq to be reduced from
178,000 down to 3,000—a drop of more than 98%.
Ironically, while foreign fighters constitute only a very small portion of the in-
surgents in Iraq, foreign fighters (i.e., American troops) constitute the vast majority
of the fighters doing the heavy work against the insurgency. On both counts, this is
exactly backwards from what Bush would like you to believe.
• According to screening reports by the Pentagon for the period from 2003
into 2005, 28% of returning U.S. troops required mental health or medical
care. The figures are higher for reserve and National Guard troops than for
active-duty troops, and higher for females.
Kicked in the teeth by reality, the Bushies gradually downsized their military ex-
pectations in Iraq. Their fantasy started with:
• victory with flowers … which declined to
• victory with exploding flowers … which declined further to
• occupation with animosity (and exploding flowers) … followed by
• no failure …which morphed into
• no appearance of failure … which slithered into
• run out the clock and pass the mess to Bush’s successor … just so Bush
could disclaim his inevitable legacy, which is:
• the defeat of his and the GOP’s Bush League imperialism—coupled with
America finally recognizing what the rest of the world long knew, that W is
America’s worst president and worst commander in chief ever.
Rather than focusing on rebuilding Afghanistan and having one success, Bush
invaded Iraq and put America on the road to two failures.
America’s Chief Flip-Flopper

The Bush administration’s rush to invade Iraq without a comprehensive plan created
an environment that encouraged flip-flopping. Without a comprehensive plan, deci-
sions were made on the fly and frequently reversed. Without a plan containing mile-
stones and a compass, there was motion without direction. Without accountability
and oversight, inherent GOP incompetence and corruption were greatly magnified.
By 2006 Iraq had dropped to a tie for second-to-last in the Global/World Corrup-
tion Report, a composite index that is based on multiple expert opinion surveys of
public sector corruption in 163 nations. Accordingly, Iraq in 2006 was tied for 162nd
place regarding public corruption, with only Haiti seen as more corrupt. Along the
way, the United States itself dropped three more positions in the 2006 index to 20th
position.
One of the enormous ironies of the early 21st century is that George W. Bush and
the GOP—a man and a political party who do not believe in government or nation
building—voluntarily put themselves in charge of Iraq. No one should be surprised
with the resulting mess, the catastrophic death and destruction. No one should be
surprised with the GOP-style corruption.
The Bush administration has “turned the corner” so many times in Iraq that no
one counts anymore how many times it has staggered around the block.
A hallmark strategy of every Bush election campaign—from Texas through both
of his campaigns for the White House—has been to lie about his opponents and, re-
gardless of the facts, arbitrarily pin them with negative labels such as “coward” and
“flip-flopper.” Ironically, Bush in Iraq has become America’s Chief Flip-Flopper.
Here are just a few of the Bush League flip-flops in Iraq:
• Flip-flop: The Bush neocons planned that many members of the Iraqi Gov-
erning Council were going to serve in the new Iraqi government formed on
June 30, 2004. They didn’t. Flip flopping wildly, the neocons again and
again tried to handpick Iraqi puppets who would somehow have popular
support in Iraq. This proved impossible because Bush and his Iraqi bed-
mates were radioactive.
• Flip-flop: Shortly after Saddam was deposed, the Bush administration—

acting through Bremer and his 100 Orders—decreed that members of Sad-
dam’s Baathist Party and senior Iraqi military leaders could not serve in the
new government. In April 2004 Bush reversed course and began rehiring
some former Baathists. Ahmed Chalabi, the former darling-for-hire of the
neocons, declared that this was like returning Nazis to power in Germany.
The Bushies and a succession of Iraqi puppet governments wrestled for
years with the slaughter caused by de-Baathification, and after five years of
war they still had not settled on a viable plan to rehire former government
workers.
• Flip-flop: Thousands of professors and teachers with Baathist connections
also were fired. The neocons later reversed this foolish policy, but it was too
late as too many hearts and minds had been lost.
• Having rushed to war unprepared, Bush flip-flopped repeatedly regarding
various Iraqi militia factions—first declaring them illegal and attacking
them in cities and towns like Fallujah and Najaf; then not attacking them;
then ceding them control; then vowing to crush them militarily; then trying
to kiss and make up by welcoming them into the political process; then
threatening them again; and so forth. As of late 2007, Bush was providing
arms, bundles of American cash, and photo-op handshakes to Sunni leaders
who previously had killed American troops—and who will again when it
suits them.
• Even the basic justification for the Iraq war flip-flopped repeatedly as real-
ity set in and lies were exposed. As one justification after another proved
false, the Bush administration more or less settled on “democracy” and re-
moval of the tyrant Saddam, which noble goals, had they been used by Bush
from the beginning as the justification for war, would not have been enough
for the American people to support the war.
To be clear, Bush has not flip-flopped in the one policy area where he has unre-
lenting laser focus—namely, doing everything possible for the Super Rich, even at
the cost of bankrupting America.
In every aspect of the Iraq quagmire, Bush League flip-floppers have taken the
agenda every direction but forward. American soldiers die one day while fighting
Sadr’s militia, but the next day are ordered to disengage, allowing Sadr’s militia to
survive and regroup. One day there’s an arrest warrant for Sadr, and the next day he
is asked to run for office, and the next day, well, Bush has no clue. One day in 2006
they cordon off Sadr City in Baghdad in attempts to restore order and recover a cap-
tured American soldier, and a few days later the flip-floppers relent to Sadr’s de-
mands and lift the restrictions, leaving behind an American soldier.
Although Bush was as eager as Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neocons to in-
vade Iraq without cause, it is Bush who must shoulder the blame. In the final analy-
sis, America’s president never questioned the justification for his war, and he al-
lowed the war to proceed without comprehensive planning. Incapable of being a
strong effective commander in chief, Bush lazily morphed into a flip-flopping puppet
when he handed his strings to Cheney and other handpicked civilian hacks.
America’s King Who Is Wearing No Clothes

The Bush administration formed the Bush League of Nations to create the appear-
ance of broad international support for the invasion. It was their pitiful attempt to
create a fig leaf, but most of the world saw the ugly naked truth: America’s King
George, W, was wearing no clothes. He gave “www” a new meaning: “Witless
Without Wardrobe.”
On September 29, 2005, Lt. Gen. William Odom, Director of the National Secu-
rity Agency under Reagan, declared Bush’s invasion of Iraq to be the “greatest stra-
tegic disaster in United States history.”
It is instructive that so many handpicked senior Bush administration officials re-
signed or left their positions in utter disappointment with Bush, his militant unilater-
alist policies, and especially the broken decision making process, which is controlled
by a tight circle of groupthink neocons cocooned from reality.
In March 2007 Matthew Dowd, Bush’s former chief campaign strategist, became
the first member of Bush’s tightest inner circle to publicly break with him when he
urged withdrawal from Iraq, calling the president “secluded and bubbled in.” Pro-
foundly disappointed in Bush’s leadership, Dowd, who helped Bush win reelection
in 2004 by painting John Kerry as a weak flip flopper on Iraq, now asserts that Kerry
was right.
Especially instructive and troubling during this time of war is that so many senior
military officers have criticized the policies of this sitting president. The intensity of
the criticism is unprecedented in modern American history, and never has the criti-
cism been more deserved. Despite a strong reluctance to criticize a wartime presi-
dent, these truth-telling patriots are speaking out because the Bush administration is
so profoundly out of touch with reality.
Among the many former senior military leaders of America who have criticized
the invasion and occupation of Iraq are: Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki; NATO
Commander Wesley Clark; CENTCOM Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, who
was Commander of Operations of Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Gulf War I;
General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft; and CENTCOM Com-
mander Anthony Zinni, who followed General Schwarzkopf in that position. The list
goes on. By the time you read this, many more of America’s finest will have stepped
forward.
As Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command from 1997 to
2000, Retired General Zinni was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.
Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration appointed
him to one of its most important diplomatic posts—special envoy to the Middle East.
General Zinni later co-authored Battle Ready with Tom Clancy and Tony Koltz. The
book is a blistering indictment of the Pentagon’s conduct of the Iraq war, a war that
the civilians wanted, but the generals didn’t. General Zinni appeared on Sixty Min-
utes on May 23, 2004 (“They’ve Screwed Up”). Here are just a few highlights:
• Before the Iraq invasion, Zinni said it was “the wrong war, at the wrong
time—with the wrong strategy.” He told Congress, “This is, in my view, the
worst time to take this on.” The situation in Iraq was contained, and the fo-
cus had to be on what was already on the plate—Afghanistan, the war on
terror, fighting al Qaeda, and other threats.
• As Commander in Chief at CENTCOM, Zinni developed a plan for the in-

vasion of Iraq, and it was based on the widely respected doctrine that the
United States should only enter battle with overwhelming force, also known
as the Powell Doctrine. However, civilian Rumsfeld overrode America’s
senior military officers and decided the job could be accomplished with
high-tech weapons and far fewer troops.
• This “on the cheap” approach of Rumsfeld was widely criticized, both be-
fore and after the war. Both Zinni and General Shinseki believed that more
than 300,000 troops would be needed, and both saw this level of commit-
ment as critical in the aftermath.30
• Zinni writes: “In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a
minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying,
incompetence and corruption.”
• Although Rumsfeld was surprised at the level of violence that continued a
year after the war began, Zinni said Rumsfeld should not have been. Before
the war began, many generals, diplomats and other friends of America in
the international community understood the situation, believed strongly that
the problems were being underestimated, and gave warnings. But the civil-
ians in the Pentagon did what they wanted and relied on inflated intelli-
gence from Iraqi exiles with doubtful credibility who told them what they
wanted to hear.
• As for the senior civilian officials at the Pentagon who are guilty of derelic-
tion of duty, negligence and lying, Zinni asserts that it “should be evident to
everybody that they’ve screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this?
That’s what bothers me most.”
• Zinni places blame directly on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and a tight
group of neocon policymakers—political ideologues—who hijacked
American policy in Iraq. “I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody—everybody I talk to in Washington—has known and fully
knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do.” Zinni in-
cludes in that group: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersec-
retary of Defense Douglas Feith; Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff,
Lewis “Scooter” Libby; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard
Perle; and National Security Council member Elliott Abrams.
• “We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial
power in this part of the world,” says Zinni.
The Bush administration and their cheerleaders in the media claim it is unpatri-
otic to speak out when our nation is at war. Zinni believes this is an absurd proposi-
tion. “Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was mal-
functioning, and troops were dying as a result. I can’t think anyone would allow that
to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what’s the difference between a faulty plan
30
However, the Bush civilians settled on only 160,000 troops, a number that Franks appar-
ently did not want to go below. Rumsfeld took the position that fewer than 100,000 would be
needed.
and strategy that’s getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where
we’re not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we’ve set out to do.”
Smacked in the chops by reality in Iraq, the Bush neocons never recognized what
hit them. “Reality? Never heard of that!” Their dumbfounded surprise was palpable.
We must never forget the central goal of Bush and the neocons—a permanent
imperial U.S. military occupation of Iraq and the control of its oil and the region
through a vassal Iraqi government, all a central pillar of The Project for the New
American Century. We must never forget the neocons’ promise to America and its
troops that this war would be short and sweet.
Yes, reality came knocking. Finding themselves mired in a policy cesspool of
their own making, the neocons desperately sought to extricate themselves in any way
possible.
Confounded because their groupthink fantasy was not unfolding as they knew it
must, the drowning neocons grasped for straws, seizing upon this or that event in
Iraq—any event—as a divine sign that they were succeeding, that it must be only a
short distance to Mission Accomplished. But America’s Ship of Fools had arrived
not at Mission Accomplished, but at Mission Impossible.
Time will tell whether the several promising elections in Iraq are significant
milestones on the road to a better Iraq—stirring exercises in courage by Iraqis who
want to control their own future and not be under the boot of either Butcher Saddam
or Imperialist Bush—or whether they are just mirages, in a long line of mirages, on
the neocons’ meandering road in fantasyland.
In any case, the road for the Iraqi people will be long and difficult, and when and
if a successful progressive democratic Iraq emerges, which now appears distant at
best, it will be the Iraqi people themselves who deserve all the credit, plus a huge
portion of extra credit because they will have achieved their Iraqi “mission accom-
plished” in spite of the unnecessary bloody setbacks inflicted on them by Bush and
his GOP accomplices.
In the next part of this book we’ll turn our attention to the Bush League of Na-
tions itself, that sham lynchpin in the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign to
achieve its imperial goals in Iraq.
PART II

CHAPTER 5

A Web of Deceit for the Gullible
If we’re an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we’re a humble

nation but strong, they’ll welcome us. ... We’ve got to be humble.
— George W. Bush, Oct. 11, 2000.
When Bush became president, he had at his fingertips—to be wisely used or squan-
dered—a tremendous reservoir of worldwide goodwill towards the United States and
Americans. This reservoir had been justly filled by several decades of honest Ameri-
can policies under many American presidents, both Democratic and Republican.
Following 9/11 this reservoir of goodwill was overflowing. Even in Muslim coun-
tries, the horror of 9/11 created huge supermajorities of goodwill and sympathy to-
wards America.
But Bush pursued an arrogant, unilateral, militaristic agenda, and when he went
to bat in a most dubious cause—his war on Iraq—all he could muster was the lame
Coalition of the Willing, better named the Bush League of Nations.
Bush’s giddy decision to invade Iraq was based on lies, delusions and ulterior
motives. His incompetence in building a coalition and in prosecuting the war was
immoral and a fundamental dereliction of duty. He soon became America’s most
incompetent commander in chief ever, America’s worst president ever.
During the seven decades before Bush, several American presidents coura-
geously took the high road and successfully led the world in muscular wartime coali-
tions to promote just causes. Our allies willingly played ball with us in major league
coalitions because our common causes were just, and because our American skippers
were men of vision, strength, integrity and leadership.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush foolishly and arrogantly chose a unilateral, impe-
rial, militaristic low road for America’s team. The “Decider” chose division over
unity, and he soon found himself playing in a fantasy league, “A League of His
Own,” the Bush League of Nations.
In early 2003—after NATO, the United Nations, and the world community all
sharply rejected Bush’s duplicitous plan to invade and occupy Iraq—the propaganda
machines of the Bush regime and its allies in America’s rightwing Big Media ran in
high gear to create the Big Lie, namely, that a strong, broad-based military coalition
of many dozens of nations supported and still supports Bush’s invasion and occupa-
tion of Iraq.
But there is no grand coalition in Iraq, and, as for the few participants, none of
them were enthusiastic about Bush’s war in the first place. As for the few partici-
pants, Bush is like an arsonist claiming that the firemen who risk their lives to extin-
guish the fire he created are supporters of his crime.
Bush’s so-called Coalition of the Willing is a sham and a shame, a fraud and a
failure. The Coalition of the Willing is not a major league of nations in any sense; it
is not even a Class D minor league. It is the Bush League of Nations, misled by
America’s own Bush League commander in chief, George W. Bush.
Bush’s duplicitous invasion and occupation of Iraq—like baseball itself—is
something the world does not understand and support. Not only does Bush play by
strange Bush League rules, he modifies and ignores the rules at will. He is the
game’s only umpire, a self-appointed umpire with bum eyesight—a cheater who
knows the call before the pitch is made. Even the nations that love America, baseball
and apple pie—nations that want to believe America plays a fair game—have not
fallen for Bush’s hubris and his un-American form of the game.
The Bush League is a fantasy league, whose immoral delusional owners are the
Bush neocons. Among its many victims are truth, American values, and America’s
reputation and influence in the world. Bush’s so-called coalition is the Big Lie, a fig
leaf intended to hide naked Anglo-American aggression against Iraq and the region.
Most of the U.S. media either, at their worst, adopted a Pravda-style role and ea-
gerly beat the war drums for Bush, or, at their best, rolled over and played softball,
not wanting to appear disloyal. Numerous American media figures with views criti-
cal of the war were punished by their corporate employers. One of the most promi-
nent victims is Phil Donahue, who in early 2003, when the war drums were beating
loudest, had his television talk show cancelled by MSNBC (which, along with NBC,
is owned by General Electric, a huge conglomerate with substantial military business
in Iraq) because he questioned the case for war and opposed it.
According to a leaked NBC memo, Donahue presented a “difficult public face for
NBC in a time of war,” and the memo went on to warn that his show could be “a
home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving
the flag at every opportunity.” Ratings trump responsible journalism. Money trumps
truth.
Regarding the coalition itself, virtually the entire U.S. media swallowed and re-
gurgitated the Bush League propaganda that there was a strong, broad military coali-
tion of nations fighting shoulder to shoulder with America in Iraq, with the number
of coalition members ranging from at least 28 nations to as many as 55 or more, de-
pending on the source of the propaganda.
The reality is starkly different. Only two nations—the United States and Great
Britain31—provided more than a token number of troops for actual combat in Bush’s
invasion of Iraq, and neither provided adequate forces to accomplish the mission,
31
A small number of Polish and Australian forces assumed specialist roles during the 2003
invasion of Iraq, although neither nation highlights this on its resume.
CHAPTER 5 — THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS 93
thanks to the inept leadership of Bush and Blair, who were later dubbed the “Axis of
Feeble.”
The United States and Britain alone acted as de facto dictators in running Iraq af-
ter the invasion, as they shared responsibility, under Resolution 1483 of the UN Se-
curity Council, for the civil administration in Iraq, and each participated in the Coali-
tion Provisional Authority (CPA) before the so-called handover of sovereignty to
Iraq on June 28, 2004.
The military coalition—the Bush League of Nations—later assumed the name
“Multi-National Force in Iraq” (or MNF-I), which was established May 15, 2004,
and operates under the mandate of Security Council Resolution 1511 adopted Octo-
ber 16, 2003. Subsequent resolutions, including Resolution 1546 adopted June 8,
2004, and Resolution 1637 adopted November 8, 2005, further extended the MNF-
I’s mandate from time to time, as the war dragged on.
Although the United Nations strongly opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq, it tried
after the invasion to help clean up the mess Bush created. As Iraq quickly descended
into chaos in the months following the March 20, 2003, invasion, the United Nations
encouraged all nations to help Iraq and cooperated with the United States in passing
the above resolutions. Unfortunately, Bush was unable to strengthen the weak coali-
tion he had previously cobbled together. To the contrary, the already weak coalition
wilted before his eyes.
The MNF-I was organized into six geographical areas, with the United States in
overall unitary command. Four of the six areas are headquartered by the U.S. mili-
tary. The Multi-National Division Central South is headquartered by Poland. The
Multi-National Division South East is headquartered by Great Britain. The MNF-I,
woefully underpowered, is discussed further later.
The United States and Britain provided virtually all, approaching 100%, of the
coalition troops proactively engaged in combat in Iraq. The world thus correctly sees
the coalition as an American-Anglo occupation force.
But even America and Britain did not send their full-roster A Teams. With catas-
trophic consequences, their myopic leaders chose to do the job on the cheap and on
the slow, sending less than one-third the military force required to accomplish the
mission and “win” a war that should not have been waged in the first place. Their
leadership was immoral, and the Bush League result was predictable.
Bush chose to ignore the Powell Doctrine—that overwhelming force must be ap-
plied on the battlefield whenever America’s troops are placed in harm’s way—and
fielded a team without a shortstop, without a right fielder, without a catcher, and
without experienced coaches. Bush rushed to battle—or, more correctly, he rushed
others into battle—without the right equipment and game plan to ensure victory in
the 2003 World Series in Iraq.
Bush’s incompetence greatly increased the number of American casualties, and
although the pain and loss on America’s side is huge, the pain and loss on Iraq’s side
is at least a thousand times greater.
The most competent military experts—those battle-proven pros like U.S. Army
General Eric Shinseki, who had not only the experience but also the responsibility to
give such advice—urged Bush to field a full team, an A team, but Bush foolishly
decided to do the job on the cheap, without a full roster. The fans of America’s team
wanted a major league squad with all positions filled by the finest professionals, but
Bush cut and penalized the team with his Bush League leadership. Perhaps Bush
thought the game was amateur doubles tennis and that a two-man team led by politi-
cal hacks would do. By playing it on the stupid and on the cheap, Bush made the
GOP’s war on Iraq very expensive for America’s soldiers, America, Iraq and the
world.
The fans of America’s team wanted its professionals to have the best equipment,
but Bush ignored even the catcher’s simple request for a protective cup. After all, no
Bush family cojones and no cojones of the Super Rich would be in harm’s way.
Adding insult to injury, the Bush neocons dismissed as not real fans, not loyal
fans, any of America’s finest fans who dared to question Bush’s game plan. Dissent
and treason were synonyms in the Bush League playbook.
The Bush League is run by a cabal of amateurs, none of whom ever played major
league baseball for keeps. They are like drunken cowboy wannabes who buy new
cowboy hats and imagine they are real cowboys, but who have no personal experi-
ence in riding even a plow horse, let along a wild bronco. Each is a Walter Mitty.
America’s longtime fans throughout the world see the delusion and are not buying
tickets to any Bush League games. They are not buying the Bush League popcorn.
They are not drinking the GOP Kool-Aid.
Although the Bush League of Nations in Iraq is a fantasy league with its origins
in the imperial wet dreams of the Bush neocons, the blood and guts is real.
Because of the escalation of violence in Iraq, Bush League team members in-
creasingly moved into “cut and run” mode, or perhaps we should say “vamoosing”
mode, because the “cut and run” label is reserved for use only by the far right against
Bush’s political opponents and other sane people who argue for withdrawal.
In the next chapter we examine each of the more than 55 nations that have been
claimed by the Bush neocons and their cheerleaders, at one time or another, as coali-
tion members. Moving beyond the military contributions of the United States and
Great Britain, one sees a deep cesspool of Bush League tokenism and GOP propa-
ganda.
SIDEBAR: Jon Stewart on Bush and the Bush League
“Yesterday, the president met with a group he calls the coalition of the willing. Or,
as the rest of the world calls them, Britain and Spain.”
—Jon Stewart
As discussed later in this chapter, the diminutive coalition so humorously and accu-
rately portrayed by Stewart soon became even weaker.
Britain’s leader, who never gave a full measure to the coalition, quickly made
force protection a top priority, rather than proactively trying to “win the war” by
taking the fight to the ill-defined “enemy,” and soon began drawing down British
troop levels, while searching for a face-saving way to withdraw completely.
As for Spain, it completely withdrew all of its 1,400 troops in April 2004 in ac-
cordance with the overwhelming will of its people, who never supported Bush’s war
on Iraq in the first place.
By foolishly initiating an unjust war in Iraq, while not finishing the just war in
Afghanistan, Bush found himself losing both ends of a doubleheader.
Virtually all the nations of the Earth—including especially those with world class
teams whose cooperation is essential for America to win the Big Game—know that
Bush is an incompetent player who personally went AWOL when he had a chance to
try out for the Big Leagues then playing in Vietnam. In GOP style, Bush epitomizes
the worst of America’s sports figures: the spoiled, overpaid, steroid-sucking player
who cheats; the arrogant, wealthy team owner who cares not for the fans or the game
itself; and the lazy, incompetent manager who ignores rules and plays on “hunches.”
The world knows Bush is not a team player, but rather an untrustworthy unilater-
alist who would claim all glory for himself in the event of any win, however seren-
dipitous, and who expects to be bailed out by others when things go badly. Curi-
ously, the Bush League press guide, published by Big Media, asserts Bush is error-
less and omniscient. Perhaps that is why he ducks responsibility and claims victory
even when he loses game after game by lopsided scores.
Bush was a failure in every business venture he ever attempted or touched. Why
would other team owners join him in a league he owns and unilaterally runs? Bush
invaded Iraq to benefit only himself and the Super Rich and powerful of America,
not America’s soldiers, not Joe Lunchpail who works for a living, and not the people
of Iraq or any other nation, all of whom he holds in low esteem.
Bush has taken the most revered successful franchise in world history—the
United States of America—and driven it to the cellar in the world standings. He must
be impeached and thrown out of the game.
SIDEBAR: Bush Discusses Thinking
“I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about
myself, about why I do things.”
—George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003
The world community refuses to follow Bush’s lead in Iraq because of his short-
comings as a man and a leader. The world’s teams and fans have voted with their
hearts, minds and armies, and they want no part of a Bush League run by an immoral
man who:
• bullies the smaller players when he doesn’t get his way.
• did not want you to play in the first place, but later, after he mucked up the
field, insists that you have the responsibility to join his game and clean up
his mess.
• has one set of game rules for himself and his cronies, and another set for the
rest of the world.
• ignores and changes the game rules whenever he wishes.
• breaks his team’s commitments and promises at will, even those sealed with
spit and blood.
• swears and calls people bad names.
• was picked to lead his team not because of talent and accomplishments, but
because he is the son of a prior coach and owner.
• pouts and leaves the team when he doesn’t get his way, taking his Rich Boy
baseball equipment with him.
• lies and doesn’t play fairly.
• ignores reality because he believes God swings his bat.
• believes it doesn’t really matter how much he screws things up, because
Armageddon and the End Times are close at hand.
• thanks to cronyism, gets to play first-string shortstop, even though he has
never fielded a major league hard grounder.
• remains error free by shucking personal responsibility whenever he bungles
a play, always assigning the error to someone else.
• was chosen by America’s rightwing corporate media to be League MVP be-
fore the season even began.
• is the laziest player on the team.
• was born at third base but thinks he hit a triple.
• stole home, thanks to five Republican politicians on the U.S. Supreme
Court, with thanks also to election fraud in the state run by his brother.
• pretends to be a Texas Ranger by wearing a ten-gallon hat, but can neither
ride a horse nor swing a bat.
• is a reckless record Big Spender who pays his team’s bills with Confederate
currency and the blood and sweat of the unborn.
• has no clue what the real score is.
Long before Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the world was appalled by the jingoism and
warmongering emanating from the Bush White House. Among the most appalled
were America’s closest allies—all of them. For them, Bush in the White House was
an endless nightmare.
Even the people of Great Britain, our closest ally, overwhelmingly opposed the
Iraq war. The British Parliament, including Blair’s own Labour Party, also opposed
the war. Gerald Kaufman, the former foreign affairs spokesman for Blair’s party,
declared before the Iraq invasion, “Bush, himself the most intellectually backward
American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose belli-
cosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy.”
The so-called Bush doctrine of “preemptive intervention” was well marketed in
America, but it reminded America’s allies of dictators of days past. They knew that
the United Nations charter clearly acknowledges a nation’s right of legitimate self-
defense. But the Bush neocons wanted much more, the right of naked aggression,
without any showing of self defense or just cause, and without being limited by mo-
rality or international law.
Longing to hear a few strong American voices for American values and common
sense, our longtime allies must have taken comfort in the wisdom of Senator Robert
Byrd (D-WV), who in his Senate floor speech on February 12, 2003—a month be-
fore the invasion of Iraq—stated:
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to de-

fang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in
U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied
in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption—the idea
that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not
imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future—is a radical new twist
on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of interna-
tional law and the UN Charter.
Lacking adequate backbone and intellect, Bush was putty in the hands of Cheney
and Bush League neocons. Widely acknowledged to be a cipher on foreign affairs,
even by his own party, Bush had no personal foreign policy framework to serve as a
counterbalance to their toxic agenda. Nevertheless, he willingly entered a groupthink
isolation chamber—the Bush Bubble—that limited the opinions and information he
received.
Bush in fact had never even thought much about America’s foreign policy, and
he prided himself on his utter lack of curiosity about such things. This sort of mental
detachment—especially if you put in under a cowboy hat—resonates well with the
deep-thinking rightwing Republican zealots of Texas. However, America and the
world are better served if politicians like Bush never get within a thousand miles of
any national office.
Bush’s supporters try to ignore the awful reality that the vast majority of the
world believes he is a liar and a scoundrel, not a statesman or leader to be trusted.
The distrust comes from all the peoples of the world, of whatever religion, of what-
ever geographic region or country, of whatever language, of whatever color or eth-
nicity. It comes from America’s strongest allies and America’s worst enemies, and
from all the people in between.
America’s King George III is wearing no clothes. He plays a perverted form of
major league baseball completely naked—completely Bush—and it is a ghastly
sight. Perhaps Bush fancies himself wearing pinstripes like Babe Ruth, but, if the
world’s fans had their wish, Bush would be wearing prison stripes. His impeachment
will have to do.
The stench of distrust will stick to America long after Bush leaves the scene of
his high crimes and misdemeanors. When America transitioned from Clinton to
Bush, America went from Class A leadership to Class W. Thanks to Bush, the world
now sees America as a rogue nation, a militant pariah.
Bush has unwittingly made it much more difficult for future American presidents
to lead the world in just causes—certainly one of the most costly unintended conse-
quences flowing from Bush’ incompetence. Bush has delivered a crippling blow to
America’s reputation and power in the world, and it will take many years of hard
work and some good luck for America to recover.
Bush has greatly damaged America’s relations and influence with Europe, espe-
cially our long-term allies that he and his neocons gleefully knocked as “Old
Europe.” Bush foolishly tried to divide Europe into two camps—those that supported
him and those that didn’t—using simplistic black-and-white labels such as “old
Europe” and “new Europe,” but he succeeded only in widening the Atlantic rift be-
tween America and Europe, and causing Europe, with all its diversity, to become
united in its opposition to Bush and his Bush League policies.
There is a widespread belief in Europe that America under Bush lost its way and
is no longer a good model for Europe’s transformation into what some have labeled
the United States of Europe.
Thanks to Bush’s unilateral militarism and eye-poking “diplomacy,” Europe in-
creasingly talks of the need to be a balancing, opposing power to America, and much
less that of a friendly family member. The idea of a united Europe standing as an
equal or superior to America is frequently called the “countervailing power” thesis
and is completely Greek to the deep-thinking Bush neocons cocooned in their right-
wing think tanks in Washington, who narrowly view power in military terms.
The decline in America’s reputation and power has victims beyond America, in-
cluding countless poor and oppressed people in numerous countries who might oth-
erwise be saved by America. The victims of genocide in the Darfur region of western
Sudan are a prime example.
SIDEBAR: Genocide in Sudan: Where is America?
In a brutal campaign of genocide, the Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militia
allies are systematically raping and slaughtering black Sudanese living in the western
part of Sudan known as Darfur. During Bush’s watch, over 2.5 million black Suda-
nese have been savagely driven from their homes, countless women and girls have
been raped, and over 400,000 have died in the genocidal slaughter and from the re-
sulting disease and starvation.
Countless numbers of the survivors are asking, “In God’s name, will someone
please help us? Will someone at least save our children? Where is America?”
The sad answer is that Bush has our troops overextended and bogged down in
Iraq with no exit strategy. America under Bush does not have sufficient available
troops to even make a credible threat against the Sudanese regime.
The war on Iraq and Bush’s tough talk were intended to cause evildoers world-
wide to change their behavior. But America under Bush became a paper tiger. Amer-
ica under Bush lost the will and moral authority to lead and energize the world in just
causes, such as stopping the genocide in Sudan.
From Iran to North Korea, the evildoers have been emboldened and do what they
want. Even the third rate thugs in Khartoum commit genocide with impunity.
The victims of the genocidal Sudanese government can now also be fairly viewed
as Bush victims—unintended victims, but still victims. Only God knows how many
more will die because the “Christian nation” of America lost its way.
After reading a report on the horrendous slaughter of several hundred thousand
Rwandans, mostly Tutsis, in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Bush declared, “Not on
my watch.”
Unfortunately, Bush’s eyes are now closed, his body is feeble, and his heart is
cold. His refuses to commit a single American soldier to help stop the genocide in
Darfur. He refuses even to press the United Nations or NATO to commit troops to
the mission. He is the definition of a “compassionate conservative.”
Perhaps, if we are lucky, one unintended benefit of Bush’s incompetence and

power-drunk neocon policies in Iraq will be the complete rejection of these policies
by the American people, thus making the election of rightwing politicians of Bush’s
ilk less likely. At least that is the hope for an awakening America.
The Misnamed “Coalition of the Willing”

The term “Coalition of the Willing” has been used occasionally for more than 15
years to refer to coalitions acting on their own without approval of the United Na-
tions. Although the Bush administration used the term briefly in connection with its
Afghanistan campaign, its most common recent use has been to refer to Bush’s coali-
tion to invade and occupy Iraq. Since the Bush neocons could get neither UN nor
NATO support, they created a charade and misnamed it the Coalition of the Willing.
Several other more accurate terms have been suggested to describe Bush’s Coali-
tion of the Willing:
• “The Bush League of Nations—the Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bul-
lied and the Bribed.” This term is the best, of course.
• “COW.” Because many of the participants in the so-called Coalition of the
Willing are being paid—bribed—by the United States to participate, Sena-
tor Robert Byrd (D-WV) referred to it by its acronym, “COW.” The United
States is the cash cow that other nations wanted to milk. “The cow is US.”
• “Coalition of the Unwilling.” This truth speaks for itself.
• “Coalition of the UN-willing.” The vast majority of the world opposed any
invasion without UN support. With UN approval, the coalition could have
been incredibly strong and trustworthy.
• “Coalition of the Willies.” That’s what Slate magazine called the fractur-
ing coalition in early 2004 as the Bush administration found it increasingly
difficult to keep nations on board.
• “Coalition of the Billing.” Many used this term to highlight the opportuni-
ties for Halliburton and other war profiteers to make a fast buck. Well, it’s a
lot more than a buck.
• “Coalition of the Welfare States.” A New York Times editorial used this
term because many of the participants are small, impoverished nations des-
perately in need of financial aid from the United States.
• “Coalition of the Unwilling to be Named.” In addition to members it iden-

tified, the Bush regime announced it had the support of about 15 countries
that wished to remain anonymous. Some referred to them as the “coalition
of the unwilling to be named” or the “shadow coalition.”
SIDEBAR: The Coalition of the Unwilling to be Named
When Secretary of State Colin Powell announced in March 2003 that the coalition
included 30 countries, he also referred to “15 other nations” supporting the coalition
that “did not wish to be publicly named.” These nations were so proud to be allies in
Bush’s Mafia-style adventure that they wanted to wear masks. They had the same
pride in their Bush League adventure as do Bush Family males who party with pros-
titutes but don’t want their names publicized.
Some nations said they didn’t want their names to be used for propaganda pur-
poses. They understood that Bush’s goal was to create propaganda, not a real coali-
tion.
Based on a list of 46 coalition countries later appearing on the White House web-
site, the “15 other nations” (actually 16) unwilling to be named apparently were:
Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Kuwait, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Panama, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore,
Solomon Islands, and Uganda. Upon hearing the names of these superpowers, the
Iraqi citizenry must have jumped with joy, knowing their salvation was at hand.
• “Coalition of the Unwilling to be Maimed.” A large majority of the “par-

ticipating” coalition nations restricted their soldiers to non-combat roles,
with the understanding and hope they would be kept out of harm’s way.
This is like hiring a bunch of expensive baseball players who never leave
the locker room. They may provide some useful services in the locker room,
but let’s not pretend they are members of a team willing to go on the war-
path.
• “Coalition of the Silly.” This term is from down under. Australia’s mem-
bership in the Bush League deeply divided that country.
• “Coalition of the Shilling.” Since the two principal shills for the war, Bush
and Blair, lied about every justification for the war, this description is pain-
fully on target. (Also, because the shilling was formerly a monetary unit in
Britain, some commentators have used “Coalition of the Shilling” in the
same sense as “Coalition of the Billing.”)
• “Coalition of the Sinning.” Because of the dismal human rights records of

many of the coalition members, the International Press Institute in Vienna
applied this label when the coalition was announced.32
• “Coalition of the Wanting.” Most coalition members wanted something
from the United States and reluctantly joined the coalition in order to please
Uncle Sam, not because they believed in the war. Their contributions were
understandably minimal or even zero.
Coalitions can be good or bad, strong or weak. Strong leaders with just causes
can put together strong coalitions. Weak leaders with unjust causes are unable to do
so. Unfortunately, coalitions are not really in Bush’s nature, since he’s a natural di-
vider, a unilateralist with a track record of eye poking.
When you play charades, a charade is what you get. When you build a coalition
with smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors are what you get. When George W.
Bush and the GOP go to bat, a Bush League of Nations is what you get.
The Bush League Propaganda Machine

In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, White House propagandists and
their rightwing media shills painted a picture of a vast willing global coalition sup-
porting Bush’s war. A February 4, 2003, White House press release hyped a coali-
tion of “nearly 50 nations” with a population of “approximately 1.23 billion.” The
numbers proved to be faith-based, i.e., dead wrong. Even if the bogus population
figure of 1.23 billion had been correct, it would have represented only about one-fifth
of the world’s population of more than 6 billion.
As for the number of nations in the coalition, the propaganda claims varied
widely. There were estimates in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s and higher, depending on
the creativity of the propagandists.
Even counting all the Bush League members who gave nothing other than lip
service and a flag, the number of members in Bush’s willowy coalition33 was small
when compared to the 191 nations in the United Nations.
Eighteen months after the invasion, the official website of the Multi-National
Force couldn’t even agree with itself as to the number of coalition members. In Oc-
tober 2004 it referred to “28 non-U.S. military forces contributing to the ongoing
stability operations throughout Iraq,” although it had 29 names on a list, and it
showed only 26 flags in a colorful flag display section of the website. (Perhaps
Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Moldova refused to have their flags soiled
by visual association with the Bush League.) Not even the Bush neocons paid much
attention to the details of the coalition, since it was out of the loop when it came to
setting policy and making decisions.
During that same month—October 2004—Cheney in a campaign debate referred
to 33 nations. A White House press release later mentioned 46 members. And so it
32
Johann Fritz, Director of International Press Institute, said the coalition “contains many
governments that have done their utmost to suppress and stifle the independent media in their
countries. They should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the other democratic
countries named on the same list who continue to espouse the principles of a free press.”
33
Yes, “W” also stands for “willowy.”
went. Given the absence of standards as to membership, and lack of scruples as to

the counting, numerous fictitious accounts of the glorious coalition abounded.
During the rush to war in early 2003 numerous websites popped up to fan the
flames of war, each spewing out propaganda describing an incredibly strong global
coalition standing shoulder to shoulder in undivided support of Bush’s noble war.
Frequently updated during the giddy early days of the war, these websites soon be-
came stale, or disappeared completely, as the reality of the messy conflict hit home,
and mouthing the Big Lie became less fun.
As for the Bush League claim that much of the world’s population stood behind
his coalition, let’s take a look at the world’s 20 most populous nations. Certainly
Bush—America’s leader and the most powerful person in the world—was in a posi-
tion to demonstrate his leadership skills by convincing all, or almost all, of these 20
nations—representing the lion’s share of power and influence in the world—to sup-
port his Iraq war. After all, every one of these nations was appalled by the slaughter
of 9/11. But let’s leave Bush World and take a look at the facts. The following chart
shows that the only coalition member among the 20 most populous nations is the
United States.
20 Most Populous Nations - Coalition Support
19 20 1 - C hina 1,298,847,624
17 18 2 - India 1,065,070,607
16
15
14 3 - Unite d S ta te s 293,027,571
13 4 - Indo ne s ia 238,452,953
12 1 5 - B ra zil 184,101,110
11 6 - P a kis ta n 159,196,337
7 - R us s ia 143,782,339
10
8 - B a ngla de s h 141,340,477
9 - Nige ria 137,253,133
9
10 - J a pa n 127,333,002
11 - M e xic o 104,959,594
8 12 - P hilippine s 86,241,697
13 - Vie tna m 82,689,518
7 14 - Ge rm a ny 82,424,609
15 - Egypt 76,117,421
6 16 - Turke y 68,893,918
17 - Ethio pia 67,851,281
18 - Ira n 67,503,205
5 19 - Tha ila nd 64,865,523
20 - F ra nc e 60,424,213
4
2
C o a litio n M e m be r
3 No n-M e m be r
The chart shows that none of the top 20 most populous nations on Earth (other
than the United States) are in the Bush League.34 “The war is US.” By 2006 a grow-
ing majority of Americans finally realized what the rest of the world had known for
years, that the Iraq war was a catastrophic mistake.
The Bush regime bullies small weak nations, as it has no backbone or aptitude to
confront the more powerful. Bush is the quintessential bully: cowardly, AWOL to the
core, and ultimately Weak and Willowy when forced to stand on his own two legs.
As time wore on, the Bush neocons referred less and less to their glorious coali-
tion, and when they did, they omitted important details (such as the number of troops
provided by each member, and their actual duties and accomplishments, or lack
thereof), and retreated to the use of vague terms such as “strong coalition.”
A Real Coalition versus the Bush League of Nations

Given the huge success of the 1991 Gulf War I coalition—ably organized and ably
led by W’s father, George H. W. Bush—one might have expected that virtually all of
its member nations would have eagerly joined the 2003 coalition led by W. But the
exact opposite is the case, and the blame lies at the feet of America’s incompetent
leader who lied and bullied America into an illegal, unjust war. By definition, a
leader who has no followers is a weak leader. Yes, “W” stands for “Weak.”
The Security Council in 1991 authorized, by a 12-2 vote, the use of force to re-
move Iraq from Kuwait in what later became known as Gulf War I, and no perma-
nent member of the Security Council exercised its veto power. However, in 2003,
Bush flip flopped and decided not even to subject his planned Iraq invasion to a vote
of the Security Council because he had at most only four votes out of 15 in favor of
his madness. Also, multiple vetoes among the five permanent members were likely.
The Bush neocons later stopped repeating one of their favorite lies about the coa-
lition, namely that—and this is in the words of Don Rumsfeld, one of its more skilled
liars—“the coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the
Gulf War in 1991.”35 Even the pompous propaganda puppets at Fox News stopped
pumping such specific comparisons, preferring more vague lies.
The 2006 version of the MNF-I website no longer displayed the names of the na-
tions claimed to be in the coalition.36 The previously prominent page with the color-
ful national flags of coalition members had been removed. In its place, the 2006
homepage contained one simple sentence: “At this time, several nations (emphasis
added) are contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq.”
The only other item on that sparse page was a neocon slogan in large font at the
top, which proclaimed in Orwellian fashion: “The World, Working Together, to
Make a Difference.” In crafting this Rovian slogan, the Bush League neocons exe-
34
Britain is the 21st most populous nation. A solid majority of the British opposed Bush’s war
on Iraq.
35
This Rumsfeld quote is from October 2003, several months after the invasion.
36
If you dug around enough, you could find on the 2006 website a link to a report “current as
of May 15, 2005,” naming 26 countries then currently providing support. Even this was soon
eliminated.
cuted a rare triple play—three lies in one slogan. Yes, all three parts of the slogan are
lies: (1) “The World,” (2) “Working Together,” (3) “to Make a Difference.”37
Even this tagline was soon eliminated. Expanded later in 2006, the official web-
site remained a distrusted propaganda factory, a less than useless website that
pumped out happy news from a happy Iraq that existed only in the minds of the hap-
pily demented.
If the “standards” used by the Bush neocons to determine who got dragged in and
counted as a coalition “member” had been used in 1991, then well over 100 na-
tions—a huge majority of all nations—would have been included in the 1991 coali-
tion. Even the Soviet Union, which was not a member of the 1991 coalition, would
have been counted in 1991 because it had voted in the Security Council to authorize
military action.
Let’s look at the facts in the following chart:
37
If making things worse is considered “making a difference,” then technically the third part
of the slogan is in fact true. Yes, “W” also stands for “worse.”
Coalitions: 1991 Versus 2003

1991 Coalition 2003 Coalition
Name George H.W. Bush George W. Bush
Nickname "Bush the Father" "Bush the Boy," "Shrub"
Also Known As… #41 #43, "W" as in AWOL
Leader
Description Statesman and Builder Divider and Destroyer

Number of Followers Almost all of the world W: "What? Who? Where?
Number of Competent Leaders 1 0
Exit Strategy Yes W: "What?"
55…or "it's huge"
Number of Nations in Coalition 34
(or maybe it's just 2)
Nations
Number of nations with significant

16 2
ground combat troops
Arab and/or Muslim nations with
13 0
ground combat troops
Total Number [660,000 to] 814,000 146,000 (Jan. 2007)
Number of U.S. troops 575,000 132,000 (Jan. 2007)
Percentage of Troops that are U.S. 71% 90%

Troops
Non-U.S. Coalition Troops 239,000 (29%) 14,000 (10%)

Number of Saudi troops 52,000 (6%) 0
Number of French Troops 15,000 0
Coalition Deaths 236 (+235 non-battle related) 3,251 thru 2006, and counting
Coalition Casualties
U.S. Deaths 147 (+ 235 non-battle related) 3,001 thru 2006, and counting
British Deaths 47 127 thru 2006, and counting
Allied Arab Deaths 39 0
U.S. Wounded Fewer than 1000 for coalition 23,000 thru 2006, and counting
Add'l U.S. injuries/disease requiring
N/A 25,000 thru 2006, and counting
medical air transport
Direct Financial Cost $61 billion $500 billion and counting
6 weeks total
Cost of War
Length of war (100 hours after start of massive ground Last 5 yrs. 10 mos. of Bush regime
campaign)
Real cost of war $61 billion Catastrophic. Priceless
Cost paid by U.S. $9 billion (15% of total) Almost 100%
Cost paid by Arab Gulf Nations $36 billion (59% of total) 0
UN Security Council? Yes No
Approval
NATO? Yes No
France? Yes No
Saddam, Cuba, Yemen, Jordan, and
War condemned by: 98.44% of sane people
Palestine
Here are a few comments regarding the previous chart:

1) The number of nations in the 1991 Coalition is sometimes counted as 31
(rather than 34), because four Persian Gulf nations combined their forces
into one.
2) Regarding the 1991 Coalition, if Syrian and Turkish coalition forces along
Iraq’s border are counted, America’s share of total coalition troops drops
from 71% to 55%, according to a 1994 Congressional Quarterly study.
3) Regarding the 2003 Coalition, the zero for the number of Saudi troops of
course does not include: (1) Saudi citizens who traveled to Iraq to kill coali-
tion troops, and (2) bin Laden himself and other Saudi citizens who are
members of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. If these Saudis were included,
the percentage for Saudi Arabia’s contribution of troops to the coalition—
The Bush League of Nations—would be hugely negative, not just zero.
4) Regarding the 2003 Coalition, the zero financial contribution from Saudi
Arabia and other Arab nations does not include: (1) payments made by Saudi
Arabia to help fund “educational programs” and other propaganda promoting
hatred of the United States, Israel, Christians and Jews, (2) payments made
by Saudi Arabia to fund terrorist attacks against Americans and Israelis, and
(3) money transferred by Saudi organizations and individuals for similar
purposes. If such payments were included, Saudi Arabia’s financial contribu-
tion to the coalition—The Bush League of Nations—would not be zero, but
would be hugely negative.
5) As the 2003 Coalition further crumbles, America’s share of the troops is ex-
pected to rise to more than 95% by the end of 2008.
Arab and Muslim Opposition to the Bush League of Nations

One of the most disturbing truths about Bush’s war on Iraq, a predominantly Arab
nation, is that it is strongly resented by virtually the entire Arab world, including not
only Arab governments but also Arab populations. Since this was decidedly not the
case with Gulf War I in 1991, the widespread Arab enmity towards Bush’s war can-
not be attributed simply to preexisting hatred of the United States. Rather, it is Bush
himself, cheered on by the do-nothing-good, rubber-stamping, GOP-controlled Con-
gress, who stoked the fires of Arab hostility. Bush, billed as the Great Uniter, suc-
ceeded only in uniting Arabs against America.
Even oil-rich dictators who are long-term bedmates of the Bush family and
America’s petroleum industry—including the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia—
refused to join the Bush League, and their relationship soured as the war dragged on.
At a summit of Arab leaders in Riyadh in March 2007, King Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia slammed the United States and the coalition. “In beloved Iraq, blood is being
shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation,” he de-
clared. He also said that no foreign force would decide the region’s future. Abdullah
is working hard to avoid Tony Blair’s fate, going down in history as Bush’s lapdog
poodle.
As for the 1991 Gulf War coalition, several Arab nations contributed a total of
190,000 Arab troops, which is greater than Bush’s entire 2003 coalition, and several
times greater than the total number of all non-American troops claimed at one time
or another to have been contributed to that 2003 coalition by the rest of the world.
Although a few Arab nations did not join the 1991 Gulf War coalition, a large
majority enthusiastically embraced it. In fact, Egypt, Morocco, Syria (yes, even
Syria, which contributed 19,000 troops) and all six members of the Gulf Cooperation
Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emir-
ates) were part of combat operations to remove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991.
Unfortunately for Bush, not a single Arab nation is a declared member of his
Bush League of Nations. Even Middle Eastern nations that opened up their territory
to the coalition’s use for logistics support, refused to join the coalition against Iraq.
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Qatar and Bahrain are all conspicuously
absent from the coalition. A huge supermajority of their respective populations does
not believe Bush is trying to bring democracy to the region.
SIDEBAR: Questions Never Asked
Why is Bush so hated by the people in the region he allegedly wants to help? Since
most of the people in Iraq’s neighboring Islamic countries live under dictatorships,
why aren’t they flooding across the borders into Iraq to fight with, not against, the
United States and perhaps for their own eventual freedom? Bush and the GOP do not
want you to think about such questions, as the answers are too disturbing. Regretta-
bly, America’s rightwing Big Media are also silent regarding these hugely important
questions.
There was a real need to seal Iraq’s borders against terrorists and insurgents seek-
ing to enter Iraq and fight against American forces. But why haven’t hundreds of
thousands of Iranians entered Iraq to fight on the side of America? How many have?
Perhaps 100,000? No. Perhaps just 1,000? No, although even that small number
would have been a positive sign. How about just one? Has not a single freedom lov-
ing Iranian entered Iraq to fight with America? Regrettably, the vast majority of Ira-
nians despise Bush and his policies as much as they despise their hated dictatorial
rightwing ayatollahs. Perhaps Iranians see too much similarity between Iran’s zeal-
ous Islamic ayatollahs and their Christianist ayatollah counterparts from Texas.
Consider Syria, which is run by a ruthless dictator. Why haven’t tens of thou-
sands of Syrian freedom fighters flooded into Fallujah and other hotspots to support
Bush’s effort “to bring democracy” to Iraq and to the region? If they trusted Bush,
why aren’t they helping Iraq now and thus themselves and their families in the long
run? The answers to these questions are embarrassing for Bush. Hafez al-Assad, the
father of Syria’s current dictator, seized power in a bloody coup in 1970 and main-
tained power until his death in 2000 through incredible brutal measures aimed at
both real and imagined enemies, of whatever religious or ethnic community. The
most infamous of his despotic actions against his opposition, including the Muslim
Brotherhood, was the encirclement and total destruction of Hamah in 1982, a city in
which approximately 20,000 men, women and children were slaughtered.
In 2004 Saudi Arabia proposed—whether seriously or not—that Muslim nations

such as Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Malaysia and Yemen send troops to
Iraq to join and replace American troops and operate under the auspices of the
United Nations. Unfortunately, there were no takers, because no Muslim nation
wanted the taint of being associated with Bush, who in any case wanted to continue
calling all the shots. To be clear, none of these nations supported Bush’s invasion
and occupation of Iraq. Rather, their intended purpose was humanitarian—to help
clean up the mess Bush and the GOP created. In their eyes, this is like refusing to
join a criminal’s plan of arson and looting, but then nevertheless trying later to help
the criminal’s innocent victims.
As for Africa, none of the numerous predominantly Arab or Muslim nations on
that continent chose to participate in Bush’s coalition. Not even Morocco, which is
moderate and strongly pro-American, at least prior to Bush’s reign. The entire conti-
nent of Africa—consisting of 56 nations—contributed a total of zero soldiers to the
coalition,38 thus tying Antarctica.
Egypt’s lack of cooperation is especially noteworthy, not only because of its
prominent position in the Arab world, but also because it is, and has been for many
years, one of the two largest recipients of American foreign aid, the other being
Israel. A member of the 1991 coalition, Egypt refused to join the 2003 Bush League
of Nations.
Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak blames the Bush administration for the unfor-
tunate rise in hatred towards the United States. “After what has happened in Iraq,
there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it. … There exists today a
hatred never equaled in the region.”
Of course, it is not just Arab nations and people who hate Bush and his war on
Iraq. It is the entire Muslim world, which by and large believes Bush’s regime is
waging an imperial war against Islam.
Consider Pakistan, whose government, a dictatorship, is generally heralded by
Bush as a strong ally of the United States in the war on terrorism. Even Pakistan, a
UN Security Council member at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, opposed
Bush’s war and refused to send troops to Iraq either before or after the invasion.
Pakistan’s Foreign Office announced in August 2004 that Pakistan would not send
troops to Iraq because of the “volatile” situation there.
Pakistan’s unwillingness to help its fellow Muslims in Iraq who desperately need
assistance is regrettable, but understandable given the high level of violence in Iraq.
A poll in early 2004 showed that Bush is widely detested in Pakistan. Only 8% of the
Pakistanis polled were positive on Bush—perhaps the 8% confused him with USC’s
Reggie Bush, the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner—whereas bin Laden was held in
high regard by 65%. In commenting on this poll, conservative Pat Buchanan wrote in
a New York Times editorial of March 26, 2004: “We are losing the hearts and minds
of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of which future terrorists will
emerge.”
Thanks to Bush and the GOP, the opinion of the United States throughout the
Muslim world has dropped into the toilet. As confirmed by countless polls, Bush’s
voluntary war in the heart of the Muslim world drove America’s credibility to all-
time lows.
Muslims especially resent that Bush’s Confederate Party Coalition tried to run
Iraq like a plantation, with Arabs playing the GOP’s neo-Sambo role.
38
For propaganda purposes, five African nations—Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, and
Angola—were claimed by the Bush geniuses as coalition members at one time or another.
Even knee-jerk Bush supporters should be appalled at this insult to their intelligence.
Here are some additional observations about the two Gulf War coalitions:
• Given the great success of the 1991 Gulf War I coalition assembled by Bush
the Father, it is revealing that Bush the Son didn’t have a Holy Ghost of a
chance to cobble together a real coalition in 2003.
• Many insiders and psychologists have speculated that Bush the Son started
the Iraq war in 2003 simply to “one up” his father.
• While Bush’s 2003 coalition was much smaller and weaker than the 1991
coalition, the mission of his 2003 coalition was much more difficult. The
mission in 1991 was limited to evicting Saddam from Kuwait and defeating
Iraqi forces arrayed in fixed positions in the open desert in southern Iraq,
not to occupying and running Iraq.
• Bush the Father understood the dubious proposition of pressing on to Bagh-
dad in 1991, but Bush the Son chose not to seek his counsel or that of
America’s best military experts and friends around the world.
• Iraq’s military was much weaker in 2003 than it was at the time of Gulf
War I in 1991, largely due to the severe beating it received in 1991 and
years of UN-approved sanctions. The United States estimated that it de-
stroyed 80% of Iraq’s military capacity in 1991.
• On the other hand, Bush the Son inherited an American military that was
much stronger than it was in 1991 (a fact expressly acknowledged by Bush
the Father), thanks to a substantial strengthening of America’s military dur-
ing the Clinton presidency.
• Even though Iraq was much weaker in 2003 and the United States was
much stronger, Bush the Son and the GOP leveraged their incompetence to
create America’s worst foreign policy disaster ever.
• Of the 34 nations in the 1991 coalition, an overwhelming majority, 21, did
not support Bush’s 2003 invasion and wanted no part of it, and the position
of the others can generously be described as reluctant tokenism or silent op-
position.
• Britain was the only major-league supporter of Bush’s disastrous invasion
of Iraq in 2003, and even Britain’s “enthusiasm” in 2003 was only a whis-
per of what it was in 1991.
• Britain sent only a fraction of the troops in 2003 that it sent in 1991, and
when the worsening security situation in Iraq demanded more troops, it
looked for ways to provide fewer and keep them out of harm’s way.
• France was the favorite target of the Bush bullies and America’s Big Media.
How utterly shameful and counterproductive. France is America’s oldest
and most loyal ally, having stood shoulder to shoulder with America during
its Revolutionary War, during Gulf War I, and during many wars in be-
tween. But past sacrifices, long-term friendships, and wise counsel mean
nothing to the Bush League neocons who prefer docile acquiescence from
weak-kneed suck-ups. In addition to the sin of leading the broad opposition
at the United Nations to Bush’s war in 2003, France committed the most
unpardonable sin of all, namely, it had the “Gaul” to be right. The French
people and its government were right, and Bush was wrong, dead wrong,
and he and the GOP owe France an apology.
• The large hate-France wing of the Republican Party wants you to believe
that France always opposes America, which is just another GOP lie in-
tended for gullible minds. Just consider the most recent relevant example,
which is the Gulf War I coalition led by Bush the Father. France was a will-
ing member of that coalition and contributed 17,000 troops, 350 tanks and
38 warplanes. In fact, if you add up all the troops—whether fighting or non-
fighting—provided by the dozens of Bush League “members” other than the
United States and Britain, you get a total force39 for Bush’s 2003 coalition
that is fewer in number than the 17,000 French troops who served in the
1991 coalition.
• France is the definition of a true friend. The French fight shoulder to shoul-
der with America when the cause is just, and they speak the truth as they
see it when the cause is not.
• Let’s also remember that the French gave America the Statue of Liberty, the
world’s most famous symbol of human rights, and that Bush and the GOP
gave America Abu Ghraib, America’s most infamous symbol of torture and
disregard of human rights.
• The 1991 Gulf War Coalition was formidable and legitimate, and no one
called it Bush League. In that genuine coalition, several European and Arab
nations deployed entire divisions of troops.
Troops Contributed to the Iraq Coalition, By Country

The admission “standards” for Bush’s coalition were so low and fraudulent that they
were never written down or publicly disclosed. The Bush League geniuses shang-
haied nations at will, especially small weak nations, and thus created a coalition out
of thin air. Many shanghaied countries expressly disavowed membership. Several
“members” declared themselves neutrals.
There is not a single coalition nation whose citizens broadly supported the Bush
League of Nations and its imperial leader. Not one.
A majority of the 55+ nations claimed at one time or another by the Bush neo-
cons and their cheerleaders to be coalition members have been recently cited by
Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch for various human rights violations.
The 39 most prominent “members” of the Bush League of Nations appear on the
two-page chart that follows.
39
By July 2005, the 26 “members” of the Bush League of Nations other than the United States
and Britain had a total of 16,370 mostly non-combat troops in Iraq, or fewer than 650 per na-
tion.
Coalition Troops By Country

At End of
Country Max. Jan. 2007 Comments
Invasion 2004
United States 150,000 140,000 162,000 132,000 lowest was 115,000 in Feb. 2004
United most were outside Iraq at invasion,

45,000 8,361 10,000 7,200
Kingdom 5000 by end of 2007
South Korea 3,300 3,700 3,700 2,300 to be cut by half in 2007
Italy 0 3,085 3,085 0 withdrew Nov. 2006
non-combat troops,
Poland 194 2,500 2,500 900
withdrawal planned
non-combat mechanized infantry,
Ukraine 0 1,589 1,589 0
withdrew Dec. 2005
Netherlands 0 1,345 1,345 0 withdrew Mar. 2005
non-combat, reconstruction,
Spain 0 0 1,300 0
withdrew Apr. 2004
Romania 0 700 865 600
Australia 2,000 400 550 550 training security forces
non-combat engineers & medics,

Japan 0 550 550 0
withdrew July 2006
Denmark 0 496 515 470 to withdraw by Aug. '07
non-combat troops and support personnel,

Bulgaria 0 485 485 0
withdrew Apr. 2006
non-combat medical and engineering
Thailand 0 0 423 0
troops, withdrew Aug. 2004
El Salvador 0 380 380 380 humanitarian and peacekeeping
non-combat, reconstruction,
Honduras 0 0 368 0
withdrew May 2004
non-combat construction & guarding
Mongolia 0 180 180 100
pipelines
Dominican non-combat, restrictive rules of engagement,
0 0 302 0
Republic withdrew May 2004
non-combat transportation group,
Hungary 0 0 300 0
withdrew May 2005
Georgia 500 300 300 300 combat, medics and support

Coalition Troops By Country (Continued)

At End of
Country Max. Jan. 2007 Comments
Invasion 2004
Azerbaijan 0 250 250 150 non-combat
non-combat, restrictive rules of engagement,

Nicaragua 0 0 230 0
withdrew Feb. 2004
non-combat, training,
Singapore 0 0 192 0
withdrew Mar. 2005
military engineers,
Norway 0 0 150 0
withdrew Oct. 2005
Latvia 0 122 136 120 non-combat
non-combat gendarmes,
Portugal 0 128 128 0
withdrew Feb. 2005
Lithuania 0 105 105 50 non-combat, including doctors
non-combat, decontamination,
Slovakia 0 105 105 0
withdrew Jan. 2007
Czech 0 100 100 100 military police, 300 at peak
Albania 0 70 120 120 non-combat troops
non-combat engineers,
New Zealand 0 0 61 0
withdrew Sep. 2004
non-combat medics and engineers,
Philippines 0 0 51 0
withdrew Jul. 2004
Estonia 0 55 55 34 non-combat
Armenia 0 0 46 46 non-combat medics, engineers
Tonga 0 45 45 0 non-combat, withdrew Dec. 2004
Kazakhstan 0 29 29 29 non-combat military engineers
Bosnia &
0 0 37 36 non-combat
Herzegovina
Macedonia 0 33 33 33 non-combat
non-combat bomb defusing experts,

Moldova 24 12 12 12
withdrew Jan. 2007, may return
Total 201,018 165,125 192,622 145,530

America’s closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, whose leaders knew Bush
best, courageously refused to join the Bush League, even though they risked retalia-
tion from the Bush White House. Let’s consider America’s shameful treatment of
Canada.
In addition to participating in the war on terrorism, Canada willingly participated
in the war in Afghanistan, and many of its soldiers died there, including several
killed accidentally by friendly American fire. Nevertheless, Canada angered the
Bush neocons when it declared it would participate in the Iraq war only with UN
approval, which was not forthcoming. In December 2003, Bush decided that coun-
tries not supporting his invasion of Iraq could not bid on some $18 billion in recon-
struction contracts, thus denying them a share in the spoils of war. Pumped up by
early military successes, Bush was then at his vindictive best, and he put Canada on a
long list of nations to be punished. This disgusted the Canadian population, including
Canada’s new Prime Minister, Paul Martin, especially in view of the blood shed by
Canada’s troops in Afghanistan and the $300 million already committed by Canada
to the reconstruction of Iraq. Martin said he found Bush’s decision “very difficult to
fathom.” Although Bush later relented, the damage was already done.
The Canadians were victims of a key Bush League rule: The only thing that
counts is what you do for Bush and the GOP today. Forget history. Prior friendship,
cooperation and sacrifices don’t count. Jump when Bush says jump. If you do not
docilely participate in Bush’s latest fiasco du jour, you will be punished. Even
Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, who was elected Canada’s prime minister
in January 2006, refuses to support Bush’s war.
Many coalition members, such as Rwanda, provided nothing other than the du-
plicitous misuse of their names. The Bush neocons referred to this as “moral sup-
port,” even though the vast majority of the citizens of each such nation opposed the
war. Some countries provided logistical support only, such as the use of air space
and air bases, which in most cases had no military value.
Many so-called coalition members actually opposed the war and wanted nothing
to do with the military campaign, but were nevertheless willing to provide humani-
tarian help in the event Bush foolishly pursued his unilateral war.
The Bush administration bragged about the number of nations in the coalition
without ever referring to the broad opposition of the people of each member nation.
However, there’s a critical distinction between a nation’s people willingly sending
troops to war (whether or not there’s a popular vote) and a nation’s leader making
the decision on behalf of the nation. Again, no coalition member nation ever had a
solid majority of its citizens support Bush’s Iraq war.
The leaders of several coalition members made calculated political decisions to
put their nations’ flags, but not muscle, behind the coalition. By making soft nominal
commitments, many such suck-up leaders hoped to stay in Bush’s good graces and
receive benefits in return, such as increased foreign aid, debt forgiveness, American
investment, or a favorable bilateral trade agreement.
The citizens of each member nation by and large understood the political charade
that their leaders were engaged in, and they cut their leaders some slack, especially
when it became apparent that their troops were to be involved with minimal risk and
in minimal numbers.
In addition to receiving what is best described as bribes, such leaders also wanted
to avoid retribution. Statistically, it was smaller nations with weak militaries or even
no military that succumbed most frequently to the Bush League bullying. None of
the 20 most populous nations, other than the United States, joined Bush’s grand coa-
lition.
There is not one leader of a coalition member who truly supports and likes Bush
and his Iraq war. Even Tony Blair must regret the day he climbed into bed with
America’s King George III and got royally screwed. In Bush’s dog and pony show,
Blair played a poodle.
Coalition Deaths By Nation (through 2006)

3,500
3,001
3,000
2,500
2,000
Deaths
1,500
1,000
500
127 33 30
18 18 13 11
0
United Great Italy Poland Ukraine Bulgaria Spain All
States Britain others
The source of the data in the above chart is www.icasualties.org.

Very few of the small number of casualties suffered by coalition members other
than the United States and Britain resulted from coalition soldiers taking the fight to
the enemy.
The U.S. military sometimes refers to “swimmers” and “non-swimmers” to dis-
tinguish between those who are truly committed to a military venture and willing to
fight, and those who are not. Unfortunately, virtually all of the nations in the Bush
League are non-swimmers who share the central goal of staying out of harm’s way.
The United States and Britain provided almost 100% of the swimmers. Some non-
swimmer nations lost brave troops in Iraq, but with few exceptions the deaths were
caused by traffic accidents, roadside explosions, mortar and sniper attacks, suicide
bombings, and the like, and were not the result of proactive military engagement
with the enemy.
The Bush League has more flags that swimmers. Virtually all of the flags were
“mailed in” without the heart, soul, and commitment of the respective peoples they
represent. There is so little pride among the members of this coalition that they
choose not to gather for group photos showing off all their colorful flags.
Only a few countries offered “direct military” participation. Statements by the

Bush administration itself show that more than 90% of the coalition members re-
fused to send troops to actually fight the war. Instead, they offered to participate in
ways that were largely soft and worth little or nothing, such as “political support,”
“moral support,” and “over-flight rights.”
Virtually all of the leaders of the coalition nations wanted nothing to do with
Bush’s war, but were willing after the fact to provide “humanitarian and reconstruc-
tion aid” under what proved to be two huge false assumptions, namely that: (1) their
personnel would be welcome and safe after the Americans and Brits did the shooting
and restored a safe environment, and (2) there would be wonderful opportunities to
make money at the Iraqi Public Trough, which the Bush neocons would keep filled
to the brim with Iraqi oil revenues and U.S. taxpayer dollars.
These leaders are like neighbors who unsuccessfully try to dissuade a drunken
man from beating a small child, but later—after the thug has given his neighbors the
finger and beaten the child anyway—step in to offer some medical aid and comfort
to the battered victim. And if the thug offers them some money in the process, well
what’s wrong with that?
To be clear, we honor the service of all coalition troops, since with rare exception
they bravely followed their orders. The blame lies not with the troops but with their
respective political leaders.
U.S. And Other Coalition Deaths in Iraq by Calendar Quarter

350
U.S.
300 Ot her Coalit ion
250
200
Deaths
150
100
50
0
Q1 2003
Q2 2003
Q3 2003
Q4 2003
Q1 2004
Q2 2004
Q3 2004
Q4 2004
Q1 2005
Q2 2005
Q3 2005
Q4 2005
Q1 2006
Q2 2006
Q3 2006
Q4 2006
Q1 2007
Q2 2007
Q3 2007
Although Bush’s war was created and directed by old, white, typically wealthy,
male politicians, young Americans fight it. More than three-quarters of U.S. fatalities
are 30 years old or younger. Slightly more than 25% are ages 21 or younger. Half are
from 22 to 30 years old. Fewer than one-quarter are 31 years or older.40
Finally noticing that they had bungled things badly in Iraq, the Bush neocons in
2004 began a hard push to get NATO to join in and help clean up their mess. Their
efforts to engage NATO were less than effective for many reasons.
SIDEBAR: NATO
In addition to Bush’s Iraq war being unlawful under international law, there are sev-
eral other reasons why NATO refused to join his Bush League of Nations. Here are a
few of the lowlights:
• Unilateral Militarism. The Bush neocons made all the decisions regarding the
war it wanted, and all glory and booty would be theirs. To the extent other na-
tions participated, their role was to take orders.
• Disrespect. Bush went out of his way to insult NATO members who disagreed,
and he foolishly and childishly made it personal in order to please his rightwing
base. In November 2002, just prior to the NATO summit in Prague, Bush
shunned German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in a rude display of Bush
League diplomacy. Let’s not forget the GOP jokes about the Germans and the
French, especially the French. Republicans led by crooked Congressman Bob
Ney even had French fries replaced by “freedom fries” on the congressional
menu, but Ney later ate his words and his “freedom fries” when he headed off to
prison to serve a 30-month sentence for corruption.
• More Disrespect. In addition to insulting NATO members that refused to join
his Bush League of Nations, Bush even disrespected the few NATO members
that did by never seriously consulting with them about the conduct of the war.
• Lack of Empathy. Bush failed to consider the domestic political reality facing
each NATO member nation and its leader. Even Tony Blair was not treated as
an equal, which caused the British to call him Bush’s poodle, a lapdog always at
Bush’s beck and call for photo ops and glorious barking whenever Bush’s rat-
ings needed a boost.
• Lack of Trust. It is difficult to find a single world leader who trusts Bush and his
warmongering party.
• Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Afghanistan provided an excellent case study of
how Bush misuses and disrespects NATO.
Although NATO refused to join the coalition, it later helped train Iraq’s military
personnel. Because this peacekeeping effort was not under U.S. control, it was more
popular in Europe. NATO nations unwilling to join Bush’s messy war on Iraq were
understandably willing to help the battered people of Iraq by helping clean up his
mess.
40
The source of this data as well as the data in the preceding chart is www.icasualties.org.
Knowing Iraq was going to be a cakewalk, Bush, like a spoiled child, did not
want to share any of the delicious cake with anyone. But when the cake he baked
turned out to be toxic, Bush desperately searched for others to eat it. In 2004, and
without the slightest hint of an apology, Bush informed both NATO and the United
Nations that it was their duty to help clean up the mess.
Several Bush League members said in 2004 they would reconsider their plans to
withdraw personnel from Iraq if a UN resolution gave the United Nations more au-
thority in Iraq, but Bush remained intransigent.
Fear of retribution from the Bush administration influenced the decision of many
coalition members to join the coalition and stay longer than planned. However,
Bush’s incompetence and disastrous foreign policy reduced his political and moral
leadership to such a low point that he could not effectively punish nations that left
the coalition or reduced their commitments. Nations opposing Bush drew strength
from their numbers. If Bush were to take punitive action against every nation that
opposed his war, he would have to punish the entire world.
As the security situation in Iraq worsened, many coalition members looked for
face-saving excuses to justify a partial or complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
The meaningless transfer of sovereignty from the United States to Iraq on June 28,
2004, was one such convenient excuse. The series of Iraqi elections, including those
of January and November of 2005, offered additional excuses.
Profiting from the increasing chaos unleashed by Bush’s malfeasance and in-
competence in Iraq, and using the car keys handed to them by Bush, Islamic hard-
liners in Iraq’s elections are riding to power in that famous “democracy” vehicle, a
vehicle they are likely to abandon later at a time of their choosing. Perhaps Bush
thought, “Dang, I thought religious rightwingers in Iraq would be great—no one told
me them dudes wasn’t Christians.”
The extend to which Iraq becomes a theocracy remains to be seen, but expect to
see the marriage of religion and state, with civil law replaced largely by Islamic
canon as embodied in the shariah. The only certainty is that the ultimate rulers of
Iraq will not be the docile pawns so coveted by Bush and his GOP neocons in their
imperialist New American Century dreams.
Ten Reasons Why the United States Must Immediately Withdraw

from Iraq
Here are ten compelling reasons why the United States must immediately withdraw
its military from Iraq.41
1) A huge supermajority of Iraqis wants its government to set a timetable for
the United States to withdraw its forces. Does the Bush administration believe in
Iraqi democracy and self-determination, or not?
• It does not. If Bush’s GOP regime ever believed in democracy, it would
have set a firm timetable for withdrawal years ago, and U.S. forces thus
would already be out of Iraq, whatever the chosen timeframe for withdrawal
(e.g., 3, 6, or 12 months).
41
Of course, the U.S. military would be tasked with determining and implementing a plan for
orderly withdrawal.
• Numerous surveys of Iraqis, beginning within a year of the 2003 invasion,

established that a huge supermajority of Iraqis want American troops to
leave Iraq soon. A survey in late 2005 indicated that 82% of Iraqis were
“strongly opposed” to the U.S.-led occupation.
• According to the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) survey
of September 1-4, 2006, 91% of Iraqis want a firm timetable for the United
States to withdraw its forces. 37% of Iraqis chose “withdraw within 6
months,” 34% chose “within 1 year,” 20% chose “within 2 years,” and only
9% chose “only reduce as the security situation improves.”42 No ethnic
group favored that last choice, an open-ended commitment.
• There is a growing sense of urgency, which is reflected in the polls con-
ducted by the PIPA during January 2006 and again in September 2006. The
latter report states: “As compared to January 2006, there has been, overall, a
growing sense of urgency for withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.”
• If U.S. forces stay in Iraq, at some point they will officially be asked to
leave or will be forced to leave. The United States should proactively man-
age this inevitable exit, not be managed and mangled by it.
2) Sixty-one percent of Iraqis (as of September 2006) approve of attacks on
U.S.-led forces in Iraq.43
• This figure is a substantial 14-point increase from the 47% reported in the
survey conducted by the PIPA only eight months earlier (January 2006.)
The lower 47% figure was outrageous enough by itself, far more than
enough, to compel immediate withdrawal.
• Because the United States is a distrusted, uninvited occupying force, most
Iraqis do not see such attacks on American troops as terrorism, but rather as
a legitimate tool to encourage America to withdraw.
• Here’s another shocking finding from the January 2006 PIPA survey: while
47% of Iraqis supported attacks on U.S.-led forces, only 7% supported at-
tacks on Iraqi government security forces, and only 1% supported attacks
on Iraqi civilians.
• One can speculate as to what percentage of Iraqis smile when they see
Americans killed or wounded in Iraq.
3) Announcing the withdrawal will help reduce Iraqis’ deep distrust regarding
the U.S. government’s intentions in Iraq, and may significantly reduce the at-
tacks on American forces. Here are a few examples of this distrust:
42
The results vary considerably along sectarian and ethic lines, with the Shia results tracking
closely to the overall results. No group favors an open-ended commitment, although the Kurds
by a modest majority favored that approach only eight months earlier. (31% of Kurds chose
the open-ended commitment in the September 2006 survey, down substantially from the 57%
of Kurds that favored this approach only eight months earlier.) The Sunnis favored the fastest
timetable, with 57% of Sunnis wanting U.S. forces out within 6 months, and an additional
34% favoring withdrawal within 1 year (for a total of 91%), and only 2% favoring an open-
ended commitment.
43
The overall percentage of 61% breaks down as follows: 15% of Kurds; 62% of Shia; and
92% of Sunni.
• A huge supermajority of Iraqis (78%) believes the United States, if told by

the Iraqi government to withdraw all of its forces within six months, would
not do so.44
• A huge supermajority of Iraqis (77%) believes the United States intends to
have permanent military bases in Iraq even after Iraq is stabilized.45
• Only a small minority of Iraqis (18%) believes the United States plans to
remove its entire military once Iraq is stabilized.
• The Bush administration lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi
people within six months of the invasion.
4) Iraqis believe the U.S. military presence in Iraq undercuts the legitimacy and
effectiveness of Iraq’s fledging government, partly because it is viewed as sub-
servient to U.S. control.
• According to the PIPA survey of Iraqis conducted January 2-6, 2006, three
quarters of Iraqis believe America’s withdrawal would make the various
factions in Iraq’s government more willing to cooperate with each other.
• By a margin of 5 to 2, Iraqis believe an American commitment to withdraw
would “strengthen the Iraq government.”
5) The invasion and occupation of Iraq is immoral and in violation of U.S. and
international law.
• The Iraq war is in violation of the principles of a just war set forth in inter-
national law, including the Geneva Conventions.
• The Bush administration waged war on Iraq in violation of U.S. law and in-
ternational law, including the UN charter, and in violation of Congress’s au-
thority to determine the necessity of war.
• The invasion and occupation of Iraq is immoral and was opposed by all ma-
jor religious organizations in the world except the Southern Baptists in
America.
6) The invasion and occupation of Iraq was built on a web of lies.
• Bush and Cheney participated in a conspiracy directed from the White
House to lie to and mislead Congress and the American public about the
reasons for invading and occupying Iraq, including misleading statements
and lies about Iraq’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability, the
threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), connections between 9/11
and Saddam, connections between al Qaeda and Saddam, and the imminent
threat of Iraq to the United States and other nations.
• Bush’s war on Iraq had virtually nothing to do with promoting democracy
and human rights, but was waged to extend America’s corporate power, es-
pecially America’s Big Oil interests, by establishing a permanent American
military platform in the center of the Middle East, the world’s biggest oil-
can.
44
96% of Sunni.
45
97% of Sunni.
•As late as 2007, 90% of U.S. troops in Iraq still believed the U.S. invasion
was in retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11. The U.S. government must stop
lying to our troops and start supporting them. A good first step is to pull
them out of Iraq.
7) A majority of Americans want America’s troops to withdraw.
• As the truth slowly emerged, a growing majority of Americans came to rec-
ognize that Bush’s mission in Iraq is a failed mission.
• It is now too late, as well as politically impossible, for Bush to greatly ex-
pand the U.S. military force in Iraq to a level that would have had a reason-
able chance of controlling the sectarian violence and creating an environ-
ment conducive to reconstruction work. In any case, Bush does not have the
backbone to demand a military draft, and if he did, America would not sup-
port him. As of early 2006 barely 10% of Americans favored increasing
U.S. forces in Iraq by any amount.
• A growing majority of the American people understands that withdrawal
from Iraq is the best of rotten alternatives, all thanks to the incompetence of
Bush and the GOP. The 2006 midterm elections confirmed this.
• Americans also understand that withdrawal is the inevitable course.
• In withdrawing from Iraq, America must place the blame where it belongs,
not on America’s finest, but on America’s worst—Bush and his incompe-
tent GOP administration. A quick withdrawal will best honor America’s
troops, especially those wounded and killed while bravely following orders,
and it will prevent more of America’s finest from dying in the pursuit of
Bush’s immoral war. America must not repeat the timetable of the Vietnam
War, during which more than half of America’s casualties were suffered af-
ter the U.S. government knew its war policies were destined to fail.
8) The continued occupation of Iraq is more harmful than beneficial to Iraq
and most Iraqis.
• A huge supermajority of Iraqis (78%) believe the U.S. military presence is
“provoking more conflict than it is preventing,” according to the PIPA sur-
vey conducted September 1-4, 2006, in Iraq.46 Only 21% believe it is “a sta-
bilizing force.”
• The 2003 invasion put Iraq on the road to civil war, ethnic cleansing and
genocide, all of which are exacerbated by the continued presence of Ameri-
can troops. Unfortunately, Bush’s policies from the start aggravated ethnic
and sectarian differences in Iraq. In helping train Iraq’s army and police, the
United States unwittingly picked sides, and unintentionally encouraged the
growth of sectarian militias and death squads, including Shia death squads
that operate within the Ministry of the Interior and other offices of the Iraqi
government.
46
97% of Sunni.
• Many of those Iraqis who tolerate the presence of American troops do so

because they believe it serves their particular power-grabbing, revenge-
seeking, or sectarian purposes.
• Raw military power does not give legitimacy to America’s foreign policy.
Trying to influence Islamic populations with military force works precisely
in the opposite direction. The vast majority of Muslims do not hate America
and America’s way of life. They hate America’s Bush League foreign pol-
icy and its imperial leader.
9) Withdrawal from Iraq is necessary because Bush and the GOP are unable
and unwilling to conduct the occupation honestly and competently.
• Bush and the GOP cannot be trusted with matters of war and national de-
fense. They neither talk straight nor shoot straight.
• The mismanaged reconstruction work in Iraq is the most corrupt military
contracting in American history, and the GOP-controlled Congress com-
pletely abdicated its oversight responsibilities.
• The Bush administration itself is a horrible role model for people aspiring to
improve their government and their lives.
• By telling Iraq it must fund reconstruction largely on its own, the Bush ad-
ministration threw in the towel on meaningful reconstruction activities, ex-
cept for America’s huge military bases and fortified embassy bunker com-
plex in the Green Zone—frequent targets of Iraqi insurgents—which are
destined to remain imperial islands in a sea of chaos.
• The Bush administration rejected Powell’s pottery barn rule. Bush’s version
is that if he breaks something, he just break more things, and then blames
someone else.
• Bush’s war propelled Iraq and the region on a course for genocide and war
with unpredictable consequences. Although America’s military presence in
Iraq may keep the lid on the pressure cooker in Iraq in the short term, it is
causing a dangerous build up in pressure in both Iraq and in the region.
• America’s Bush League policymakers are flying blind in Iraq, unable to dis-
tinguish between friend and foe, and unwilling to learn or even talk with
America’s various adversaries and potential allies in the region.
10) America’s so-called war on terrorism is compromised by the continued oc-
cupation of Iraq, which day by day is making America and the world less safe.
• The Bush administration created in Iraq a fertile breeding ground for terror-
ists where none existed before. Ironically, this disastrous turn of events gave
the neocons a bogus rationale for “staying the course” in Iraq, namely that
Iraq now is “on the front line in the war on terrorism.”
• The presence of uninvited U.S. troops in Iraq inflames Muslims worldwide
and is the best marketing tool for the recruitment and motivation of Islamic
terrorists.
• Bush’s occupation also motivates genuine Iraqi patriots who want to expel
all foreign occupiers in a war of liberation.
• One drains the swamp to kill mosquitoes, but the ongoing occupation of
Iraq creates new swamps that breed an endless supply of terrorists. The
Bush regime knows not whom they swat or why, and they cannot explain
why they keep swatting.
Although the way forward in Iraq is fraught with great uncertainty and risk, any
alternative is better than Bush’s so-called “victory” strategy, or “stay-the-course”
strategy, or “surge” strategy, all of which continue to fuel the chaos in Iraq. “Vic-
tory,” “stay the course,” and “surge” are not strategies, but simply slogans that lull
the gullible mind.
SIDEBAR: What’s the Right Question on Dumbness?
What’s the right question on dumbness? Is it, “How dumb does Bush think his sup-
porters are?” Or is it, “How dumb is he?”
During more than three years of war in Iraq, the Bush White House smacked
down dissenting voices by saying America must “stay the course” in Iraq. But in
October 2006, on the eve of the midterm elections, the Bush White House decided to
prohibit the phrase “stay the course” in presidential speeches and public statements.
Perhaps forgetting that modern technology permits things to be recorded, Bush later
that month declared on ABC, “Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been ‘stay the course.’”
Bloggers soon pointed out numerous instances of Bush himself asserting, “stay the
course.”
Bush’s “vision” for Iraq is a schizophrenic fantasy with two conflicting objec-
tives. On one hand, Bush calls desperately for America somehow to extract itself
from the cakewalk-turned-quagmire—the Iraq war that is both a civil war and a war
of liberation—that has cost America a heavy human price and countless hundreds of
billions of dollars. On the other hand, he desperately wants America, by miraculous
hook or crook, to still control Iraq through a puppet regime and a permanent Ameri-
can military presence.
Like misbehaving children with their hands stuck in someone else’s candy ma-
chine—and unwilling to release the candy they’re trying to steal—Bush and his GOP
never-wore-the-uniform neocons still lust for control of Iraq, that long-desired sweet
centerpiece of their un-American fantasy known as The Project for the New Ameri-
can Century.
In the next chapter we’ll take a hard look at more than 50 nations claimed by the
Bush regime and the neocons, at one time or another, to be members of the Bush
League of Nations.
CHAPTER 6
Members of the Bush League of Nations

Lost in the Wilderness—A Leader Without Followers
A Profile in Courage: The policies we are now asked to advance are incom-
patible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our
fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international
legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and
defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the
largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has
ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not secu-
rity.
—John Brady Kiesling, an American career Foreign Service officer in
Athens, Greece (from his resignation letter dated February 24, 2003, to Sec-
retary of State Colin Powell, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.)
We turn our attention now to each of the more than 50 nations that have been
claimed, at one time or another, by the Bush neocons and their cheerleaders in Amer-
ica’s rightwing media to be “members” of the so-called Coalition of the Willing, i.e.,
the Bush League of Nations.
First, an important clarification needs to be made. This book—as is the case with
virtually all media—frequently uses the name of a nation as a shorthand reference to
its ruling government, typically its executive branch. It is cumbersome to do other-
wise. For, example, we might state that “Britain” decided to send troops to Iraq, as
shorthand for “the ruling government of Britain” or “Prime Minister Tony Blair”
having decided to send troops to Iraq. Also, in many cases it would be more accurate
to refer to the “dictator” or “ruling junta” of a nation as having taken some action,
rather than using only the nation’s name.
The point here is that the shorthand use of a nation’s name does not imply that
the people of that nation so acted, or even tacitly agreed with the action. In fact, re-
garding Bush’s Iraq war and the Bush League of Nations, the opposite is always true.
Specifically, in no case did the people of any coalition partner of America vote to
support Bush’s war on Iraq, or otherwise broadly support the decision of its leader to
join the Bush League of Nations and invade Iraq. The reader is thus asked to remem-
ber and consider the relevant context in which a particular country name is used.
Afghanistan: Surprisingly, Afghanistan appeared in early 2003 on the original list of

30 nations in the coalition. What were the Bush neocons thinking? Perhaps they read
their own rosy press releases, concluding that there was no more work to be done in
secure and peaceful Afghanistan—Bush’s first huge “mission unaccomplished”—
and that the “freed up” Afghan forces could be shifted to Iraq, joining the American
forces that Bush had already foolishly transferred there. Or perhaps they thought that
Afghanistan’s contribution would be the countless Afghan citizens who would an-
swer Bush’s invitation to “bring them on” and travel to Iraq to fight against the coa-
lition? In any case, Afghanistan was soon unceremoniously cut from the team. One
odd note: When the Bush administration disclosed in early 2003 the first list of coali-
tion members, it announced that Afghanistan “may” open its airspace to coalition
military flights. “May?”
Albania: Albania, a member of the Vilnius Group of countries seeking NATO mem-
bership, was included in the first coalition list of 30 countries, and it remains one of
the more vocal supporters of Bush’s Iraq war. “We’re the most pro-U.S. nation in
Europe,” said Satos Tarisa, its U.S. ambassador. Albanians are grateful that, under
the leadership of President Clinton, the U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign in Serbia
and Kosovo in 1999 saved countless Kosovo Albanians from massacres and ethnic
cleansing at the hands of Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs. Although Albania an-
nounced plans to almost triple its troop levels in Iraq—to a grand total of 200 non-
combat troops—its participation remains largely symbolic. It also agreed to Ameri-
can use of its bases and airspace. Unfortunately, Bush was unable, perhaps unwill-
ing, to leverage to America’s advantage in the Muslim world the goodwill created by
Clinton when he acted boldly to save the Muslims in Kosovo. By the end of 2006,
Albania had reduced its force level to 120.
SIDEBAR: Vilnius Group
The Vilnius Group—which derives its name from the historic city of Vilnius, the
capital of Lithuania, where the group first met—was created in May 2000 by a group
of nine primarily Eastern European countries seeking membership in NATO. Croatia
joined the group in May 2001, making it ten, and the group is thus sometimes re-
ferred to as V10. The ten member countries are: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
For decades the countries in the Vilnius Group have had strong positive attitudes
towards the United States and Americans. This is quite understandable, since the
United States and NATO played a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the subsequent birth of democracy in Eastern Europe.
CHAPTER 6 — MEMBERS OF THE BUSH LEAGUE OF NATIONS 125
In pursuing the war on terrorism Bush was able to tap into the deep reservoir of
goodwill towards America among the people of the Vilnius Group. Given this good-
will—all of which Bush inherited—and considering the Vilnius Group’s desire not to
offend the Bush administration and thus possibly jeopardize the group’s goal of at-
taining NATO membership, it is no surprise that some members of the group sup-
ported Bush’s war in Iraq, at least with words, albeit not with significant combat
troops.
Unfortunately, through lies and incompetence, Bush squandered the goodwill,
just like he squandered the budget surpluses and the strong military he inherited from
Bill Clinton.
On February 5, 2003, that dark day in American diplomacy when Colin Powell
made his infamous presentation to the UN Security Council regarding Iraq, the Vil-
nius Group issued “The Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries on Iraq.” It in-
cluded the following justification and foundation for the group’s position:
Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations
Security Council detailing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts
to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.
However, the so-called “compelling evidence” was nonexistent, and the world
knew it. More telling, the Vilnius group’s decision to issue the statement had been
made prior to Powell’s presentation.
In any case, the ten nations in the Vilnius Group were shanghaied into Bush’s
coalition, notwithstanding their lack of meaningful support for the war on Iraq. Two
of them, Croatia and Slovenia, objected officially and immediately to their inclusion,
and they were quickly dropped from the list, without the fanfare that typically ac-
companied the announcement of new members.
Angola: Angola was one of six swing votes—the “Middle Six”—on the UN Security
Council during its early 2003 debate of a Bush-backed resolution to end the effective
weapons inspections program in Iraq and authorize war against Iraq. Notwithstand-
ing Washington’s campaign of bribes and threats of retaliation, Angola withstood the
pressure and refused to vote for Bush’s war. Angola simply did not believe Bush’s
claim that he wanted to liberate Iraq. Also, the illegal campaign crafted by the U.S.
National Security Agency to spy on Angola’s UN delegation did not help matters. It
is noteworthy that more than 500,000 people were killed in Angola’s 27-year civil
war that ended in 2002, a war prolonged by the rightwing intervention of the United
States and apartheid South Africa. Because Angola seeks America’s help in rebuild-
ing and developing its substantial oil resources, it had a big incentive to play ball in
the Bush League. However, Angola stuck with its principles and moral values, and
opposed Bush’s war. Oddly, Angola was among the 50 coalition members identified
in the March 27, 2003, resolution of the U.S. Senate. Although Angola said at one
point that Iraq was a threat, Angola provided no troops and no money for the coali-
tion, in addition to not supporting the United States at the United Nations. Its inclu-
sion in the coalition demonstrated the Bush administration’s fundamental dishonesty.
Armenia: Having provided so-called “political support,” Armenia appeared on at

least one early list of coalition members, but the cold feet of the Armenian govern-
ment made its membership uncertain. In September 2004 (six months after the inva-
sion of Iraq) Armenia announced it would send 50 non-combat troops to Iraq for
humanitarian purposes under a “security cooperation agreement” signed by the
presidents of Armenia and Poland. The planned deployment, which was to be under
the Polish Multi-National Force, raised concerns both within Armenia and within
Armenian communities in Iraq and other Arab nations, and the Armenian prime min-
ister later suggested that the deployment might not take place, citing a change in
conditions since the pledge of troops just one month earlier. Passing the hot potato,
the prime minister emphasized that the deployment decision would be made by Ar-
menia’s parliament and constitutional court, even though the president had pledged
the troops. Prime Minister Andranik Margarian explained, “There’s deep concern in
Armenia too since our country will become a target for international terrorism in
case of Armenian servicemen’s participation in antiterrorist actions.” He also
stressed the need to learn more about the situation in Iraq. In October 2004 Armenia
appeared on the State Department’s coalition list, but not on the Multi-National
Force list, demonstrating that the Bush regime could not even agree with itself on the
official Bush League roster. Armenia had 46 medics, engineers and drivers in Iraq as
of early 2007.
Australia: As discussed in the previous chapter, the United States and Great Britain
provided almost all of the combat troops for the invasion of Iraq. The combat troop
contributions from the rest of the coalition can best be described as token or nonexis-
tent, and made for diplomatic and propaganda purposes, not for military reasons.
Australia and Poland are most frequently cited as nations that provided some combat
troops for the invasion, but neither contribution was significant (with Poland con-
tributing fewer than Australia.) Although Australia sent a well-trained, elite force of
2,000 troops to the region, along with fighter aircraft and warships, the majority of
these troops were stationed outside Iraq. Also, their rules of engagement limited the
risk of casualties, and in fact no Australian troops were killed during the invasion. In
the geopolitical poker game, Australia’s contribution was more than a joker but far
less than a full deck. Nevertheless, it was “mission accomplished,” i.e., Bush could
claim Australian support and continue dealing from the bottom of the deck back
home. Rising above the Bush League sleaze of 2003, however, is the central fact that
Australian and American forces have fought side by side many times over the last
century—including in World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf
War I, and Somalia—and that there will always be great friendship between Austra-
lians and Americans.
SIDEBAR: Geopolitics and Diplomatic Language—From Down Under
The decision of Australia to join the coalition was made unilaterally by the conserva-
tive government of John Howard, notwithstanding the opposition of the Australian
legislature and 75% of the Australian people. Approximately one million Australians
protested against the war on February 15, 2003, and many Australians called Bush’s
charade the “coalition of the silly.” Howard also suffered an embarrassing “no confi-
dence” vote in the Australian Senate at that time, the first such vote by Australia’s
upper house in its 102-year history. However, Australians realized the political game
that Howard was playing—offering enough to give Bush a fig leaf, but not so much
as to upset Australian voters or other nations, especially Muslim nations in Southeast
Asia, plus setting policies that would minimize the risk of Australian casualties.
Most of Australia’s troops were located outside of Iraq in the Persian Gulf area, and
none died during the invasion. As a result, the Iraq war was not the most important
issue in Australia’s elections in October 2004, and Howard was reelected to a fourth
term. Nevertheless, the Iraq war still divides Australia. Howard’s challenger from the
Labor Party, Mark Latham, used Aussie diplomatic language when he described
Howard, Bush and other leaders that sent soldiers to invade Iraq as “a conga line of
suck-holes.”
In another diplomatic faux pas, Bush in June 2004 supported Howard in the up-
coming September election in Australia as Bush spoke at a White House press con-
ference following a meeting with Howard, thus violating an informal rule of diplo-
macy that the leader of one nation (except for the United States apparently) does not
interfere in the domestic affairs and politics of another nation. Bush’s comments
were widely criticized in Australia. Bob Brown, the leader of Australia’s Green
Party, diplomatically noted:
How dare this popinjay of a president interfere in Australian affairs—Australian domestic

political affairs? He should pull his head in. … [W]e don’t need President Bush, from his
biased and quite small-minded point of view in Washington, telling the Australian people
what they should think or what they should do.
After the so-called “combat phase” ended in early 2003, Australia quickly with-
drew more than half its forces from Iraq and the region. Also, by October 2004, only
300 of the remaining 900 Australian troops were actually in Iraq, the rest being on
warships in the Persian Gulf or at air support locations in the region. None of the
remaining troops have combat roles, and much of their effort is focused on protect-
ing themselves and other Australian personnel. In October 2004, Australia refused a
request from the United Nations to send additional forces to Iraq to help protect UN
representatives, although it did agree to train Fijian forces for this purpose. By early
2007 Australia’s forces had been reduced by more than 70%, to 550.
Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan, another nation with a token non-combat force in Iraq, had
many reasons to suck up to Bush and especially his oil cronies from Texas. This
former Soviet republic has major-league oil reserves and looks to America for con-
tinued aid and goodwill, as well as possible protection in a dangerous part of the
world. With Russia on its northern border and Iran to the south, Azerbaijan and the
bordering Caspian Sea offer transit routes for narcotics, terrorists and black-market
weapons. Also, it is involved in a border conflict with Armenia, which occupies
about 20% of its territory. Azerbaijan draws a parallel between this Armenian occu-
pation and Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Azerbaijan thus joined the coalition as one
of the first 30 members, offering “political support” and post-war humanitarian aid.
As one of the few predominantly Muslim (93%, mostly Shiite) nations in the coali-
tion, its forces protected Iraq’s holiest Shiite sites, located in Najaf and Karbala. It
had 150 troops in Iraq in 2004 but reneged on a plan to add 250 troops to that total.
Bosnia & Herzegovina: The people of Bosnia & Herzegovina suffered greatly dur-
ing the civil war and genocide that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the ex-
perience gained in disposing of landmines and other explosives is being put to bene-
ficial use in Iraq by 37 troops well trained in the disposal of unexploded IEDs and
other ordinance. Their efforts are undoubtedly saving lives in Iraq.
Bulgaria: As an inducement for Bulgaria to send 480 troops to the Iraq region, the
Bush regime promised to buy $1.7 billion in debt Iraq owed Bulgaria. This pencils
out to $3.5 million in U.S. tax dollars for each “rented” non-combat Bulgarian sol-
dier, and it thus was an attractive business transaction for Bulgaria, notwithstanding
the collection risk of being stiffed later by the Bush administration. Bulgaria, a for-
mer Warsaw Pact nation, also wanted to curry favor in order to be admitted to
NATO, and in 2004 it became a NATO member. An additional inducement for Bul-
garia was the prospect of sharing in the spoils of war, namely billions in reconstruc-
tion contracts. Initially wanting to be an anonymous member of the coalition, Bul-
garia flipped back and forth before officially opting in, and its peacekeeping partici-
pation began five months after the invasion. Although its troops were skilled in han-
dling non-conventional biological and chemical attacks, Bulgaria refused to provide
combat troops. It also provided the United States with over-fly privileges and the use
of an airbase on the Black Sea. When deciding later not to completely withdraw its
troops from Iraq, Bulgaria oddly allowed any of its troops who wanted to go home to
do so. As of April 2004, more than 60 of its troops had so chosen to leave Iraq.47
47
The following is for Casablanca movie fans only: In this scene Annina, who is desperate to
escape Casablanca, has been weighing Captain Louis Renault’s proposal of sex for exit visas
for herself and her husband. She seeks the advice of Rick Blaine:
Annina: Oh, monsieur, you are a man. If someone loved you very much, so that your
happiness was the only thing that she wanted in the world, but she did a bad thing to
make certain of it, could you forgive her?
Rick Blaine: Nobody ever loved me that much.
Annina: And he never knew, and the girl kept this bad thing locked in her heart? That
would be all right, wouldn’t it?
Rick: You want my advice?
Also, for safety reasons its diplomats moved from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan, in
October 2003. According to a mid-2004 survey, about 80% of Bulgarians believe
Bulgaria’s role in Iraq could cause a terrorist attack on Bulgaria. In the run-up to the
Iraq war, Bulgaria, a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, was ag-
gressively courted by the United States, and it was in the minority on the Security
Council that sided with the United States. Notwithstanding this support, Bulgaria
was one of five Security Council members targeted for illegal espionage by the Bush
administration, which instructed the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask Great
Britain for help in the illegal bugging. This was just another strand in the wicked
web of international distrust woven by Bush. By early 2007 Bulgaria had reduced its
non-combat forces in Iraq by more than two-thirds, to 155.
Colombia: Colombia, one of the world’s most dangerous places, was included on
the original State Department list of 30 coalition members. Because Colombia de-
pends heavily on American aid and military assistance to fight its anti-drugs war and
FARC rebel forces, Colombia was willing to play ball to the extent of perhaps offer-
ing “political support.” Like many other coalition members, it did nothing to help the
coalition and was quickly and quietly dropped from the list. Perhaps the United
States and Colombia should team up to show Afghanistan how not to win its war
against drugs.
Costa Rica: This nation is one of a half dozen unarmed countries that appeared on
propaganda lists distributed by the Bush administration in early 2003. It was later
dropped unceremoniously from the Bush League. That’s only fair, since its citizens
broadly opposed Bush’s war, plus Costa Rica asked in September 2004 to be taken
off the list.
Croatia: Like many other “members” of the Bush League, Croatia appeared on a
few early lists hyping the coalition’s size, including that of the Heritage Foundation,
a rightwing “think tank” and shill for the Iraq war that was part of the White House’s
coordinated propaganda campaign to sell its illegal war. On March 19, 2003, just
hours after Bush gave his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam, the Heritage Foundation
released its article, “‘Coalition of the Willing’ Already Larger than the 1991 Gulf
War coalition.” The U.S. Senate’s resolution of March 27, 2003, which “drafted” 50
members into the coalition, identified Croatia as one of the countries providing “dip-
lomatic and strategic support.” However, the Bush administration soon dropped
Croatia, and Washington’s bullying threats regarding Croatia’s flagging support
caused relations between America and this bully-target country of 4.4 million to de-
teriorate. Croatia never provided a single soldier—combat or non-combat—to Iraq,
and it stated that its airports and airspace would be open only to civilian transport
aircraft.
Annina: Oh, yes, please.

Rick: Go back to Bulgaria.
Czech Republic: Although the Czech Republic refused to participate in Bush’s in-
vasion of Iraq, it did provide humanitarian aid in the form of a field hospital. In late
2003 its hospital personnel were replaced by a contingent of military police. By late
2004 Czech support for Bush’s Iraq war had dropped to 10%, and various plans to
withdraw Czech troops were floated. Nevertheless, troop levels have been evenly
maintained at 100, the maximum approved by the Czech government, with rotations
occurring every three months. The expectation of reconstruction contracts for dozens
of Czech companies—another Bush League mirage—was a key reason the Czech
Republic allowed itself to be suckered into Iraq in the first place.
SIDEBAR: Leaving on a Jet Plane
The Czech government was embarrassed in January 2003, shortly before the start of
the Iraq invasion, when the Czech Defense Minister, who was in Kuwait visiting a
Czech anti-chemical unit deployed there, made a symbolic offer to his troops—
anyone who wanted to go home before the invasion could do so. At least 27 of the
250 troops decided to leave, with seven of them leaving immediately on the Defense
Minister’s jet and the rest following later. They weren’t supposed to do that! Many
military experts were amazed, with Jane’s Defence Weekly saying it was “certainly a
unique approach” to troop morale.
Denmark: Notwithstanding strong opposition from the Danish people and from all
opposition political parties, the rightwing government of this NATO nation was one
of the truly voluntary contributors to the coalition, although the level of its support
was lukewarm. Denmark’s government gave its support voluntarily without evidence
of coercion or bribes, although rightwing geopolitics was probably part of the mix.
Denmark’s contribution included a submarine intended to monitor Iraqi intelligence,
other ships, and medical personnel. However, its 470 troops did not include troops
for ground combat, and requests for additional troops were refused. During Bush’s
ballyhooed surge of U.S. troops in 2007, Denmark de-surged its troops, withdrawing
all of them by September 2007.
Dominican Republic: Spain’s withdrawal of its troops in April 2004 provided the
Dominican Republic with a convenient excuse to do likewise, which it did in May
2004, while citing increasing domestic opposition. As part of the Ultra Plus Brigade
led by Spain, the Dominican Republic depended upon Spain for logistical support. It
was one of the 15 infamous “unwilling to be named” nations trumpeted by the State
Department in March 2003. The MNF-I (Multi-National Force-Iraq) website as of
October 2004 erroneously still listed the Dominican Republic as a member, although
its flag had been removed. The Dominican Republic is one of several Latin Ameri-
can countries with a history of rightwing American military intervention, including a
bloody history of American-supported death squads that rivaled those of Saddam.
Dominican personnel were frequently subjected to mortar attacks, but they had no
casualties.
El Salvador: The 380 personnel from El Salvador are mostly engineers and medical
personnel assigned to civil reconstruction and the training of Iraqi forces. El Salva-
dor is the only remaining member of the Ultra Plus Brigade, which consisted of five
Spanish-speaking nations led by Spain. Spain, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic
and Honduras all withdrew from Iraq in 2004. In June 2004 Salvadoran President
Elias Antonio Saca said that El Salvador’s troops would relocate to “a safer place”
until their mission ended.
Eritrea: The inclusion of Eritrea on the State Department’s March 18, 2003, list of
30 coalition members was greeted with disbelief and derisive commentary. Eritrea is
an extremely poor country plagued by famine and decades of war with neighboring
Ethiopia, and its current president, a dictator, refuses to implement the constitution
approved by the people in 1997. UN peacekeepers still patrol the border between
Eritrea and Ethiopia under a 2000 peace agreement, and each country seeks Amer-
ica’s help in resolving the ongoing border dispute in its favor (even though it is
unlikely Bush could identify either nation on a map of Africa.) The dictators of these
two human-rights-deprived countries raced each other to be the first to suck up to
Bush by proclaiming that Saddam was a bad dude, thus “joining” the coalition. This
is Bush League at its best. Without explanation, Eritrea was soon dropped from the
coalition list.
Estonia: Wanting to join NATO and get in line for military and economic benefits
from America, Estonia offered a token force of 31 non-combat troops—enough to
fill one mid-sized bus—to help in “postwar” reconstruction. It became a NATO
member in 2004. Estonia had 34 non-combat personnel in Iraq in 2007, down from a
peak of 55.
Ethiopia: As noted above, Ethiopia competed against Eritrea in a suck-up race to

join the Bush League of Nations, with both countries seeking America’s help in their
boundary dispute. Ethiopia’s government, a totalitarian regime with little regard for
human rights or freedom of the press, disingenuously offered “moral support,” and
Washington shamelessly included it in its first list of 30 coalition members. Like so
many other members of the Bush League, Ethiopia’s total contributions to the war
effort exactly equaled that of the extended Bush family: nothing. But Ethiopia was in
no position to help, given that it was devastated by decades of war, famine and cor-
rupt brutal government. In sharp contrast to the fanfare when Ethiopia “joined” the
coalition, Ethiopia was soon quietly removed from the coalition roster.
Georgia: This former Soviet Republic, which wishes to remain in the good graces of
the United States, has been in the coalition from the beginning. It first sent troops to
Iraq in August 2003. As of 2007, Georgia had 300 troops in Iraq, down from a peak
of 500 in 2003, and it suffered zero casualties.
Great Britain: When the Iraq coalition was formed a large majority of the British
people opposed the war, believing that the case for war had not been made and that
the United States and Britain should not act unilaterally. An anti-Iraq war protest in
London on February 15, 2003, was the largest protest in British history. The subse-
quent unraveling of the many lies used to justify the war further strengthened the
opposition. Prime Minister Tony Blair took a beating because of his unquestioning
support for Bush, with more than half of all Brits believing it was accurate to charac-
terize Blair as Bush’s poodle, a lapdog serving at Bush’s beck and call. Blair’s re-
spect and love for America and his appreciation of Britain’s special long-term rela-
tionship with America outweighed his substantial doubts about Bush, and ultimately
led him down the wrong path. Not expecting much from Bush, Blair may have calcu-
lated that if Bush could rise to the occasion and offer just one-third the competence,
integrity and leadership of Bill Clinton, then everything would turn out fine. It did
not. Bush severely damaged the goodwill between America and Britain, and intense
negative views of him are found in all British political parties and throughout Brit-
ain. In September 2004 the British ambassador to Italy, Ivor Roberts, while speaking
at a conference in Tuscany, stated that Bush is “the best recruiting sergeant ever for
al Qaeda.” Blair, foolishly following Bush’s lead, stuck too long to discredited posi-
tions on weapons of mass destruction and other lies and justifications for the war,
further exasperating British voters. According to former chief UN weapons inspector
Scott Ritter, “Blair’s discredited comments only underscore the sad fact that the issue
of Iraqi WMD, and the entire concept of disarmament, has become a public joke.”
Even as late as December 2003 Blair claimed that “massive evidence” of Saddam’s
illegal weapons activity had been uncovered. Rather than simply admitting he and
Bush had lied—thus taking the moral high road—Blair did a song and dance as he
shifted the justification for war to the removal of Saddam from power. By shirking
his share of the responsibility for mistakes made, Blair undercut both his own moral
authority and Britain’s influence in the world.
SIDEBAR: Blair, Unlike Bush, Acknowledges the Problem
Although Tony Blair is reluctant to take responsibility for major mistakes in judg-
ment and policy in Iraq, it is to his credit that he was willing early in the game to at
least articulate some of the problems created by the Anglo-American invasion and
occupation of Iraq. In the prime minister’s annual foreign policy speech to the Lord
Mayor of London’s banquet in November 2003 Blair admitted there was broad op-
position to the war in Britain, in the Middle East, and throughout the world. He said
that what ultimately happens in Iraq will greatly affect the future of world politics
because
it will test the validity of the view of those whose protest goes far wider than merely con-
demnation of the war in Iraq and extends to the whole of American and UK foreign pol-
icy. For this large body of people, the coalition is an army of occupation; its purpose is to
suppress the Muslim population of Iraq; we are out to steal Iraq’s oil; and, even if they
abhor the methods of those causing terror in Iraq, they will say we’ve brought it on our-
selves. Their view is: you should never have been there, and get out now. That is the view
of parts of the Arab and Muslim street and a significant part of western opinion and cer-
tainly of the developing world. More than that, these people say: the whole episode of
Iraq is the epitome of the way the US/UK treat the Arab and Muslim world. It is a form
of colonialism, that seeks to impose its culture, its rules and its beliefs on its unwilling
victims.
Blair’s hope of course was to prove this view incorrect, but events on the ground
in Iraq, as well as the coalition’s inept leadership, dashed his hopes.
Blair must have taken some comfort in knowing, or at least hoping, that Bush had
a host of competent advisors, including especially Colin Powell, to hold his hand.
Unfortunately, Blair “misunderestimated” the weaknesses of Bush, as well as the
degree of control exerted by the Bush neocons, especially plantation boss Cheney.
Given Blair’s experience in foreign affairs and Britain’s special relationship with
America, Blair also reasonably expected to have a large measure of influence in the
relationship, perhaps even as an equal. Blair was disappointed on all accounts, and
one cannot help but feel a measure of sympathy towards him. Largely because of
voter anger over the Iraq war, including doubts about Blair’s truthfulness and judg-
ment, Blair’s Labour Party was soundly beaten in Britain’s midterm local elections
in June 2004. It received only 26% of the votes and fell to third place. The most
prominent winner in Blair’s Labour Party was London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who
opposed the Iraq war, calling Bush “the greatest threat to life on this planet.” In the
European Union elections the same month, Blair’s party received less than 23%.
Blair left office in 2007.
SIDEBAR: Less Than a Full Measure
Although Britain is America’s strongest ally in the coalition—and the only ally that
made a meaningful contribution to the war effort—its level of military support was
only a fraction of what was required. Britain committed 46,000 military personnel,
plus warships and aircraft, to the Iraq invasion, but by May 2004 it had only 8,600
troops in Iraq, with an additional 3,500 in theater.
As the war dragged on, Britain further reduced its presence in Iraq, even though
more coalition troops, not fewer, were needed. During Bush’s troop surge in 2007,
Britain in fact “de-surged” its troops by about 2,200. In October 2007 Britain’s new
prime minister, Gordon Brown, announced Britain would halve to 2,500 its remain-
ing force of 5,000 by the spring of 2008, and other British officials said there was no
guarantee that any British troops would remain in Iraq after 2008.
UK Military Personnel in Iraq:

Peak during major combat (March/April 2003): 46,000
End of May 2003: 18,000
End of May 2004: 8,600
January 2007: 7,200
January 2008: 5,000
April 2008 (est.): 2,500
Soon: 0
Extra credit: Britain’s contribution to Bush’s surge: (minus 2,200)
Ignoring for the moment that the coalition from the beginning needed far more
troops from both America and Britain, as well as other nations—at least 300,000
more according to America’s best military experts—let’s nevertheless take the
46,000 troop level to define what a true “full measure” from Britain would have been
to maintain security in Iraq. By this conservative measure, the 7,200 British troops in
Iraq at the beginning of 2007 represented about a “15% measure,” which is like or-
dering a pint of ale at an English pub but getting served less than three ounces in the
bottom of your glass. No one in his right mind—or even in his intoxicated mind—
who received such a partial measure would be happy with the bartender—Bartender
Blair in this case.
Compounding the shortfall, British troops took part in fewer offensive actions
against Iraqi insurgents as the war dragged on, and minimization of British casualties
became a preeminent goal.
The British forces were headquartered in the Iraqi city of Basra, in an area in
southern Iraq that is more peaceful than the Sunni Triangle and other hot spots. From
time to time the Blair government entertained proposals to redeploy some of these
forces to areas of greater violence, but political unrest for Blair back home was an
obstacle.
In November 2004 Britain did send 850 Black Watch soldiers from Basra to the
“triangle of death” area near Baghdad to free up American soldiers for the taking of
Fallujah. Five of these British soldiers were killed within days after their redeploy-
ment, causing a political backlash in Britain.48
48
These five deaths increased to 74 the number of British troops killed in Iraq. By 2007 the
number of British deaths had increased 127. Many Americans, including your author, if ever
faced with a life-or-death situation and having to jump into a two-man foxhole with an Ameri-
can ally of his or her choice, would pick a Brit.
To be clear, those five British soldiers gave the full measure to Britain. Doing
their duty when called, they deserve our ultimate respect and gratitude. Likewise,
every coalition soldier individually deserves our respect and gratitude—a full meas-
ure. No fault lies with them, but rather the fault rests entirely on the shoulders of
Bush and Blair, and is due to their lies, half measures, and arrogant incompetence.
Our soldiers deserved better. The Iraqi people deserved better.
As Bush scrounged for additional troops for his ballyhooed surge in Baghdad in
early 2007, neither Britain nor any other coalition member answered the call.
Britain’s military operations in Iraq are conducted under Operation TELIC, as
part of the MNF-I run by the United States. Britain provides the headquarters for the
Multi-National Division South East, which includes the southern city of Basra and is
one of six MNF-I geographical areas. Its focus shifted from direct anti-insurgency
action to training Iraq’s security forces, most of whom are Shiites friendly to Iran
and unfriendly to the United States.
In 2007 Britain retreated from Basra, turned its bases over to the Iraqi govern-
ment, and confined its troops to the Basra airport.
Senior retired British military personnel sharply criticize Bush’s Iraq policies, es-
pecially the failure to do post-invasion planning. On August 31, 2007, British Major
General Sir Mike Jackson, who headed the British army in Iraq in 2003, said Amer-
ica’s approach in Iraq was “intellectually bankrupt” and that Rumsfeld’s claim that
America’s forces “don’t do nation-building” was “nonsensical.”
British Major General Tim Cross, the deputy head of the coalition’s Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, added his criticism, saying Bush’s
policies were “fatally flawed” and that Rumsfeld dismissed his warnings about the
lack of planning detail, the troops levels needed to maintain security, and the need to
involve the United Nations. “The US had already convinced themselves that Iraq
would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy. … Anybody who tried to
tell them anything that challenged that idea – they simply shut it out.”
In a February 2004 flip flop, Britain dropped charges against Katharine Gun, a
29-year-old linguist who admitted she leaked a top secret request from the U.S.
National Security Agency for Britain’s help in bugging several members of the UN
Security Council during its debate on Iraq in early 2003. The targeted members of
the 15-member Security Council were Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile and
Pakistan. Gun said, “I felt that the British intelligence services were being asked to
do something which would undermine the whole United Nations democratic proc-
ess.”
Guatemala: This Central American nation was briefly on a coalition list. Following
the Madrid bombing and the anticipated withdrawal of Spain and the Ultra Plus Bri-
gade, Guatemala’s President Oscar Berger decided Guatemala would not send any
troops to Iraq, in spite of earlier commitments.
Honduras: By May 2004 Honduras had pulled all of its 370 troops out of Iraq,
pointing out that its troops had been sent to Iraq for reconstruction, not combat.
However, the MNF-I website (as of October 2004) still incorrectly listed Honduras
as a member of the coalition. As a participant in the Ultra Plus Brigade, Honduras
depended on Spain for logistical support and followed its lead in pulling out of the
coalition. Honduras was among the 15 original coalition members “unwilling to be
named.” It is among several Central American countries with a history of American
military intervention and Saddam-style death squads.
Hungary: Hungary’s 300 non-combat troops withdrew from Iraq by May 2005. This
strongly pro-American ally had deployed a transportation group of 300 non-combat
troops south of Baghdad, notwithstanding the fact that more than 80% of Hungarians
opposed the Iraq war. Hungary, a member of NATO since 1999, has a profound
sense of gratitude towards America because of its role in helping Hungary gain its
independence from the Soviet Union. Hungary’s desire to support any American
president, even Bush, was thus understandable. However, the Hungarian goodwill
towards America was soon shattered by the lies, unilateralist policies, refusal to ad-
mit errors, and rightwing propaganda spilling out of the Bush White House. The
abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison also increased domestic calls for Hungary to with-
draw its support. In one of many debacles involving the Bush neocons’ favorite
conman, Ahmed Chalabi, and his Iraqi National Congress, Hungary agreed before
the start of the Iraq war to provide a base where the United States could train 3,000
Iraqi exiles—Chalabi’s infamous Free Iraqi Forces—to serve as guides and inter-
preters for American troops and as Iraqi administrators after the war. Several hun-
dred U.S. army trainers went to Hungary’s Taszar airbase to establish the training
facilities, but the program was quickly dismantled after only about 100 Iraqis had
been trained, apparently due to a shortage of Iraqi volunteers and also because of
questions about the scope of the training. Oddly, Hungary had approved the training
program on the condition that there would be no combat training.
SIDEBAR: A Hungarian Spanking of Boy George
On October 16, 2004, the newly elected Prime Minister of Hungary, Ferenc Gyurc-
sany, delivered a diplomatic spanking to Bush when he declared that he did not be-
lieve in preemptive war. “Personally, as the father of four children, as a young man,
as a working Hungarian who trusts in the future, and as head of government, I be-
lieve not in preventive war but in policies which prevent conflicts,” Gyurcsany de-
clared. “Those who believe in the power of violence will fail.”49
Iceland: The Bush administration included Iceland on its list of the first 30 coalition
members, then later dropped it from the list, and then reinserted it, and then dropped
49
Reported in the Associated Press, October 17, 2004.
it. You should check with flip-flopper Bush to determine the latest. This nation of
294,000 has no military and is defended by the U.S.-manned Icelandic Defense
Force. As one of several Bush League “members” with no military, it obviously con-
tributed no military forces and certainly was never a member.
SIDEBAR: Pointy Heads in Bush Administration Seek Pointy Helmets
According to The Washington Post: “Asked if Iceland would be supplying troops,

ambassador Helgi Agustsson gave a hearty Scandinavian guffaw. ‘Of course not—
we have no military,’ he said. ‘That is a good one, yes.’ In fact, Agustsson added,
‘we laid down weapons sometime in the 14th century,’ when the Icelandic military
consisted largely of Vikings in pointy helmets.”
Italy: Italy withdrew completely from Iraq in November 2006. The conservative
government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi decided to join the coalition not-
withstanding widespread opposition to the war at home. However, weak-kneed Ber-
lusconi offered no troops for the invasion and sent 3,085 troops only after Baghdad
had fallen. More than 80% of Italians opposed Italy’s military involvement, and the
government’s efforts in the war on terror also got poor marks in Italy. Surveys show
that Italians believe the risks of terrorism have greatly increased since 9/11. In the
European Union elections in June 2004 support for Berlusconi and his party, Forza
Italia, fell to 22.5%. His rightwing coalition includes neo-Mussolinist and neo-fascist
extreme rightwingers that have much in common with the Bush neocons and the
Bush family. Berlusconi, Italy’s richest person and its most powerful media tycoon,
ruthlessly uses his media domination for personal and propaganda purposes and to
counter corruption charges. In September 2004 Italy reportedly paid a ransom of at
least $1 million to secure the release of two female Italian charity workers who had
been kidnapped in Iraq and held for 21 days. In May 2006 Berlusconi narrowly lost
his reelection bid to Romano Prodi.
Japan: “For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the
great and enduring alliances of modern times,” noted Bush, while in Tokyo on Feb-
ruary 18, 2002. A century and a half? Before each meeting with America’s “Buffoon
in a Bubble,” foreign leaders must pop pills that suppress snickers and guffaws. Al-
though Japan is a nation that loves baseball and America, it refused to send combat
troops to Iraq, whether for the invasion or for subsequent use. The government of
Junichiro Koizumi “joined” the coalition simply by declaring that Iraq was a threat.
Although Japan’s pacifist post-WWII constitution prohibits the use of Japanese
forces outside of Japan to settle international disputes, this posture has been changing
in the post-Cold War environment as Japan considers how to use its substantial mili-
tary power, including the second or third strongest navy in the world, to counter ter-
rorism and other new threats, and to protect Japanese corporate interests. Special
legislation in 2003 paved the way for Japan’s Self Defense Forces to do reconstruc-
tion work in Iraq and elsewhere. Koizumi obtained parliamentary approval to send
up to 1,000 non-combat troops to Iraq, which reflects a policy of tokenism, given the
enormous capabilities of Japan and also the security umbrella provided Japan by the
U.S. military. However, in late 2003 Koizumi postponed their deployment because
of the worsening security situation in Iraq, and eventually deployed only 550 non-
combat troops in Iraq. Japan pledged $5 billion in reconstruction funds and agreed to
forgive most of the $4 billion owed it by Iraq. Japan withdrew completely from Iraq
in July 2006.
SIDEBAR: Ten Billion Yen in Japanese Bribes to Protect Japanese Soldiers

and Japanese Oil Interests
Japan paid 10 billion yen ($95 million) in bribes to several tribal leaders in early
2004 for the stated purpose of protecting Japan’s troops stationed in Samawa in
southern Iraq. Because most Japanese opposed the deployment, the Japanese gov-
ernment was obsessed with keeping its troops out of harm’s way. The scheduled de-
ployment of its troops to Nasiriya was suddenly halted because suicide bombings
made that deployment too dangerous. The troops were later redeployed to Samawa, a
relatively peaceful city with few security concerns. One might have assumed,
wrongly, that Japanese soldiers had been sent to Iraq to protect Iraqis—to the con-
trary, Japan paid Iraqi tribal leaders to protect Japanese troops in an area of low secu-
rity concerns.
The payment of $95 million works out to $172,000 in protective services for
each of the 550 Japanese soldiers deployed in Iraq.
Of course, the $95 million greasing of palms had objectives beyond force protec-
tion. A principal purpose of the grease was to help ensure Japan’s lucrative role in
the reconstruction of Iraq. In particular, Japan, which imports more than 99% of its
oil, wanted to resurrect its plan to help develop the huge Al Ghavraf oil field, which
is conveniently located only 40 miles from Japan’s military base in Samawa, Iraq.
Kazakhstan: Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev opposed Bush’s inva-

sion of Iraq, saying that Iraq should be handled “only within the framework” of the
United Nations. Along with the vast majority of UN members, NATO, and the entire
world, Kazakhstan was “UN-willing.” Six former Soviet Republics,50 including Ka-
zakhstan, condemned Bush’s military action, saying it was “counter to the principles
and norms of international law.” However, Kazakhstan later played the Bush League
game perfectly when it decided to send a token force of 29 non-combat military en-
gineers to Iraq. This decision was made shortly before Wolfowitz decreed on De-
cember 5, 2003, that only coalition members would be allowed to compete for $18
billion in prime contracts in Iraq. Kazakhstan’s token contribution put it on the “A
50
The five other former Soviet Republics are Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Taji-
kistan.
List” of contractors, opened friendly doors in Washington, and gave the Bush neo-
cons the propaganda boost they desired—the claim of another coalition member. The
subsequent displays of phony gratitude by America’s General John Abizaid and oth-
ers towards Kazakhstan were truly shameful. When the Iraqi insurrection became
more heated in the spring of 2004, Kazakhstan confined its troops to their camp in
Kut and threatened to withdraw them from Iraq.
Kuwait: Although Kuwait was included in the U.S. Senate’s resolution of March 27,
2003, that identified 50 members in the coalition,51 it was soon dropped from the
Bush League roster. Before being dropped, Kuwait was the only Middle Eastern
country in the coalition (other than Turkey, which also was promptly removed).
Muslim nations in the Middle East are ashamed to be associated with Bush and his
Bush League for many reasons, including the fact that an overwhelming majority of
the citizenry in these nations despises Bush and his policies. In fact, Kuwait func-
tions as a large American military base, with about 60% of its total area available for
such use, and most of America’s troops and equipment in Iraq passed through Ku-
wait. This important accommodation is the minimum amount Kuwait could do, given
that the United States led the coalition in 1991—a real coalition—that rightly liber-
ated Kuwait from Saddam. However, Kuwait provided zero troops for Bush’s war on
Iraq and does not want to be included in the Bush League.
Latvia: Seeking NATO membership and Iraq reconstruction contracts, Latvia’s par-
liament authorized a small non-combat force for Iraq, which stood at 120 in early
2007. Even though the contribution of non-combat troops by Latvia is window dress-
ing, 80% of Latvians opposed their deployment. Latvia became a NATO member in
2004.
Lithuania: Seeking NATO membership and wishing to curry favor with the United
States, Lithuania offered some humanitarian help for Iraq, including doctors, which
it provided in the token form of 105 non-combat troops, later reduced to 50 by early
2007. Lithuania officially joined NATO in 2004.
Macedonia: Macedonia joined the coalition to have closer relations with the United
States, obtain American help in collecting Iraqi debts, and share in the expected feed-
ing frenzy surrounding reconstruction contracts. It also wanted to demonstrate its
commitment to NATO in order to gain support for its NATO accession bid. Mace-
donia has a small group of 33 non-combat troops in Iraq—less than one busload.
While awarding medals to Macedonia soldiers at an October 2004 ceremony, Rums-
feld said the United States supported Macedonia’s eventual membership in NATO.
Later that same month it was disclosed that three kidnapped Macedonian construc-
tion workers for an American company had been executed in Iraq, two by beheading.
Angry family members blamed Rumsfeld’s photo-op medal ceremony and the Ma-
cedonian government for their ghastly deaths. Notwithstanding these killings, Mace-
51
As was the case for dozens of other nations, Kuwait was included simply because it had
declared that Iraq was a threat.
donia declared it would not withdraw its troops from Iraq. However, other Macedo-
nian workers for the U.S. construction company soon left Iraq.
Marshall Islands: The Marshall Islands is among the many former coalition mem-
bers that Bush could not locate on a map. This nation has no military, and its contri-
bution to the coalition is, or was, merely words and a flag. As a former Pacific Trust
Territory, it is heavily dependent on the United States for economic assistance, and it
follows the U.S. lead at the United Nations. Since citizens of the Marshall Islands
may serve in the U.S. military, it is possible that some may become casualties in
Iraq. This nation is located about half way between Hawaii and Australia, and its
57,000 citizens live on atolls and reefs scattered across several hundred thousand
square miles of the Pacific Ocean.
Micronesia: Like the Marshall Islands, this nation is a former U.S. Pacific Trust
Territory heavily dependent on the United States. It has no military, but 400 to 600
of its citizens are on active duty in the U.S. military. Through September 2004 at
least three soldiers from the broader Micronesia region died while serving with the
U.S. military in Iraq, and we honor their service. The Marshall Islands is no longer
on the coalition list.
Moldova: In 2004 Moldova reduced the number of its troops in Iraq to 12, from 24.
Yes, that’s 12, not 12 thousand or 12 hundred, or even 12 dozen. In January 2007 it
withdrew the remaining dozen.
Mongolia: Situated between China and Russia—two historically dangerous

neighbors—the democratic nation of Mongolia, with a population of only 2.8 mil-
lion, needs any international friends it can find. Genuinely pro-American and eager
to play ball, Mongolia offered troops for the coalition apparently without being
asked. After the end of the so-called “major combat operations” phase in 2003,
Mongolia sent 180 all-volunteer non-combat soldiers to Iraq to work on construction
projects and guard oil pipelines. At a February 2003 ceremony at the White House,
Bush thanked Mongolia’s president, Natsagiyn Bagabandi, for joining the coalition.
Two months later Mongolia requested a favor in return, a free-trade agreement.
SIDEBAR: Mongolian Peacekeepers Arrive: “Better 745 Years Late than

Never”
Baghdad was a commercial and cultural center of the Islamic world until February
10, 1258, when the Mongols under General Hulagu Khan, a grandson of Genghis
Khan, sacked the city, slaughtering 800,000 people, including the Abbasid Caliph,
over a period of 40 days and destroying most of what had been the largest Arab city
in the world. For good measure the Mongols in 1401, this time under Tamerlane,
again sacked the city.
May the Mongolians who arrived in 2003 succeed in their peaceful mission and
be better appreciated by the local citizenry than their 13th and 15th century ancestors.
Speaking of invaders, Bush visited Mongolia in November 2005 to praise its gi-
gantic contribution of 160 non-combat soldiers to the coalition. In return, the United
States gave Mongolia a bribe—well, aid—of $11 million in military assistance. This
works out to $68,750 per soldier, which is a multiple of what Iraqi soldiers are paid
annually. By 2007 Mongolia had reduced its deployment to 100.
Netherlands: With a peak of 1,400 troops in Iraq, the Netherlands was one of only
five coalition members (other than the U.S.) with more than 1,000 troops in Iraq. It is
apparently one of the very few nations that joined the coalition willingly without
undue bullying or bribes. But enough is enough. It withdrew all its troops by March
2005.
New Zealand: New Zealand appeared on the MNF-I coalition list during part of
2004, even though its government stated it never joined the coalition, and even
though its troops were deployed in Iraq at the request of the United Nations. New
Zealand had only 61 military engineers in Iraq, and it withdrew all of them in Sep-
tember 2004, notwithstanding the fear that Bush would retaliate with vindictive trade
policies.
Nicaragua: On the State Department’s original list of 30 members, Nicaragua with-

drew all 230 of its non-combat soldiers in February 2004. They served in the Span-
ish-led Ultra Plus Brigade, which consisted of soldiers from five Spanish-speaking
nations. Spain’s withdrawal from Iraq gave Nicaragua the excuse to leave also.
Norway: Norway is another coalition dropout that was never really in the coalition.
In 2003 Norway’s Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik declared that Norway op-
posed the war, but wanted to help rebuild Iraq. Although Norway withdrew all of its
150 military engineers in September 2005, the Bush administration continued to list
Norway as a coalition member for several months.
Palau: Palau appeared on early-2003 Bush League rosters showing more than 45
coalition members. Palau later dropped out, perhaps because of embarrassing satire
regarding its possible role in Iraq. This Pacific Ocean nation of 20,000 people has no
military, is defended by the United States, and is known for its scuba diving and
tapioca. Curiously, Palau’s president offered its airfields and ports to the Iraqi ef-
fort—perhaps he suspected that Bush believed Iraq was located in the Pacific Ocean.
It is possible that Palau’s contribution was to be coconuts, which would explain that
multi-billion dollar no-bid contract received by Halliburton for giant slingshots. Ex-
cept for those coconuts, Palau is unarmed.
Panama: Like many coalition “members,” Panama provided nothing of value to the
coalition and is no longer listed as a member. It was included in the group of coali-
tion nations “unwilling to be named,” as well as in the GOP-controlled Senate’s

resolution of March 27, 2003, that deceitfully identified 50 coalition members. Pa-
nama merely offered “political support” by issuing a “made-as-instructed” declara-
tion that Iraq was a threat.
Philippines: During a hostage situation in July 2004 the Philippines government

announced that it would withdraw all its troops (approximately 80) from Iraq by their
scheduled departure date in August 2004, which it did. When the Philippines
dropped from the coalition, many Filipinos were surprised to learn it was ever in-
cluded.
Poland: Polish leaders in October 2004 announced they would withdraw all of Po-
land’s 2,500 non-combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2005, as the Iraq war had
become increasingly unpopular, with 73% of Poles opposed to the deployment of
their troops in Iraq, according to a poll released in August 2004 by the CBOS gov-
ernmental polling agency. An even larger majority said that Poland could experience
retaliatory terrorist attacks. In fact, “only” 1,600 withdrew, leaving a reduced force
of 900. Poland requested lots of military aid as it considered whether to keep any
troops in Iraq. Poland leads and provides the headquarters for one of the coalition’s
six geographical areas, the Multi-National Division Central South. By 2006 the
number of coalition members participating in this division had shrunk to 12, with a
total troop level of only 2,500, or slightly more than a paltry 200 per nation. Only
three countries (the United States, Great Britain and Italy) sent more troops than Po-
land to Iraq, although the Polish total was not huge. When Poland first appeared on
the coalition list, it requested that its name not be used for propaganda purposes. In
spite of Bush, the Polish people are among the most pro-American in the world.
Notwithstanding Poland’s withdrawal of most of its troops, Bush frequently praised
Poland for being such a steadfast ally. Through 2006, 18 Polish soldiers and several
civilians had died in Iraq. Although Poland said its troops would play only a non-
combat role, some of its commandos did covertly participate in the initial attack,
which the Polish government acknowledged only after Reuters released photos of
masked Polish commandos in action. Poland expected many financial benefits by
participating in the coalition, including: (1) recovery of a debt of $560 million owed
by Iraq, (2) reconstruction contracts for more than 100 Polish companies, including
more than 20 firms under contract with a Halliburton subsidiary to rebuild Iraq’s oil
infrastructure, (3) payments of more than $250 million by the United States to cover
some of Poland’s military costs in Iraq, (4) the participation of Poland’s Bank Mil-
lennium in a consortium of banks that would run Iraq’s trade banking, (5) and loans
from the United States. Poland’s foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, char-
acterized direct access to crude oil as its “final goal.”
SIDEBAR: “Taken For a Ride”
Bush’s position as least trusted leader of all NATO leaders is secure. In March
2004—about the time of the first anniversary of the invasion—Polish President
Aleksander Kwasniewski said, “They deceived us about the weapons of mass de-
struction, that’s true. We were taken for a ride.”
Portugal: The rightwing Portuguese government of former Prime Minister Durão

Barroso sent 128 gendarmes (national guard) and modest funds to Iraq for develop-
ment and training projects. Many in Portugal’s rightwing ruling elite—who fondly
remember Portugal’s imperial days and regret the way Portugal gave up its colonial
empire—were content to be a small part of America’s imperial efforts. In a 2004 poll
of Portuguese citizens however, about three-quarters said they wanted their forces to
be pulled out of Iraq, and in April of that year its interior minister said Portugal
might pull out if the fighting worsened. Portugal withdrew completely in February
2005. On a happier note, Iraq’s soccer team on August 12, 2004, shocked favored
Portugal 4-2 in Iraq’s first match of the 2004 Olympics.
Romania: Romania is one of many rent-a-state coalition members that provided no

combat troops for the invasion of Iraq, although it agreed to participate in reconstruc-
tion and security efforts after “organized hostilities” ended. When cobbling the coali-
tion together, the United States agreed to buy the substantial debt owed Romania by
Iraq. Hoping to be admitted to NATO, Romania sent 700 troops to Iraq, and in 2004
it became a NATO member. In early 2006 the United States and Romania announced
that America’s first permanent military presence in a former Warsaw Pact nation
would be established at a Romanian air force base on the Black Sea, with the base to
serve as headquarters of the U.S. Eastern European Task Force. By 2007 Romania
had reduced its troops in Iraq to 600 from a maximum of 865.
Rwanda: More than 800,000 Rwandans, mostly Tutsis, were slaughtered in the 1994
genocide, and millions more fled the country or were internally displaced. This coun-
try of 8 million people continues to be in desperate need of international aid and co-
operation. Its people are unable and unwilling to contribute to America’s occupation
of Iraq. The Bush administration acknowledged that Rwanda provided only “moral
support” to the coalition, and its inclusion in the Bush League roster for several
months was shameful.
Singapore: Singapore also is no longer in the coalition. By March 2005 Singapore

had withdrawn all 192 of its forces, most of whom had been in a unit that trained
Iraqi police.
Slovakia: Slovakia withdrew completely from the Iraq coalition in January 2007.
Formerly part of Czechoslovakia and under the thumb of the Soviet Union, the de-
mocratic Slovak Republic was established in 1993. Its 105 non-combat support
troops in Iraq were specialized in chemical warfare decontamination and worked to
clear mines. Slovakia also authorized flyover privileges and the use of its bases.
Grateful to be a free nation and desiring NATO membership as part of the Vilnius
Group, Slovakia has several hundred skilled personnel deployed worldwide in vari-
ous UN and NATO peace support operations. Slovakia was admitted to NATO in
2004. The right-center government of Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda, who lost his
reelection bid in 2006, had strongly supported Bush in Iraq. Robert Fico, the new
prime minister who had campaigned hard on a withdrawal from Iraq, declared, “Slo-
vak soldiers can start packing their stuff, because they have to be home in February
2007. With this, the government is fulfilling its promise.”
Slovenia: Slovenia was caught by surprise when the U.S. Senate passed its resolu-
tion of March 27, 2003, identifying Slovenia as one of 50 coalition members. The
Slovenian embassy in Washington had previously advised the White House not to
include it in the war coalition. Opposition parties in Slovenia threatened an extraor-
dinary parliamentary session if the government did not clarify its stand, and there
was a call for the prime minister to resign. Prime Minister Anton Rop reiterated the
government’s position that Slovenia was not in the coalition. A related controversy
concerned the Slovenian government’s “mistaken” impression that the United States
was going to pay it $4.5 million as a reward for supporting the war.
Solomon Islands: The unilateral inclusion of the Solomon Islands in the coalition
highlighted the propaganda efforts of the Bush propaganda machine. Upon hearing
reports in March 2003 that his nation was on the coalition list, Prime Minister Allan
Kemakeza stated, “The government is completely unaware of such statements being
made, and therefore wishes to disassociate itself from the report.” The Solomon Is-
lands was dragooned and shanghaied into the coalition of, well, the unwilling, and
this unarmed, almost-bankrupt nation with no independent military should never
have been included.
South Korea: South Korea, a key long-term American ally dependent upon the
United States for aid and security, joined the coalition early, although its hopes to get
something significant in return were soon dashed. In particular, it wanted America to
help South Korea negotiate directly with North Korea. Unfortunately, poke-em-in-
the-eye Bush treated South Korea’s leaders with scorn, the same way he treated
North Korea’s dictator. South Korean polls show that South Koreans intensely dis-
like Bush and believe the United States to be a greater threat to peace than North
Korea, which is a member of Bush’s infamous Axis of Evil. South Korea initially
offered to send to Iraq an engineering battalion, as well as aid for war refugees. It
later offered to send a total of 5,000 troops, subsequently scaled back to 3,700. Secu-
rity for its personnel was a central issue, complicated by widespread opposition in
South Korea to their deployment, as well as the beheading in Iraq of a Korean hos-
tage. During his acceptance speech at the 2004 Republican Party convention Bush
expressly named and thanked eight coalition nations, but he unwittingly failed to
mention South Korea, even though only the United States and Great Britain contrib-
uted more troops to Iraq than South Korea. By 2007 Korea had reduced its troops in
Iraq to 2,300 from a peak of 3,700.
Spain: This nation, which had provided the eighth greatest number of troops (1,300
non-combat troops) to the Bush League, withdrew all its troops in April 2004, thus
fulfilling a campaign pledge of its newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodri-
guez Zapatero. The previous Spanish government, the right-center government of
Jose Maria Aznar, was second only to Tony Blair in its support of Bush’s invasion of
Iraq, even though it had been opposed by 90% of Spain’s citizens, an incredibly high
percentage. Imagine what it would take to get 90% of Americans to agree on any-
thing. Thus the Spanish people were never willingly part of Bush’s so-called Coali-
tion of the Willing.
SIDEBAR: 3/11 in Madrid
Exactly 2 ½ years after the 9/11 attacks, ten terrorist bombs exploded on commuter
trains in Madrid, killing more than 200 people and wounding thousands more. Pull-
ing a page from the Bush/GOP playbook, Jose Maria Aznar’s ruling party, the
Popular Party, quickly lied and pointed the finger of responsibility at a politically-
convenient target, the Basque separatist group known as ETA. Why? Because
Spain’s rulers feared the Spanish people would focus their anger on them if al Qaeda,
and not the ETA, was responsible for the bombings.
Why would Aznar’s ruling party be so deceitful, especially since the truth about
the bombers would ultimately be known? Well, Spain’s general elections were only
two days away, and with skillful management of the news the ruling party, which
was expected to easily win the elections, could get through the campaign and remain
in power.
But the deception backfired. Unfortunately for Spain’s ruling party, it did not
have America’s rightwing Big Media to shill for it. Fortunately for truth and democ-
racy, early evidence including videotape immediately fingered al Qaeda as the re-
sponsible terrorist group, and in an astonishing upset in the general elections, Span-
ish voters ousted the ruling party. The voter turnout was strong, 77%, which com-
pared with a turnout of only 55% in the general elections four years earlier.
The large majority of Spain’s citizens believed the Bush regime had deceitfully
rushed to war against a nation that posed no threat to the United States, Spain, or any
other country.
It is surprising that the Spanish electorate, just two days after “Madrid’s 9/11,”
did not overwhelmingly stick with their ruling party as a demonstration of their anger
and patriotism. Somehow the understandable human desire for revenge did not pre-
vail, and the ruling party was held accountable. The Spanish people understood that
Bush’s war on Iraq had spawned terrorists and made the world less safe.
The new Spanish leader said that one nation cannot bomb another nation “just in
case” and that wars should not be started on the basis of lies.
Prior to its withdrawal, Spain commanded the troops of Nicaragua, El Salvador,

Honduras and the Dominican Republic under the umbrella of the Ultra Plus Brigade.
Taiwan: When the Bush administration was asked why it included Taiwan in an
early list of coalition members, the answer was that Taiwan had made its airspace
open to American military aircraft, a “rationale” that deserved and received wide-
spread ridicule. Perhaps Bush’s handlers calculated that, with the assistance of
America’s Big Media, they could slip it by a geographically challenged president and
his geographically challenged supporters. In any case, Taiwan was quickly dropped
from the coalition list for other reasons discussed below. Later, in 2004, when Bush
was searching for chumps to clean up the mess he created, rightwing Representatives
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Jim Ryan (R-KS) proposed that the United States ask
Taiwan to send 5,000 marines to Iraq to fight alongside American soldiers. This
made some sense since Taiwan is not only a democracy but also a longtime Ameri-
can ally dependent upon the United States to protect it from Beijing. However, the
Bush administration immediately declared it would neither seek nor welcome Tai-
wan’s troops in Iraq, the justification being its desire not to ruffle the feathers of the
dictatorship in Beijing. The proposal to send Taiwanese troops to Iraq was also re-
jected by Taiwan’s president, Chen Shui-bian, as well as an overwhelming majority
of Taiwan’s citizens, including especially its small Muslim community of 50,000.
Thailand: Thailand withdrew all its troops from Iraq in August 2004 at the end of its
one-year humanitarian commitment and was removed from the roster of coalition
members. From the beginning Thailand declared itself to be neutral in Bush’s war
against Iraq. It later agreed to a humanitarian mission involving 451 non-combat
engineering and medical troops. An April 2004 poll showed that the majority of
Thais wanted their 451 troops in Iraq to be withdrawn and only 22% wanted them to
stay. The war was especially unpopular among Thailand’s minority Muslim popula-
tion. Thailand’s prime minister stated that the nation’s troops would be withdrawn if
any of them got hurt. In fact, the deteriorating security situation caused them to re-
main in their camp in Iraq until their withdrawal in 2004.
SIDEBAR: A Few Enlightening Questions
Question 1: Why would the Bush administration proudly list Thailand in its so-
called Coalition of the Willing when in fact Thailand had declared itself a neutral in
Bush’s war, and a vast majority of Thais opposed it?
Question 2: Why would the Bush administration proudly count Thai personnel in
its total of coalition troops when in fact these troops went to Iraq solely for non-
combat humanitarian purposes without any intention of killing Iraqis or anyone
else?52
52
This same point applies to the large majority of other countries in the Coalition of the Will-
ing.
Question 3: If Bush truly wants to bring democracy and freedom to Muslims in

Iraq and elsewhere, why are Muslims in Thailand and throughout the world so ada-
mantly opposed to his efforts?
HINT: The following should appear prominently in your answers: “oil,” “cha-
rade,” “Bush League,” “America’s Corporate Media,” “gullible American voters in
red states,” “duplicity, deceit and deception,” “lazy not-too-bright pretend-cowboy,”
“incompetent uninformed untrustworthy leader,” “liar,” “panderer to the Religious
Wrong,” “Armageddon,” and “Crusader for Upside-Down Christianity and the Super
Rich.” Extra credit for “lying scumbags.”
Tonga: In March 2003 the Bush administration proudly announced that this small
nation of 106,000 people (the last of the South Pacific Polynesian kingdoms, located
about one-third of the way from New Zealand to Hawaii) was the 49th member of the
coalition. Because the United States protected Tonga in World War II, Tonga felt
bound by honor to support the coalition. Bush the Father never asked Tonga for as-
sistance during Gulf War I. In fact, George the Son’s “request” for military assis-
tance was the first such request since World War II. In July 2004 Tonga deployed 45
royal marines—enough for one large war canoe—to Iraq as peacekeepers, but they
withdrew completely by the end of the year. U.S. government sources disagreed with
themselves as to whether Tonga was ever in the coalition.
Turkey: The Bush regime foolishly rushed to put Turkey on their initial roster of 30
coalition members, but Turkey did not remain there long. In another huge misjudg-
ment and diplomatic blunder, the Bushies assumed that this American ally and
NATO member would play ball in the Bush League. It did not, choosing instead to
actively obstruct American military plans to invade Iraq, although it did eventually
reluctantly allow the use of its air space. The Bushies planned to use Turkey—which
shares a 218-mile border with Iraq—as a staging area for 60,000 American troops
scheduled to invade northern Iraq under Operation Iraqi Freedom war plans. The
Bushies haggled with the Turkish government as to the size of the bribe—
euphemistically called economic aid—to be paid Turkey in return for this favor. Tur-
key wanted about $30 billion, preferably in cash since it did not trust Bush League
promises. The Bush administration initially offered $6 billion in “special economic
assistance” if Turkey’s parliament approved the use of its territory for the invasion,
and it eventually upped the proposed bribe to $20 billion in grants and guaranteed
loans, but it was still not enough. In a panic to try to close the elusive deal, the Bush
regime offered major “OK, you can screw the Kurds” concessions to Turkey.
SIDEBAR: Selling Out the Kurds
In duplicitously attempting to sell out Iraq’s Kurds—who have longed for a separate
state in northern Iraq for decades—the Bush regime thought it had closed the deal
with Turkey by promising the Turkish military that it could invade Iraqi Kurdistan, a
virtually autonomous quasi-state in northern Iraq since 1991, which had been pro-
tected under the northern No-Fly Zone created by the United States and Great Britain
in the aftermath of Gulf War I. The Bush neocons acquiesced to Turkey’s demands
that the four million Iraqi Kurds would not be allowed to form their own nation,
which Turkey feared would further aggravate the long-voiced demands of the 12
million Kurds in Turkey for their own independence. As part of this attempted sell-
out, the Bush neocons gave Turkey the green light to send tens of thousands of
troops into northern Iraq, under the pretense that they were needed to protect the
small Turkmen population and Turkish interests in oil-rich northern Iraq. Such a
move by the Turkish military was vehemently opposed by the Iraqi Kurds—
America’s most loyal allies and friends in Iraq—and would have led to war between
them and Turkey.
The unfortunate Kurdish people, who number about 30 million, have no home-
land or nation, just the mythical Kurdistan (the land of the Kurds), which is spread
throughout a large unfriendly region of the world that includes parts of Iraq, Turkey,
Syria and Iran. The Kurdish language ranks about fortieth among the world’s several
thousand languages, based on the number of native speakers.
Even the tyrant Saddam—who gassed thousands of civilian Kurds—treated his
Iraqi Kurds better than Turkey treated its Turkish Kurds. For decades Turkey sup-
pressed Kurdish history, language and culture, and countless Turkish Kurds were
slaughtered, and hundreds of thousands displaced, during the 15-year PKK (Kurdish
Workers Party) insurrection in Turkey that temporarily ended in 1999. Kurds
throughout the region are quite familiar with the lesson afforded by Turkey’s
genocide of Armenian Christians in the early part of the 20th century, a genocide in
which between one and two million Armenian Christians were killed and millions
more were forced from their homeland.
Bush rewarded the Iraqi Kurds for their loyal support of American policy in Iraq
by trying to stick a Bush League dagger in their back. Of course, the Kurds have
been betrayed in the past by the United States, both in 1975 and 1991, on the latter
occasion when Bush the Father encouraged Kurdish uprisings against Baghdad, but
then failed to follow through with promised support.53 In the end, Bush’s proposed
deal in 2003 with Turkey—built on Bush League bribes and betrayal—fell apart be-
cause the Turkish parliament refused to play ball, and Turkish troops thus quite for-
tunately did not enter Iraq in any significant numbers during the invasion.
53
For on-line accounts of the ongoing betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds by the United States, you
should read “Kurd Sellout Watch,” by Timothy Noah, who writes “Chatterbox” for Slate.
If Iraq’s Kurds emerge from Bush’s Iraq quagmire without getting screwed, it
will be in spite of the Bush neocons, who would sacrifice them in a heartbeat if it
served some perceived interest in the neocons’ fantasies. The Iraqi Kurds’ best hope
with respect to Turkey—other than counting on themselves and their own substantial
armed forces—is that Turkey, under European pressure and influence, will further
moderate its policies against the Kurds as it seeks to integrate itself into the
European Union. But don’t count on it.
The breakdown of the “You Can Screw the Kurds” deal offered to Turkey on the
eve of the invasion was a great embarrassment and surprise to the Bush neocons,
although it should not have been, given the enormous opposition of the Turkish peo-
ple to Bush’s war on Iraq. When Turkey pulled the welcome mat out from under the
tens of thousands of American troops waiting on warships in the eastern
Mediterranean Sea, the Bushies had to hurriedly rewrite their war plans, with in-
creased risk to American troops. Unable to deploy through Turkey, these troops had
to redeploy via a much longer route, which eventually took most of them to Kuwait.
Fortuitously, the Turkish obstructionism did not greatly compromise the military
campaign. Nevertheless, with “friendly” Bush League teams like Turkey, who needs
enemies? It is mind boggling that Turkey was ever called a coalition member, given
its outright obstruction and opposition to the war. Even though other NATO mem-
bers agreed to defend Turkey from Iraqi missiles, the vast majority of the Turkish
people—more than 90%—strongly opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq. With a long
history of problems on its long border with Iraq, Turkey could have been among the
strongest, most important coalition members, but the Turkish people and its govern-
ment did not trust Bush and his war party. As a final note, in September 2003, after
the “combat phase” of the war had ended, Turkey “considered” sending 10,000
troops into Iraq, and in return it actually received $8.5 billion in loan guarantees.
Turkey then turned around and decided not to send any troops. Halliburton could not
have played the game better.
SIDEBAR: No French Fries or Turkey for Thanksgiving
In order to give the finger to the French government and all French people, countless
Bush League supporters gleefully refused to eat French fries unless they were called
“freedom fries.” Given Turkey’s bold rejection of Bush’s bribes and war plans—and
in the interest of geopolitical and gastrointestinal consistency—these Bush League
nitwits should also boycott turkey. Specifically, they should eat chicken instead of
turkey for Thanksgiving, plus generous portions of crow and humble pie, and defi-
nitely no French fries. Vive la France!
Uganda: Although Uganda provided no troops, no civilians, and nothing else for the
coalition, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said Uganda would remain a mem-
ber. Perhaps he wanted this status in order to more effectively criticize Bush and his
Bush League policies. On October 12, 2004, Museveni noted that:
• he had blindly supported the war;
• he joined because Bush claimed Saddam had WMDs and because Saddam
was a friend of Sudan’s president Omar el-Bashir, “who was my enemy;”
• Bush pursued interests in Iraq that were not disclosed to coalition partners
before the invasion;
• the strategic mistakes made by the Bush administration in Iraq had forced
him to regret his support;
• he regretted that the United States had appointed Paul Bremer as governor
of Iraq, and that Bremer subsequently demobilized 1,000,000 Iraqi troops;
• the bloody Iraqi insurgency was caused by U.S. “arrogance” and the mis-
handling of relations between American troops and Iraqi civilians;
• the Bush administration did not invest much in building civilian confidence
and support in Iraq, which are essential for success; and
• the Bush administration had no interest in his opinion, even though he was a
member of the coalition.
For some reason the White House dropped Uganda from the coalition. In joining the
coalition in March 2003, Museveni offered to “assist in any way possible,” which is
Bush League diplomatic language for “no assistance.” Uganda, a country with con-
tinuing human rights violations, has a long history of brutal dictators, civil wars,
wars with neighboring nations, genocide under Idi Amin, massive poverty, drought,
starvation, and disease, including the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Ukraine: Before joining the growing list of Bush League dropouts, Ukraine had
about 1,600 non-combat mechanized infantry troops in a peacekeeping brigade in
Iraq in 2004, making it only one of six nations (including the United States) with
more than 1,000 troops involved. A key reason for Ukraine joining the coalition was
the desire of its corrupt regime to buy some friendship in Washington and soften
U.S. claims that Ukraine had circumvented UN sanctions imposed on Saddam. In
January 2005 outgoing President Leonid Kuchma ordered the withdrawal of all
Ukrainian troops from Iraq in the first half of 2005. He apparently wanted to steal the
credit for the withdrawal from Ukraine’s new president-elect, Viktor Yushchenko,
who had made withdrawal a campaign issue. The decision to leave Iraq was
strengthened when a huge explosion in southern Iraq killed eight Ukrainian soldiers
and one from Kazakhstan. In Ukraine, it’s not just the old Republican Guard-style
dictators and the newly democratically elected leaders who oppose the Bush
League—the Ukrainian people also overwhelmingly oppose Bush’s war on Iraq. All
Ukrainian troops departed Iraq by the end of 2005.
United States: “The Coalition is US.” Even including all the non-combat troops of
other coalition members, the United States provided almost 90% of the troops for
Bush’s war. This means that if Bush had increased America’s troop levels in Iraq by
only about 10% at the beginning, he could have efficiently dispensed with all other
coalition members and avoided all the coalition nonsense. This would have allowed
him complete freedom, versus 99.9 % freedom, to run his own unilateral American
war. Bush did increase American troop levels by about 10% in late 2004 and early
2005—and again in 2007 as part of his so-called surge—as security in Iraq wors-
ened. Of course, Bush also had “cut and run” plans in place from time to time. In
mid-2004 there were plans in place to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq
to 115,000 over several months, from a level of 140,000. However, intense Iraqi re-
sistance to Bush’s occupation caused him to cancel those withdrawals. Earlier, in
January 2004, the Bush White House said it hoped that U.S. forces could be reduced
to 50,000 by the end of 2005. Although the strategy of “cutting and running” was
perfected by Reagan after 241 American troops were killed in the suicide bombing of
the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983, it is politically incorrect for
America’s corporate media to use that term to describe actions by GOP presidents.
Uzbekistan: Although Uzbekistan, the most populous nation in Central Asia, was
quietly dropped from the coalition in 2004, Bush should be ashamed that this right-
wing despotic regime was ever considered on the team. President Islam Karimov is a
ruthless dictator who suppresses all freedom of speech, assembly and religion, and
uses the “war against terror” to justify his brutality. This justification for attacking
civil liberties should be familiar to Americans. Many Uzbek Muslims have been
jailed simply for having a beard in this primarily Sunni Muslim nation. Countless
political opponents and other innocents have been tortured to death, and there is no
independent judicial system. Karimov’s cozy relationship with members of the Bush
regime goes back to the 1990s when Bush was governor of Texas, and ruthless
Karimov has been an honored guest in the Bush White House. Although Uzbekistan
was listed as an early coalition member and received hundreds of millions of dollars
from the Bush regime, it never provided any troops for Iraq. During the run-up to the
war in neighboring Afghanistan, Uzbekistan allowed U.S. forces to use its Soviet-era
airbases.
SIDEBAR: In and Out of Bed … a Tortured Marriage
Uzbekistan is a favorite torture destination in the Bush regime’s illegal and immoral
extraordinary rendition program, under which suspects around the world are kid-
napped and transported to various rightwing nations for outsourced torture.
Although there was substantial public discussion in 2007 regarding illegal torture
conducted directly by the CIA—especially during the congressional nomination
hearings regarding Bush’s appointment of Michael Mukasey to replace the criminal
Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, with Mukasey carefully dancing around the
torture technique known as waterboarding in order to protect Bush and other war
criminals in his administration from subsequent prosecution for war crimes—there is
virtually no public discussion of even more horrific torture techniques committed in
America’s name at rendition sites around the world.
A principal source of information regarding the Uzbekistan connection is Craig

Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, who was fired by
Britain after he blew the whistle on the CIA’s extraordinary renditions to Uzbekistan
and the resulting torture of rendered suspects by Uzbek security forces acting on
behalf of America. The sunlight of truth is a wonderful disinfectant.
In addition to dropping Uzbekistan from the coalition, the Bush State Department
in 2004 “decertified” Uzbekistan (under U.S. law requiring the State Department to
certify annually that governments receiving American aid adequately support human
rights), thus effectively cutting off most American aid. Nevertheless, numerous other
dictatorships continue to routinely receive positive human rights certifications, in
spite of their routine violation of human rights, and notwithstanding the objections of
numerous international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch. Congressional pressure and special legislation in 2003 to take action
against Uzbekistan also helped change the Bush regime’s policies toward Uzbeki-
stan, although its broader practice of outsourced torture continues.
Other “Almost Shanghaied” Nations: Believe it or not, in addition to the long list
of nations just discussed, there are several more nations that Bush supporters tried to
slip into the coalition. Because their attempts to shanghai these nations were espe-
cially fleeting and feeble, we list here these additional nonmembers—the “almost
shanghaied”—simply for the sake of completeness. They are: Austria, Bahrain,
Belgium, Canada, Fiji, Finland, France—yes, even France!—Greece, Ireland,
Jordan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, and the
United Arab Emirates.
There is a large army working for the United States in Iraq that does not appear
on the long list above, one that rivals the entire coalition in size. It is the shadow
army of mercenaries fielded by a host of unleashed, for-profit companies that are
making a killing in Iraq. Their presence, together with the rightwing worldview that
placed them there in the first, is a central reason why Bush and the GOP lost their
“little war” in Iraq. These mercenary companies are the subject of the next chapter.
CHAPTER 7
Private Military Contractors

Making a Killing in Iraq
Where is the justice of political power if it executes the murderer and jails
the plunderer, and then itself marches upon neighboring lands, killing thou-
sands and pillaging the very hills?
—Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931)
Contrary to popular belief, Britain does not provide the second largest coalition force
in Iraq. Rather, that force number two consists of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
private for-profit companies, which are euphemistically called private military con-
tractors, private military firms, and the like. These very profitable companies are
paid to recruit and field shadow mercenary armies estimated to total substantially
more than 100,000 personnel by early 2007, although no one on God’s Earth knows
exactly how many are deployed, or by whom exactly, or precisely what their various
missions are (other than to make money.)
The force of 100,000 privately contracted employees in Iraq in 2007 is:
• about three-quarters the size of America’s entire military force then in Iraq,
• more than 13 times the size of Britain’s total of 7,200 troops still in Iraq as
of January 2007, and
• more than seven times the size of the entire Bush League coalition, exclud-
ing only the United States.
America’s media coverage of this humongous mercenary force is abysmal—let’s
say AWOL—even when the topic is the so-called surge in early 2007. The Bush
regime understandably talks little about its mercenaries.
In helter skelter fashion, America’s shadow army in Iraq sees action from time to
time and has suffered significant casualties, although no one in the Bush regime is
keeping count, or at least not openly disclosing the information. Having said that, the
total number of U.S. mercenaries killed in Iraq through 2007 is probably about
1,000.
The maze of private military contractors operates in Iraq—GOP style—behind a
wall of governmental and corporate secrecy. Multiple layers of interconnected, po-
litically well connected, contractors and subcontractors obfuscate the truth, cripple
the mission, and guaranty windfall profits, which is the primary objective of this
GOP program of governmental malfeasance and corporate welfare. Some of these
companies played roles in the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere
in Iraq, as well as at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in a Bush League-style gulag of
illegal secret military prisons in Eastern Europe, Asia and elsewhere.
In plain English, the troops provided by the so-called private military contractors
are mercenaries, although international law experts may quibble as to the precise
legal definition of a mercenary. For example, regarding the Iraq Civil War, most
experts would not consider Iraqi citizens to be mercenaries, whether or not paid by
the United States, because mercenaries are typically defined to exclude citizens of
the country experiencing the conflict.54 In any case, the Bush League neocons prefer
to use misleading softer terms like civilian contractor, rather than mercenary.
America’s private mercenary companies in Iraq perfectly match the Bush re-
gime’s worldview and unconstitutional governance. They are music to a dictator’s
ears. These armies function above and outside the law, doing Bush’s bidding in the
dark, without appropriate accountability and oversight. Beholden to him and the
GOP, they protect America’s corporate empire and serve as the emperor’s praetorian
guard, much like Saddam’s Republican Guard, only less competent at their core mis-
sion and much more expensive.
The presence of the huge foreign mercenary armies, together with the cancerous
worldview that caused them to be there in the first place, are a central reason why
Bush and the GOP lost their war on Iraq.
Private mercenary armies make it easier for foolish American leaders to initiate
and prosecute foolish wars, or, “fuelish wars,” if you prefer. Such armies and wars
require only the wallet of the American people, not their heart and conscience, and
definitely not a military draft. Mercenaries are the antithesis of America’s proud tra-
ditional military that is of, by, and for the American people.
When Bush and Cheney outsourced America’s military, they outsourced Amer-
ica’s soul and American values. They also made it less efficient, more corrupt, and
much more expensive.
The private mercenary armies in Iraq must be immediately withdrawn and dis-
banded. This action is as important as withdrawing American troops. To withdraw
one and not the other makes no sense.
The flow of funds to war profiteering companies must also stop, and their con-
duct and the conduct of their enablers in the Bush regime must be thoroughly inves-
tigated.
The vast majority of the mercenaries in Iraq are recruited and employed by doz-
ens and dozens of American and British companies with names generally not well
known to the public. However, a few public-trough companies such as Halliburton,
KBR (formerly the Kellogg, Brown and Root subsidiary of Halliburton), DynCorp,
Blackwater USA, and the Carlyle Group are more familiar because of their high-
level rightwing political connections and numerous allegations of war profiteering,
fraud and corruption.
Blackwater, with hundreds of employees in Iraq, became well known primarily
because of one of the war’s most horrendous incidents. Four of Blackwater’s security
contractors were killed on March 31, 2004, in an ambush in Fallujah after they had
54
Accordingly, the mercenary totals set forth herein do not include Iraqi citizens.
CHAPTER 7 — PRIVATE MILITARY CONTACTORS 155
gotten lost, and their bodies were savagely mutilated and burned by a crowd, with
the remains of two of the charred bodies then hung on public display on a bridge
over the Euphrates River. The misguided, incompetently-executed operation by
Blackwater—Blackwater’s Fiasco in Fallujah—caused an enormous escalation in
violence in Iraq, leading to the death of countless Americans and Iraqis.
The intense media coverage of Blackwater’s Fiasco in Fallujah caused many
stunned Americans to realize for the first time that America had hired mercenaries to
fight its wars, and many wondered why. If the mission was important, why weren’t
America’s finest, America’s citizen military, carrying it out? Why were corporate
profiteers mucking it up?
SIDEBAR: A Rapidly Growing Worldwide Market for Mercenaries
An investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)

identified about 90 private for-profit companies that offer mercenaries for hire
around the world, on six continents, in 110 countries. A veil of secrecy undoubtedly
causes the number of such firms to be understated. In any case, the business of kill-
ing allows them to make a killing.
These firms are sometimes hired by the U.S. government to perform missions
that cannot legally be performed by America’s military. Sometimes they are hired to
perform missions that are simply illegal by any standard.
The worldwide annual revenues for such mercenary companies are estimated at
more than $100 billion. American and British companies, which dominate this rap-
idly growing market, have especially profited since the Iraq war began, largely be-
cause the United States and Britain are the two nations that have done almost all of
the heavy lifting, including funding, in prosecuting the war. According to a security
firm in London, the annual revenues of British-based private military contractors
have increased by more than five fold, to more than $1.7 billion, since the com-
mencement of the war in 2003.
Many of America’s finest left the regular military for the higher pay offered to
private soldiers for hire, and it is difficult to blame them. Former soldiers of all ranks
are included among the mercenaries. MPRI, a privately-held company headquartered
in Alexandria, Virginia, brags that it has more generals per square foot than the Pen-
tagon.
The shift to mercenaries is part of a hugely negative, global, rightwing economic
tsunami that includes privatization, the outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs, and the
maximization of corporate power and profits—all at the expense of human beings,
human benefits, and human rights. However, unlike the cost savings resulting from
the private Wal-Martization of America, i.e., the outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs
by America’s private industry, the hiring of mercenaries by America has exactly the
opposite effect—it greatly increases costs. The grease—the raison d’être—for this
odd phenomenon is that government money, not private money, is being spent, mis-
spent and stolen—as the Bushies religiously feed their public-trough cronies.
If mercenaries were included in the total U.S. military presence in Iraq, then the
total force would be at least two-thirds greater (e.g., the total of 150,000 troops in
2007 would swell to more than 250,000 if the mercenaries were counted.)
Looked at from a different perspective, if this total force of 250,000 consisted
only of America’s finest, with no mercenaries, then the total cost would be reduced
by upwards to 70%, while at the same time both performance and accountability
would be greatly improved.
Ironically, American textile workers have lost their jobs to Asian workers who
may be paid only one-tenth as much as the axed Americans were previously paid, but
American soldiers, on the other hand, are replaced by mercenaries who are paid 5 to
15 times more. (In addition, lots of corporate overhead is added to the mercenary
compensation.) What is wrong with this picture? Well, when you’re talking about the
GOP-abused cash cow known as the U.S. Treasury, the Halliburtons of the world
suck as much milk as possible from as many teats as possible, while not worrying
about the health or ownership of the cow.
Of course, maximizing the profits of large corporations is the common goal in
both the outsourcing of textile jobs and the outsourcing of military jobs.
The huge compensation disparity between the cost of an American soldier and
the cost of a mercenary extends all the way up to those at the top of the GOP’s mer-
cenary milking operation. The CEO of a large private military contractor can make
10 to 100 times, or more, the compensation of a four-star general in the U.S. Army.
Ultimately, U.S. taxpayers pay the price.
War profiteers commonly milk their cost-plus contracts by adding multiple layers
of contractors and overhead to the actual pay received by the individual soldier.
Private military contractors grease the skids for their government contracts by
paying lobbyists to milk Congress and by making millions of dollars in both illegal
and perfectly legal payments, including bribes—political contributions, if you like—
to America’s elected officials, who happily participate in the milking of America.
In addition to helping their cronies grab government contracts, the GOP-
controlled Congress blocked congressional investigation and oversight, in violation
of their oaths of office.
Cronyism, waste and corruption are hallmarks of the Bush regime. Politically
connected companies such as Halliburton have an inside track to win war contracts
and have, in effect, an exemption—similar to a Bush Family Pass—from effective
oversight by either Congress or the American people. Will the last person in America
who trusts Halliburton please turn out the lights on the way out?
In fairness, let’s remember that Halliburton is not all bad. One benefit of its war
profits, properly earned or not, is that they help ensure the continued annual payment
of tax-avoiding deferred compensation to Cheney.
Meanwhile, as the lucrative corporate milking operation continues around the
clock, peace is an orphan. Using American taxpayer dollars that have found their
way into their pockets, private military contractors promote and market war, all in
America’s name. No peace drums are beaten, only the drums of war. Peace has no
voice and no marketing budget.
Dictatorships and large international corporations have increasingly turned to

private military firms to protect their interests and project their will around the
world, almost always to the disadvantage of downtrodden populations. The innocent
masses—plus democracy and human rights—are the most common victims of the
mercenary business.
And some Americans still wonder why America has such a difficult time winning
hearts and minds around the globe.
The large shadow army of private corporate mercenaries operates below the pub-
lic radar, thus offering many political advantages to the Bush regime and its GOP
supporters:
• In sharp contrast with the reporting requirements governing American troop
casualties, the Bush administration is not required to report casualties in-
curred by the mercenary force, which causes an understatement of the total
American dead and wounded in Iraq.
• The private employers of the mercenaries likewise are not required to report
their respective casualties, and they typically do not, preferring to avoid
negative publicity.
• The use of the shadow army, rather than the U.S. military, helps the Bush
regime circumvent the Geneva Conventions. Before he was nominated to be
Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, who was affec-
tionately called “mi abogado” (“my lawyer”) by Bush, famously wrote “tor-
ture memos,” in which he referred to provisions of the Geneva Conventions
as “obsolete” and “quaint.”
• The mercenaries were granted immunity from Iraqi law by an edict issued
by the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and by the
willingness of the Iraqi government to look the other way. Paul Bremer’s
Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17 of June 2004 gave contractors
blanket immunity from Iraqi law, thus setting a precedent for no account-
ability even as laws subsequently changed.
• Because the mercenaries are not employees of the United States, they are
not clearly and directly in the U.S. military chain of command, and they are
not subject to the rules of engagement and the Uniform Code of Military
Justice that apply to America’s armed forces.
• A heavy blanket of secrecy, including a Get Smart “cone of silence,” pro-
vides cover to military and civilian leaders all the way to the top of the Pen-
tagon and the White House, whether or not they personally authorized mer-
cenary misdeeds. Plausible deniability is a treasured defense of the Bush
regime.
• The use of mercenaries helped the Bush regime keep members of Congress
uninformed and misinformed as to its activities. Only after the GOP lost its
death grip on both houses of Congress in 2006 did meaningful investiga-
tions begin, and these investigations are being obstructed.
• In addition, many mercenaries are able to circumvent U.S. law because they
are not American citizens, or because they were employed by the Coalition
Provisional Authority, or because they not directly under U.S. military
command and control.
• Using a narrow definition of “mercenary,” many arguably are not even sub-
ject to the body of international law that applies to mercenaries.
• The Bush regime’s practice of placing themselves above and outside do-
mestic and international law gives coalition mercenaries additional comfort.
• The use of mercenaries reduces the need to increase the size of the U.S.
military or reinstate the draft. For an administration lacking the will to rein-
state the draft, mercenaries provide an easy alternative.
• Without these mercenaries the Bush regime could not engage in the level of
war it practices in Iraq and elsewhere.
• Without these mercenaries, the opportunities to funnel humongous piles of
taxpayer dollars to GOP-connected contractors and subcontractors would be
greatly restricted. “It’s the money, stupid. Follow the money.”
An estimated 40% of the money spent by the Bush regime in Iraq goes to private
contractors, although no one knows the exact percentage. There is no system in place
to evaluate effectively the performance of each contractor, and no matter how bad
the performance, with rare exception the contractor gets paid.
Americans, as well as Iraqis, have good reason to trust the professionalism and
performance of the U.S. military, but they have little or no reason to trust the maze of
private mercenary companies.
Through 2006 only one contractor in Iraq had been indicted for crimes. It is the
golden age for mercenaries—America’s GOP Mafia protects its own.
Serious investigation of the dark underbelly of America’s mercenary business did
not begin until the American people in 2006 wrested control of Congress from the
GOP, which throughout the Iraq war partnered with the war profiteers in a deadly
game of grime, crime and cover-up. The 110th Congress, whose two-year term
started in 2007, has the Herculean task of investigating crimes and malfeasance in
Iraq, and it will take many years and a measure of good luck for the truth to emerge,
if ever.
As for Blackwater, the most “successful” of the corporate mercenaries, a good
starting point is Jeremy Scahill’s book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most
Powerful Mercenary Army. Blackwater owns and operates the world’s largest private
military base, which covers 11 square miles in North Carolina.
Erik Prince founded and personally financed Blackwater USA at age 27. He is a
secretive multimillionaire rightwing Christianist whose family funded and helped
many Religious Right and GOP causes, including James Dobson’s Focus on the
Family and Christian Freedom International. He is the poster child for what contrac-
tors should not be in America’s war to win the hearts and minds of Muslims world-
wide, especially those inclined to believe the United States is engaged in a war on
Islam.
The revolving door between Blackwater and the GOP administration is well
greased. Blackwater’s senior executives include controversial Joseph Schmitz, who
resigned as Defense Department Inspector General in 2005 to join Prince’s company.
The killing and mutilation of the four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in

March 2004 made them heroes and immediately increased Blackwater’s visibility.
Moving quickly to exploit the golden opportunity, Blackwater—just one day after
the tragedy—hired Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbyist firm involved in the GOP’s
K Street Project. By the end of the year, Blackwater was bragging about its 600%
growth. Applications for employment jumped. Its president declared they were in a
billion-dollar industry, and “Blackwater has only scratched the surface of it.”
The K Street lobbyist firm hired by Blackwater deserves a paragraph in this
book. Founded by a former chief of staff for Tom DeLay, Alexander melted down
and was shuttered in early 2006 in the face of the Jack Abramoff scandals. Former
staffers and associates of Tom DeLay ran the firm, which gave it solid roots in GOP
sleaze. Another Alexander client was PerfectWave, the defense contracting firm
owned by Brent Wilkes, who was convicted in November 2007 in connection with
the Randy “Duke” Cunningham government contracting scandal. (As we discuss in
Chapter 18, Cunningham is in prison serving a sentence of eight years and four
months, the longest sentence ever given a U.S. congressman.)
The families of the four men killed in Blackwater’s Fiasco in Fallujah filed a
wrongful death lawsuit against Blackwater, alleging numerous mistakes, malfea-
sance and negligence by Blackwater, including sending the four into harm’s way
without sufficient force and equipment and in violation of contractual commitments.
As reported in The Nation, the families of the four dead decided to sue only after
they had been stonewalled, misled and lied to by Blackwater as to what really hap-
pened. “Blackwater seems to understand money. That’s the only thing they under-
stand,” said Katy Helvenston, the mother of one of the victims. “They have no val-
ues, they have no morals. They’re whores. They’re the whores of war.”
Congress has started investigating Blackwater, but don’t expect Blackwater and
its political allies to cooperate. In the case of the Fallujah incident, it took a long time
for Congress or anyone else to even identify the subcontract under which the four
dead were employed, thanks to Blackwater’s obfuscation and stonewalling. War
profiteering in Iraq is conducted with a profits-enhancing maze of contracts and sub-
contracts, and no one even knows how many exist.
The shift to private corporate mercenaries has cost America and its military
dearly. America’s military has been crippled by the GOP’s relentless campaign to
privatize everything, all for the benefit of corporate interests. The rightwing pirates
simply hate government and its employees, including its military personnel.
Rumsfeld in particular despised the Pentagon organization for years and wanted
to transform and privatize it. Incredibly, Rumsfeld declared war on the Pentagon on
September 10, 2001, exactly one day before 9/11, that day of infamy when Flight 77
crashed into the Pentagon killing 189. He issued his declaration of war in an address
at the Pentagon, warning his audience of an “adversary that poses a threat, a serious
threat, to the security of the United States of America,” one that “attempts to impose
its demands across time zones, continents, oceans, and beyond. With brutal consis-
tency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the
United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.” Rumsfeld
wasn’t referring to al Qaeda or bin Laden. He was talking about the U.S. Department
of Defense itself and his desire to radically transform it. He said, “the adversary’s
closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy.”
Ironically, history would soon show that Rumsfeld’s words could better be ap-
plied to himself and his band of neocon suits: an “adversary that poses a threat, a
serious threat, to the security of the United States of America … It disrupts the de-
fense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.”
These words should be chiseled on his tombstone.
Rumsfeld and his supporting cast of well-connected executives from public
trough companies like Enron wanted the U.S. military to have a “small footprint”
and its leaders to function like venture capitalists in an MBA-filled boardroom. In
reality, a “small footprint” for America’s military meant a “huge footprint” for war
profiteers, allowing them to pork up at the public trough with minimal public scru-
tiny and oversight. To function like “venture capitalists” really meant to devour like
“vulture capitalists.”
The war on terrorism, 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq were all dreams come true for
America’s corporate mercenaries and the neocons. Rumsfeld must have thought he
had died and gone to Heaven. But, in reality, America had lost its marbles.
SIDEBAR: Halliburton—None Dare Call It Treason
In March 2007 Halliburton, the energy services giant then headquartered in Houston,
announced it was moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai, the United Arab Emir-
ates, along with its CEO, David Lesar, apparently in recognition of the fact that
Texas is fading in energy and rapidly becoming an empty oilcan, whereas Dubai is a
boomtown in the middle of the world’s largest oil reserves. The announcement was
met with disbelief in Washington, although no one should be surprised by anything
Halliburton does.
The move by Halliburton from Houston to Dubai illustrates where its loyalties
lie, and, in the words of Senator Patrick Leahy, is “an insult to the U.S. soldiers and
taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges
for all these years.”
Henry Waxman, the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Re-
form Committee, said in February 2007 that a government audit indicated Hallibur-
ton was responsible for $2.7 billing in “suspect billings.” Halliburton enjoyed a
multi-year $16 billion contract with the U.S. Army, as well as many other Iraq war
contracts. It also enjoyed the protection of the Halliburton White House and the GOP
Congress.
Although Halliburton declared the move will not result in tax benefits, we should
expect further restructuring by Halliburton, including probably a reincorporation
outside the United States, which could cost America’s taxpayers tens of billions of
dollars, in addition to helping further protect Halliburton from public oversight and
U.S. law.
In 2007 Halliburton spun off its notorious military contracting subsidiary, KBR
(formerly Kellogg Brown & Root), and the company is at the center of a host of al-
leged crimes, some going back to Dick Cheney’s 1995-2000 reign as Halliburton’s
CEO.
Halliburton is America’s leader in war profiteering. America can trust its public
servants who wear its uniform, but it has little reason to trust its private serpents who
owe their loyalties to their profits, not to America or its soldiers.
As is the case with America’s military personnel in Iraq, some mercenaries per-
form non-combat work, and some engage in combat. It is anyone’s guess as to what
the mix actually is. In comparison, the coalition members other than the United
States and Britain provide zero troops for combat. In addition, many mercenaries
died in Iraq because of the incompetence and greed of their private corporate em-
ployers.
The Bush regime is quite secretive as to exactly what functions the private mili-
tary contractors perform and how many individuals perform each function. The
range of activity is certainly broad, from logistics support—such as training, trans-
portation, and food services—to actual combat and providing security for senior
American officials and numerous key installations, such as the Green Zone in Bagh-
dad.
Iraqis desperately in need of employment are appalled at the high cost of hiring
foreign mercenaries and other foreign workers to perform services in their country.
They see foreigners being paid a large multiple of the salary for which they are will-
ing and able to work. In more extreme cases, the cost of a U.S. mercenary might be
more than 100 times the cost of hiring an Iraqi soldier to do the same work. Imagine
the peace dividend of giving a mercenary the boot, and then using the cost savings to
hire several Iraqi citizens, with each one then having the wherewithal to support a
family of several people.
An exercise in empathy is useful here. Imagine the “insurgent” violence and pa-
triotic outrage of Americans if an unwelcome, uninvited foreign imperial power in-
vaded and occupied America and then, rubbing salt in the wounds, hired foreign con-
tractors at a cost many times what American workers would accept—say at two mil-
lion dollars each—rather than hiring unemployed American policemen and firemen.
The Bush regime simply does not trust Iraqis or anything about them—especially
their religion—and therein lies a major reason for Bush’s and the GOP’s catastrophic
failure in Iraq. Whatever tidbit of respect the Bushies had for Iraqis was greatly out-
weighed by their love for their private public-trough buddies.
Civilian mercenaries who drive around Iraq in unmarked vehicles, without mili-
tary uniforms or identification, represent to Iraqis an extremely offensive face of the
occupation of their country. Some of these mercenaries committed horrendous
crimes against innocent Iraqis, with impunity.
As for the ballyhooed surge in Baghdad in early 2007, no one explained the role
of America’s private mercenary army, and America’s Big Media ignored this highly
relevant issue.
The goal of the mercenary companies is to maximize profits and do what is best
for their companies, not to implement U.S. policy or do what is best for America or
Iraq. However, there is virtually no public discussion of this inherent conflict of in-
terest, a conflict that exposes America’s troops to greater danger.
You can count on an American soldier, but you cannot count on a fat-cat CEO of
a war profiteer.
One problem is that employers of mercenaries typically retain the right to with-
draw their personnel if security becomes an issue. U.S. troops under fire in a combat
situation who need rescue or reinforcement can take comfort if American troops,
under the American military chain of command, are coming to their aid, rather than
unknown mercenaries hired by a company that may choose to keep its employees out
of harm’s way.
America’s private corporate mercenaries cause friction and compromise Amer-
ica’s mission in numerous ways. An American soldier who may be paid about
$20,000 per year to drive a truck has to question the sense and fairness of a private
corporate mercenary getting $100,000 and better benefits to do the same job. At a
time when the U.S. military has repeatedly missed its recruiting goals and lowered its
recruiting standards, it is not helpful that private companies “poach” many of Amer-
ica’s best soldiers in Iraq, including its special operations forces.
For a variety of reasons, including cost and availability, mercenaries from nu-
merous countries around the world are also hired to work in Iraq, and in some cases
the hiring standards are low or nonexistent. Dozens of soldiers who served with the
pro-apartheid military, paramilitary and secret police in South Africa and Namibia
have worked in Iraq. Others have trained and served under other brutal rightwing
dictatorships, such as the Pinochet regime in Chile.
Mercenaries vary greatly in experience and training. Some are among the most
competent and experienced warriors in the world. The pay rates vary greatly, from
perhaps $300 per month for Fijian or Kurdish soldiers to over $1,000 per day for
certain former Green Berets and experienced special operations forces. Blackwater
reportedly charged in the range of $1,500 per day per employee for some of its op-
erations. By comparison, in late 2003 many of the new recruits for Iraq’s new army
quit because of difficulty in supporting their families on $60 per month, which is $2
per day.
The GOP’s privatization and profiteering schemes have also found a home in
America. For example, Blackwater expanded its domestic operations and reportedly
charged up to $950 per day per person for its contracted employees during Katrina.
Bush and the GOP would rather pay millions to GOP cronies than give a needy black
person a lunch worth $5.
Although the United States used mercenaries in many conflicts prior to 9/11, in-
cluding Gulf War I, the scale of their usage in Iraq is unprecedented. On a percentage
basis, more than ten times as many are employed in the current unsuccessful Iraq war
as were employed in the successful Gulf War I.
Bush’s war on Iraq is just another opportunity for the Republican Party, the Cons,
to engage in so-called privatization, which truthfully should be called pirate-ization
or piratization. The Cons don’t believe in government—other than bloating and
milking it—and thus are incompetent and untrustworthy to run it. That especially
applies to America’s military and America’s national defense.
Just as an atheist who doesn’t believe in Christianity is unfit to be the pastor of
your church, the Cons who don’t believe in America’s government are unfit to run it.
Whether it’s the Cons’ vendetta to privatize and gut Social Security, or the
deregulation of the savings and loan industry, or the Enron-style deregulation of the
energy industry, or America’s student loan program, or the Medicare corporate wel-
fare legislation, or operation Katrina, or Bush’s war on Iraq, or the Afghanistan war,
the result is always the same: corruption, inefficiency, and an explosion in adminis-
trative costs, with America’s middle- and lower-income taxpayers getting screwed to
the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Putting the GOP in charge of America’s military is like marrying a pimp—a
bloated, white, over-the-hill, cocaine-addicted, womanizing, wife-abusing pimp—
whom you know is marrying you for your money. Yes, you will get screwed, but
don’t expect any of that romance you were promised.
In the next chapter we turn our attention to the Religious Wrong, that decidedly
unchristian warmongering gang of “Mission Accomplices” who bless and empower
the GOP’s War on Iraq and its War on America.
PART III
Bush, the GOP and Bush

League Religion
CHAPTER 8
The Religious Wrong

Creating the Neo-Jesus—Pro-Rich and Pro-War
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying
a cross.
—Sinclair Lewis (1885-1951)
One World Government and Other Bush League Fantasies

The central purpose of the Bush League of Nations was to provide Bush and the
GOP neocons with a veneer of political cover both in the short term—in their unilat-
eral decision to invade and occupy Iraq—and also in the longer term—in whatever
additional military campaigns they raged in pursuit of their broader imperial goal of
expanding American supremacy in the world. In the eyes of the world, the neocons
desired a modern American version of the Roman Empire, but much bigger geo-
graphically, and much more intrusive, exploitive and dictatorial. A vast majority of
rightwing Christians fell for the coalition charade hook, line and sinker.
The Bush League of Nations is a subterfuge intended to make rightwing Chris-
tians and other gullible American voters believe that most of the world was with us
in a willing coalition of nations to share the mission and the load in Iraq. But as the
war dragged on, increasing numbers of Christians slowly awakened to the reality of
the Big Lie.
The subterfuge was a necessary inconvenience for the Bush warmongers only be-
cause America still conducts elections, more or less. The vast majority of the rest of
the world saw the Bush League for what it was and still is, and they yearned for
America to come to its senses, restore integrity to the White House and Congress,
and return to its traditional values.
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Bush took the worst proposed foreign policy that
was slithering around the GOP dumpster—The Project for the New American Cen-
tury—and then foolishly decorated it with “Jesus Kills” cloth while donning his new
crusader cap. The world after 9/11 wanted to be led by America, but Bush gave them
his Bush League brand of American imperialism cloaked in America’s new national
religion.
The Taliban wing of the Republican Party had entered the White House. A viru-
lent strain of Christianity had become the religion of empire. America had lost its
marbles.
Incredibly, millions of rightwing American Christians supported Bush because

they believed God communicates with him, supports him, and directs his decisions
and policies. Bush and his handlers encouraged such misguided beliefs. While cam-
paigning in Pennsylvania in July 2004 Bush said, “I trust God speaks through me.
Without that, I couldn’t do my job.” This amazes America’s allies and repulses the
Islamic world. It also costs the lives of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and
elsewhere.
SIDEBAR: A 9/11 in Iraq Every 11 Hours
As for the number of Iraqis who died because of Bush’s illegal unjust war on Iraq,
neither the Bush regime nor the Iraqi regime is really counting. Neither is America’s
Christian right. In Chapter 4 we discussed the comprehensive independent Lancet
survey that estimated, through July 2006, that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a conse-
quence of the Iraq war. The estimate range was 943,000 at the high end and 393,000
at the low end. The middle figure of 655,000 Iraqi dead is more than 200 times the
number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, and equal to about 218 9/11s during the 40-
month period of the study.
Taking into account that America’s population is about 12 times that of Iraq, we
conclude that Iraq on a per capita basis has been experiencing the equivalent of one
9/11 every 11 hours—around the clock, 24 hours a day.
As indicated in Chapter 4, Iraq has suffered, on average on a per capita basis, the
equivalent of 5,952 Virginia Tech massacres per month, or one Virginia Tech mas-
sacre every 7 minutes and 30 seconds—around the clock, 24 hours a day.
Whatever estimate of Iraq’s dead you choose—even the lowball estimates be-
grudgingly offered by the Bush regime—the suffering in Iraq is staggering and in-
comprehensible to Americans.
Every church in America should be angered and outraged by the horror that was
unleashed in Iraq in America’s name and in Christ’s name.
As for those Christians who supported Bush’s war so proudly and eagerly, one
would hope to see some tears some day. Even a few crocodile tears would be a start.
Whether or not Bush has a hotline to God, the Bush League charade appeals to
many conservative Christians caught up in various rightwing prophecies of the end
of the world—the “End Times”—including the Second Coming of Christ, the rapture
and the Battle of Armageddon, which religious speculation we will discuss in the
next chapter. The Bush League foray into the heart of the Islamic world also gives
comfort to rightwing Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists who believe Amer-
ica should lead a militant Christian Crusade against the dark evil forces of the world,
primarily Islam.
At the same time, many conservative Americans have no use for any interna-
tional coalition, whether Bush League or not, and want America to unilaterally set
and pursue its own global agenda as it sees fit, free of any international taint, espe-
CHAPTER 8 — THE RELIGIOUS WRONG 169
cially that of the United Nations. This is appealing to many Americans on the ex-
treme right who believe various conspiracy theories such as one world government
and new world order.
According to most variations of these theories, a powerful group of individuals is
intent on obtaining complete control over every person on Earth, an Earth that would
no longer have national or political boundaries. Fearing an ongoing assault upon the
sovereignty and freedom of America, these conspiracy believers vociferously oppose
the United Nations and other international organizations.
If you are not very familiar with these conspiracy theories, you should Google
terms such as “Black Nobility,” “Committee of 300,” and “illuminati,” in addition to
“one world government” and “new world order.” You will be shocked by the crea-
tive lunacy you find, especially its biblical flavor.
Ironically, America itself has far more power and influence in the world than all
of these real or imagined conspiracy organizations put together, and thus America,
especially under Bush and his neocons, is, or rather was, the closest thing on Earth to
the “feared” one world government or new world order.
Any rightwing American who is truly fearful of such one world government or
new world order should empathize and role play for a moment—by stepping into the
shoes of non-Americans who might be similarly concerned about concentrated
power, and considering how these foreigners might reasonably view imperial Amer-
ica in these early years of the 21st century, which the neocons themselves call “The
New American Century.” Foreigners—say, for example, Brazilians, Iranians, or Ca-
nadians—have much more reason to be fearful of such a new world order than
Americans. Indeed, Bush’s War Party created such fear abroad where none previ-
ously existed, and where it did already exist it dumped gasoline on the flames.
Before the Bush regime assumed power, the disease of such paranoia had been
largely confined to rightwing America, where it has been nurtured by many funda-
mentalist biblical interpretations that are both recent and peculiar to America. Oddly,
many of the supporters of this new, made-in-America Christianity—one might say
“evolving” Christianity—are anti-science folk who don’t believe in evolution.
The Religious Wrong and the Separation of Church and State

The de facto religion of the Bush League of Nations is rightwing political Christian-
ity, as exploited by the rightwing political cabal known as the Religious Right,55 a
term that is Orwellian doublespeak, since the vast majority of the Religious Right’s
political agenda is an insult to Christ’s message of peace on Earth and compassion
for the poor. So when you hear the term “Religious Right,” you should mentally
translate it into something more accurate, such as the “Religious Reich,” the “Reli-
gious Wrong“ or the “Unchristian Right.” Another accurate label for the Religious
Right is “Extreme Religious Right,” or “ERR,” as in “to ERR is human, and defi-
nitely not divine.”
55
The terms Religious Right and Christian Right are often used interchangeably.
SIDEBAR: To ERR is Human, and Definitely Not Divine
The core agenda of the Religious Right is political, and not particularly religious,
unless you count as religious the idolatrous worship of wealth, the wealthy, power,
the powerful, war and weapons of mass destruction. In the case of any conflict be-
tween Christ’s message and rightwing politics, the latter always prevails. Rightwing
politics trump the Bible. War is good. Follow the money. Cronyism and corruption
crush Christ.
The “religious” tag used by the Religious Right serves the purpose of maintain-
ing the knee-jerk support of religious voters for rightwing policies no matter how
extreme, including especially the secular schemes of the Super Rich and powerful.
The so-called Religious Right has moved so far to the right that it should be called
the Extreme Religious Right, or “ERR,” as in: “to support the GOP is to ERR.”
The noun in the term “Religious Right” is “Right”—specifically an extreme
rightwing political constituency—and the word “Religious” is merely an adjective
that puts gloss on it. The ratio is at least 95%-to-5% in favor of extreme rightwing
politics, with the 5% “religious” part consisting of divisive social issues cherry
picked from the Bible, or simply picked out of thin air, so as to achieve extreme
rightwing political goals, which are primarily economic.
The Religious Right began to gel in the late 1960s and early 1970s, partly as a re-
sponse to liberal, progressive Christians—Jesus would say “true Christians,” I be-
lieve—who pushed for civil rights and opposed America’s war in Vietnam. Political
action groups on the right such as the Moral Majority—led by Rev. Jerry Falwell
during its lifespan, 1979-87—became powerbrokers and money magnets. Recogniz-
ing the potential in grafting religion onto rightwing politics, many political and reli-
gious leaders who previously had believed in the constitutional separation of church
and state did a flip-flop, and rightwing politics became their main passion. They
made a Faustian pact with the Devil, and America has been paying the Devil’s price
ever since.
The exclusionary Religious Right is dominated by white males, and, with the ex-
ception of its opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage, its agenda is that
of the Super Rich and Big Business, for whom Christ has become a lobbyist. Be-
cause the Religious Right is deeply rooted in rightwing political goals and not par-
ticularly religious values, it has no difficulty turning Christianity on its head when-
ever Christ’s message is inconsistent with rightwing political objectives, which is
most of the time. This is why so many policies of the Religious Right bear no resem-
blance to Christ or Christ’s ministry.
The Extreme Religious Right is an extreme political faction that effectively con-
trols the Republican Party. It backs its man Bush in whatever madness he may en-
gage in—such as the invasion of Iraq and the Bush League of Nations charade—and
helps convince Christians that Bush can do no wrong because God is acting through
him. Bishop Bush, in return, recklessly and relentlessly pursues the ERR’s corporate
agenda: “of the Super Rich, by the Super Rich, and for the Super Rich.”
Until a few decades ago all Christian denominations in America, including all
Baptist branches, strongly believed, as a matter of theology and common sense, in
the separation of church and state, which separation is intended to ensure freedom of
religion and freedom from religion. In short, virtually all Christians supported the
U.S. Constitution. However in the late 1970s an unfortunate blending of Christian
fundamentalism and the Republican Party began, leading to the erosion of the sepa-
ration of church and state, and to the rewriting and shredding of the Constitution.
Ultraconservative Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), the GOP candidate for
president in 1964, presciently saw the dangerous religious writing on the wall by the
early 1980s (long before your author did), and he condemned uncompromising pulpit
politicians for using religion as a weapon to force government leaders to follow their
God-determined positions 100%, and threatening to withhold votes and money.
I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as
a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C and D. Just
who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to
dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who
must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted
right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I
will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to
all Americans in the name of conservatism.
—Goldwater’s speech to the U.S. Senate on September 16, 1981
Bush has taken the Religious Right’s misguided un-American efforts to new ex-
tremes, with little regard for the Constitution or their negative impact on all religions,
including his own. Oddly, he shows no glimmer of curiosity as to why our founding
fathers wisely separated church from state. Perhaps the most curious thing about
Bush is his lack of curiosity.
Religious fundamentalism by itself is generally not bad, when kept securely in
the private realm and outside government. But fundamentalism transformed into
theocracy is dangerous and frequently deadly. Americans who believe religious fun-
damentalists should run their government would be at home in Saudi Arabia or Iran
or Bush’s Iraq, although they wouldn’t care for the particular flavor of toxic religious
Kool-Aid being served.
SIDEBAR: Thomas Jefferson and the Separation of Church and State
“I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal as-
cendancy of one sect over another.”
—Thomas Jefferson
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establish-
ment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separa-
tion between church and state.”
—Thomas Jefferson
Oblivious to the irony, Bush works to meld religion and state in America, while
he prays that the two will be separated in Iraq. But separating religion and state in a
predominantly Islamic nation is much more difficult than in the predominantly
Christian nation of America, a nation that from its founding in the 18th century rec-
ognized the wisdom of such separation. Bush and the GOP are thus on a fool’s er-
rand—the Devil’s errand—in both Iraq and the United States.
In sharp contrast to the Bible, the Koran strongly interweaves Islam and the state,
and this structure is reflected by centuries of tradition in the Islamic world. On the
other hand, Jesus is frequently given credit for inventing the separation of church and
state, when he said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto
God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17.
The unholy marriage of Christian fundamentalism and rightwing economic poli-
tics, together with their joint assault on religious freedom and the separation of
church and state, are peculiar to America. We should praise God that no other pre-
dominantly Christian nation suffers from this disease of the mind and the heart.
Unfortunately, there are several extreme rightwing Islamic nations, including Iran
and Prince George’s princely Saudi Arabia, where Islam is coupled to a rightwing,
exclusionary, elitist, dictatorial regime run by and for men. They are Islamic ana-
logues to Bush’s vision of a Religious Right America. Just imagine the repressive
toilet America would become if zealots like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James
Dobson made up 51% of America’s population.
Religion will simply not work in this small world unless the vast majority of be-
lievers of all faiths respect the religious freedom of others at least as much as they
respect their own religion.
As for the future of America itself, the memorable words of Abraham Lincoln
spoken on June 16, 1858, in Springfield, Illinois, echo to this day: “A house divided
against itself cannot stand.” Just as an America divided on slavery could not stand,
an America divided by religious fundamentalism cannot stand.
The neocons in effect are hoping and praying that the huge Islamic majority in
Iraq—more than 95% of the population—and the large Shiite majority in particu-
lar—about 60% of the population—will behave much more liberally, democratically
and justly in ruling Iraq than the Bush regime and his Confederate GOP have in rul-
ing the United States. Iraq’s new rulers, without the benefit of democratic traditions,
are expected, miraculously, to represent all Iraqis and to eschew Bush’s favorite
tools: militarism, greed, corruption, bigotry, the misuse of religion, cronyism, poli-
tics by division, lying, and eye gouging. Now that would be a miracle.
Ironically, largely below the radar of the American public, Bush’s blunder in Iraq
spawned countless tragedies for Iraqi Christians and other Christians in the Islamic
world. For example, approximately 40,000 Christians left Iraq in a period of less
than 18 months following the American invasion in March 2003, according to an
August 2004 report of the Migration Ministry of Iraq. The Bush League incompe-
tence fueled religious fundamentalism and violence, which frequently targets Chris-
tians.
The funneling of taxpayer money to favored religious groups is one of Bush’s
most infamous attacks on the separation of church and state in America. Upon as-
suming office Bush pushed Congress to approve his so-called faith-based initiatives,
intended to break down the constitutional barrier between church and state and use
U.S. tax dollars to fund tax-exempt religious organizations that provide social and
other services. Because of obvious First Amendment concerns, Congress correctly
refused to pass the legislation Bush wanted, even though Republicans controlled
both houses of Congress. More than a few Republicans saw the unconstitutional evil
afoot. So Bush circumvented Congress and implemented his faith-based initiatives
by executive order.
The result, notwithstanding the Constitution, is that federal funds flow to reli-
gious service providers from the newly created Compassion Capital Fund. This effort
is directly and politically controlled by the White House Office, which steers faith-
based centers in seven federal agencies (expanded to ten in May 2004), and the gov-
ernment bureaucrats now in charge are people who meet Bush’s litmus test for ap-
propriate religiosity. Of the first $1 billion in tax dollars distributed from the Com-
passion Capital Fund, virtually all of it went to Christian groups. Jewish and Muslim
groups received little or nothing.
Also troublesome is the fact that the selected religious service providers, even
though they receive federal funds, can discriminate in ways that other organizations
receiving federal funds cannot. For example, the taxpayer-funded religious service
providers can refuse to hire people of other faiths. Jews and Muslims need not apply.
Also problematic for the Bush administration are the revelations of a former
White House official—a deeply religious person who sincerely wanted to help the
poor—that Bush’s inner circle privately made fun of evangelical supporters who
visited the White House, calling them “goofy,” “nuts” and worse, while embracing
them in public in order to win elections. The revelations appear in the book,
Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, by David Kuo, the former
Deputy Director of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Kuo
describes how rightwing evangelicals were taken for granted and co-opted by the
Republican Party, losing their influence and respect along the way.
Bush bragged about, while underfunding, his faith-based initiatives at the same
time he worked hard to cut funding for various social services. Here is a small sam-
pling of his favorite cuts, most of which are from his 2005 budget proposal:
• massive cuts (largest ever) in loans for needy college students, together with
increased interest rates
• cuts in funding for energy and natural resources programs intended to re-
duce America’s dependence on foreign oil
• cuts in incentives for developers to build affordable housing for the working
poor
• cuts in child care assistance for needy mothers who work
• caps on Section 8 rent subsidies for the poor, which are paid primarily to
below-poverty-level families that include the elderly, the disabled, or chil-
dren
• cuts in funding for mass transit, highways, bridges, and other essential ele-
ments of America’s infrastructure
• cuts in community development
• cuts in funding for rural education intended to meet the requirements of the
No Child Left Behind law
• cuts in the FAA budget, which will compromise aviation safety
Let’s remember the context in which Bush worked so hard to make these cuts
and screw America’s most needy and America’s middle class. Let’s remember for
whom Bush works and that his priorities are the GOP’s priorities. Bush proposed his
first round of massive tax cuts for the Super Rich because there was a budget surplus
(thanks to Clinton.) Bush proposed his second round of massive tax cuts for the Su-
per Rich because there was a budget deficit (which Bush created.) Bush then wanted
to make these and other massive tax cuts for the Super Rich permanent even though
there persists a massive deficit (which he created.)
From a Christian perspective, all of Bush’s and the GOP’s budgets are immoral,
as they victimize America’s middle- and lower-income Americans by cutting pro-
grams to benefit them, while at the same time enriching the Super Rich through tax
reductions, tax exemptions, reduced IRS enforcement, earmarks, government con-
tracts, and public-trough crony capitalism.
Voting for Bush and the GOP is like dropping off your kids—again and again—
at the home of a babysitter known to be a child molester.
During the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, as well as during the 2002 and
2006 midterm elections, there were countless disturbing Republican Party campaign
tactics that abused religion and the Constitution. Here are just a few examples from
the run-up to the 2004 presidential election:
• Republican leaders supported amending the tax laws to increase the power
of religious leaders to engage in partisan politics, notwithstanding constitu-
tional limitations. These politically motivated amendments were intended to
placate congressmen such as Representative Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC), who
for years had wanted a law allowing religious leaders to endorse political
candidates from the pulpit.
• The Republican Party ran a campaign to enlist 1,600 so-called “friendly”
congregations in Pennsylvania—as well as thousands of congregations in
other battleground states—to register voters and distribute Republican Party
campaign literature.
• The Bush/Cheney campaign later distributed a list of 22 duties for church
volunteers, including forwarding the church’s membership roster to GOP
party headquarters so that church members could be solicited for campaign
contributions and votes.
• The GOP pushed legislation in Congress that would expand the ability of
houses of worship to preach politics from the pulpit and otherwise engage
in partisan politics.
• Jerry Falwell endorsed the reelection of Bush in 2004 in a newsletter sent

from Jerry Falwell Ministries, his tax-exempt foundation.56 He also urged
his readers to give up to $5,000 to Campaign For Working Families, a po-
litical action committee headed by Gary Bauer. Tax exempt as a Section
501(c)(3) organization, Jerry Falwell Ministries is prohibited by federal law
from endorsing political candidates or engaging in political lobbying.
The Religious Right has effectively turned many churches into Republican Party
mouthpieces and partisan political headquarters. Your personal political beliefs are
now a measure of your Christian faith.
Without adequate regard for the Constitution, Christian fundamentalists are
working hard to project their particular religious beliefs into many areas that must
remain secular:
• Faith-based education. Public education is under attack. An increasing
number of rightwing Christians want private education, including religious
education, to be paid for by taxpayers, at the expense of public education,
which has been a bedrock valued institution in America for more than a
century.
• Faith-based textbooks. Grass roots fundamentalist activists have lobbied
hard to have evolution replaced by creation science—an oxymoron—in sci-
ence textbooks used in America’s public schools. Unfortunately, textbook
publishers frequently dummy down their textbooks to avoid religious con-
troversy and to appeal to a large dummy subset of Republican voters. Fun-
damentalists strive to censor anything that conflicts with their religious
views, at the expense of the constitutional rights and personal freedoms of
everyone else.
• Anti-science policies. Any aspect of science that conflicts with the funda-
mentalists’ literal reading—or creative reading—of the Bible is subject to
rejection and attack. Science is being mugged by rightwing religious big-
otry, and an amazed world laughs at America. The Religious Right wants its
interpretation and rewriting of the Bible—a form of New Age spiritual-
ism—to control everything, everybody, everywhere. The extreme Young
Earth Creationists (YEC), who believe the entire universe was divinely cre-
ated only 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, want their unverifiable supernatural
views to be taught in science classes in public schools. In doing so, YEC
gives “YUK” a bad name. Muslims, even extreme rightwing Muslims, are
more respectful of science than America’s rightwing Christianists.
• The Age of Endarkenment. America was built on the principles of the Age
of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment, but the Bush regime has opened
the door to the Age of Endarkenment.
• Junk science. The Bush administration suppresses and ignores facts and
widely accepted scientific principles that displease favored large corpora-
tions and donors to the Republican Party. When it cannot successfully sup-
press the unwelcome truth, including in many cases extensive multiple stud-
56
Falwell wrote, “voting for principle this year means voting for the re-election of George W.
Bush. The alternative, in my mind, is simply unthinkable.”
ies by the government itself, the Bush team readily accepts as gospel what-
ever junk science its corporate paymasters fabricate.
• Rewriting of science. Numerous rightwing political appointees without sci-
entific credentials or training, such as Phillip Cooney whom we will discuss
later, edit scientific reports to make them fit GOP ideology.
• Anti-conservation and anti-environment. Notwithstanding biblical mandates
to respect and preserve God’s World, large polluters and exploiters are
loved and protected by Bush and his rightwing Christianists. Many on the
extreme right oppose the environmental movement because it smacks of
one world government.
Early in his presidency Bush went out of his way to publicly project his own re-
ligiosity and promote his own religion, giving a skeptical world good reason to dis-
trust him. It should have been no surprise that so many predominantly Muslim na-
tions refused to join his Bush League of Nations in Iraq.
The GOP and Upside Down Christianity

In addition to eroding the separation of church and state, the marriage of the Repub-
lican Party to religious fundamentalism and the Religious Right has caused central
truths of Christianity to be discarded along the way.
What are these discarded Christian truths? One is Christ’s compassion for
women, the poor, the sick, the diseased, the suffering, the scorned, the destitute, the
forgotten, and the downtrodden. As for possibly helping these poor people of Christ,
the policy of the Religious Right and the Bush Administration is that government
must help rich people first in every way possible, and then perhaps some benefits
will filter down to the poor. This approach contradicts not only the teachings and
ministry of Jesus Christ, but also the teachings of the world’s other great religions,
including Islam whose faithful we should be trying to influence positively.
Christ’s compassion is also missing from America’s foreign policy, which is de-
fined best by the “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich” banner carried by
America’s Prince of War, George W. Bush. The world looks on in horror.
In Bush’s America and in Bush’s World, the Super Rich and large corporations
grab as much as they can at the public trough—with the eager assistance of the Re-
publican Party and an army of lobbyists that has doubled in size since the start of
Bush’s administration—and if anything filters down to the poor and hungry, it is not
by design but only because the nets of the greedy missed a few crumbs.
SIDEBAR: The Rich Ruler
Luke 18: 18-25: “George W. Bush57 asked him [Jesus], ‘Good teacher, what must I
do to inherit eternal life?’ … ‘You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and
give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow
me.’ When W heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.
Jesus looked at him and said, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of
God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of God.’”
Bush, born into a life of inherited wealth and class bigotry, has totally rejected
the letter and spirit of this scripture, and his example makes it easy for other rich
Christians to also turn their backs on Jesus’ teaching. Bush implemented multiple
humongous tax cuts for the Super Rich, the largest tax cuts in history, with the lion’s
share going to the top one percent, and he shafted poor people at every turn.
Another Christian truth discarded by the blending of the Religious Right and
fundamentalism with the Republican Party is Christ’s role as the Prince of Peace.
With his deeds, George Bush anointed himself the Prince of War and profited enor-
mously at the polls.
Every tenet of the Beatitudes from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount has been turned
on its head and rewritten. The new GOP rendition is now entitled, “Blessed are the
Warmakers.”
In addition to the rejection of compassion for the less fortunate and Christ’s role
as Prince of Peace, the merger of the Religious Wrong and the Republican Party also
has subverted many traditional American values, including:
• Fiscal responsibility—GONE; SCREW THE UNBORN
• Balanced budgets—GONE
• A fair taxation system—GONE
• Separation of church and state—GOING, GOING …
• Respect for other nations and cultures—SCREW YOU
• Respect for other religions—YOU ARE GOING TO HELL
• Cooperation with allies and institutions such as NATO and the United Na-
tions—GONE
• War only if just—THE EMPIRE STRIKES FIRST
• Isolationism (formerly valued in some GOP quarters)—DITTO. SEE YOU
AT ARMAGEDDON
• Respect for human life—THOU SHALL KILL
• If war, then shared sacrifice—WAR PROFITEERING; TAX CUTS FOR
THE WEALTHY
57
Some manuscripts say, “A certain ruler.”
• Truthful leaders and integrity in government—GONE; THOU SHALL LIE

AND STEAL
• Accountability in government—GONE
• Fair elections / one person, one vote—STOLEN ELECTIONS; ONE DOL-
LAR, ONE VOTE; “MONEY BUYS US.”
• A general sense of fair play—GONE
• Compassion for the less fortunate—BLESSED ARE THE RICH
• Respect for parents, the disabled, the elderly—“HEY, HEY, HO, HO, SO-
CIAL SECURITY’S GOT TO GO”58
• Respect for unborn generations of Americans—GONE. THEY DON’T
VOTE.
• Respect for God’s Earth—GONE.
• Respect for God—SHOW ME THE MONEY
For many decades both major political parties by and large agreed with the above
list of values, and their policy differences were usually debated in the middle in an
honest manner. However, the Republican Party, kidnapped by neocons and theocons,
abandoned all of these values, and massively corrupted the political process in
Washington.
The above list of values reflects not only secular values but also spiritual and re-
ligious values. Almost all of these values are endorsed by the mainstreams of the
world’s great religions. However, starting with Reagan in the early 1980s the GOP
replaced these Christ-centered values with a “show-me-the-money” Culture of Cor-
ruption—a Culture of Cha-Ching.
When covering “religious matters,” America’s media docilely use the slogans of
the Religious Right to narrowly frame the issues and mislead. For example, in a
shameful display of self censorship, the media love the phase “culture of life,” limit-
ing it to abortion and stem cell research while ignoring a host of unchristian GOP
policies with life-or-death consequences that make “culture of death” a more apt
moniker for the GOP. Bush’s immoral war on Iraq alone has caused the deaths of
thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not one of whom
had any responsibility for 9/11. This is the GOP’s work, not God’s work.
By cutting out so much Scripture—the heart and soul of Christ’s message—the
Religious Right turned the Holy Bible into its Holey Bible. Its slimmed down, un-
christian version is used to support extreme rightwing causes and doublespeak, such
as: “War is Peace,” “Enriching the Rich is Compassionate,” and “Deficits Don’t
Matter.”
The Holey Bible thumpers on the Religious Right even support the GOP urinat-
ing on the U.S. Constitution. In Bush-speak, it is: “The Constitution Don’t Matter.”
How did rightwing religion, including Christian fundamentalism, help transform
and damage the Republican Party? At the core of religious fundamentalism is a bed-
rock, black-and-white, religious belief that “I am right, and anyone who doesn’t
share my religious beliefs is wrong.” In the fundamentalist’s eyes, God blesses those
58
When Republican Senator Rick Santorum met with his supporters, he was encouraged by
chants of, “Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security’s got to go.” Make no mistake about the GOP’s
intentions regarding Social Security. They’ll be back.
who profess his or her particular correct beliefs, and all others are not blessed—in
fact, they are all literally going to Hell. In the words of Eric Hoffer, “absolute faith
corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.”
Here’s the truth. In God’s entire world, there is no living person who knows the
specifics of Heaven and Hell—where and what they are exactly, or whether they
even exist—and no one knows who will go where. Nevertheless, many fundamental-
ists claim they know, and they have a long list of categories of people who will go to
Hell. One recently created category of the Hell-bound is for Americans who don’t
vote Republican.
How about other people of faith, say Muslims? Christian fundamentalists know
with certitude that all Muslims are destined for Hell. This makes “winning their
hearts and minds” a little tricky.
How about Mormons? Fundamentalists believe the Mormon religion is a cult and
that all Mormons will go to Hell (unless they convert to the right brand of Christian-
ity, in which case, of course, they would no longer be Mormon.) At the same time,
because most Mormons vote Republican, the political apparatus known as the Reli-
gious Right embraces them.
But Muslims and Mormons shouldn’t feel they are the only ones picked on by
Christian elitists. After all, there are many other categories of people on the Christi-
anists’ long list of people going to Hell, including Jews and Catholics, and probably
you too, dear reader, simply because you are reading this book.
This infallibility of America’s fundamentalists carries over to the actions of their
chosen and blessed leader, Bush, and their chosen and blessed party, the Republican
Party. Since blessed Bush and the blessed Republican Party can do no wrong, they,
along with the Super Rich and large corporations sustaining them, are free to commit
whatever wrongs they wish. Even if it sometimes appears they are doing something
wrong and immoral, they really aren’t, because God moves in mysterious ways.
The GOP has morphed from that formerly respected “Grand Old Party” into the
“Gang of Pharisees.” The GOP has been taken over by its Taliban Wing.
Anyone who believes the Earth and the entire universe were created in seven
days and are only about 7,000 years old is capable of believing anything, including
the claim that God directs Bush and that Bush is a “compassionate conservative.”59
SIDEBAR: God Should Speak More Clearly
It’s a mystery why God gives conflicting advice to various rightwing leaders about
issues as important as war. Consider his directions to Bush and Pat Robertson, two
leaders who claim hotlines to Heaven.
59
Likewise, regarding Islamic fundamentalism, anyone who believes he gets to copulate with
lots of virgins by dying for Allah is subject to believing anything.
On one hand, as discussed later in this chapter, Bush said God had instructed him
“to strike Saddam, which I did,” and Bush believed that things were going to go well
in Iraq. On the other hand, Pat Robertson related a different message from God dur-
ing an interview with CNN reporter Paula Zahn on October 19, 2004, in which he
recounted his pre-invasion conversation with Bush. Robertson, who also had spoken
with God about the upcoming invasion of Iraq, warned Bush in advance about the
war. “I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be (a), a disaster, and (b), messy.” “I
was trying to say, ‘Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for
casualties.’” Robertson said Bush replied, “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any
casualties.”
Another costly result of the unholy marriage between fundamentalism and the
Republican Party relates specifically to how policy decisions are made. Since God
directs the decision making process, there is no need to think too much about com-
plex issues, or to solicit diverse perspectives and expert advice before deciding.
With God on your side, there’s no reason to be concerned about one million Iraqi
dead. Rev. Falwell—a staunch supporter of the Iraq war who died in 2007 at age
73—summed it up nicely when he described how terrorists should be killed—“blow
them all away in the name of the Lord.”
With God on your side, there is no reason to be concerned about science or in-
convenient facts or people who get in the way. There is no need to debate or explore
alternatives. To do so would violate God’s will. Knowing that God is on his side,
Bush prides himself in decisions based on “his gut.” This characterization is better
than admitting that Bush is intellectually lazy, and unable to think clearly or deeply.
A myriad of Bush’s decisions, especially his decision to invade Iraq, gave new
meaning to the expression, “It’s a no brainer.”
The only debate permitted by God-directed Bush and the GOP-dominated Con-
gress was between extreme far right and wacko far right. “Do we need 12 permanent
military bases in Iraq, or is 18 the right number?”
Bush and God

For political correctness, Bush generally moderates his religious comments when
speaking in secular forums and to the outside world, even going so far as to articulate
policies of religious freedom and tolerance. However, when appearing before
friendly handpicked rightwing Christian audiences, this politician frequently wears
rightwing religiosity on his sleeve. His speechwriters frequently used biblical words
and phrases that have specific reassuring meaning to rightwing Christians, but which
are not well understood by broader audiences.
Bush works hard to appear different to different religious groups. When he spoke
during the 2004 campaign to thousands of conservative Catholics at a Knights of
Columbus gathering in Dallas, he repeatedly referred to a “culture of life,” one of
Pope John Paul II’s favorite phases. Bush kissed up to the Pope, calling him a “true
hero,” when in fact the Pope strongly opposed Bush’s war on Iraq and was intensely
disliked by the Bush neocons.
Bush has avoided saying exactly what he believes on certain basic questions of
faith. Does he believe in evolution?60 Does he believe gays and lesbians will all go to
Hell? His closest advisors say they don’t know. It is possible that Bush himself does
not know what he believes.
Political expediency dictates Bush’s vagueness. He learned early that he could
suffer politically if he were too specific and truthful. In the 1990s Bush held the view
that Heaven was open only to people who accepted Jesus. Although this exclusivity
claim is a basic belief of most of his Christian backers, Bush apologized in writing to
the Jewish Anti-Defamation League prior to the 2000 campaign, denying that he ever
made such an exclusivity claim. Bush knew that the truth would present difficulties
when he ran for president, so he took a softer position publicly. However, his right-
wing religious followers know what he believes, and they are satisfied with his
winks and nods.
SIDEBAR: Matthew 6:5-6
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in
the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. … But when you pray,
go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your
Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
—Matthew 6:5-6.
Bush distorts the Bible and good theology whenever it serves his political pur-
poses. He believes God chose America to lead the war against evil in the world, and
he believes God chose George W. Bush to lead America in this faith-based war. In
referring to America and himself, Bush completely turns John 1:5 on its head. John
1:5 reads: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness shall not overcome it.”
This passage refers to Christ as the light. However, in Bush-speak, Bush and Amer-
ica are the light, not Christ. It addition to being deceitful, this is simply bad theology.
Following 9/11 Bush increased his use of strident, militaristic, moralistic text
cherry-picked from the Bible. He assured us that God is not a neutral party, but is on
our side in the battle between good and evil. Bush tried unsuccessfully to force eve-
ryone to pick sides in this battle. In his simplistic black-and-white world, “either you
are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” This had the unintended consequence—
some would say intended consequence—of uniting America’s enemies, while divid-
ing America’s friends.
Many GOP leaders used the same simplistic, black-and-white, either-or “logic”
to label dissenting Democrats as terrorists and unpatriotic. But let’s follow the
60
Bush suggested in 2000 that evolution and creationism should be taught side by side in pub-
lic schools, noting that “religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism.” Of course,
under this “reasoning,” the world would still be flat, and American blacks would still be
slaves.
“logic.” To the GOP’s dismay, a majority of Americans by 2006 had finally con-
cluded Bush’s Iraq war was a mistake, and they wanted America out of Iraq.61 This
means, following such GOP logic, that a majority of Americans must now be terror-
ists and unpatriotic.
Fortunately, the rest of the world does not view the world through Bush’s faith-
based, reality-deprived, unchristian, black-and-white glasses. The rest of the world
looks at reality and sees a complex world quite unlike the fantasy known as Bush
World.
If Bush wants to know the number one reason why his Bush League of Nations is
such a failure, he can simply look in a mirror. Nothing would please the world more,
and do more to improve America’s standing in the world, than the impeachment and
removal from office of George W. Bush and his chief puppeteer, Dick Shooter Che-
ney.
SIDEBAR: God Should Receive Bush’s Salary
“God told me to strike Al Qaeda and I struck, and then he instructed me to strike
Saddam, which I did,” said Bush. (According to the Israeli paper Ha’aretz, this is
how Bush explained things to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Prime Minister.)
Bush—America’s Mr. Teflon when it comes to personal responsibility—in effect
blames God for the Iraq disaster. This is slander of the Highest.
Don’t expect any apologies. Bush must be certain that God does not want Bush to
apologize for God’s mistakes—well, something like that.
Here’s a message from Heaven that Bush ignored: A Host of Heavenly Angels
thus chastised Bush: “You never listen! Mouthing faith in Jesus is not enough. Ex-
pecting God to do your job disappoints God, in addition to raising questions about
what exactly it is that you do, and why you are even paid. Jesus wants his followers
to get their noses out of their Bibles and their neighbor’s bedroom and, based on the
reality of the world around them, work with others, including Jews and Muslims, to
create peace and justice in the world. He wants his followers to use their hearts and
God-given gray matter, and not be eye pokers and dividers. God does not favor ‘gut
feeling’ over an active brain and a caring heart. If She did, She would have given
man a Ouija board between his ears, which is all you appear to have.”
When Christ returns in the Second Coming, it’s a pretty good bet that Bush will
be among the first to get a good “whupping.” Yes, “W” also stands for “whupping.”
Thanks to Bush’s telepathic pipeline to God, the invasion and occupation of Iraq
was divinely conceived and blessed, even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do
with 9/11. Because Bush/God said, “it is good,” we don’t need to shed any tears for,
61
A February 2006 Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey showed that an overwhelm-
ing majority (72%) of American troops in Iraq believe the United States should exit within 12
months. That 12-month milestone passed long ago.
or even count, the multitudes of innocent Iraqis injured, tortured and killed. At the
end of the day, all the non-Christian Iraqis are going to Hell anyway, and Bush is
doing them a big favor by reducing their days of suffering on Earth, in that new Hell-
on-Earth known as Bush’s Iraq.
Americans traditionally preferred a president of faith, but most Americans do not
want a president who:
• when deciding whether to invade Iraq, says he seeks the advice of his Fa-
ther in Heaven, rather than the advice of human experts, including his
earthly father who had more relevant experience than anyone regarding the
formation of a successful coalition to invade Iraq,
• believes that God is directing his actions in all matters,
• believes that God favors America over all other nations,
• believes that God favors Christianity, or a particular Christian denomina-
tion, over all other religions, and
• wishes to impose his religious views on the rest of the world
Any person of faith who allows his religion to short-circuit his God-given brain
and heart discredits both himself and God. Such a person is prone to manipulation by
others who misuse his religion to achieve their purposes, and such a person is also
more likely to slip into self-deception, the hallmark of the Bush administration.
When that person is an average citizen, the prospects for damage to the society are
not great, but when that person is the President of the United States—say, a lazy
shallow man who puts his religion first, ahead of his brain and heart, and avoids
shouldering the hard work demanded by his oath of office—he deserves impeach-
ment and removal from office.
The world recognizes the countless moral ironies in Bush’s World, such as Bush
finding no WMDs in Iraq, while at the same time driving the United States to make
more and better WMDs. Is there any sane Christian who believes God is telling Bush
to build more and better WMDs?
Especially regarding crucial matters like waging war on Iraq, why haven’t jour-
nalists asked Bush if he writes down or, better yet, electronically records God’s in-
structions? “Mr. President, could you please give us an official recording or written
copy of God’s instructions to you regarding Iraq?” Just for fun, you might want to
send a request for this to the White House under the Freedom of Information Act.
You might also ask if God sent Bush a written plan for post-invasion Iraq. If God
never sent Bush a plan, then the civil war and genocide in Iraq cannot be Bush’s
fault.
Suppose Bush’s language-impaired brain misfired while he was transcribing
God’s command. Suppose, for example, Bush asked God, “Hey, Big Guy, should I
continue invading Gulf Coast countries like Iraq to get their oil?”—and God replied:
“Stop! Don’t! Stop! Don’t! Stop! Don’t! Stop!”—but Bush mistakenly heard this as,
“Don’t Stop! Don’t Stop! Don’t Stop!” Who knows? This could have happened. It’s
certainly as plausible as any of the many justifications offered by Bush and the GOP
for their Iraq war.
Unfortunately, it is politically incorrect in America’s Big Media to question the
sincerity and depth of Bush’s stated religious beliefs—even though he shoved the
issue into play through his speeches and policy decisions and by claiming that he
talks with God for direction. It is simply off limits for Big Media to explore whether
Bush is the Great Pretender when it comes to religion, and whether his religious pos-
turing before trusting Christian voters is simply the means to an end, i.e., grabbing
enough votes to attain the power to deliver Big Goodies to Big Business and the Su-
per Rich.
To be clear, Americans should have the freedom to hold whatever personal reli-
gious beliefs they wish, including believing that their religion is the only true relig-
ion and that their God is infallible. This progressive right—freedom of religion, free-
dom from religion—is worth protecting, even though the world continues to struggle
with the tremendous costs of wars and discrimination caused or fueled by this or that
exclusionary religion, each one of which has too many followers who believe their
particular religion is the only true religion.
However, religious infallibility becomes Hell on Earth when individuals go be-
yond their personal religious beliefs and attribute infallibility to their political lead-
ers. Individual Americans certainly have the constitutional right to believe that God
is infallibly directing Bush, and when they do so, they are merely being gullible and
foolish. However, when an American president—Bush in this case—asserts that God
is infallibly directing him, the line has been crossed, and he deserves impeachment,
plus confinement in a mental institution.
Once fundamentalists, whether Christian or Muslim, arrive at the point of infalli-
bility, it’s an easy slippery slope into a dangerous abyss. The Bushians and the bin
Ladenians exploit that abyss, where the respective nonbelievers deserve and get
whatever punishment the true believers choose to inflict upon them. War anyone?
Whenever leaders, whether Christian or Muslim, claim they converse with God
or quote scripture while making the case for war, it’s a safe bet that evil is afoot.
SIDEBAR: A Prayer for Christians
“Dear God, if Heaven is reserved only for those who profess one particular flavor of
Christianity, then please count me out. If it pleases you, I prefer to take my chances
in whatever place you have reserved for all your good people, of whatever faith, in-
cluding Christians, Muslims, and Jews, who endeavor to lead just lives here on your
Earth, faithfully striving to make life better for all, especially the poor, the dispos-
sessed, the sick, the lame, and the discarded.”
The central problem with America in the first decade of the 21st century is that an
extreme rightwing political faction—many of whom are much more rich than reli-
gious—has set an extreme rightwing agenda, and too many voters rubber stamped it,
thinking the agenda has its roots in a correct religion. In effect, countless pews have
been marked, “For Republicans Only.” And “Jesus wept.”62
The neo-GOP ignores the Bible’s most important political issue—the poor—and
uses a distorted Christianity as a subterfuge to wage class warfare. The neo-GOP
wants you to believe that the Bible is their ultimate oracle, but “through a glass
darkly” they intentionally misread and misuse the Good Book to justify whatever
schemes they brew. Yes, even Satan can quote the Bible.
In an American tragedy, Christianity has been reduced to rightwing economic
politics, and this enables the mischief of Bush and the GOP. When the chips are
down, Bush and the GOP do the rightwing thing, not the right thing.
Like atheist bank robbers who for cover ride the church bus to their next bank
heist, rightwing GOP kleptomaniacs have hijacked Christianity in order to loot the
national treasury.
Angry white fundamentalist males find it especially easy to justify discrimination
and hatred against people who practice other religions or no religion, against other
races, against immigrants, against women, against gays and lesbians, against for-
eigners—well, against anyone who is perceived to be different or doesn’t share their
particular brand of religion or other bigotry.
Fundamentalists love to dominate women and keep them in their place. Whether
it’s Christian fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism, fundamentalism is always
men, and always mean.
Republican Party leadership cleverly promotes such discrimination and hatred
while it pretends to be compassionate. Although religious bigotry is sometimes an
unfortunate byproduct of religious freedom, it is irresponsible and blasphemous for
Christian and political leaders to promote it.
Quintessential dividers, Bush and the neo-GOP created and exploited several
wedge issues. But if and when Jesus returns to Earth, he will give Bush the mother of
all wedgies. Yes, “W” stands for both “wedge issue” and “wedgies.”
The prophets of the Bible frequently spoke to the rulers and kings of nations, ad-
monishing them that the powerful are called to greater responsibility and account-
ability. At the same time, the biblical prophets spoke for the hungry, the homeless,
the helpless—the least, the last, and the lost. They effectively spoke about a nation’s
priorities and how it spends its limited resources.
The biblical prophets knew that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts
absolutely. And thus, two millennia after Christ, with Bush’s Confederate Party in
absolute control of the U.S. government, America lost its way financially and mor-
ally, and found itself going to Hell in a handbasket.
In Bush’s White House there is no room at the dining table for the least, the last,
and the lost. Jesus asks all Christians to feed his sheep, but Bush fleeced the sheep
before feeding them to his Wolves.
Every GOP budget during Bush’s reign has been an immoral, anti-Christian tool
of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. During every war in America’s history, all
62
John 11:35. Yes, you are quite right—I am using the verse out of context. However, this is
much fairer than Bush and Cheney using “Iraq” and “9/11” in the same sentence, which is
criminally devious. Besides, whenever they do that, I know in my heart of hearts that Jesus
weeps.
Americans—including the rich and powerful—were called upon to make sacrifices.

That is, until Bush’s elective war on Iraq. When Bush and neo-GOP wage war, the
rich get richer without personal sacrifice, while America’s soldiers are sacrificed.
In addition to using war as a distraction for domestic plundering, the GOP uses
many other tricks to sell its extreme rightwing economic policies to middle- and low-
income Christians, virtually all of whom are directly harmed by those very economic
policies.
One such trick is to remind low- and middle-income Christians that they should
exalt in their poverty and misfortune. Blessed are the poor. Compassionate Bush is
really doing you a favor when he makes the rich richer and you poorer. Praise the
Lord!
Oppressors as Victims
Another trick of the Confederate Party and the Religious Right—which is related to
the “wedgies” trick—is to create and play the “victim card,” casting themselves as
victims of the many evil forces that control and pollute America.
These evil ones are everywhere. They include: liberals; progressives; Hollywood;
libertarians and librarians; video games and television; commies; East Coast; Left
Coast; city dwellers; Christians who don’t blindly vote for witless warmongers; ille-
gal immigrants; lots of legal immigrants too; The New World Order; evolutionists;
Jews; foreigners; New Age Religion nuts (but excluding the Religious Right them-
selves); queers; secularists; children once they leave their Mom’s womb and need
food and health care; Catholics (but not if they vote Republican and believe transfer-
ring pedophiles to another diocese solves that problem); Harry Potter; perverts; the
United Nations; Islamofascists; people who think women are people too and that
middle-aged rightwing men obsessed with sex should stop telling women how to live
and love; scientists; left-handed Norwegians; Democrats; blacks and Chicanos; the
entire State of Massachusetts; intellectuals; anyone caught reading this book; Mexi-
cans; Canadians too because some of them speak French; anyone else who speaks
French; anyone “who don’t speak English real good;” professors; union workers;
France; lawyers (excepting the hundreds of thousands of lawyers who work for Big
Business and the Religious Right); abortionists; environmentalists; women who
don’t know their place (“If you don’t know where it is, we’ll tell you”); and
Hillary.63 Whew! Yes, “W” stands for “Whew!”
Life is just a battle of good and evil forces. It’s us versus them. Rightwing Chris-
tians just can’t let their guard down. Whatever problem they have—poverty, loss of
job, those secret urges, no health insurance—they can blame it on some evil doer,
some poor bastard who had nothing to do with it. Welcome to Bush World. Wel-
come to the new GOP.
Rightwing Christians should look in the mirror. America is in the toilet precisely
because it is the Confederate Party—in league with the Religious Right and Big
Business—that grabbed control of America for too many years. Their almost abso-
lute control included all of the federal government—the Presidency, the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court (with 7 of 9 justices having
63
A woman’s place is in the house … and the Senate … and the White House.
been appointed by Republicans), and all federal agencies including the FCC—as
well as America’s Big Media and a large majority of state governorships and legisla-
tures. But the Religious Right claims they are the victims. What nonsense from an
alternate universe!
In the GOP’s 21st century version of the Passion Play, all of the actors playing
“the heavies” are found in the Bush administration—the Roman Emperor, Pontius
Pilate, the moneychangers, Judas Iscariot, the Roman soldiers and the Pharisees—
and their number one victim is Christ and his message, just as it was two millennia
ago. And it is the Religious Right that made the difference and put these thugs and
nitwits on America’s main stage—and cheered them on.
America’s President Who Really Is a Christian

Among all American presidents of the last century, former President Jimmy Carter
stands out head and shoulders above the rest in living a Christian life, one devoted to
helping the less fortunate in the world, and one that Jesus would applaud. He is re-
spected and trusted throughout the world.
Since leaving the presidency, Carter has devoted his life to promoting freedom,
peace and health in the world. Among his many activities is Habitat For Humanity
International (www.habitat.org) a nonprofit ecumenical Christian housing ministry
that has built more than 175,000 houses for families in the United States and around
the world. Carter began volunteering with Habitat in 1984, and each year he and
Rosalynn spend a week constructing houses. And he still makes time to teach Sun-
day school at his Baptist church in Plains, Georgia.
Carter’s love for his country and all the peoples of the world is legendary. But he
regrets that the United States, a “great country with great potential,” is not doing
more to promote peace, freedom and health in the third world. “The problem lies
among the people of the U.S. … It’s time to assess what the government is doing,
and shape and influence it appropriately.”
The Atlanta-based Carter Center (www.cartercenter.org), founded in 1982 by
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, wages peace, fights disease, and builds hope around the
world. In more than 65 countries it has engaged and challenged governments while
at the same time working side by side with poor people to help improve their lives.
In promoting democracy throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America, Carter is
frequently called upon to mediate international disputes. In August 2004 Carter,
along with Carter Center staff members and other respected international officials,
spent many days in Venezuela to help ensure the fairness and peacefulness of the
national referendum election to decide whether President Hugo Chavez should re-
main in office. Their credibility and actions gave authenticity to the election results,
and bloodshed was avoided.
Unlike America, Venezuela uses a system of electronic voting that: (1) includes a
paper ballot backup, and (2) records voters’ thumbprints electronically, transmits the
thumbprints by satellite, and then checks them almost instantaneously to prevent
people from voting more than once.
The States of Florida and Ohio should hire Venezuela to install honest voting
systems in those two states and to provide election monitors to prevent the
Republican Party from suppressing the black vote and committing other election
fraud. Fidel Castro offered to send election monitors to Florida prior to the 2004
election, but Governor Jeb Bush did not accept his kind offer.
Thanks to the Religious Right’s clout, a large majority of southern white evan-
gelicals voted against Jimmy Carter, America’s first evangelical president and a
southern white evangelical like them, because he was not of the right political party.
Carter did not satisfy the Religious Right’s most important “religious” test—that you
have to be a Republican.
Jimmy Carter truly is a compassionate Christian. He remains actively engaged in
the world and walks his faith everyday.
Carter calls upon America to do more to promote peace, democracy and social
justice in the world. One of his central concerns for years has been the AIDS epi-
demic in Africa, and a growing number of evangelicals have joined this moral fight.
Perhaps hearing the growing number of passionate voices from across the politi-
cal spectrum, Bush in his 2003 inaugural address pledged $15 billion over five years
to fight AIDS in Africa. Bush deserves great credit for this initiative named PEPFAR
(the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief.)
Although $15 billion is less than what Bush wastes in one month on the Iraq war,
it is a lot of money, and it is saving countless lives in Africa. Nevertheless, many on
the right saw a number of “sins” imbedded in the program. How could the GOP use
taxpayer money (sin #1) to help destitute foreigners (sin #2) living in Africa (sin #3)
who had brought the AIDS problem on themselves (sin #4) and were black (sin #5)
and mostly women and children (sin #6.)
The GOP Congress, which rubberstamped ever madness of Bush, somehow let
this flawed but definitely compassionate “75% good” program slip though. The fact
that a Republican president launched this program will make it difficult for other
Republicans to stop the Democratic leadership and progressives of all stripes from
expanding the program and correcting some of its literally fatal flaws, i.e., the “25%
bad” part, which is killing countless people, and which includes the expenditure of
funds to push abstinence over condoms, other contraceptives and family planning.
Bush opposes the use of condoms (except for his family), and opposes comprehen-
sive women’s rights and reproductive choices in family planning (except for his fam-
ily).
Upward to 3.5 million people die from AIDS in the world each year, according to
a UN estimate.
All things considered, PEPFAR is a major step forward and a hopeful sign.
Other Hopeful Signs

Mainstream Christians must not give up hope, as there are numerous hopeful signs
emerging from Christians on the right. A rapidly growing number of Bush and GOP
supporters have had it with the GOP’s agenda of warmongering and doing every-
thing possible for the Super Rich. Many have already rejected those phony “Chris-
tian” banners carried by “Christian” Bush.
The support of white evangelicals for Bush and the GOP appears to have peaked,
temporarily at least, sometime after the 2004 presidential election, in which Bush
carried the white evangelical vote by about 4-to-1 over Kerry. By the 2006 midterm
elections, a growing number of white evangelical Bush supporters had come to their
senses, which contributed to the GOP losing control of Congress. Many Christians
abandoned their blind trust in Bush and the GOP upon realizing they had been lied
to, manipulated, and taken for granted. Extensive GOP corruption and incompetence
both in Iraq and at home also helped end the GOP reign of error, in Congress at least.
There are many, many hopeful signs. Here are just three examples:
• In November 2006 Rev. Joel Hunter quit as president-elect of the Christian
Coalition of America because the organization would not let him expand the
Coalition’s narrow agenda beyond the issues of gay marriage and abortion.
Hunter said he quit because the coalition was unwilling to part with its par-
tisan Republican roots. “To tell you the truth, I feel like there are literally
millions of evangelical Christians that don’t have a home right now,” he
said. Earlier in the year, Hunter had joined a coalition of several evangelical
groups to help fight global warming. He wanted to help save the
environment and also reduce poverty. “These are issues that Jesus would
want us to care about,” he said. But these are issues that the Christian Coali-
tion does not want to address. According to Hunter, “they began to think
this might threaten their base or evaporate some of their support, and they
said they just couldn’t go there.”
• Shortly after the 2006 midterm elections, Rick Warren, pastor of the
Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, California, and au-
thor of the best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life, withstood rightwing
pressure and invited Barack Obama to speak at a church gathering to dis-
cuss the AIDS crisis. Warren joined a growing number of socially conserva-
tive Christian leaders who decided to put space between themselves and the
GOP political machine and agenda. Because Obama is pro-choice and be-
lieves condoms have a place in the prevention of AIDS, many conservative
evangelical leaders publicly criticized Warren’s decision to invite him. Al-
though socially and religiously conservative—Warren is anti-abortion and
opposes same-sex marriage—he and his wife are committed to fighting the
AIDS epidemic in Africa. “I’m a pastor, not a politician,” he told ABC
News. “People always say, ‘Rick, are you right wing or left wing?’ I say,
‘I’m for the whole bird.’”
• An increasing number of young evangelicals are questioning the hard right
agenda of the Christian right. Rove thought he had picked a safe “bubble”
location for Bush when he arranged for the president to give the com-
mencement address in May 2005 at Calvin College, a conservative Chris-
tian liberal arts college in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the heart of Republi-
can country. Bush was greeted by a letter of protest that appeared as a full-
page advertisement in the local newspaper. The respectful letter, signed by
more than 800 students, faculty members and alumni, stated, “Your deeds,
Mr. President—neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the
environment and misleading the country into war—do not exemplify the
faith we live by.” Although a majority of the Calvin community probably
still favored Bush and his GOP policies, the protest was remarkable. Even
at theologically conservative Calvin there is a growing Christian left.
Well, these are just a few of many hopeful signs among religious conservatives.
In the next section we return to two of the hopeless on the Religious Right—bin
Laden and Bush.
Bin Laden and Bush

The parallels between Bush and bin Laden are striking. Although of different faiths,
Bush and bin Laden both followed the same handbook of dirty religious politics:
• Move to the extreme religious right;
• Use rightwing religion to drive policy and stifle dissenting views;
• Imply or claim that you are correct because God is directing you;
• Seize exclusive ownership of your book of faith through grand displays of
religiosity;
• Divide at every opportunity;
• Spread fear;
• Label dissenters unpatriotic cowards or apostates;
• Act outside the law because you are special, a Chosen One;
• Couple your religion as tightly as possible with yourself and your renegade
organization.
Bin Laden and Bush are the heads of two symbiotic warmongering movements,
and their shotgun marriage created a two-headed, out-of-control monster that leaves
a path of death and destruction wherever it slithers. Bush and his bumbling Christi-
anist party needed rightwing Muslim terrorists to fuel the GOP fear machine and
divert attention from the GOP’s shameless kleptomaniac policies at home, and bin
Laden and a multitude of independent Muslim terrorist groups around the world
needed Bush and the GOP to breath life into their evil causes and provide an endless
lethal stream of martyrs. Although each side claims divine inspiration, their marriage
is definitely not made in Heaven.
SIDEBAR: Bush and bin Laden—Two Peas in a Pod
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious
conviction.”
—Blaise Pascal (1623-62)
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
—Steven Weinberg
A comparison of bin Laden and Bush is instructive. They share many character traits,
including a lust for power. Each preaches his particular brand of religion—rightwing
militant fundamentalism in the case of Bush, and rightwing militant fundamentalism
in the case of bin Laden. Both could be called militant “evangelicals.”
Bin Laden is a militant Islamist, and Bush a militant Christianist. Both are theo-
conservatives, or theocons for short. Both are cons. Both are wacko.
Are there any differences between the religious banners they carry? Yes—
although their respective victims, especially the dead, may not appreciate the differ-
ences. Bin Laden carries the militant banner of a peculiar strain of Islam, one that is
inconsistent with the Koran as followed by most Muslims. Bush carries the militant
banner of a strained interpretation of Christianity, one that is inconsistent with the
Bible as followed by most Christians in the world.
We know both are true believers because they and their rightwing propaganda
machines tell us so.
To his credit, bin Laden was a scholar of Islam during his formative years.
Bush’s beliefs, however, were AWOL during the first two-thirds of his life, and his
sins, crimes and corruption during that long period of extended adolescence were
conveniently wiped clean when he was reborn, thus giving him a clean blank slate to
pursue a political career—with more sins, crimes and corruption.
Each professes to feel the spirit of God and claims that God supports and guides
his decisions. Each uses and exploits God and a wonderful religion for political ex-
pediency and personal power. Each uses his religion to kill innocent people.
Each was born into a wealthy life of privilege and wealth, devoid of any anchor
of social and personal responsibility. Their two families—the House of Bush and the
House of bin Laden—are cut from the same gold cloth.
Each family hobnobbed with the House of Saud, which runs Saudi Arabia, fre-
quently engaging in crony public-trough capitalistic schemes, without regard to the
impact on their respective nations. Each family “dined” at the same Saudi public
troughs, drank the same fine wines, and coveted the same fine oils. It would be nice
to report that true love connected their families, but “what happens in Riyadh stays in
Riyadh.” After all, what is life without love? Don’t the countless parties, sleepovers
and season’s greeting cards mean anything? Or was it really only about money and
power?
It is rumored64 that the directors of “Brokeback Mountain” tried to recruit Bush
and bin Laden as the movie’s co-stars, but bin Laden unfortunately could not be
reached, although Bush made half-hearted attempts to locate him.
Bush is tall, and bin Laden is taller. At 6-feet, 5-inches, bin Laden stands out in
any crowd, which makes Bush’s failure to locate him all the more remarkable.
There are other differences. For example, Bush loves the Saudi princes and sup-
ports their crony capitalism, welfare for the wealthy, and terrorist-supporting Islamic
state. On the other hand, bin Laden hates the Saudi princes and wants to destroy their
anti-American, anti-West, anti-democratic, anti-religious-freedom government and
replace it with his own anti-American, anti-West, anti-democratic, anti-religious-
freedom government.
64
which rumor I started
Thanks to family connections, Bush attended Yale as a rich fraternity boy and
prancing cheerleader and was selected for Skull and Bones Society. Bin Laden also
was a rich prince who enjoyed many of the debaucheries available in the West to a
man of substance and family connections. Both loved to get hammered and hammer
as many females as possible.
The randomness of birth separates them. Bin Laden was born into a Muslim fam-
ily of kings and princes, and Bush was born into a Christian family of kings and
princes. Their respective faiths were determined simply by chance, by an accident of
geography as to place of birth.
If Bush had been born in Riyadh, his oil DNA would have been the same, but, as
for religion, he probably would have become a prancing cheerleader for the extreme
rightwing Wahhabi sect of Islam. This raises at least two questions: (1) Can you
imagine Bush trying to speak Arabic, especially while prancing? (2) Does “W” really
stand for “Wahhabi Wannabe?”
Bush was born an Episcopalian, but a later switch to the Texas Pretend-Rancher
sect of Pseudo Christianity offered two bankable interlinked advantages: (1) a new
inexhaustible supply of Bush Family Passes, and (2) lots of votes, if he could play
the Religionist Card right and learn how to ride a horse.65
There is a rumor66 that bin Laden greatly admires Bush’s profitable misuse of
Christianity and would like to cash in on it too by following in Bush’s footsteps.
Specifically, bin Laden wants to convert to the Texas Pretend-Rancher sect, get for-
given for all his sins and crimes, buy himself a ranchette just over the fence from
Bush’s, and become U.S. president just like Bush.67 If that happens, it will be tough
to tell the difference in the White House, other than the fact that bin Laden report-
edly actually has some compassion for the oppressed and the poor—you know,
Christ’s people.
Perhaps this rumor about bin Laden strikes you as a little farfetched, but it is not
as farfetched as GOP propaganda that Bush is compassionate, or as farfetched as the
GOP tales about Iraq and Saddam being behind 9/11. In any case, bin Laden’s con-
version and relocation to Texas would take care of Bush’s Number One Mission Un-
accomplished—tracking down the master criminal behind 9/11.
The fact that bin Laden and Bush League have the same initials could be a sign
from God. Who can say with certainty that it is not?
65
Bush never learned how to ride a horse, but rightwing Texans overlooked that requirement.
66
which I am hereby starting.
67
If you see bin Laden, please don’t tell him U.S. presidents must be native-born Americans.
If you do, he may not relocate voluntarily to Texas. After all, we really do need to kill or cap-
ture him.
Bin Laden would likely be a much better American president than Bush, since
Bush is by far the worst American president ever.68 It would be difficult to do worse.
Bush has created more terrorists and killed more innocent people than bin Laden, so
there would probably be some improvement there. Bush has done more damage to
America’s reputation and military power than bin Laden ever dreamed of achieving,
so there could be some improvement there too.
Putting bin Laden in Bush’s chair in the White House would also cause, at last,
all Americans to finally realize and agree upon something extremely important—
something they all should have known since 2001—that America has a dangerous
nut case in the White House.
Even though lots of Republican voters think an American president really doesn’t
need to know where Europe and Asia are located, bin Laden does know much more
about the world and Christianity than Bush ever will know about the world and Is-
lam.
Bin Laden speaks Arabic better than Bush speaks English. Bin Laden also speaks
English better than Bush speaks English.
Then there’s that weird codependency, that symbiosis, between bin Laden and
Bush. By slaughtering thousands of innocents on 9/11, bin Laden gave Bush a
chance to resurrect his faltering image and failing presidency. Returning the favor,
Bush invaded Iraq and gave enormous legitimacy to bin Laden and his Grand Old
Party of Terrorists, just when they needed a jumpstart. Although each now suppos-
edly hates the other, each continues to promote the other’s career. Maybe we will see
them together at last in Brokeback Mountain II. Two peas in a pod.
The rumors that bin Laden contributed lots of cash to Bush’s reelection campaign
are probably false, although there’s the possibility that Halliburton tried to broker a
deal. A sticky point in negotiations might have been whether bin Laden would agree
to be captured shortly before America’s 2004 presidential election. (Here’s a partial
transcript of the negotiations actually obtained during a legal69 wiretap: bin Laden
asks, “But how can I trust your promise to let me live with 50 virgins during my life
of luxurious, leisurely captivity in your Club Med in Midland, Texas?” Bush replies,
“Trust me? Dude, that’s stupid—I don’t even trust myself!” And the deal fell
through.)
On a more serious note, here is the sad reality. Thanks to Bush, bin Laden would
do well in a free, fair, democratic election for high office in many Islamic countries,
while Bush would be sent to prison or the looney bin at the first opportunity.
Bush gives reassuring messages to his rightwing religious base without regard to
his moral responsibility to represent all Americans. His numerous gaffes include him
holding up the Bible and saying it is the “universal handbook” for our government.
Stunts of that sort play really well in the Islamic world. Bush is his own worst en-
emy, as well as America’s worst president. He, not bin Laden, is the principal reason
68
Yes, “W” also stands for “Worst.”
69
but fictitious
why the United States is losing the hearts and minds of Muslims in Iraq and through-
out the world.
The vast majority of the Muslim world sees Bush as a “my-God-is-stronger-than-
your-god” Christian crusader who knows in his heart that their religion, Islam, is
inferior and false. Bush is unable to separate his religious sectarianism and bigotry
from his broader moral and constitutional responsibilities as president. Many incom-
petent appointees were cherry-picked for his administration precisely because of
their narrow religious beliefs and willingness to exploit their new powers for sectar-
ian purposes. Sometimes their bigoted babbling goes beyond the pale.
One prominent example is Lt. Gen. William Boykin, Bush’s deputy undersecre-
tary of defense for intelligence, who headed the Pentagon office charged with finding
targets such as Osama bin Laden. Notwithstanding his high level position and the
fact that he set critical policy, Lt. Gen. Boykin appeared in full uniform before doz-
ens of church audiences to preach politics and assert the superiority of Christianity
over Islam. On numerous occasions he slammed Muslims and Islam. When referring
to an enemy warlord in Somalia, he preached, “I knew my God was bigger than his. I
knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”
Boykin also declared that Bush “is in the White House because God put him
there,” not because of an election.70 While commenting on the war against terrorism,
Boykin remarked, “we in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God
have been raised for such a time as this.” He believes “our spiritual enemy will only
be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.” Identifying Satan as the
mastermind of terrorists, Boykin said Satan “wants to destroy us as a Christian
army.”
Bigoted Christianist fools like Boykin play into the hand of Osama bin Laden and
others who want to create a broader religious war. Boykin’s bombastic declarations
also violate official White House statements and policies intended to placate moder-
ate Muslims and reduce the distrust and hatred of Muslims towards the United
States.
When publicity finally caught up with him, Boykin apologized for his remarks,
and Bush later stated that he disagreed with what Boykin had said. However, rather
than being demoted or sacked, Boykin only received a mild hand slap, because ap-
propriate punishment would have upset Bush’s rightwing base. Sadly, Boykin’s anti-
Islam bigotry reflects the beliefs of numerous other senior officials in Bush’s ad-
ministration. The Islamic world knows that Bush League crusaders are alive and well
in the 21st century. Bin Laden must be smiling.
In the next chapter we turn our attention to the important topic of the End Times
prophecies rooted in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, which are important to millions
of Christian fundamentalists. Unfortunately, End Times malarkey has helped dummy
down, misinform and misdirect U.S. foreign policy in the greater Middle East, with
disastrous consequences for the Bush League of Nations in Iraq, and for America’s
stated goal of winning the hearts and minds of Muslims.
70
Fact: Bush was put in the White House not by God, but by five Republican politicians on
the U.S. Supreme Court.
CHAPTER 9
Eschatology and The Book of Revelation

Weapons of Mass Deception on the Road to Armageddon
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are ser-
vilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for
every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a
God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of rea-
son than that of blindfolded fear.
—Thomas Jefferson
Eschatology is the study of the end of history—the end of the world—from a reli-
gious perspective. Christians have probably written more obscure text about escha-
tology than any other religious topic. We are talking about the End Times, so hold
onto your seats!
If you’re not already familiar with the End Times prophecies in the Bible’s Book
of Revelation, you should read this last book of the New Testament and come to
your own conclusions. Although the Book of Revelation was written in mysterious,
symbolic language and code, many Christians choose to interpret it as literally—and
as creatively—as possible. You too can make up your own religion.
A good point of departure is to Google some key words of biblical prophecy,
such as: revelation, End Times, prophecies, millennialism, rapture, Anti-Christ, Bat-
tle of Armageddon, Second Coming, red heifer, 666 (Mark of the Beast), tribulation,
and Final Judgment. You will find a treasure trove of information, including widely
varying opinions regarding the prophecies and what they mean for Christians as well
as non-Christians. You will find anything and everything, as well as their opposites.
If you are appalled by all the rightwing “holier than thou” Christian religiosity,
you should nevertheless consider devoting some time to studying the End Times
literature. More broadly, if you left Christianity because of its hijacking and distor-
tion by the Religious Right, you should nevertheless consider studying it as much as
you study other religions such as Islam and Buddhism.
In addition to all the helpful material on the Internet, you will also find a host of
websites and discussion groups that accomplish nothing other than inciting hatred
and violence by throwing gasoline on the growing fires of animosity towards Chris-
tianity and America. For some, that is exactly the goal—making certain that the road
to Armageddon, Heaven and Hell is well lit.
To be clear, all Americans should fully support freedom of religion and

separation of church and state. These protections should extend to all the various
viewpoints of the End Times—even if you disagree with all of them—as well as to
the religious beliefs of Jews, Muslims, Mormons, atheists and everyone else.
We include this End Times discussion here because:
• The End Times dogma profoundly affects America’s foreign policy, with
millions of rightwing Christians using it as justification to vote for right-
wing Republican militaristic leaders no matter how bad the outcome. In
fact, the worse the outcome—the worse it gets in Iraq, for example—the
better it is from an End Times perspective. Yes, the road to Hell is paved
with “good” intentions.
• The rest of the world—including our long-term allies and potential allies, as
well as the Islamic world we presumably are trying to favorably influence—
waits for America to come to its senses.
• This religious dogma—coupled with Bush’s and the GOP’s natural inclina-
tion to divide and inflame people with “us versus them,” “good versus evil”
policies—is making America more divided and acrimonious than anytime
in the past century.
• The religious dogma reflected in our foreign policy has also polarized the
world, except that instead of the roughly 50-50 polarization found in Amer-
ica (with the balance shifting slowing away from the neo-GOP and in the
direction of sanity, as reflected in the 2006 midterm elections in the United
States), the rest of the world is now 95-5 opposed to America’s imperial
wars.
Most mainstream Protestants and most Protestant churches, as well as the
Catholic Church (a frequent target of rightwing prophecies), do not read the Book of
Revelation literally. They are not caught up in useless and sometimes dangerous
speculation as to when the world will end and what exactly will transpire. Most are
appalled that the rightwing fringe has gone bonkers on religious doctrine and pol-
luted government in the process. With enormous influence over Bush and his party,
this fringe has helped the GOP evolve into the Gang of Pharisees.
There are millions of Americans who carefully study and interpret the Book of
Revelation and the End Times prophecies, sometimes developing their own theories
and beliefs as to the specifics regarding the main End Times events, together with a
correct timeline for everything.
For these people the End Times study is not an idle exercise, since for them it
concerns the most important event of all—going to Heaven or Hell.71 Many search
for signs of the End Times in current events here on Earth, especially happenings in
the Middle East relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and in Iraq, the home of an-
cient Babylon.
71
They are going one place and you (maybe) and I (certainly) are going elsewhere. I recall a
North Dakota sage telling me years ago that he preferred to go to Hell so he could be with his
friends. On the other hand, can you imagine spending eternity in Heaven with religious bigots
and flamethrowers like Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and James
Dobson? Don’t bet on that unfortunate scenario, however. Your best strategy may be to go to
Heaven so you won’t be with people like that!
CHAPTER 9 — ESCHATOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION 197
There are numerous variations of the main events and the timeline for the End
Times, simply because people have different interpretations of the key events of the
Revelation prophecies, and when they will occur with respect to each other. Specific
timelines result depending on what the individual believes regarding the key events:
the tribulation (whether it’s pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, or post-tribulation);
millennialism (whether it’s post-millennialism, pre-millennialism, or amillennialism),
and so forth.
The “wheels within wheels” nature of this religious interpretation and invention
has split rightwing Christians into various camps, which may be quite bitter towards
each other. To attract followers, many rightwing religious leaders compete on religi-
osity and certitude. In the process, they do America and Christianity a disservice.
This is especially the case with those leaders who believe that the biggest crowds and
biggest bucks are attracted most to the dog that barks the loudest with the most certi-
tude and spittle.
If you are unfamiliar with the End Times prophecies, please have some patience
as we wade through the main points in summary fashion. Yes, this chapter is just a
summary of a complex religious topic about which countless thick books have been
written and will be written. Because it is impossible to write such a summary satis-
factory to everyone, many will disagree vociferously with what is written here, and
some will feel offended. Having said that, let’s barge ahead.
Here is some End Times terminology:
The rapture:72 the sudden, unannounced transportation of all true Christians to

Heaven by Christ around the time of his Second Coming (more below on this “New
Age” rapture phenomenon). When Christians use this term, it means they are going
to Heaven. Already dead Christians will rise up from their graves (be resurrected);
living Christians will then also be gathered up with the predeceased in the clouds;
and together the two saved groups will meet Christ “in the air” and be with him for-
ever in Heaven.
For the minority of Christians who are caught up in this new rapture interpreta-
tion, there are three principal variations of the rapture, which are called pre-
tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation. These refer to when the rapture will
occur.
• Pre-tribulation: The rapture comes before the tribulation.
• Mid-tribulation: The rapture comes during the tribulation.
• Post-tribulation: The rapture comes after the tribulation.
Christians sometimes refer to these in shorthand as pre, mid, and post. For exam-
ple, a rapture Christian may describe himself as pre, which means that he believes
people will be raptured—taken by Christ to Heaven—before the period of great de-
72
The concept of the Rapture comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, although the word “rap-
ture” is not found anywhere in the English translation of the Bible. The word “rapture” itself
means “caught up” and is derived from the Latin word “rapere,” which in turn comes from the
Greek word “harpadzo” found in 1 Thessalonians 4.
struction known as the tribulation.73 Pre-millennialists (discussed below) popularized

these three terms.
We’ll discuss the rapture more later, including the concept of a “secret rapture,”
but first we need to cover some additional important terminology.
The tribulation: a period of great destruction, usually thought to be seven years,

during which the Anti-Christ (Satan’s agent) comes to power and reigns over the
Earth. During the tribulation the Earth is destroyed by unimaginable plagues, wars,
earthquakes, diseases and other horrible sadistic events, and Christians are severely
persecuted. (This is even much more horrific than living in America and Iraq under
GOP rule—really.) Everyone is killed except for the chosen Christians, and some say
the number so saved is limited to 144,000.74 Christ defeats the Anti-Christ at the bat-
tle of Armageddon, which marks the end of the tribulation.
Armageddon: During the last 50 years, the Battle of Armageddon has become a
central topic of discussion in some Christian circles. The Anti-Christ starts this final
terrible battle, and the victorious Christ and his heavenly armies finish it. This
bloody battle, in which the Anti-Christ and his armies are slaughtered, takes place in
the valley of Megiddo near Haifa, Israel. (I am not making this up.) God takes out his
enormous wrath and anger on the human species and the world.75 Jesus then reigns
during the ensuing millennium of peace and paradise on Earth. Armageddon is espe-
cially important to pre-millennialists (more on this later). Pre-millennialists list more
than a dozen key events on their eschatological timeframe, and Armageddon is one
of them. Many see current events in the Middle East as signs that this battle in immi-
nent. For many, an all-out war between Christianity and Islam in the Middle East
would be wonderful news.
The millennium: As noted above, the millennium is a golden age of peace on Earth
under the reign of Christ. End Timers disagree as to whether the millennium is liter-
ally a period of one thousand years. The Book of Revelation uses the term a “1,000
years” several times to describe the period during which Christ rules.76 For back-
ground you should read Revelation 20:1-10. This Revelation scripture is among the
most difficult and controversial text in the Bible. There are three different principal
views of the millennium, which depend upon when Christ will return to Earth:
73
Perhaps on-line matching services such as Match.com should take this variable into account
when introducing prospective lovers. Would a “pre” and a “post” repel each other? Or do op-
posites attract?
74
The limit of 144,000 is a minority view. After all, who wants to believe that only such a
small number of Christians will go to Heaven, when there are hundreds of millions of people
“competing” to be chosen?
75
See Revelation 4-19, Matthew 24, and Daniel 9.
76
The word “millennium” does not appear anywhere in the Bible, but a “thousand years” ap-
pears several times in Revelation 20. The ancient religion of Zoroastrianism was the first relig-
ion to describe such a period of universal peace.
• Post-millennialism: Christ will return after (“post”) the millennium, the

long period of peace and prosperity on Earth during which Christ’s church
prevails over evil in the world and most people convert to Christianity. Fol-
lowing this return of Christ—the Second Coming—there will be the
tribulation, the victory of Christ over Satan, and the final judgment of both
the living (the “quick”) and the dead. The “1,000 years” in Revelation is
taken figuratively, not literally, and thus the millennium is not a definite
knowable length of time. This post-millennialist view was the most popular
view well into the 19th century, but very few End-Times Christians sub-
scribe to it now.
• Amillennialism (also known as non-millennialism, meaning that there is
no literal millennium): The millennium is not a future golden age on Earth
during which everyone converts to Christianity. Rather it describes the pre-
sent period in which we now live, and it thus refers to both Christ’s reign in
Heaven with his saints who have died before us, as well as to Christ’s cur-
rent spiritual reign on Earth though the Christian Church. Good and evil co-
exist on Earth until that point when Christ returns to Earth—his Second
Coming—to sort everything out, at which time there will be the rapture and
the final judgment. This is a simpler, more straightforward view, and most
mainstream Protestants subscribe to it—to the extent they think about it, if
at all. The major protestant reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin,
and John Wesley (the founder of Methodism) held this view, although many
newer groups of evangelicals and fundamentalists no longer do.
• Pre-millennialism: The “pre” means that Christ will return shortly before
the millennium. The Anti-Christ will first appear and the extraordinarily
painful tribulation will ensue. Christ will successfully overcome the Anti-
Christ in the Battle of Armageddon, and the 1,000-year millennium of peace
will then take place, followed by the Final Judgment. One problem with this
is that most scholars believe the Bible does not support a 1,000-year gap be-
tween the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. In recent years this pre-
millennialist view has become most popular among evangelicals and fun-
damentalists. Amillennialism once was their most popular view.
By the way, many so-called Christians on the extreme right speculated that Presi-
dent Bill Clinton was the Anti-Christ prophesized in the Book of Revelation.77 How-
ever, applying any plausible test regarding the identity of the Anti-Christ, Bush cer-
tainly fits the bill much better than Clinton ever did, especially after Clinton left
power without doing all those evil things befitting the Anti-Christ. So, in fairness,
where are the Anti-Christ speculators among the Religious Right when it comes to
Bush? The answer is that it is all rightwing politics, not religion. The Anti-Christ
obviously cannot be a member of the Republican Party. Just for the record, Bush is
not the Anti-Christ either.
Let’s now continue our discussion of the rapture.
77
After Clinton’s presidency ended, Hillary became a popular choice for the Anti-Christ. I’m
not joking.
Perhaps you have noticed a bumper sticker or two about the rapture, without un-
derstanding the message. Such a sticker might say something like, “Attention: Upon
Rapture, This Vehicle Will be Driverless.”
Well, the driver is letting you know that he or she may suddenly disappear with-
out warning and be transported to Heaven, leaving the driverless car careening down
the road. Really. This sort of chaos will occur in the same instant all over town, and
all over the world (except for Massachusetts where obviously there are no Christians
worthy of being raptured). In that one instant, countless automobiles, trucks, aircraft
and so forth will suddenly be left with no one in control. If by chance you are a pas-
senger in such a situation, you must quickly jump into the driver’s seat and take the
wheel.78
The so-called “secret rapture” is at the center of what we have just described. Ac-
cording to this pre-millennialist viewpoint, Christians are taken up to Heaven by
Christ during his Second Coming, but no one sees it happen. Millions of saved
Christians instantaneously vanish, leaving behind their clothes and everything else.
Accordingly, this has been called the “secret” rapture. Most Christians believe such a
secret rapture is inconsistent with biblical text79 describing Christ’s Second Coming
as very visible and tumultuous.
Also, a serious problem with a secret rapture is that it effectively requires not
only a Second Coming of Christ but also a later Third Coming at the end of the
tribulation (i.e., before the Battle of Armageddon, the 1,000-year millennium, and
the Final Judgment.) However, there is no biblical authority for this additional return
of Christ, which would be the Third Coming.
Catholics and the vast majority of mainstream protestant Christians simply do not
believe these modern, overwhelmingly American interpretations of the End Times.
Nor do Eastern Orthodox Christians. Most Christians do not believe these neo-
interpretations any more than they believe the Koran or the Book of Mormon.
An excellent critique of the End Times fever is The Rapture Trap, by Paul
Thigpen. Although this book is written from a Catholic’s perspective, mainstream
Protestant Christians who wonder what this rapture and End Times excitement is all
about will also find it illuminating.
Mainstream Christians who have serious misgivings regarding this rapture craze
should nevertheless respect the right of other Christians to believe what they wish—
and perhaps you will decide to believe it too after you have studied it more, which is
your right. At the same time, however, mainstream Christians should not feel that
they are missing something important—they aren’t—or that they should buy into this
legalistic doctrine just because it is promoted with such religious fervor both person-
ally and though the mass media. The rightwing rapture viewpoint is difficult to miss
on American religious radio because rightwing Christian radio dominates the market
78
This raises some serious public policy questions. Should rapture believers be allowed to
drive? Shouldn’t each be required to hire a DPD (“Designated Pagan Driver”)? Does not the
safety of the rest of the citizenry count for anything? At a minimum, shouldn’t rapture believ-
ers pay higher auto insurance premiums?
79
1 Thessalonians 4.
for religious programming through its ownership or control of a huge number of ra-
dio stations.80
The secret rapture is at the center of the incredibly popular Left Behind series of
books (Number 1 on The New York Times bestseller list) that focus on the drama of
all those people “left behind” when millions of Christians around the world disap-
pear in one cataclysmic rapture. The first twelve books in this fictional series sold
more than 60 million copies and helped spawn a huge industry with an End Times
theme. By the way, if you liked the movie The Passion of the Christ, but thought it
was a little short on gratuitous violence, then the Left Behind series should appeal to
you.
The co-authors of the Left Behind series, Rev. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins,
also wrote another book, Are We Living in the End Times?, in which they explain
why they “think this generation will witness the end of history.” By the way, we
won’t. Countless other “biblical scholars” and nitwits such as Pat Robertson have
opined as to exactly when the world will end. For them, their fiction is money in the
bank. But they are all full of, well, baloney—now that is something you can bank on.
Early Christians believed Jesus would return during their lifetime. Jesus said to
his disciples, “This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:22-
32. Similar text in Matthew 24:30-34 and Mark 1:24-30.) He also said: “But of that
day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Fa-
ther alone.” (Matthew 24: 35-36.)
Most of America’s rightwing Christian fundamentalists have narrow, time-
limited, self-centered views of the world. Everything is about them, and everything is
now. They expect the end of the world to occur during their lifetime, and many liter-
ally pray for the rapture to occur now.
Most readers of the popular Left Behind series do not know that LaHaye helped
fashion the Religious Right, wants to turn America into a strict Christian fundamen-
talist nation, would turn public schools into fundamentalist centers with Christian
prayer and creationism, would ban sex education and eliminate the Department of
Education, despises the separation of church and state, attacks Catholics and others
not subscribing to his extreme narrow views, and is a paranoid purveyor of bizarre
conspiracy theories.
In the early 1990s Rev. LaHaye co-founded the Pre-Trib Research Center as a
“think tank” to further “the cause of pretribulationism and the literal interpretation of
Bible prophecy.” The Center publishes The Pre-Trib Perspectives, a monthly jour-
nal, “keeping the reader on the cutting edge of unfolding prophetic events.” He also
founded the Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy where he teaches a one-year residency
course of study in prophecy. The website notes, “Understanding Bible Prophecy can
help you become a more confident Christian because knowing ‘how the story ends’
will help you realize that God has EVERYTHING under control!”
LaHaye, a Bob Jones University graduate, is among the most influential evan-
gelical fundamentalist leaders in America. Although wacko, he cannot be considered
80
Driving anywhere in America you will find both rightwing religious programming and
rightwing political programming several times as you go from one end of the radio dial to the
other. One hand washes the other.
a fringe player. In addition to ties to GOP illuminati such as John Ashcroft and
George W. Bush, LaHaye is one of the Moral Majority’s original board members,
and in the early 1980s he also co-founded the Council for National Policy, a secre-
tive theocracy-pushing organization on the far right with strong connections to the
rightwing of the GOP.
To monitor the chances of the rapture happening anytime soon, go to Rapture-
Ready.com and check the Rapture Index, which tracks 45 specific categories of
events, e.g., “Volcanoes,” “Globalism,” “Occult,” “Oil Supply/Price,” “Gog (Rus-
sia),” “Liberalism,” “Beast Government,” “Ecumenism” and “W.”81 The index is
even calibrated for convenient use, as follows:
• Rapture Index of 85 and below: Slow prophetic activity
• Rapture Index of 85 to 110: Moderate prophetic activity
• Rapture Index of 110 to 145: Heavy prophetic activity
• Rapture Index above 145: Fasten your seat belts
The website notes, “You could say the Rapture index is a Dow Jones Industrial
Average of end time activity, but I think it would be better if you viewed it as pro-
phetic speedometer. The higher the number, the faster we’re moving towards the
occurrence of pre-tribulation rapture.”
During most of Bush’s watch, the Rapture Index has been in the highest cate-
gory—“Fasten your seat belts.” For example, in 2006 it was well above 150—not a
record, but still pretty dang good.
In a 1970 bestseller, The Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsay carefully exam-
ined biblical text and Middle East events and concluded that the end of the world
would occur in 1988—40 years after the founding of the nation of Israel. In case you
don’t remember, it didn’t.82 But the book did scare the bejesus out of millions of
young impressionable readers, which was exactly the point. Such books are part of
an unholy array of weapons of mass deception—religious WMDs—intended to ma-
nipulate people though fear—fear of God, fear of Hell, fear of their shadow, fear of
life—with the goal of converting them to a specific brand of rightwing Christianity
and thus “saving” them, and perhaps causing them—totally a coincidence—to give
their savings to a particular rightwing reverend or church. Cha-ching.
In the twelfth book in the Left Behind series, Glorious Appearing, Christ returns
to Earth to torture and destroy all non-Christians, sending them to eternal suffering in
Hell. Can you imagine the uproar in America if the shoe were on the other foot, and
60 million copies of an Islamic End Times series were purchased by Muslim readers,
an Islamic version in which billions of Christians and other non-Muslims were tor-
tured, flayed, spattered, mutilated, crucified, and, well, you get the idea. Suppose
further that millions of American Muslims believed these Islamic novels reflected
God’s truth and were directly connected to current events in the Middle East.
81
OK, “W” is not really on the Rapture Index list, but he should be. An “umbrella” W could
replace several other disasters, and the list would then be shorter and more manageable.
82
Since the world didn’t end in 1988 as promised, you may be wondering if Lindsay, a
wealthy man, refunded all the money paid for his books. Nope.
All good men and women of faith, both Christians and Muslims, should reject the
militancy, hatred, and bigotry that come from their respective camps of extreme
rightwing lunatics who want a “war of civilizations.”
Whether intended or not, the Left Behind novels effectively endorse and encour-
age the current bloody developments in the Middle East as necessary stages along
the End Times boulevard. The disastrous imperial Bush policies in Iraq and through-
out the greater Middle East are good news to the discerning rightwing Christian who
is engaged in religious fantasies and looking forward to the Second Coming. After
all, how can anyone question God’s plan and eschatology so clearly set forth in the
Book of Revelation? Derivatively, how can anyone question Bush’s “plan?”
The secret rapture at the center of the Left Behind series, which is a pre-
tribulation rapture, fortunately offers convenient “Bush-like Passes” that are espe-
cially attractive to those rightwing Christians who suffer from two character flaws:
1) A shortage of courage, and
2) A desire not to help the less fortunate in the world.
First, by getting beamed up to the safety of Heaven before the tribulation, these
raptured Christians avoid all the blood and guts, death and destruction, that take
place during the period of incredible suffering. From the safety of box seats in
Heaven at the right hand of God, they can watch and enjoy the horrible suffering of
their former neighbors, friends, and close family members who are left behind. Simi-
lar to a “Get-Out-of-Jail” card, the rapture is a free avoid-the-consequences card for
true believers.
Second, most believers in this rapture also believe that the only way to Salva-
tion—which means eternal life in Heaven with Jesus—is through the simple ac-
knowledgement of Jesus as their personal savior, and not through good works on
Earth. This convenient copout from hard work and justice is especially popular with
rightwing GOP Christians in Texas who want to ignore Christ’s message of compas-
sion for the less fortunate and vote for crony-capitalism Republicans who believe
God’s motto is “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich.”
Thus, regardless of the facts, these Republican voters from Texas can be counted
on to support Bush and his GOP Busheviks. Sadly, a Republican congressman from
Texas who claims to be a Christian has to be found in bed with, as they say, “either a
live boy or a dead girl” before his supporters will dump him.
Much of the End Times excitement sweeping the United States, especially any-
thing connected with the rapture, is best viewed as another slice of New Age stuff
from America, but coming this time from the far right. The use of the “New Age”
label here is not intended to disparage rightwing Christians, although some may be
displeased with the association. When hearing the term “New Age,” most Americans
associate it with a fairly recent, unorganized and decentralized spiritual movement
involving a smorgasbord of ideas and techniques, such as channeling, pyramid
power, meditation, crystals and anything outside mainstream religion.
New Age could also be used to describe that definitely disorganized late-1960s
movement among American youth who wanted to positively change the world—with
love, peace and a broader concept of God. Dissatisfied with traditional institutions,
many “members” of this New Age or hippie movement experimented with drugs83 as
part of their spiritual quest, in addition to exploring other religions and other tradi-
tions such as meditation and yoga.
Both fortunately and unfortunately, Americans are busy, creative, searching84
people. Americans have invented lots of wonderful things—such as vaccines, the
telephone, television, computers and airplanes—as well as lots of terrible things—
such as the first atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the Hummer, and virtually all
other modern WMDs used around the world. We also are creative in spiritual mat-
ters, as we search for something better—or at least different—in which to believe, or
at least to cause others to believe. Many rightwing televangelists search for that new
clever twist that can expand their power and fatten their wallets.
The main points here are that: (1) this latest rapture phenomenon is new doctrine,
dating only from the 19th century, and, (2) its most tremendous growth has been in
America. Although its origins were in Great Britain in the early 1800s, it grew
quickly in America when John Darby (1800-82) brought it from England to Amer-
ica.85 The 1800s were a period of great spirituality in America, a time in which new
religions (including the Mormon religion) and many new doctrines and interpreta-
tions took root. Darby coined not only the term “rapture,” but also other End Times
terms such as “great tribulation” and “millennium.”
To be clear, it is the right of all Americans to believe what they wish, whether the
idea is from the 1860s or the 1960s, but let’s not pretend that everything is clear and
crisp when you open the Bible. It is not.
Unfortunately, much of the world knows there is far too much rightwing religious
“wackocity” in America and in the Bush White House, but let’s leave the fruitful
topic of American “wackocity” for another day. (For now, we’ll note only that
“wackocity” is not a real word, but that in honor of W it should be, along with “de-
cider” and “truthiness,” and that the “W-Scale” to measure “wackocity” should also
be in honor of W.)
83
Others including George W. Bush did drugs simply because it was fun, without wanting to
make the world better.
84
Sometimes Americans search, or pretend to search, for things that don’t even exist, such as
WMDs in Iraq.
85
John Darby (1800-82), leader of the Plymouth Brethren, preached in the mid-1800s con-
cerning a secret coming of Christ, and he traveled several times to the United States in the
latter stages of his life. His ideas became known as “Dispensationalism,” and they rapidly
spread through many American and British congregations. He and his ideas became especially
popular among American fundamentalists. The Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909,
helped popularize his ideas, which included a secret rapture. Dispensationalism is so named
because it divides all of history into seven progressive stages called “dispensations.” During
each Dispensation God reveals more of his plan, and humans are tested in various ways, al-
ways failing. The Dispensational scheme has two distinct divine plans, one for Jews (the
“earthly” people), and one for Christ’s Church (the “heavenly” people). Accordingly, the Bi-
ble has to be divided between those passages intended for Jews and those intended for Chris-
tians. As you can imagine, this footnote can only offer a slight hint of Dispensationalism’s
incredible complexity. Also, you can understand why fundamentalists and many evangelical
Christians are so focused on the Middle East, where they see God’s plan playing out. President
Bush, thank you for your war on Iraq!
If you decide to research the explosion of American spirituality in the early

1800s, sometimes called The Second Great Awakening—The First Great Awakening
having taken place in the 1730s and 1740s—you should check out the Millerites, the
tens of thousands of followers of William Miller who believed the apocalypse and
Christ’s Second Coming would occur on March 21, 1844, later changed to October
22, 1844. When Jesus did not reappear, the Millerites were bitterly disappointed,
especially those who had given away all their possessions, and the nonevent became
known as the Great Disappointment.
Perhaps the failed presidency of George W. Bush will be known in history as the
Great Disappointment Redux.
By the way, addressing a group of conservative journalists on September 12,
2006, Bush said he sensed a “Third Awakening” in America that coincides with
America’s struggle with terrorism. “A lot of people in America see this as a confron-
tation between good and evil, including me,” said Bush, but he didn’t say which side
he was on. Another crusade, anyone?
As for the “secret rapture,” Christ never spoke about it, nor did any of his
Apostles. It was all Greek to them.86 The early leaders of the Church in the first three
centuries after Christ—often called the Fathers of the Church— knew nothing and
wrote nothing about the “secret rapture” and undoubtedly would have considered it
blasphemy. These leaders include the leaders who knew the Apostles personally, and
they include the following generations of leaders who, inspired by the Holy Spirit,
wrote the basic creeds of the Church and assembled the Bible as it exists today.
Eastern Orthodox Christians also never heard of the “secret rapture.” Nor did Saint
Augustine. Nor did the Catholic Church. Nor did any of the Protestant reformers,
such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley. Nor did any of America’s
founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. Nor did the vast majority of American
Protestants, including your author, living today who were raised in the Christian tra-
dition. Whew!
Jesus must be having a good chuckle about all this made-in-America apocalyptic
hogwash.
Well, what does Bush think about all this? Who knows? Probably not even Bush
himself knows what he thinks. The truth is that Bush lived through the 1960s but
chose poorly, which is one of his more prominent leadership skills. He did the 1960s
backwards, upside down, and inside out. He chose the drugs and free sex part of the
menu but passed on the Jesus part and helping others. He freely sampled the fun
“sideshow for a few,” which was the focus of America’s media—marijuana, cocaine,
alcohol and sex—but he went AWOL87 regarding the main course—Jesus’ message
of “peace, compassion, tolerance and love”—you know, all that Hippie stuff that is
despised by so many practitioners of the exact opposite—“war, greed, bigotry and
hate.”
Unfortunately for Bush, he chose poorly. Unfortunately for America, this man is
now the poster boy for American-style Christianity. If Bush were to be scored in the
86
Perhaps we should say, “It was all English and American to them.”
87
Another Bush leadership trait.
Christian Olympics event of “Making the World Better,” all the judges would have
to give him a 0.0.88
Although Bush’s specific views on the End Times are not publicly known, he
successfully causes his supporters to think he agrees with them. In any case, he does
nothing to dissuade them of their views, or to discourage their efforts to have their
particular brand of religion monopolize American politics.
Many rightwing Christians welcomed the current Iraq war and turmoil in the
Middle East because these bloody events appeared—through a glass darkly—to fit
several popular versions of the End Times prophecies. Many rightwing Christians
believe that God established the permanent boundaries of Israel thousands of years
ago, and that the Bible predicted the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. Millions believe
that God is now carrying out his master plan through Bush and that we should there-
fore praise Bush and support the war.
Babylon’s role in the Bible is decidedly negative. It is portrayed as a center of
decadence, greed, corruption and other forms of evil, and its fall and destruction are
to be celebrated. Millions of rightwing American Christians speculate as to whether
the chaos in Iraq means the end of the world is at hand. If in fact God’s grand plan is
playing out before us, and we are about to witness the Second Coming, then Chris-
tians should not question the “details” of these events, such as the death of so many
innocent people.
Is it possible that this rightwing “Christian” perspective helps explain why the
Bush administration made so many terrible decisions in Iraq and turned the world
against America? For example, when American forces entered Baghdad in April
2003, their commander in chief never bothered to ask whether the world-renowned
National Museum of Iraq and other cultural assets were being protected. He appar-
ently didn’t care. American forces however were under orders to protect the Iraqi Oil
Ministry. Notwithstanding the Geneva Conventions, and notwithstanding numerous
international requests during the run-up to the war that Iraq’s museums be protected,
the Bush neocons did nothing to protect them. The predictable result was the loss of
thousands of ancient books, manuscripts and artifacts covering several thousands of
years of human history in what is now the GOP’s Mess-opotamia. Both the Western
and Islamic worlds see the looting of the National Museum of Iraq and dozens of
other museums and educational sites as a cultural catastrophe. On the other hand,
how many Bush League Christians took pleasure in the loss of so many relics of
false religions?
88
Except for the Saudi judge.
SIDEBAR: Camp Babylon
The ruins of the ancient city of Babylon in Mesopotamia lie 55 miles south of Bagh-
dad, in Babil Province just north of the modern Iraqi city of Hilla. Babylon, the capi-
tal of the ancient Kingdom of Babylonia and frequently referred to as the cradle of
civilization, was home to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Won-
ders of the World. According to Genesis, Babylon was the first city built after the
Flood, and it plays a central role in rightwing biblical prophecy and the End Times.
American forces established Camp Babylon shortly after the 2003 invasion and
transferred control of the base to Polish-led forces in September 2003. In 2005 the
Iraqi government assumed control. According to a British Museum report and a
January 15, 2005, article in the Guardian, the construction and operation of Camp
Babylon caused “widespread damage and severe contamination to the remains of the
ancient city of Babylon.” Insurgent attacks against the base also caused damage.
Military vehicles and construction activities, including construction of a helipad,
damaged significant archaeological sites. Sand and earth, sometimes containing im-
portant artifacts, were used to fill sandbags. Visitors noted that it was difficult to
distinguish the ancient ruins from the new ruins.
Although rabid anti-Semitism has been alive and well in rightwing Christian cir-
cles for a long time,89 especially in the old Confederacy, the rising popularity of End
Times prophesy has caused Christian fundamentalists to support Israel. But this sup-
port has many perverse ironies, including the fact that fundamentalists still don’t
have any particular high regard for Jews. Israel and the Jews are simply necessary
pawns along the fundamentalists’ private exclusive path through the End Times to
Heaven. The fundamentalists’ real unspoken message to Jews is: “We love the Jew-
ish people because through them we will be raptured and go to Heaven. Yes, it is
unfortunate Jews will burn in Hell for all eternity, but we warned them, and we can’t
be blamed for their bullheaded refusal to convert to Christianity.”
Jews of course recognize the irony and the crocodile tears. Nevertheless, Israel
has little choice but to embrace support from wherever it can get it, even from war
criminals.
Another irony is that anti-Israel sentiment, always a problem, has been greatly in-
flamed by the inept rightwing policies of Bush in the Middle East, as well as the ex-
treme rightwing Israeli policies that Bush encourages. The Bush administration has
done more to damage Israel than any other administration.
The more Bush screws up in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, the more fun-
damentalists are comforted, and the more they want him to “stay the course.” Esca-
89
American presidents have also exhibited anti-Semitic tendencies. Newly released White
House tapes from 1972 show President Nixon and Billy Graham exchanging anti-Semitic
banter, something for which Graham apologized after the recording was made public.
lating carnage and body counts are welcomed evidence that biblical prophecies are
coming true.
The one-sided support by American Christian fundamentalists for Israel is based
predominantly on extreme biblical interpretations and decidedly not on questions of
justice, human rights, or international law. Bush’s Middle East Mess unfolded with-
out any rigorous policy debate as to what is best for Israelis, Palestinians, the Middle
East, the United States, and the rest of the world. In fact, the Bush White House and
the GOP Congress prevented that debate, as they slammed the brake on meaningful
efforts to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians.
At the center of Christian fundamentalist support for Israel is the belief that the
construction of the Third Temple90 in Jerusalem, as part of the reconstruction of the
Kingdom of David, must take place before the eagerly-awaited End Times, including
the Second Coming of Christ, can occur. Inconveniently, the construction site—the
Temple Mount—must first be liberated from Islamic control. This will require the
destruction of Al-Haram al-Sharif, the 35-acre Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem, which
is one of the three most important religious sites in Islam, and includes the Dome of
the Rock at the center and the Al-Aksa mosque at the southern end.91 The most com-
mon belief is that the Dome of the Rock occupies the exact spot where the first two
temples stood.
Since the creation of Israel in 1948 all American presidents, including Bush’s fa-
ther, strongly supported Israel but at the same time more or less worked to imple-
ment policies fair to both Palestinians and Israelis, with the goal of attaining peace
though peaceful negotiations. That is, until Bush the Wrong.92 Bush rejected the
policies of all American presidents, including his father, regarding the Middle East,
90
King Solomon built the First Temple in the tenth century B.C., and the Babylonians de-
stroyed it in 586 B.C. It was rebuild as the Second Temple about seventy years later, around
515 B.C. The Second Temple was renovated by Herod the Great around 20 B.C. and de-
stroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. Part of the outer western retaining wall, the “Wailing
Wall,” is all that remains of the temple complex.
91
Although most mainstream Orthodox Judaism scholars oppose any attempt to build the
Third Temple before the Messiah returns, many rightwing Israeli Jews wish to build the Third
Temple as soon as possible. Many of them rejoiced in the recent birth of a “red heifer” on a
religious kibbutz in Israel, a sign from God that they should start building the Third Temple in
Jerusalem. In the 1980s a group of extremist Jews were arrested because they planned to blow
up the Dome of the Rock. Apparently no red heifer had been born since the Romans destroyed
the Second Temple in A.D. 70. The red heifer requirement comes from the Book of Numbers
in the Bible, although cooperating rightwing Jews and rightwing Christians have different
beliefs as to what the final end point is. For the Jews, the red heifer is tied to the start of their
millennium, and the rebuilding of the temple—the Third Temple—will allow the Jewish mes-
siah to enter Jerusalem. For many Christians, the Jews cannot rebuild the temple until after
Christ returns in the Second Coming, and their Christian view of the millennium is quite dif-
ferent from that of the rightwing Jews. Also, all Jews will burn in Hell forever (unless they
convert in time to Christianity.) This is a very short summary of the “wheels within wheels”
complexity of all this. You may want to Google “red heifer” and jump in. You might also wish
to reflect upon what Muslims think of all this.
92
Yes, “W” also stands for “wrong,” as in “Bush the Wrong,” “dead wrong” and “Religious
Wrong.”
by becoming a captive of the neocons and the Religious Wrong. The result is greatly
increased bloodshed on a path away from peace, with greater suffering and risk for
both Israelis and Palestinians.
Thanks to Bush, the way forward in the Middle East is much more difficult and
dangerous. In every nation in the region, the prospects for progressive peaceful de-
mocratic reform have greatly diminished, and animosity towards America—the cen-
tral victim of 9/11—has soared. America’s effectiveness and credibility in the region
have been savaged, and Bush’s successor will have a much weaker hand to play.
America’s rightwing Christianist leaders played a major role in the tragedy by
blindly supporting and encouraging Bush at each step on the road to Hell. The extra-
loopy leaders with large television and radio audiences deserve extra credit.
Which, as we end this chapter, brings us to Pat Robertson, that first-class nitwit
whose television program, The 700 Club, is beamed to millions daily by his Christian
Broadcasting Network. When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive
incapacitating stroke on January 4, 2006, Robertson insinuated the next day on The
700 Club that God had caused Sharon’s stroke as punishment for his decision to
withdraw Israeli troops and settlers from Gaza. Robertson declared, “The prophet
Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, ‘divide my
land.’ God considers this land to be his.” Robertson also pointed out that the assassi-
nation of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was “the same thing.”
It was divine punishment for “dividing God’s land,” which was promised to the Jews
in the Bible.
CHAPTER 10
A Call to Christians
and Other People of Faith
Don’t Give Up—Embrace Your Faith and Continue Your
Faith Journey
I have often suggested to American Christians that the only way to under-
stand their mission is to ask what it might have meant to witness faithfully to
Jesus in the heart of the Roman Empire. Certainly, when I preach in the
United States, I feel as I imagine the Apostle Paul did, when he first passed
through the gates of Rome—admiration for its people, awe at its manifest
virtues, and resentment of its careless power. American preachers have a
task more difficult, perhaps, than those faced by us under South Africa’s
apartheid, or Christians under Communism. We had obvious evils to engage;
you have to unwrap your culture from years of red, white and blue myth. You
have to expose, and confront, the great disconnect between the kindness,
compassion and caring of most American people, and the ruthless way
American power is experienced, directly and indirectly, by the poor of the
earth. You have to help good people see how they have let their institutions
do their sinning for them. This is not easy among people who really believe
that their country does nothing but good, but it is necessary, not only for
their future, but for us all.
—Rev. Peter Storey, President of the Methodist Church of South Africa,
and a member of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in
his open “Dear Friends in the United States” letter, written shortly after 9/11.
The Religious Right represents neither mainstream American values nor traditional
religious values. No thinking person of faith who believes in Christ’s message of
compassion for the poor, Christ’s role as Prince of Peace, social justice, the separa-
tion of church and state, and freedom of religion should let Religious Right politi-
cians speak for him or her.
Just as Bush’s neocons moved so far to the Neanderthal right in foreign policy
that they completely abandoned traditional American values, so have Bush’s right-
wing fundamentalist and evangelical supporters moved so far to the extreme right
that they have abandoned mainstream Christianity and Christ himself. All forms of
religious extremism drink from the same well of hate.
We offer the following call to Americans of all faiths.
A Call to Americans of All Faiths

1) Americans of all faiths or no faith must defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights
against the relentless unchristian attack by America’s extreme right.
• Help defend religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The
White House must protect the constitutional right of all Americans to prac-
tice any religion or no religion, free from governmental pandering or pro-
motion on behalf of any particular religion. The government’s proper role is
to help ensure freedom of religion, not to help Christians win a war among
religions, and not to help rightwing Christianity replace sane Christianity.
Support the “separation of church and hate.”
• Oppose the public financing of faith-based education and faith-based text-
books. Stand up to the junk science and anti-science policies of Bush, the
GOP and the Religious Right.
• Demand the termination of Bush’s unprecedented faith-based initiatives,
under which hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled,
without congressional approval, to favored religious organizations, virtually
all of which are Christian organizations meeting Bush’s litmus test.
• Demand that the White House be the voice for all Americans, not a Bush
League parsonage and pulpit for rightwing Christians.
• Oppose Bush’s divisive religious litmus tests for judicial appointments.
• Help expose the phony self-described “martyrs” on the Religious Right who
invent nonexistent evils such as “The War on Christmas,” when the real
danger is “The Religious Right’s War on Christianity.”
• Keep on agitating for peace, justice and human rights. Help defend and add
to America’s rich history of progressive values and accomplishments that
the world so admires. Take comfort in the knowledge that countless mil-
lions of people of different faiths throughout the world pray for America to
come to its senses and turn toward the light, away from the darkness that
has permeated the Bush League White House.
• Demand the restoration of habeas corpus.
2) Embrace your faith, whatever it is, and continue your faith journey.
• Whatever your faith, do not assume that the loud sanctimonious voices on
the extreme right speak for the majority of America’s churches and Chris-
tians, and don’t let them speak for you.
• If you abandoned your Christian faith or no longer attend church, check out
a mainstream or progressive church. Do this even if you are an agnostic or
atheist. You are likely to fit in well at the majority of America’s mainstream
churches, which by and large are filled with people who know they do not
know all the answers, but have chosen to continue their faith journey to-
CHAPTER 10 — A CALL TO CHRISTIANS AND OTHER PEOPLE OF FAITH 213
gether as they try to make the world better and safer. They welcome people
of all nations, races, religions, economic classes, sexual orientations and po-
litical parties.
• Stand tall and be outspoken about your faith and principles. Support pro-
gressive media that are a small but growing alternative to the vast corporate
networks of rightwing voices that dominate America’s political and reli-
gious media. Don’t let the power of Christianity be monopolized by the Re-
ligious Right.
• Check out and join interfaith organizations such as The Interfaith Alliance
(www.interfaithalliance.org) that strive to promote peace and interfaith co-
operation, rather than sectarian exclusivity and bigotry.
• Another excellent resource is Sojourners, a Christian ministry that practices
the biblical call to integrate spiritual renewal and social justice
(www.sojo.net.) Sojourners magazine is inspiring, as is the best-seller
book, God’s Politics—Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t
Get It, written by Jim Wallis, the Editor-in-Chief/Executive Director of So-
journers.
• Renounce the two unholy banners that Bush and the GOP so proudly carry:
GOP Banner No. 1: “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich;” and GOP
Banner No. 2: “Prince of War—Pandering Warmonger for the Religious
Right.”
• Fight for better religion, not less religion. If you are a Christian (Lutheran,
Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic, Baptist or whatever), don’t separate
yourself from your faith just because the neo-GOP and the Religious Right
have given Christianity a bad name.
• Proudly carry the banner of the Prince of Peace as you support Christ’s mis-
sion of compassion on Earth.
• Remember the Eighth Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” and take
back the Bible that the Religious Right stole.
• So enter the religious discussion and use the Holy Bible, not the Religious
Right’s revised version known as the Holey Bible. Engaging and exposing
the Religious Right without using the Bible is like hunting rats at the city
dump without using your best ammo.
• Just for enlightenment, check out that peculiarly American, rightwing doc-
trine known as the End Times prophesies, as well as other such New Age
spiritualism peculiar to America.
3) Americans should work with their friends throughout the world to help build
bridges of trust and peace, many of which were destroyed by America’s Bush
League government.
• Americans of faith should encourage their foreign friends to tell their truth,
and not to give up on America. Ask them to call upon their leaders to speak
candidly about America’s leaders and policies, and to courageously set forth
their proposals and vision for a better world.
• Support specific activities to build cultural bridges, such as student ex-

change programs, foreign travel, the study of foreign languages, and hu-
manitarian programs.
• Join the growing millions of Americans—a majority of Americans—who
want and demand a saner better America. Wage peace. America’s longtime
allies in Europe and the rest of the world are with you.
• Remember the words of Gimli in Lord of the Rings: “Certainty of death.
Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?”
4) Remember the American spirit represented in the Statue of Liberty, that wonder-
ful gift from France the construction of which was completed in 1886, and remember
the famous final lines from the poem The New Colossus about that American beacon
of hope, which boldly declare:
Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Help rekindle that American spirit of freedom, hope and opportunity for all, not just
the privileged and chosen few.
5) Above all, don’t let any Bush family member or Religious Reich leader instruct
you in religious or family values they don’t follow themselves. Remember their
motto: “Rich in Valuables, Poor in Values.”
Rightwing Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists control virtually all of

America’s religious radio and television media, having purchased wide networks of
radio and television stations over the past four decades. This control enabled them to
set for America a decidedly narrow list of “religious issues,” as they pursued their
extreme rightwing politics. Media power does matter. Ownership has its privileges.
Over 1,600 rightwing Christian radio stations and about 250 Christian television
stations constitute a rightwing web that provides a consistent rightwing message.
Pat Robertson, a minister of politics and propaganda who ran for president in
1988, even has his own television network called the Christian Broadcasting Com-
pany, on which he has hosted The 700 Club for decades. This live television program
is broadcast daily from Virginia City, Virginia, and, according to the network’s own
website, airs in 95% of America’s television markets and in almost 90 million
American homes, and is seen daily by about one million viewers.
Robertson is hardly the loopiest or most dangerous of the rightwing preacher
politicians. For example, check out D. James Kennedy, a Dominionist fundamental-
ist and biblical literalist who had a political agenda that many would say makes the
Taliban look mainstream, and who believed God wants Dominionists to seize control
of all branches of the U.S. government in the name of God. Kennedy built and until
his death on September 5, 2007, ran a $35 million-per-year empire with a focus on
winning elections for Christian fundamentalists. His Coral Ridge Ministries in Flor-
ida has a radio and television audience estimated at 3.5 million. The Coral Ridge
Hour shamelessly promotes a rightwing political agenda and is broadcast to about

150 countries in the American Forces Network. Bush genuflected before Kennedy
and obtained his blessing before running for president. In return Kennedy had special
access to the Bush White House.
Although lacking formal theological training, hard-line extremist James Dobson
leveraged his Focus on the Family media empire to become the most effective evan-
gelical proselytizer and Christianist for Bush in 2004, and in 2006 he launched an-
other nationwide church-based campaign focused on using churches in key close
election districts to register millions of Republicans and distribute millions of elec-
tion guides carefully crafted to support Republican candidates. Dobson has about 7
million listeners and organized stadium rallies for Bush.
Rightwing extremist preachers have unintentionally converted many good Chris-
tians to atheism. Don’t let them do the same to you.
Be Proud of America’s Liberal, Progressive Accomplishments

In the 1960s many Christians in the South, including many evangelicals and Baptists,
both liberal and conservative, joined the liberal progressive cause of bringing civil
rights to blacks in the South. This struggle for social justice must have made Jesus
proud.
The landmark federal legislation known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. President
Kennedy sent the legislation to Congress in 1963, and President Johnson coura-
geously supported and signed it even though he knew this legislation would cause his
party to suffer tremendously in the South. Immediately after signing the bill, Johnson
said, “We have lost the South for a generation.” Johnson was right except that he
underestimated the time period. In fact, the Democratic Party’s Christian stand
against racism caused it to lose the South for several generations.
The majority of Southern whites who supported segregation and opposed the ex-
pansion of civil rights for blacks held their noses and bolted for the Republican
Party, which welcomed their bigotry and Old South “white-sheets” mentality with
open arms. While much progress has been made for equal racial opportunity since
1964, Jesus knows that the struggle for civil rights in the South, in the rest of Amer-
ica, and throughout the world continues into the 21st century. Although the GOP in
the 21st century has no monopoly on racism, 92.666%93 of the racists in the United
States are proud members of the GOP, which ever since 1964 has been skillfully
throwing racist raw red meat to undereducated and poor whites, who ironically are
natural political allies of blacks, not their enemies. When Bush became President,
America’s values went South.
From the time of America’s founding to the present, virtually all of the major ad-
vancements in freedom and the American way of life were due to the hard work of
liberal progressive people of faith. Their beliefs and long history of accomplishments
shaped America into the beacon of freedom that many in the world still admire, not-
withstanding Bush and the neo-GOP. Although that beacon has been dimmed by
imperial Bush League policies, values and incompetence, never has the time been
93
OK, I made up this precise number. The actual percentage could be even higher.
better for liberals and progressives of faith to rise to the great challenge, revitalize
America, and pursue that never ending American quest for freedom, hope and oppor-
tunity for all, not just the privileged and chosen few.
SIDEBAR: Another Big Media Lie—that “Liberal” is a Dirty Word
As masters of Orwellian doublespeak and dirty politics, the Republican Party has
worked hard over the years to make “liberal” a four-letter word. America’s rightwing
Big Media, especially the “hate radio” spectrum spawned and monopolized by the
extreme right, relentlessly pushes this mean-spirited slander.
Bush and the GOP avoid meaningful debate on important issues where their posi-
tions are weak and would not be supported by the people if the truth were on the
table. They count on enough voters to be gullible and misinformed. They count on
unprecedented piles of cash from Big Money to make their slogans and deceptive ads
overwhelm the public discourse. As Big Money capitalists, they market their decep-
tive message just as Big Tobacco markets cigarettes. They believe and practice the
words of Edith Sitwell, “The public will believe anything, so long as it is not
founded on truth.”
But remember also the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Repetition does not
transform a lie into a truth.” So be proud of being a liberal, or a “progressive” if you
prefer that synonym.
When you turn on the radio and hear the word “liberal” uttered with scorn, just
for fun think of that four-letter word “Bush.” Unfortunately for America and Bush
himself, W took a good family name—Bush—and in the eyes of the world turned it
into an obscenity.
Speaking of obscenities, Bush single handedly made “FEMA”94 a dirty four-letter
F-word for millions of people in the South. Just one of many disastrous fumbles by
Bush during his Bush League watch, Hurricane Katrina showcased his administra-
tion’s cold unchristian uncaring corporate heart, plus the unprecedented corruption
and clumsy incompetence that so epitomizes his administration and the “Republi-
can’t Party” in this 21st century. In his January 2007 State of the Union speech he
didn’t even mention Katrina or New Orleans.
Jesus is the ultimate compassionate liberal. He’s so liberal that he’s a revolution-
ary. The only quibble with the term “compassionate liberal” is that it is redundant—
since liberals are naturally compassionate, you can save a word and just say liberal.
So let’s simply say Jesus is a liberal. Period.
On the other hand, let’s consider the oxymoronic label “compassionate conserva-
tive” that Rove cleverly pulled out of thin air and stuck on Bush. The reason for this
marketing trick is that “conservative” sounds too, well, mean, especially to anyone
who had a glimmer of what Bush and the neo-GOP wanted to do to the bottom 90%
of America.
94
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Well, Rove had a problem, because “conservative” does mean “mean.” So Rove
added “compassionate” to it. “Compassionate conservative” did sound better, even
though no one could figure out what it really meant. But, as Jesus said, “no matter
how much lipstick you put on a pig, it’s still a pig.”95
Jesus was the liberal. Herod the Great and Emperor Tiberius were the conserva-
tives. Jesus was compassionate. Herod and Emperor Tiberius were not. Likewise,
there is no compassion in America’s latter-day neocon warmongering empire build-
ers. Thus Jesus speaks today to Bush and the GOP: “Stop the spying, stop the lying,
stop the dying.”
The American Revolution: Yes, those rotten liberals—revolutionaries even—of

America’s 13 colonies, especially the true blue, progressive patriots of
Massachusetts, risked their lives in the birth of our nation. The American conserva-
tives of those days strongly supported England’s King George III, even though re-
portedly he could not speak English coherently, and they called our liberal patriots
bad names such as traitor. Had he been alive then, America’s King George III—W,
that is—would have opposed any change in the status quo, not wanting to jeopardize
the big profits he was making at the public trough in the government regulated tea
trade, a Halliburton-type cha-ching operation he inherited from his father, aka 41.
Our King George III might have said, “Don’t rock the boat—we rich is doing fine,
and I hate elections anyways.”
It’s a proven fact that 99%+ of the DNA of America’s George III is identical to
the DNA of the British Empire’s George III. Yes, all these “Georges” are confusing.
Let’s just all agree that America has suffered greatly from too many greedy, gorging,
not so gorgeous, Georges.
Speaking of liberal patriots (who are willing to put their own lives on the line in
just wars) and conservative Super Rich phony cowboys (who risk only the lives of
others), we’ll take the New England Patriots over the Dallas Cowboys on any Sun-
day.
All Americans benefit from the liberal progressive values underlying the Ameri-
can Revolution.
The Emancipation Proclamation: Virtually all Americans also now support and
benefit from the liberal values that underlie the Emancipation Proclamation, which
was issued by Abraham Lincoln during America’s Civil War (1861-65), and which
freed America’s blacks from slavery. Southern whites had wanted to keep their black
slaves, who were legally classified as property and considered sub-human or non-
human. This slavery seemed just and Christian because the whites had purchased
their blacks in a perfectly legal manner. But a wide spectrum of liberal progressive
Christians disagreed, and America fought its bloodiest war.
It is sad and ironic that Southern whites—most of whom bolted the Democratic
Party when it went too far in fighting for civil rights four decades ago—have hi-
95
OK, Jesus didn’t actually say this, but he probably wishes he had. He did say: “You shall
love your neighbor as yourself.” Matthew 22:39.
jacked Lincoln’s Republican Party, jettisoned its traditional values, and now run it as
the Confederate Party. It is difficult for southern white Republicans to say “Abraham
Lincoln” and “Republican Party” in the same sentence without laughing. Jefferson
Davis must be smiling. The Confederate flag is still much more popular in the South
than the Stars and Stripes, and a Confederate currency has replaced the dollar thanks
to the financial malfeasance of Bush and the neo-GOP. Meanwhile, the struggle for
civil rights continues to this day.
American Civil War: Well, you know the theme here, although none dare call it
treason. It really all comes down to family values. Was the family known as The
United States of America worth preserving? Would America allow those who didn’t
believe in social justice for all to take their black slaves and split in an ugly divorce?
The patriotic liberals of the north, led by Abraham Lincoln, fought America’s most
ugly and bloody war with the racist whites of the South, led by Jefferson Davis.
The American Civil War officially ended in 1865, and Northerners stopped fight-
ing it then. However, the South never stopped fighting, and many Southern whites
will acknowledge this if you ask. Well, the Civil War is now really finally over, and
the South won. Conservative Southern white males grabbed control of the
Republican Party in order to run America like a plantation for its new plantation
owners—the Super Rich and Big Corporations.
Voting Rights for American Women: Looking back to a time about a century
ago, it is hard now to fully appreciate the long struggle of liberal progressive Ameri-
cans to give women the right to vote. American women now take their 19th Amend-
ment rights for granted, rights that conservative males opposed because women were
going too far.
The struggle for sexual equality in America continues today, and it’s grounded in
that liberal, revolutionary notion that women are people too.
Not that much has changed. The primary enemy of American women today still
is America’s wiener-take-all misogynists—a huge rutting herd of old conservative
white males, many from the so-called Religious Right—who want to control women,
dictating what women can and cannot do, especially regarding personal and private
matters of the family, the bedroom, reproduction, and the female body.
Women, continue to stand up for yourselves and your families. Men, stand up for
women and your families, and help elect more women to public office. Imagine how
much better, and more peaceful, the world would be if only women could vote and
only women could be national leaders. A constitutional amendment implementing
this would make more sense than any of the constitutional amendments recently pro-
posed by conservatives males.
Integration of the Military: Blacks fought in World War II with distinction but
largely in segregated units. Following the war Harry Truman ordered the integration
of the U.S. military, notwithstanding the heated opposition of many generals, mostly
Southern whites who inaccurately predicted terrible negative consequences including
morale problems, violence, and a reduction in military capability. Our nation still
benefits from Truman’s decisive liberal action to promote social justice and civil
rights.
The New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, including Social Security: The GOP’s
efforts to emasculate Social Security will continue.
Medicare: This efficiently run program for America’s seniors was signed into
law in 1965 by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson as an amendment to Social
Security, and he enrolled Harry Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary. The GOP
has been busy trying to gut it, along with Medicaid. We’ll discuss both of these im-
portant programs in the next chapter, along with Social Security.
Well, you see the picture. The list of liberal, progressive achievements is long,
and there are many items that we could add to it. Here are just a few: minimum
wage; worker safety; child labor laws; veterans’ rights and programs; food and drug
safety; transportation safety; rights for the disabled; clear air and water legislation;
anti-discrimination protections; equal employment opportunity; GLBT rights; birth
control and family planning; public education; and let’s not forget the Constitution
itself and the Bill of Rights.
America’s liberals and progressives had to fight for each one of these achieve-
ments, sacrificing and working hard to overcome reactionary conservative opposi-
tion. On occasion conservatives supported these efforts, but generally they did not.
Eventually, the “radical” views of progressives are adopted by most conservatives, or
at least by their children and grandchildren, who learn, for example, that giving
blacks and women the right to vote is not really that bad an idea.
The progressive achievements are based on progressive values that are, or be-
come, cherished American values. They are at the core of what defines America as a
free and just society, and they were the envy of the world until the Religious Right
and the neo-GOP arrived on the scene.
Listening to the propaganda of America’s rightwing media and politicians, one
might conclude that rightwing Christians go to bed each night smugly knowing they
are morally superior to the rest of us. In the real world, however, rates of teen preg-
nancy, births outside marriage, divorce, adultery, spousal abuse, premarital sex,96
child abuse, adulterous gay sex by televangelists, bigamy, and so forth, are just as
high, and typically higher, in the red zones of America’s Bible Belt than they are in
Massachusetts and the rest of that American Sodom and Gomorrah known as the
East Coast. And when it comes to hypocrisy, the readings in those red zones are off
the charts, unequaled anywhere in the world.
Acknowledging that sad reality, a few evangelical leaders on the right have be-
moaned the fact that they cannot truly expect to change America until rightwing
Christians lower their own divorce rates, etc. and practice what they preach. Amen.
This discussion provides clues as to the answer to that pithy question raised by so
many American voters: “Why is it so difficult to find a viable GOP candidate for
high office who is not a serial wife abuser and adulterer?”
The Religious Right constantly shouts the exclusive correctness of their Christi-
anity, but Christ’s teachings are much more in line with liberal Christianity. You
don’t have to be the loudest right-eous Christian to do Christ’s work, and in fact you
don’t have to be a Christian. However, if you want to do Christ’s work, it certainly
helps if you’re a liberal.
96
By the way, if you never get married, it’s not “premarital” sex. (This has nothing to do with
this chapter—it’s just funny.)
There are many Christians of all denominations, as well as countless non-

Christians, doing God’s work in Afghanistan and Iraq, trying, typically in small per-
sonal ways, to make life better for Afghanis and Iraqis in any way they can. They
aren’t in the spotlight, and they don’t seek it. They are not getting rich, and some
have been killed, such as Tom Fox of Christian Peacemaker Teams who was killed
by his captors in Iraq in March 2006. Their dedication and bravery contrast sharply
with that of America’s rich rightwing televangelists. In the run-up to the Iraq war
some of these television stars gushed about how great it was going to be to go to Iraq
and convert Muslims to Christianity. Their subsequence silence was deafening.
To be clear, there are countless evangelical Christians of all stripes who contrib-
ute enormously to charitable and humanitarian efforts around the globe. Just don’t
expect to see the “show-me-the-money” Pat Robertsons of America knocking on
doors in Baghdad any time soon, trying to convert the residents to Christianity, or
trying to make their lives better.
Bush League Christianity is Bombing in Baghdad

Whether real or fake, the religious underpinning of the Bush League of Nations
alone is reason enough to end it. It is both unconstitutional and counterproductive for
the U.S. government—which until Bush was anchored in religious freedom and
separation of church and state—to promote Christianity of any flavor in the world.
Especially harmful are Bush’s statements, intended primarily for his far right-
wing political base, to the effect that he feels directed by God and that he feels God
chose him to lead American’s efforts against terrorism.
The disastrous Bush League of Nations charade in Iraq must be ended immedi-
ately. America must renounce the misguided and un-American goals of The Project
for the New American Century, while folding up the Bush regime’s imperial tents.
The world understands the insanity, but the true believers in the Bush regime will
never admit they were wrong, and they will abandon neither their Bush League war
on Iraq nor their imperial policies that led to it, so long as they hold the reins of
power. Only the American people can force the change.
SIDEBAR: Five People Bush Meets in Hell
Security Guard (Saddam Hussein): “Stay in line there, cretin!”

Bush: “Cretin? Don’t you know who I am? Me and my kind always go to the front. I
want the best table, free gore-may food, that kinda stuff.”
Saddam: “Everyone knows who you are. In fact, the vote letting you in was unani-
mous.”
Bush: “There’s voting here? Where am I? In Hell? Hah, hah, hah …”
The background din was replaced by several seconds of Pure Silence, which always
happens in Hell when a Profound Truth is uttered.
Bush: “Well, just take me to my ranch. I’m scheduled for another three-week vaca-
tion … and, dang, I haven’t had one since last month. Hey, come to think of it, I
had only a half dozen vacations—or was it six?—right before 9/11 ... or was it
11/9? Dang, I know I was on vacation more than half the time, a little over 40%.”
Saddam: “‘Take you to your ranch’—now that’s pretty funny. Hmm, maybe we’ll
arrange a side trip for you— it’s just a few brimstones away, right above us in
Texas. Say, you don’t recognize me, do you?”
Bush: “Well, you kinda look familiar, but your neck looks funny. And you’re much
too dark for him. Too colored … too tanned, I think.”
Saddam: “We all get a little toasted that way down here. So color doesn’t matter
here—unlike up top in Texas where so many of you Damned Republicans come
from. Hell, you Republicans from Texas alone make up 66.6% of Hell—if we ran
an election down here, you dudes would win in a landslide without even cheating.
But I suppose you’d cheat anyway, just on habit and general principles.”
Bush: “Well, ouch! That really hurts! So how do you divide people, you know, pick
on them? Do you have blacks, too?97 Hey, do you have any queers? … immi-
grants? … and poor people and crips? … and colored, OK other colors … I
mean all those targets on Karl’s list … what I mean is … ”
Saddam: “Shut up! I don’t have time to listen to your babble. You’re causing my
head to overheat. Shut up!”
Bush: “Hey, there must be lots of hot babes here … huh?”
Saddam: “Hot babes? Oh, you mean women.”
Bush: “Yah, that’s it. How many do I get? How many are there?”
Saddam: “Well, there are none, at least none for you Damned Republicans.”
Bush: “None! Why’s that?”
Saddam: “Because the worst woman is better than the best male Republican.”
Again … sudden Pure Silence, this time setting a new record for length. The pain
oozing from all the horny, testosterone-afflicted, Hellions was palpable.
Saddam: “Dubya, you’re going to be bunking with Cheney in the Paris Room.”
Bush: “Holy shit! I must be in Hell! Please! Please take this Bush Family Pass and
send me to Heaven. I have to get away from him … and Rumsfeld … and Rove …
and away from Cheney … and …”
Saddam: “Hey, stupid, you already said Cheney!”
Bush: “Well, for Dick Shooter, I just wanted to be sure.”
97
“Do you have blacks, too?” This was Bush’s nitwit question to dumbfounded Brazilian
President Fernando Cardoso in late 2001.
Saddam: “A Bush Family Pass for Heaven? No such luck. By the way, I’m bunking
with you guys too. Hey, I’ll show you that neat photo of Rummy and me back in
the good ol’ days— it’s posted on the volcano entrance. You know, back in the
1980s when he and his Neanderthal neocon gang were helping me kill all those
Iranians … what a gas! More than one million bastards killed … lots of civilians
and child soldiers … hah, hah, hah … makes me feel good just thinking about it.”
Bush: “Yah, me too. So our weapons … our chemical weapons related programs …
the WDMs … or BMWs … or WMDs whatever … the intelligence … plus Rummy
… that kinda stuff … helped you a lot, huh?”
Again, Pure Silence.
Bush: “Hey Saddy Boy, maybe me and you can gang up on good ol’ Cheney … you
know, good ol’ Chicanery Boy. Now he’s one dude I never trusted, never liked. A
real world class Dick. But he had those photos of me and … dang!” … [pause, as
Bush mulls over his fate] … “Hey, Saddy Boy, I bet your mustache tickles.”
Saddam: “Here’s looking at you kid.”98
Bush: “Yah, we’ll always have the Paris Room.”99
Pure Silence.
We now turn our attention to “The GOP’s War on America,” which is Part IV of
this book (Chapters 11 and 12.)
98
With apologies to Casablanca fans.
99
Ditto. I hope thoughts of Bush and Saddam in flagrante delicto don’t cause you to throw up
the next time you watch Casablanca.
PART IV
The GOP’s War on America

CHAPTER 11
The GOP’s War on America’s Workers,

the Poor and the Disadvantaged
Of the Rich, By the Rich, For the Rich
There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Ten-

nessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you
can’t get fooled again.
—George W. Bush, Sept. 17, 2002
The Bush neocons wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and 9/11 gave them the
convenient excuse they sought. However, they faced a major inconvenient fact—that
Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, the connection was so nonexis-
tent that it is highly likely that not even one individual among the hundreds of thou-
sands of Iraqis who died because of Bush’s war had had even an inkling of bin
Laden’s 9/11 plan, let alone supported him or his plan (versus Bush himself, who
had had much more than an inkling, but ignored all warnings.)
The neocons correctly concluded that they could make it to Baghdad by duping a
do-nothing-good, see-no-evil GOP Congress and gullible American voters through a
relentless campaign of lies and distortions. The Bush League of Nations, one key
element of that campaign of mass deception, was intended to make Americans be-
lieve that there was broad international support for the Iraq war.
Although the Bush League did provide modest military advantages to the United
States in Iraq, its main purpose was to provide essential propaganda for domestic
consumption, thus paving the road to war.
The war in turn helped push an extreme domestic agenda for America, which is
the subject of this Part IV of this book. It did so by: (1) distracting the voters’ atten-
tion from domestic legislation and executive decisions, both legal and illegal, and (2)
fueling perpetual fear, thereby boosting knee-jerk support for America’s “war presi-
dent” in both international and domestic affairs, including his unprecedented assault
on the U.S. Constitution and America’s democracy.
Do Bush and the GOP have a strategy for success in Iraq, let alone an exit strat-
egy? Is there anyone in the entire world outside America who believes Bush and the
GOP have a strategy for success in Iraq, or ever did?
As for Bush’s personal “exit strategy,” it’s apparent to the most casual observer
that he intends to hang on until January 20, 2009, and then “cut and run,” dumping
his Bush League mess into the lap of his Democratic successor. This will fit well that
familiar pattern of George W. Bush’s entire personal, business and political life:
defecate and go, leaving the cleanup to others.
In parallel, Bush’s and the GOP’s domestic plan is “gut and run.” Give trillions
of dollars to the Super Rich and Big Business. Savage the U.S. government by bloat-
ing it while making it less efficient and massively more corrupt. Run up multiple
enormous unsustainable deficits and debts. Bankrupt America both morally and fi-
nancially. Plant the seeds for the GOP Great Depression II. Screw generations of the
unborn by giving them the GOP Shaft. Take the money and run. “Gut and run.”
Both internationally and domestically, someone else will have to cope with the
enormous piles of GOP excrement left by America’s worst president ever and Amer-
ica’s most corrupt Congress of the last century.
Going for a Bush trifecta, let’s throw in Bush’s personal plan for his early ado-
lescent years—the first two-thirds of his life—which was “rut and run.”
So, to sum it up, here’s Bush’s trifecta:
1) Adolescent Years (to age 40)—Rut and Run
2) International/Iraq—Cut and Run
3) Domestic Policies—Gut and Run
In this chapter we’ll focus on a few choice items from the GOP’s destructive do-
mestic agenda.
The Wedgies—A Phony Culture War

The focus of this chapter is on the big money issues—feeding the Super Rich at the
expense of everyone else—the raison d’être of the Bush administration and the GOP.
Included are some of the so-called cultural issues used by the Bush regime and the
GOP to inflame, divide and conquer—anything to remain in power so they could
continue carrying water for the Super Rich.
The Bush administration is especially adept at amplifying, and frequently creat-
ing out of thin air, so-called “wedge” issues designed to rally and inflame its sup-
porters and gain lots of votes. Although the immediate purpose of this assault—
which ramps up right before each election—is to win elections, the real long-term
prize is the milking of America by and for the Super Rich.
The “wedgies,” which typically are soft inflammatory “cultural/religious” issues,
are tricks of the trade to accomplish an unrelated secular agenda that could not be
accomplished without these tricks. At the same time, they deflect attention from real
Christian issues that demand but don’t get attention.
Prejudices are exploited, minorities are bashed, wars are waged, and artificial so-
cial issues such as Terri Schiavo (including the publicity stunt of Bush flying back to
Washington to sign a bogus bill) are created—all for the purpose of energizing
Bush’s base and distracting America so that the GOP and the Super Rich can take the
loot out the back door.
Gay marriage is one of the most prominent wedge issues. In the run-up to the
2004 presidential election, Bush conservatives calculated correctly that pushing an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage in all states would be a
CHAPTER 11 — THE GOP’S WAR ON AMERICA 227
clever wedge issue to use against Democrats and attract the Religious Right to the
polls. Republican senators wasted the U.S. Senate’s time on this charade even though
they knew it would be impossible to get the necessary three-fourths approval of the
Senate.
When campaigning in Ohio in 2004, where conservatives were attempting to get
a ban on gay marriage on the ballot, Bush was met with a newspaper ad that read:
“Jobs lost in Ohio since 2001: 255,000; gay marriages in Ohio: 0. Focus on Ameri-
cans’ real priorities, Mr. President.”
That sums it up. The cultural bashing by the GOP successfully diverted attention
from truly important problems, especially Bush’s shortcomings in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Bush was reelected in 2004, the GOP maintained control of Congress, and
America was safe for GOP looting for at least another two years.
A growing number of conservatives believe it is not appropriate to amend the
Constitution for the purpose of banning gay marriage. Even Dick and Lynne Cheney,
who have a lesbian daughter, believe this is a matter for the states to decide, not the
federal government, or so they said. It was not until after the 2004 election, shortly
before Christmas 2006, that their daughter, Mary, announced she and her partner
were going to have a baby in the spring.
We wish the new family of three well, and we pray for that day in America when
the birth of a child to good parents like Mary Cheney and Heather Poe no longer
triggers such ill will from the Religious Wrong or anyone else. We pray for that day
when such a joyful event will be no more newsworthy than the birth of any other
child in America.
SIDEBAR: “Gay Marriage? Haven’t They Been Punished Enough?” (Jesus

Talks About Gay Marriage.)
Jesus sat listening to a group of dusty travelers at a dusty camel stop along a dusty
Interstate near dusty Anywhere, Texas. The travelers were bemoaning the sad state
of American-Style Marriage, especially in blood-red areas of red states like Texas.
One dusty sage noted, “About half the red marriages in Texas are total failures—
divorces, I mean—and 62% of the rest are close to cardiac arrest.”
“Yup,” interjected Jesus, “you wouldn’t buy a camel with that track record.”
Seeking to bait and trap the long-haired hippie liberal, the Pharisee Phat Robert-
son—who had just stepped out of his air-conditioned “Leave-No-Chauffeured-
Preacher-Behind” limo and was both cranky and cranked up—asked Jesus: “Why
should those perverted, disgusting queers—the evil doers who have caused every
abomination, every hurricane, every fornication and plague afflicting God’s people,
the South’s defeat in the Civil War and the freeing of our slaves, the collapse of
Christian … well, all things evil—why should those friggin’ fornicating fornicators
have the right to marry and thus pervert that most holy institution of …”
Interrupting the sputtering well-lathered Phat, Jesus replied: “And so, Pharisee
Phat, you are trying to ask, ‘Should American gays and lesbians have the right to
marry?’ My Father in Heaven recently told me, ‘Of course not, Son! Haven’t they
been punished enough?’”
A “hah, hah, hah” hallelujah chorus rang out from the crowd, except that no
laughter came from the gurgling gullet of Pharisee Phat. Sadly, Phat’s unique dou-
ble-stranded helix of DNA—one strand for Bigotry and one for Buffoonery—
permitted him joyful laughter only when the least, the last, and the lost were being
screwed, barbequed and tattooed by the Religious Right.
“But kidding aside,” continued Jesus, “I say that even a blind woman can see that
it is heterosexuals, especially the males—Dad sometimes calls them the ‘Dumb-Stick
Afflicted’—who most violate and profane marriage. Therefore I say onto you that it
is the heterosexuals who should forfeit their right to marry, and thus, henceforth,
only gays and lesbians should have that sacred right.”
“Yes, a gay marriage is better than an unhappy marriage,” Jesus noted.
“You see,” continued Jesus, “marriage is like a camel. A camel looks a little dif-
ferent from each perspective … it just depends on where you’re standing. Unfortu-
nately, bigoted rightwing male Texan politicians don’t know squat about raising
healthy camels.”
Jesus then reinforced the lesson with several parables—all grounded in love, tol-
erance, faith, liberty and personal responsibility—including the observation that a
Christian is obligated to worry first about the log in his own camel’s eye and not the
speck in his neighbor’s camel’s eye.
Well, Jesus was talking pretty fast at this point, and although your faithful scribe
may have missed something, you get the general idea. Jesus did add something here
about Christians not having the right to judge or screw up their neighbor’s camel,
particularly when they’re busy mis-screwing their own. Like I said, Jesus was talking
pretty fast. Anyway, reinforcing his lesson with a nice simile, Jesus said, “A loveless
marriage is like Bush’s horseless ranchette in Texas—a sham and a shame. In the
Middle East, we Arabs and Jews say it is like a wannabe leader who is all saddle and
no camel.”
With sad disappointed eyes, Jesus then looked straight into Pharisee Phat’s
heart—or, more accurately, into that part of Phat’s fat corpus where a heart is usually
found—and spoke thus: “It is more difficult to find a multi-millionaire Religious
Right preacher who has not violated his marriage vows—one who lives the purity
tests that he wishes to impose on all others, especially women—than it is to find a
flying camel that speaks fluent French.”
This last observation by Jesus for some reason—perhaps it was the French part—
really got Phat’s camel—or rather, his goat—turning Phat permanently into a Cate-
gory 5 hurricane of foaming fury and ballistic bigotry, although many longtime Phat
observers later remarked they could hardly tell the difference.
Tens of millions of rightwing American Christians, including Pharisee Phat

Robertson, believe that Muslims will burn in Hell for eternity unless they convert to
Christianity and accept Jesus. As a personal religious matter, this belief represents
freedom of religion—and Bush as an individual is free to believe this—but as an
ingredient, even the slightest ingredient, of American foreign policy, it represents
insanity, and that’s where “W” the president became “Wacko.”
Bush grossly misused and abused religion to sell his war on Iraq. If Christianity
were a child, Bush would be a pedophile. His immoral Bush League values are just
not in the ballpark.
Much of the world sees Bush’s war on Iraq as a militant evangelical Christianist
war. Along the way Bush and the Religious Right co-opted the term “evangelical”
and gave evangelicals a bad name. The invasion of Iraq offered rightwing evangeli-
cals the illusory prospect of traveling to Iraq and converting Muslims into Chris-
tians—but, alas, not one rich leader of America’s Religious Right has had the cour-
age to go to Iraq and chew on that bone.
The milking of cultural/religious issues by Bush and the GOP Cons has several
hallmark characteristics. These conservatives talk or cast meaningless votes about
the soft issues, but, after the election, they go back to work for the Super Rich, who
actually get something. Lies and deception are standard operating procedure. Say one
thing and do another. This is Bush and GOP conservatism at its best—conservatives
con you when it serves their interests. They especially con middle- and low-income
workers who vote Republican for this or that hot social issue. Here are some exam-
ples:
• GOP conservatives talk about making government smaller—but the Super
Rich get a big cut in capital gains taxes (and, along the way, the conserva-
tives actually make government much bigger, which helps keep that “issue”
alive.)
• GOP conservatives talk about bashing gays and restricting their rights—but
the Super Rich get the elimination of the estate tax (which only helps the
top one-half of 1% of all estates, as the bottom 99.5% paid zero estate tax in
the first place.)
• GOP conservatives talk about restoring traditional values in America—but
the Super Rich and Big Business get tax breaks totaling more than one
thousand billion dollars, plus reduced IRS audit and enforcement regarding
their tax returns.
• GOP conservatives talk about stopping abortion—but the Super Rich and
Big Business get massive deregulation—typically involving privatization of
the profits and socialization of the costs and risk—and stuff hundreds of bil-
lions of dollars into their own pockets.
Bush, his family and his neocon team do not practice what they preach. For ex-
ample, the Bush administration pushes abstinence-only sex education. But what are
the odds of finding even one adult member of the extended Bush family who has
practiced abstinence before marriage? If Bush wanted to demonstrate moral consis-
tency and strong leadership regarding this “important” issue, he could have de-
manded virginity tests for his two daughters.
The Bush regime criticizes the content and language in movies and on television.
Yet both Bush and Cheney use foul language without apology, and their policies are
much more deadly than anything in the media.
The storm troopers in the Cons’ attack on minority rights and women’s rights are
a gaggle of gleeful white men, who especially love to tell women what they can and
cannot do with their bodies, while their own testosterone-driven defects are immune
from scrutiny.
Bush’s Domestic Banners

Virtually all of Bush’s domestic agenda can be explained and predicted by two ban-
ners he proudly carries on behalf of the Republican Party:
• Banner No. 1: “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich.” Does a policy
favor the Super Rich and large corporations? If yes, then Bush knows it is
an excellent policy. Consequences and fairness don’t matter, since the core
of the GOP’s donor base is happy. The corollary is that if a policy helps the
working poor or middle class, it is a bad policy.
• Banner No. 2: “The Prince of War—Pandering Warmonger for the Reli-
gious Right.”
Don’t even pretend to represent all the people. Show your strength, leadership
and extreme religiosity by dividing and bashing. Your kind of so-called Christians
will love you for your rightwing religiosity. Ignore facts and avoid critical thinking,
knowing that God is directing you. You need the “Christian” vote in order to screw
America’s workers and the world.
These Bush banners have cost middle-and lower-income Americans dearly. They
represent class warfare on America.
The two Bush banners also weaken America’s influence and power in the world.
• Regarding future international coalitions, why would any nation or people
trust Bush or the neo-GOP enough to join America in a major league way?
• Why would poor oppressed peoples living under dictators rally behind a
man who represents the Super Rich and whose family is Exhibit A for crony
capitalism?
• Why would poor but hopeful people in fledging democracies like Gaza and
Iraq respect a warmongering elitist and his party who actively oppose their
interests and aspirations?
• Why would oppressed Muslims anywhere in the world trust this crusader
for the Christian right—a crusader who knows you are going to Hell unless
you convert to his particular flavor of Christianity, and who enjoys sleep-
overs with the rightwing princely dictators of Saudi Arabia?
• Why would workers or the unemployed in Iraq expect anything good from
this two-Americas man who stiffs the working class of America to the ad-
vantage of the don’t-need-to-work class?
Although Bush’s two banners gained him and the GOP millions of votes at home
and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, they cost America the
support and goodwill of billions of “voters” around the world.
We turn our attention now to a few of the most important items on the Con’s de-
structive domestic agenda.
Gutting Social Security to Feed the Super Rich
SIDEBAR: Bush Talks Good about Retirement
“Now, we talked to Joan Hanover. She and her husband, George, were visiting with
us. They are near retirement—retiring—in the process of retiring, meaning they’re
very smart, active, capable people who are retirement age and are retiring.”
—George W. Bush, Feb. 12, 2003
Social Security taxes are very regressive and fall most heavily on middle- and
lower-income working families. Although this fact alone is bad enough, the whole
truth about Social Security is much worse.
Social Security is a major piece of the U.S. tax system—a system that, especially
over the last 25 years, has become a scheme “of the Super Rich, by the Super Rich,
and for the Super Rich.” As we shall see, GOP kleptomaniacs have raided the Social
Security lockbox to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and their privatization
schemes—better known as pirate-ization schemes—are intended to kill the system
completely. Reagan was the first president to raid Social Security funds, and he is
responsible for destroying the Social Security lockbox.
The Internal Revenue Code has grown in length from 14 pages at its inception in
1914 to 17,000 pages. Chances are good that none of those additional pages were
written by or for you, unless you are a member of the Super Rich. But Bush’s corrupt
friends at companies like Enron and Halliburton have their dirty fingerprints all over
them.
SIDEBAR: The K Street Project
A huge army of Washington lobbyists works for the Super Rich and large corpora-
tions. They are paid well because they work financial miracles for their clients in the
hallways and backrooms of Congress. They are welfare workers for the rich and
powerful. They are expert navigators of the GOP public trough in Washington.
There were already far too many lobbyists in Washington when Bush took office,
but the number more than doubled under his watch. The number exploded because
America’s GOP-controlled government was for sale. When it comes to understand-
ing GOP values, just follow the valuables.
By 2005 the number of registered lobbyists in Washington had grown to more
than 34,750, which means there are about 65 lobbyists for each of the 535 elected
senators and representatives in Congress. The scale of corruption is unprecedented.
So is audacity—lobbyists frequently even write the legislation for lazy lawmakers
who are too busy raising money, living high on the hog, and milking the system.
The GOP launched the “K Street Project” in 1995 to force lobbying firms to hire
Republicans and give generously to GOP politicians and causes.100 Among the GOP
thugs leading the carrot-and-stick effort was Tom DeLay, the House majority whip.
The carrot for the lobbyists’ cooperation included access to GOP leaders, reduction
in government regulation and oversight, and the ability to write the legislation and
regulations they really wanted. The stick was the threat to cut off access to Amer-
ica’s GOP-controlled government. The GOP took names, maintained hit lists, and
operated like the Mafia.
The GOP-centric lobbyists and the GOP-run Congress worked hand in hand with
the GOP White House on their pro-Big Business and pro-Big Government agenda.
Yes, notwithstanding the decades of rightwing propaganda about the GOP advocat-
ing smaller government, the exact opposite is true. The expansion of the federal gov-
ernment under Bush and the GOP Congress is unprecedented, and the reason for this
is simple. It’s all about money, lots of money. The bloated, porked-up, GOP-
mismanaged government provides countless opportunities for hungry GOP pigs to
dine at the trough. The “GOP” richly deserves to be called the “Gang of Pigs.”
At the same time, GOP lobbyists are as happy as pigs in mud. Their compensa-
tion has risen enormously since Bush took office, and the amount charged new cli-
ents has about doubled. Average starting salaries for Washington lobbyists have
jumped to about $300,000 per year. The revolving door for government workers and
elected officials has never been better “greased,” with many sought-after individuals
making more than $1 million annually.
What a great system! Everyone is happy, right? Well, not exactly. Middle- and
low-income Americans are getting screwed. In fact, America’s bottom 99% is get-
ting the GOP shaft.
If you want to get sick and outraged about America’s tax system, then you should
read, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the
Super Rich—and Cheat Everyone Else. The author of this popular book is David Cay
Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The New York Times.
If you’d like to focus on the Social Security shell game, which is the subject of
this section, then you should read that book’s Chapter 8, “How Social Security Taxes
Subsidize the Rich.”
Here’s an expanded road map of the gutting of Social Security to date:
Step 1: Congress in 1981 passed the biggest income tax cut in history, even though:
(1) the federal deficit that year was $125 billion; (2) the United States had not had a
balanced budget since the 1960s; and (3) the federal debt was almost $1 trillion. The
Super Rich were the main beneficiaries of this Reagan tax cut—of course. The rich-
est 1% received more than half of the estimated $1.3 trillion tax cut. The highest
income tax rate was substantially reduced from the then current 70%. The now-
100
The GOP’s “K Street Project” takes its name from Washington’s K Street, where many
lobbying firms are headquartered.
discredited champions of supply-side economics pushed the tax cut, although the
Democrats also played a key role in the tax cutting frenzy. [Key point: The Super
Rich made out like bandits.]
Step 2: What happened? Well, the supply-side wizards representing the views of the
Super Rich said that the lower income tax rates for the rich would cause more in-
vestment, more economic growth, and, ultimately, an increase in tax revenues and a
balanced budget. Regarding their promise of increased tax revenues and a balanced
budget in two or three years, they either lied or were stupid, although “they lied” is
the best bet. In any case, they were fox raiding the chicken coop. In 1982 the federal
deficit more than doubled from the previous year, and in 1983 it increased again, to
$343 billion. Our federal government was fiscally out of control, and unemployment
hit 10%. [Key point: The Super Rich were doing fine—they were getting wealthier
because they were not paying their fair share of taxes.]
SIDEBAR: Voodoo Economics
During the 1980 presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush famously referred to the
supply-side theories favored by Reagan as Voodoo Economics. David Stockman,
Reagan’s budget director, later blew the whistle on these theories, together with their
promise of “trickledown” benefits to the middle- and lower-income classes, in his
1996 book, The Triumph of Politics, Why the Reagan Revolution Failed. Reagan, to
his credit, may have initially believed the theories would work. He probably wasn’t
certain, but thought they were worth trying. In any case, when he realized they didn’t
work, he recognized his mistakes and tried not to repeat them, which is to his credit.
However, as discussed below, George W. Bush has repackaged the failed supply-side
snake oil and relentlessly pushed it. Faith-based ideology, coupled with unbridled
greed, has triumphed over facts and common sense.
Step 3: Things were such a mess that Reagan had to accept several tax increases.
However, since Reagan politically couldn’t call them “tax increases,” he consistently
referred to them as “revenue enhancements.” (The progressives in your author’s
home state of North Dakota call this sort of duplicity lying, but in GOP-speak it’s
called talking.) These 1982 tax hikes did not reverse any of the previous income tax
cuts for the rich. Rather, various regressive excise taxes were imposed, including a
nickel-a-gallon gasoline tax, which had the biggest impact on the working poor.
Johnston notes that the revenue enhancements “could also have been called tax hikes
on Joe Lunchpail to benefit the rich.” [Key point: The Super Rich did fine—thanks
to Reagan, their income tax cuts were still in place, and they felt no pain from the
recession or from the “revenue enhancements” pinned on the little people. Very key
point: The tax-and-spend Republicans took a giant stride forward in achieving their
principal goal: shifting as much of the tax burden as possible from the Super Rich to
middle- and lower-income working Americans.]
Step 4: Partly to distract attention from the federal budget mess and the high unem-
ployment rate, the Reagan administration shifted the spotlight to Social Security. A
commission headed by Alan Greenspan in 1982 said that Social Security was in ter-
rible shape, and that unless something was done, there would be a big problem in
about 31 years—yes, 31 years! Democrats and Republicans then worked together to
greatly increase Social Security taxes, even though many said the administration was
just using scare tactics. Senator Daniel Moynihan called the increase “thievery”—the
rich would be the beneficiaries of the stolen goods since they kept their Reagan in-
come tax cuts while everyone else paid more in Social Security taxes. [Key point:
The Super Rich are doing fine—you don’t need to worry about them, given that the
President, Congress, and an expanded army of lobbyists and tax attorneys work for
them.]
Step 5: Several additional increases in Social Security taxes were imposed in the last
three decades. The maximum Social Security tax was $327 per employee in 1970.
By 2006 it had risen to $5,840.40. Since the employer pays the same amount on be-
half of the employee, the maximum tax on the employee is really $11,680.80 per
year in 2006. If your spouse works, you can double this amount to $23,361.60! The
employee and the employer each pay an amount equal to 6.2% of the employee’s
wages, up to a wage cap of $94,200 in 2006. For Joe Lunchpail, or any other middle-
or lower-income wage earner, the effective Social Security tax rate is really double
the 6.2%, which is 12.4%. [Key point: The Super Rich are very happy. For someone
with $1 million in annual income, the effective Social Security tax rate is about one
percent, vs. the effective rate of 12.4% for Joe Lunchpail. For someone making $10
million per year, the effective tax rate is only, well, you get the idea. But keep read-
ing. It gets much worse.]
Step 6: Working Americans have been paying much more each year into Social Se-
curity than is paid out in benefits. This overtaxing started in 1983, and it was very
modest then (only $4.5 billion for the year), but since then it has dramatically in-
creased. From 1999 through 2002, the total amount of Social Security overtaxing
was almost $640 billion. Between 1984 and 2002 the U.S. Government collected
about $1.7 trillion more in Social Security taxes than it paid out in benefits. [Key
point: This is a shill game designed to benefit the Super Rich. To see how, keep
reading.]
Step 7: You are probably thinking, “But wait—the government should be collecting
a lot more each year in Social Security taxes than it pays out, because it has to set
that money aside and have it available years later when people retire—especially
with the baby boomers about to retire.” You would be entirely correct if our govern-
ment was honest, but our government is not. The $1.7 trillion is Social Security over-
taxing has not been set aside in any lockbox. (Remember how the rightwing and the
media laughed at Al Gore for his lockbox focus during the 2000 presidential cam-
paign. Well, he was right, and the expensive joke is on us.) The U.S. Government
has spent all of the $1.7 trillion on its day-to-day operating expenses. The money has
not been invested for us in stocks, bonds, real estate or anything of value other than
U.S. Government IOUs. [Key point: The $1.7 trillion in extra Social Security pay-
ments by middle-and lower-income taxpayers was used to help reduce the large
budget deficits caused by Reagan’s 1981 income tax cuts for the Super Rich. Your
$1.7 trillion was used to offset the taxes no longer paid by the Super Rich. The Super
Rich are doing fine.]
Step 8: Our national debt grew greatly during this period (1984-2002), even though
the $1.7 trillion in Social Security overpayments was used to cover day-to-day ex-
penses of the U.S. Government. As noted above, when Reagan took office, the na-
tional debt was less than $1 trillion. Between 1983 and 2003 the national debt grew
by an additional $3.6 trillion, and it would have grown by an additional $1.7 trillion
(for a total increase of $5.4 trillion) if the $1.7 trillion had been put in a separate
Social Security lockbox where it belonged. [Key point: The Super Rich are doing
fine. Using the keys to the phantom Social Security lockbox, they took and pocketed
most of the $1.7 trillion.]101
SIDEBAR: A National Lottery Creating 1,700,000 New Millionaires.
$1.7 trillion is a lot of money. Note: It’s $1.7 trillion, not $1.7 billion, and not $1.7
million. In billions, it’s 1,700 billions. In millions, it’s 1,700,000 millions.
So, as an alternative, if the $1.7 trillion stolen from the Social Security lockbox
had instead been distributed in a super lottery with $1,000,000 prizes awarded to
random middle- and lower-income taxpayers, rather than just to the Super Rich,
America could have had 1,700,000 new millionaires. Well, America did conduct
such a lottery, but the system was rigged to give virtually all the winning tickets just
to the Super Rich—and they didn’t even have to pay taxes on their winnings.
Alternatively, as David Cay Johnston notes, the $1.7 trillion was enough to dou-
ble the value of all 401(k) retirement plans in the United States.
Step 9: We were snookered again, this time in June 2001 by George W. Bush—just
a few months after he took office following his selection by five Republicans on the
U.S. Supreme Court. Ignoring a multitude of terrorist threats, Bush instead focused
on one of his highest pet priorities—additional tax cuts for the Super Rich. He im-
mediately accomplished this in two mighty blows for them and against everyone
else. First, the most wealthy 1% of all taxpayers received the lion’s share of his fis-
cally irresponsible $1.3 trillion income tax cut. Second, the federal estate tax was
greatly reduced over a period of several years, going to zero in 2010 (with reinstate-
ment in 2011), which estate tax savings, contrary to rightwing propaganda, benefited
only the top 2% of all estates, since 98% of all estates already were totally exempt
101
From 2004 through 2006 Bush grew the national debt by more than an additional $1+ tril-
lion, and stole and gave to the Super Rich many hundreds of billions of dollars more from the
Social Security lockbox. For the “National Lottery” example in the sidebar, however, we’ll
simply stick with the lower $1.7 trillion figure, and not add hundreds of billions of dollars to
it.
from the estate tax. By 2007, only 1 of 200 estates (one-half of 1%) paid any estate
tax whatsoever. Additional rounds of humongous tax cuts for the Super Rich fol-
lowed. [Key point: The Super Rich got much richer. Bush was successful in further
widening the rapidly growing gap between the Super Rich and everyone else.]
SIDEBAR: Welfare for the Wealthy
Bush and other Republicans lied when promoting the elimination of the federal
estate tax. In particular, they painted a totally bogus picture that countless farming
families had lost their farms because of the estate tax. “To keep farms in the family,
we are going to get rid of the death tax,” lied Bush. In fact, he and his lying cocon-
spirators greatly overstated the number of farms lost due to the estate tax. In fact, no
one could identify a single farm that had been lost. There apparently were none! On
the other hand, countless thousands of American families have lost their farms due to
low prices for agricultural products—the result of the new religion of the extreme
right: corporate agribusiness, global competition and the so-called free trade system
that punishes small farmers.
Many of the richest people in America opposed the elimination of the estate tax.
Bill Gates, Sr. and Warren Buffet are two prominent examples. More that 120
wealthy Americans signed a statement in 2001 arguing that “repealing the estate tax
would enrich the heirs of America’s millionaires and billionaires while hurting fami-
lies who struggle to make ends meet.” The Walton family alone would be enriched to
the tune of tens of billions of dollars by the repeal. The estate tax helps promote an
America meritocracy, not an aristocracy of wealth where economic and political
power is passed down from generation to generation.
Bush and other Republicans also lied when saying that the estate tax was unfair
because assets were being taxed multiple times (say, once when you earn it, another
time when you save it, and another time when you die.) To the contrary, without the
estate tax, many of the largest fortunes are never taxed. For example, virtually 100%
of the extended Walton family fortune of tens of billions of dollars in Wal-Mart
stock has never been taxed, and under Bush’s giveaway plans there will never be any
estate tax on it. The Walton family loves Bush’s tax plans, and over the years has
taken extraordinary steps to avoid paying taxes.
In sharp contrast to the Walton billionaires, the Bill Gates family realizes the un-
fairness of all this, and along with many other thousands of very rich Americans,
including Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker and George Soros, oppose the elimination of
the federal estate tax.
“Without an estate tax, these rich men believe, America will have a growing con-
centration of power, not in the hands of the industrious or even the merely lucky, but
in the hands of people whose only smart economic decisions were picking their par-
ents and staying in their good graces,” notes David Cay Johnson.
These enlightened wealthy people believe a person’s success should be based on

merit and less on hereditary. Among the many other reasons why they oppose Bush’s
estate tax madness is that the elimination of the estate tax would hurt countless chari-
ties because it would reduce the tax incentive to make charitable gifts.
Step 10: This is really part of Step 9 and involves a campaign of lies. How could
American voters be so dumb as to allow another Republican president to raid Social
Security for the benefit of the Super Rich? Well, Bush and the GOP lied to America.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, some voters were smart enough to at least
ask about the impact of the proposed huge income tax cut on Social Security. Bush
promised many times during the campaign that he would not touch Social Security
money and that at least $2 trillion of the expected federal surplus (created under Bill
Clinton’s watch) would be locked up safely for Social Security. Bush said, “For
years, politicians in both parties have dipped into the [Social Security] Trust Fund to
pay for more spending. And I will stop it.” Bush lied. He repeated those promises
after his inauguration. Bush lied again. By the time the tax cut legislation passed in
June 2001, several newspapers including The Wall Street Journal had already re-
ported that Bush really intended to pick the Social Security lockbox. [Key point: The
ends—more humongous tax cuts for the Super Rich—justify the means—lies by
Bush.]
SIDEBAR: Paul O’Neill: “We’d all be in jail”
Bush’s handpicked former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill, was extremely
critical of the way Social Security is managed. Speaking to a group of investment
managers just days after Bush’s tax cuts were passed in June 2001, O’Neill said that
if he and his fellow executives had managed their corporate pension funds the way
the U.S. Government managed Social Security, “we’d all be in jail.” O’Neill, a truth
teller who previously was chairman and CEO of Alcoa, said, “we would not be per-
mitted to have pension-fund obligations without assets behind them.” He went on, “I
come to you as managing trustee of Social Security. … Today we have no assets in
the trust fund. We have promises of the good faith and credit of the United States
government that benefits will flow.”
Step 11: This is another snookering of the Social Security system and all middle-
and lower-income taxpayers (like Step 9 above.) Following the 2002 midterm elec-
tions, Bush took the opportunity to further line the pockets of the Super Rich by im-
posing another supply-side tax cut on an already Bush-damaged economy. More than
two-thirds of this $350 billion income tax cut goes to the top 10% of taxpayers. This
further crippled the ability of the U.S. government to set aside funds for Social Secu-
rity. [Key point: The Super Rich are happy. Bush and the Republican-controlled
Congress further lined their pockets, and, in any case, the Super Rich don’t need
Social Security benefits.]
SIDEBAR: The Greenspan Flip Flop
Regarding the interplay between Bush’s record budget deficits and the future of So-
cial Security, flip-flopper Alan Greenspan bowed to rightwing political demands that
there not be any tax increases for the Super Rich (or any cancellation of the large tax
cuts previously given them by Bush.) In testimony before the House Budget Com-
mittee on February 25, 2004, Greenspan urged Congress instead to cut Social Secu-
rity benefits for future retirees. He later repeatedly made this plea. The main cause of
the massive record budget deficits is the tax cuts for the Super Rich, but Greenspan
wanted to protect the Super Rich, while scalping middle- and lower-income retirees.
However, in 2001 Greenspan had assured Congress that the Bush tax cuts would not
jeopardize Social Security benefits. Incredibly, this flip-flopping shill later advocated
that the tax breaks for the Super Rich be made permanent.
Step 12: Assess your level of outrage. If you are a middle- or lower-income worker
(say, anyone but the top 2%) and are retired, or will be retired soon, you should be
outraged at what Bush and the GOP are doing to Social Security and your financial
future. If you are a young middle- or lower-income worker not close to retirement,
you should be incredibly, incredibly outraged:
1) Guess who is now paying for all the Social Security benefits that are cur-
rently being paid out each year to the people already retired;
2) Guess who is effectively pocketing the Social Security “overpayment” that
you make each pay period (hint: it’s not you, and none of your dollars are
going into any Social Security lockbox);
3) Guess who will pay for all Social Security benefits for those people who re-
tire in the coming years, including the baby boomers;
4) Guess who should plan on funding his or her own retirement.
[Key point: You’ve been screwed, and you should be mad.]
Step 13: (making it a baker’s dozen): For simplicity, in the above saga of misdeeds
we focused on the interplay between the tax cuts for the Super Rich and the gutting
of Social Security. There is also interplay—disastrous interplay—between the tax
cuts for the Super Rich and: (1) Medicare, (2) Medicaid, and (3) our exploding na-
tional debt. We’ll cover these topics later in this chapter. If you are not a member of
the Super Rich—or if you are a member of the Super Rich who cares about fairness
and the future of America—then you should be alarmed by the GOP policies of the
Bush administration. [Key point: The screwing is continuing, and you should be
very mad.]
SIDEBAR: Bush’s Base
In October 2000, while wearing a tuxedo and apparently joking to an affluent crowd,
Bush declared, “This is an impressive crowd: the haves and the have-mores. Some
people call you the elites; I call you my base.” [Laughter]
Another disadvantage of Social Security taxes is that they are a form of double
taxation. The wages of Joe and Judy Lunchpail are subject to income taxes, and the
same wages (up to $97,500 in 2007) are also subject to Social Security taxes. (The
Super Rich thus pay this double tax only on a small portion of their income—the first
$97,500 in 2007—which is another nice tax break for them.)
In general, middle- and lower-income working Americans are being double and
triple taxed, but the Super Rich are frequently being single taxed, or half-taxed, or
no-taxed. Capital gains, for example, which are at lower rates, disproportionately
benefit the Super Rich, for whom they are designed. Republicans want work income
to be taxed at a higher rate than idle income. In fact, many Republicans want their
idle income completely exempt from income tax! Also, Republicans have success-
fully shifted much of the tax burden from the income tax to other forms of taxes
(sales tax, gasoline tax, various license and use charges, and so forth, in addition to
the Social Security and Medicare taxes discussed above) that are regressive and thus
fall most heavily on middle- and low-income Americans. For example, a wealthy
person making a million dollars a year could not smoke enough cigarettes, use
enough gasoline, or take his family to enough parks, to make those taxes and charges
constitute more than a drop in the bucket compared to his income. That, of course, is
precisely the goal of Bush’s “of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich” policies. In
addition, higher usage fees—say, for America’s national parks—help keep the riff
raff out.
For years many conservative Republicans had their sights set on destroying So-
cial Security and Medicare, which they see as socialistic. Yes, Social Security is so-
cialistic, and that’s good. Both working and retired Americans strongly support and
need this valuable liberal, progressive program. Americans who count on, or expect
to count on, Social Security benefits in their retirement, as well as Americans who
have family members in that position, would be off their rockers to vote for the GOP,
aka the Cons, aka the Republican’t Party.
One strategy of rightwing conservatives in the GOP is to “starve the beast,”
which means cutting taxes so much for the Super Rich that programs such as Social
Security can no longer be afforded and will have to be cut or eliminated. The strat-
egy also involves making life so painful for middle- and lower-income workers that
they will become predisposed to gutting government. Unfortunately, with Bush at the
financial helm, the “starve the beast” strategy is no longer mere rhetoric. It is being
achieved in an exceptionally aggressive and deceitful manner. Kiss Social Security
and America goodbye.
One of the leading Republican architects of the strategy to kill off the U.S. gov-
ernment is Grover Norquist, who in 1994 helped Newt Gingrich draft the Contract
with America, better known as the Contract on America. In a May 25, 2001, inter-
view with Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Norquist said, “I don’t want to
abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the
bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Incredibly, Bush and his party, the Cons, have taken the “starve the beast” strat-
egy to new previously unimaginable levels of madness. Bush has not only greatly
increased the size of government (versus shrinking it to a size where it can be
drowned,) but he also has run massive budget deficits in order to give tax cuts to the
Super Rich. The resulting huge deficits previously could not have been imagined by
even the most looney Norquist supporters, who undoubtedly believed, “No Republi-
can would do that.” But the Republican Party did do that. Thanks to Bush, America
is on the road to bankruptcy and financial Armageddon—the GOP Great Depression
II—with America’s power and financial future increasingly in the hands of foreign
bankers, including de facto enemies of America and governments that support terror-
ism. The GOP is willing to kill America in order to kill Social Security, which will
be just one minor victim on the GOP road to Armageddon.
The GOP’s massive tax cuts for the Super Rich created the massive budget defi-
cits, which in turn are being cited to justify cuts in Social Security benefits. Unless
America really wakes up, the Cons will get away with this. Greenspan argued for
such cuts in Social Security, even though Social Security now takes in much more
each year than it spends (which is due mainly to huge increases in Social Security
taxes paid by working Americans and the fact that the baby boomers have not yet
started to retire.)
Thanks to tax cuts for the Super Rich, federal revenue as a percentage of gross
domestic product (GDP) declined by 5.2 percentage points (a 25% decline) from
2000 to 2004. This decline exceeded the entire budget deficit by 45% for that year.
Federal individual income tax collections equaled 6.7% of GDP in 2004, having
peaked at 10.2% in 2000. This is a decline of 3.5 percentage points (or 65%) in four
years, and is just slightly less than the entire federal budget deficit ($413 billion) for
that year (2004.)
Because this financial stuff is very complex, it is perfect clay for lying rightwing
politicians who know they cannot sell their snake oil if they tell the truth. Here in a
nutshell is their three-step Dance of Duplicity:
1) they raise regressive taxes (including Social Security taxes) on middle- and
lower-income American workers;
2) they give massive tax cuts to the Super Rich; and, surprise,
3) they reduce or eliminate benefits for workers and retirees.
If you make less than $300,000 per year, the joke is on you.
SIDEBAR: Death Taxes
Karl Rove and other Republican liars are adept at coming up with bumper sticker
slogans to market their deadly snake oil. One example is the deceptive term “death
tax,” which they couple with other lies to hide the truth that 98% of all estates paid
no federal estate tax, and that 99%+ of all estates would have paid zero if reasonable
exemption increases proposed by Democrats had been approved, rather than the ac-
tual looting by Bush which gives hundreds of billions in tax breaks to humongous
estates that now will pay zero taxes.
Duplicitous slogans unfortunately work, especially against working Americans
who work such long hours that they don’t have time to pay attention. For example,
when taxpayers are asked if they are for or against “death taxes,” a huge majority
answers “against.” (Of course! Being against death is like being against disease.)
However, when these same taxpayers are given the essential facts—for example, that
only 2% of Americans who died had an estate big enough to result in any taxes under
the prior law—then by a wide margin they do not want to eliminate the estate tax.
Yes, this tax stuff is complicated and difficult to understand, which works to the
advantage of the Republican liars.
“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” —Attributed to
Albert Einstein.
So don’t feel too bad or alone if you don’t understand all the issues. However,
unless you are Super Rich or have your own tax lobbyist in Washington, D.C., you
are getting screwed by those who do. Thus, it may be worth some of your time to get
involved and let your voice be heard.
Never giving up on their goal of eliminating Social Security, rightwing extrem-

ists can be expected to push forward on privatization, which means the creation of
new personal retirement accounts. In practice, this will prove to be another tax dodge
for the wealthiest in America, who will receive the lion’s share of the tax benefits.
GOP-friendly Wall Street conservatives also love this idea, as it presents an opportu-
nity for fat cat investment bankers and brokers to make hundreds of millions of dol-
lars in additional fees, while greatly increasing the cost of running Social Security. It
will also undermine Social Security financing. Consider also what would have hap-
pened to the value of your private Social Security account during the recent stock
market downturn if this scheme had been in place. Fortunately, the American people,
including not only Democrats but also a significant percentage of Judy and Joe
Lunchpail Republicans, have slowly been awakening to the fact that Bush and the
Cons are pushing fiscal schemes from Hell.
The GOP-run Congress got away with its milking and destruction of America be-
cause too many voters were not paying attention. The voters’ swallowing of the
GOP’s “deficits don’t matter” mantra is adequate proof of that. There are countless
examples of voters not paying enough attention. One of the most costly examples is
the deregulation of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s and the result-
ing collapse of most of America’s S&Ls, which cost American taxpayers more that
1,000 billion dollars. (Imagine a pile of one million dollars, and then imagine one
million such piles.) Not really understanding the complexities, Americans snoozed,
and members of Congress were astounded and relieved that they received passes for
the deregulation mess they caused, with not a single member of Congress losing his
job, going to jail, or even being taken to the woodshed.
Another expensive example is the deregulation of the electric power industry in
recent years, which cost consumers countless billions of dollars in inflated electricity
charges. In this case, Bush-friendly looters including Enron gamed the system and
made out like the bandits they were. Once again, the GOP-controlled Congress, as
well as American voters, handed out too many passes to the GOP’s fat cat corporate
base.
The gutting of Social Security—called privatization by the Bush League loot-
ers—will have even more disastrous consequences. American workers and retirees
should remember that in the GOP dictionary, “privatization” means “pirate-ization.”
American workers and retirees should also heed Bush’s own words, “fool me once,
shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.”
Thanks to God and Franklin Roosevelt, the safety net of Social Security is in
place. If it did not exist, the Banana Republicans would oppose its creation, just as
they did during the GOP Great Depression of the 1930s. Unfortunately, thanks to the
Devil, the GOP aims to destroy the safely net by replacing Social Security with
“broker security” and “social insecurity,” while opening the door to fraud.
Bush spent the first year of his second term traveling across America unsuccess-
fully trying to sell the GOP’s Social Security schemes to America’s voters. The time
he wasted would have been better spent on planning an exit strategy for Iraq, some-
thing he refuses to think about.
SIDEBAR: Strengthening Social Security
The best way to strengthen Social Security is to eliminate the cap on income subject
to Social Security tax ($97,500 in 2007), without changing the payments to retirees.
This cap elimination also has the advantage of ameliorating a major Social Security
negative that operates to the disadvantage of low- and middle-income workers and to
the advantage of the rich, namely that the current tax is very regressive. For example,
a low-income worker making only $10,000 per year pays 6.2% of that in Social Se-
curity tax (12.4% if we include the employer matching amount), while a Bush fat cat
making $1,000,000 per year pays less than 0.6% (less than 1.2% if we include the
employer match.)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)

This public entity exists to protect retirees by guaranteeing the pension obligations of
certain defined benefit pension plans, although the monthly payments per retiree are
capped. The PBGC exists as a safety net for employees and retirees in the event a
covered plan fails or is in danger of failing, which happens when corporations fail to
set aside enough funds each year to cover the retirement benefits that they have
agreed to pay.
Unfortunately, senior executives of many large corporations use such underfund-
ing of pension obligations as a creative accounting tool to pump up corporate profits
and thus their own incentive compensation. In the process they stiff their employees
and retirees, as well as American taxpayers who may later get stuck with a huge bill.
Corporations with covered plans pay insurance to the PBGC, which hires money
managers and consultants to prudently invest the money. All parties have a legal
fiduciary duty to act on behalf of employees covered by the plans, but there is inade-
quate review and auditing by the federal government, since corporations, money
managers and other consultants do not want such oversight.
In 2001 the PBGC had a surplus of more than $7 billion, but by 2005 the PBGC
had a deficit of $23 billion, due to a huge number of corporations walking away from
their pension obligations. Their behavior was definitely Bush League.
Medicare and Medicaid

Medicare is a nationwide, federally administered health insurance program that cov-
ers the costs of certain medical care and hospitalization services for seniors over age
65 and certain other eligible individuals. President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law
in 1965, and most Americans over 65 are covered by it.
Medicaid is a nationwide program sponsored by the federal government and op-
erated by the individual states that provides health care services to certain low-
income individuals. Within broad federal guidelines, the individual states decide who
is eligible, the services covered, the pay rates for providers, and so forth. The pro-
gram varies from state to state and does not provide services to all low-income peo-
ple.
As discussed previously in this chapter, Bush’s massive tax cuts for the Super
Rich have jeopardized both Medicare and Medicaid. Under Bush’s expanded version
of Reagan’s Voodoo Economics, the amounts deducted from your paycheck for
Medicare are not being set aside in any lockbox to be available when needed. Rather,
100% of the amount you pay each pay period (1.45% of all your wages, without
limit, in 2006) is used to pay the current operating expenses of the U.S. government,
and, of course, to fund the GOP’s massive ongoing tax cuts for the Super Rich.
Republicans pump out much propaganda to encourage Americans to believe that
almost all of the federal government “free benefits” go to lazy, shiftless people who
can work but simply choose not to (a description, by the way, that applies better to
the inherited-wealth aristocrats who don’t need to work, and will never need one cent
of benefits from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like.) All sorts of pro-
grams, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, get lumped together in the
rightwing propaganda, and the federal government is incorrectly painted as bloated
with high administrative costs. Out of necessity and greed, Republicans resort to
such lies in order to sell their bogus policy of cannibalizing America’s social safety
net for middle- and low-income Americans in order to fund Bush’s massive tax cuts
for the Super Rich.
Extreme rightwing GOP Neanderthals would completely eliminate all these pro-
grams if they could.
How about the GOP Congress? Although it did strive to screw middle-and low-
income Americans whenever it could by cutting benefits, its primary mission was to
manipulate these programs to create a massive welfare system for large corporations
and the wealthy. We will discuss this further below.
Regarding Medicaid, columnist Bob Herbert in a June 11, 2004, opinion in The
New York Times provides a good example of Republicans at work at the state level.
In May 2004 Mississippi “approved the deepest cut in Medicaid eligibility for senior
citizens and the disabled that has ever been approved anywhere in the US.” When he
signed the rollback legislation, Mississippi’s governor Haley Barbour—a former
chairman of the national Republican Party—complained about taxpayers having to
“pay for free health care for people who can work and take care of themselves and
just choose not to.” The truth is that the new law, in addition to other cuts, ends
Medicaid eligibility for 65,000 low-income seniors and people with severe disabili-
ties, including, for example, “a 36-year-old mother of three who was left a quadri-
plegic after a car accident.” The “stunning rollback of services in Mississippi’s
Medicaid program” was initiated by the Republican-controlled state senate. Accord-
ing to Herbert, “If you want to see ‘compassionate’ conservatism in action, take a
look at Mississippi, a state that is solidly in the red category (strong for Bush) and
committed to its long tradition of keeping the poor and the unfortunate in as ragged
and miserable a condition as possible.”
Hurricane Katrina and a GOP-run FEMA provided another more recent example
of “compassionate” conservatism and incompetence at work. Even organizations
officially classified as terrorist organizations by the United States, such as Hezbollah
in southern Lebanon, provide emergency assistance faster and better than the Bush
League FEMA, and that’s just one reason why they, and not Bush, are winning the
hearts and minds of Muslims.
The Bush administration pushes Medicare policies that favor its base of wealthy
contributors and large corporations over everyone else. The main thrust of Bush’s
2004 massively expensive Medicare legislation—the largest expansion ever—was to
reward pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and other large corporations, all at the
expense of middle- and lower-income working Americans.
Because it is impossible for the Bush regime to sell its Medicare policies to Con-
gress and the American people based on the merits, it resorts to lies, distortion and
anti-democratic tactics.
The Bush regime’s pattern of duplicity is illustrated in the Medicare legislation it
pushed through Congress in 2004. Among the abuses:
• The Bush team lied to Congress about the expected cost of the proposed
legislation. Knowing Congress wouldn’t approve a bill costing more than
$400 billion, the Bush team lied, saying it would cost only $400 billion, and
withheld much higher official cost estimates. Specifically, Medicare’s Chief
Actuary, Richard S. Foster, said the Bush administration threatened to fire
him if he disclosed to Congress cost estimates showing the legislation
would be about one-third higher than the $400 billion. In hiding the relevant
information from Congress, the Bush regime even lied to the members of its
own party, and it later blocked an effective independent investigation of the

fraud.
• Republican House leaders including Tom DeLay apparently even tried to
bribe a GOP House member to get him to vote for the legislation. Following
the longest roll call in the history of the House, the legislation passed by a
few votes shortly before dawn. In a break from House procedures, the vot-
ing was kept open so that dissident House members could be coerced and
bribed. Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) told a radio station that GOP col-
leagues had offered a $100,000 campaign contribution for Smith’s son (who
was running to replace his father, who was retiring) if he voted for the
Medicare bill. The House ethics panel later played patty cake with the crook
DeLay as it did a milquetoast investigation of the bribery and coercion
charges. Smith did not run for reelection in 2004.
• In May 2004 the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is the
investigative arm of Congress, determined that the Bush administration
(through its Department of Health and Human Services) violated two fed-
eral laws in the way it conducted its publicity campaign promoting the new
Medicare changes. In hyping the legislation, the Bush team illegally spent
taxpayer money to produce phony videos that were made to resemble news
reports. The “announcers” in the videos were not real reporters, and they
were paid with taxpayer money. At the end of the English version of the so-
called “story package,” a woman says, “In Washington, I’m Karen Ryan re-
porting.” At the end of the Spanish version, a male “announcer” says in
Spanish, “In Washington, I’m Alberto Garcia reporting.” The GAO’s legal
opinion stated that the deceptive videos: (1) violated a statute prohibiting
the use of federal funds for covert propaganda, and (2) violated the federal
Antideficiency Act, which applies to the unauthorized use of federal funds.
• As for the substance of the legislation, this incredibly expensive legislation
was a sellout by the Bush administration to pharmaceutical companies and
the managed care industry (HMOs, etc.), which contribute enormous sums
to Republican coffers. During the drafting, debate and passage of this Big
Pharma welfare legislation, the pharmaceutical industry had an army of
more than 700 paid lobbyists in Washington working hand in hand with
Bush and the GOP Cons to screw America.
• GOP Congressman Billy Tauzin, who played a key role in shepherding Big
Pharma’s Medicare legislation through Congress, became the head of Big
Pharma’s most powerful trade group on January 3, 2005, the same day he
left Congress, and received an annual compensation package valued at $2.5
million.
• One of the most outrageous provisions of the Medicare bill prohibits the
U.S. government from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare’s
41,000,000 beneficiaries. Stunningly unbelievable—this massive price-
fixing is so corrupt and anti-American that it is difficult to comment upon.
So let’s simply repeat what the Bush legislation does: It prohibits the U.S.
government from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare’s 41,000,000
beneficiaries!
SIDEBAR: Price Fixing and Welfare for Big Pharma
Yes, this Republican corruption and sellout—this corporate welfare for the pharma-
ceutical industry—actually prohibits the U.S. government from negotiating lower
drug prices for Medicare’s 41,000,000 beneficiaries! Medicare, probably the single
largest purchaser of drugs, is thus not able to negotiate volume discounts or any other
price discounts. Price negotiation used to be part of the free enterprise system in
America, and anyone selling to the federal government would have expected price
negotiations during the procurement process. Of course. However, the Republican
Party has carved out an un-American exception for Big Pharma, and all Medicare
recipients and American taxpayers are getting screwed.
The cost will be enormous—countless tens of billions of dollars. America already
pays much more per prescription than any other industrialized country in the world.
Prescription drugs purchased in the United States totaled about $184 billion in 2003,
which was 13% higher than the previous year. Annual price increases typically
greatly exceed the rate of inflation, with double-digit increases being common.
In sharp contrast, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides an excellent
model for the purchase of drugs by the United States government. Thanks to a 1992
law, the VA for over a decade has been negotiating the prices of drugs it buys for
millions of American veterans. According to a 2001 study by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services of a list of 24 drugs, the VA paid 52% less, on average,
than did Medicare!
It is truly amazing how rightwing Republicans—most of whom claim to be
Christians—have no problem with enormous amounts of corporate welfare, say $10
billion or $100 billion, being handed out like pieces of candy to the pharmaceutical
industry, while at the same time, if a disabled black woman in Mississippi gets $100
more in some form of “welfare,” they go ballistic, believing that to be the end of the
civilized world.
• The bill also provides for massive payments, billions of dollars, to large
corporations that already provide drug benefits to their retirees. These cor-
porations did not even request this pork.
• Drug and insurance companies spent $140 million lobbying Republican
Congressmen on the Medicare drug benefit. They are the big winners in the
GOP giveaway, and America’s seniors are the losers, as are future genera-
tions of Americans who will have to foot the bill for the GOP’s fiscal mad-
ness and thievery.
• The bewildering Medicare D Prescription Drug Plan dumped on America’s
seniors in 2005 appears intended to confuse and “torture” them, while
pumping huge profits to dozens of GOP corporate donors and creating a
wonderful environment for scams. The pro-Big Pharma, anti-seniors
hodgepodge plan is yet another example of the GOP’s duplicity and incom-
petence. Any middle- or low-income senior who votes for the Cons might
just as well pray for cancer.
• The Republican welfare legislation for Big Pharma also prohibits the pur-
chase and reimportation of lower-priced prescription drugs from Canada—
drugs that were manufactured in the United States. This is another Bush
poke-in-the-eye for American consumers, especially the elderly who need
more prescriptions, and it is designed to reward Bush’s donor base. See the
following sidebar for how some states are responding.
SIDEBAR: Reimportation of Drugs from Canada
Prescription drugs in America have become so unaffordable for many middle- and
lower-income consumers, especially seniors who require more drugs, that many con-
sumers are trying to buy their drugs from Canada via the Internet, notwithstanding an
FDA prohibition on reimportation of drugs manufactured in the United States.
Consumers should demand answers from their congressmen to a broader ques-
tion: How can prescription drugs that are manufactured in the United States and then
shipped to Canada be so much cheaper than the same drugs sold in the United
States? The shipping to and from Canada, together with the costs and profits of the
additional middlemen, should make it more expensive for Americans to buy these
drugs from Canada. Yet the drugs purchased from Canada and shipped back to the
United States are frequently 50% less expensive than the same drugs purchased in
the United States.
Several states tried to take action to allow their citizens to purchase FDA-
approved drugs from Canada and elsewhere and have them shipped (“reimported”)
to the United States. These states include Minnesota, Wisconsin, California, North
Dakota, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine and New Hampshire. In February
2005 a group of senators led by Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
introduced S. 334, which would allow Americans to purchase FDA-approved medi-
cations from other countries, prevent drug companies from interfering with these
purchases, and ensure drug safety. The co-sponsors of this Senate bill included 21
Democrats and 7 Republicans. The reimportation of FDA-approved drugs has broad
bipartisan support among the American people.
However, the Big Pharma-friendly Bush administration and the GOP congres-
sional leadership opposed these efforts, favoring price fixing over the free market.
Even the so-called “free trade” agreement with Australia, which became effective
January 1, 2005, prohibits the reimportation of drugs from that country. Of course,
Big Pharma has given enormous sums of money, as well as countless junkets and
other perks, to GOP candidates.
The pharmaceutical industry is attacking these efforts in numerous ways, includ-

ing lobbying Congress and the FDA to stop the reimportation of drugs, restricting
drug sales to Canadian pharmacies, and suing Canadian companies. Also, the indus-
try claims there are consumer safety issues, which is a disingenuous argument since
Canadian pharmacies work under drug quality and safety control laws similar to
those in the United States. Also, the drugs in question are manufactured in the United
States.
• Many traditional Republicans, even rightwing Republicans, feel betrayed by

Bush and the modern GOP, the Cons. These include Bruce Bartlett, former
member of the Reagan White House and author of the 2006 book, Imposter:
How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Leg-
acy. Regarding Medicare, the traditional GOP perspective was that Medi-
care was too big and too expensive, and needed reform. But the GOP, with
control of all branches of the federal government, didn’t reform or improve
anything. The Cons added about $18 trillion in new benefits and greatly in-
creased Medicare’s unfunded liabilities, while making Medicare operations
less efficient. Traditional Republicans once again were betrayed by their
own party.
The pork barrel Medicare legislation pushed through by the Republican Party—
the Cons—has numerous other major problems that are beyond the scope of this
book. It is worth noting, however, that the largest organization representing retired
Americans—the supposedly “nonprofit” AARP—was an accomplice of Big Pharma
and rightwing Republicans during the legislative process (although the AARP later
regretted its actions.) See the following sidebar.
SIDEBAR: AARP Sellout
Millions of members of AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Per-

sons) were outraged by AARP’s role in the passage of the pork barrel Medicare leg-
islation pushed through by the Republican Party. The central problem is that AARP
has many conflicts of interests that adversely affect its representation, or pretended
representation, of 35 million retired Americans. The conflicts would not exist if
AARP’s only source of revenue were its membership dues. Unfortunately, AARP
receives much more revenue from other sources than from membership dues. These
other revenues include royalties for insurance that is marketed under the AARP
name, payments from the sale of its membership lists to insurance companies, and
millions in advertising revenue from drug and insurance companies that advertise in
AARP’s magazine. AARP also stood to gain much from the Medicare legislation,
especially in the sale of so-called Medigap insurance, which pays costs not covered
by Medicare. Greed triumphed over the best interests of AARP members.
AARP later expressed regret for its actions. Nevertheless, AARP members
should consider leaving AARP and joining or creating a membership organization
that truly represents them, an organization without inherent conflicts of interest, an
organization with the backbone to stand up to GOP politicians.
Although consumers should continue fighting for the right to buy drugs outside
the United States, this should be viewed as a short-term fix. A better solution is to
make sure that drug prices in the United States are fair, and that pharmaceutical
companies cannot sell drugs in the United States at prices higher than what they
charge outside the United States.
In addition, drug costs are only a small portion of the total cost of health care.
More urgently needed is political action by millions of average consumers to help
reform the entire health care industry. This industry is dominated by huge corpora-
tions and other for-profit entities that use an army of lobbyists and lots of campaign
cash to kill unfriendly legislation and push their preferred legislation through a for-
sale Congress. Especially pliable is the Republican right that is heavily biased by its
“of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich” DNA. Most industry legislation slides
through without notice, but on rare occasions American voters learn about something
that is so outrageous that they decide to get involved. This happened with drug prices
and reimportation, but the wave of protest was still not strong enough to cause
change. Time will tell whether consumers have enough staying power to eventually
reform and fix the system.
Health Care and Health Insurance

The number of Americans with no health insurance has risen steadily and relent-
lessly during every year of Bush’s and the GOP’s war on middle- and lower-income
Americans. The number of uninsured Americans rose to 47.0 million in 2006, an
increase of 7.2 million over the 39.8 million uninsured in 2001. The percentage of
Americans uncovered also grew every year during Bush’s reign—from 14.1% in
2001 to 15.8% in 2006.
During the same five-year period—2001 to 2006—the percentage of Americans
covered by employer-based insurance plans dropped steadily every year, from 63.2%
in 2001 to 59.7% in 2006. Most of those still receiving benefits were forced to
shoulder an increasing portion of the load, thanks to benefit cuts and higher co-pays
and deductibles. Millions of Americans with employer plans now pay more money
for less coverage.
The United States is the only nation among the top 25 industrialized nations that
does not provide health coverage for all its citizens. At the same time, America
spends much more per capita on health care costs, almost 2.4 times the average of
other industrialized nations ($5,267 per capita annually, versus $2,193.) Although
paying much more, Americans get much less than their foreign counterparts and are
unhappier with their system. Compared to the Western average, Americans go to the
doctor and the hospital less frequently, and have a shorter life expectancy. The same
immoral story applies to America’s children, who have lower vaccination rates and
higher infant-mortality rates.
The privately run and milked U.S. health care system is incredibly inefficient,
heavily burdened with paperwork and confusing procedures, and structured to pro-
vide maximum returns for shareholders and wealthy industry executives who are not
caregivers (doctors, nurses and so forth.) America’s private system is far too decen-
tralized, has too many layers of administration and paperwork, and is operated in
large part so as to deny and delay coverage, thereby increasing profits, while passing
around like “hot potatoes” those individuals most needing medical care. As a result,
America spends more than $1,000 annually per capita—almost $400 billion annu-
ally—on administration and paperwork, while Canada, for example, spends less than
one-third this amount on a per capita basis.
Why is America’s health care system so wasteful? It is wasteful precisely be-
cause it is private. It is a private con game run by and for huge corporate interests,
which—in a surprising coincidence—lavishly donate principally to the GOP. For
these corporate con artists, “primary care” and “compassionate care” refer not to
human patients, but to the con artists themselves and to their incestuous crony rela-
tionship with America’s for-sale government.
The health insurance companies and other large corporate interests that are at the
heart of America’s health care system do not actually provide health care. In fact,
they make more profit when they deny health care to patients.
Rather than providing health care, America’s private health insurance companies
spend billions each year on advertising and gaming the system for their own advan-
tage. Their key “added value” is to create bureaucratic red tape and other obstacles
for patients and the actual caregivers—doctors, nurses and other staff—who are
forced to waste enormous time and money coping with the bureaucratic obstacles
and the paperwork of hundreds of different billing and reimbursement systems.
Along the way, health insurance companies have enjoyed record profits, and their
CEOs and other senior executives pocket exorbitant compensation. According to
Forbes magazine, William McGuire, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, received
compensation totaling $124.8 million in 2005. UnitedHealth is the nation’s leading
insurer, and McGuire was number three on Forbes’ list of highest-paid CEOs. Critics
noted that his compensation of $124.8 million in 2005 could cover the average health
insurance premiums of more than 33,000 Americans.
Incidentally, McGuire retired under pressure in October 2006 due to a pay and
stock options scandal affecting UnitedHealth and dozens of other large U.S. compa-
nies. An investigation determined that McGuire’s options to purchase 1.5 million
shares had probably been “backdated” to increase their value. His stock option pack-
age has been reported to be worth $1.6 billion (imagine 1,600 piles of $1 million
each.) This is literally many thousands of times what is paid to the most highly com-
pensated executive in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which is run much
more efficiently and fairly than America’s private health care system.
The additional reported amount of $1.6 billion in stock options for McGuire
could have paid the health insurance premiums for an entire year for 422,400 Ameri-
cans, or it could have paid for health insurance for all uninsured Americans in sev-
eral of America’s least populous states.
The large majority (74%) of those without insurance coverage are in working
families. There are more than 8.5 million American children (more than 11% of
America’s children) without coverage, and 65% of those are in families where one
parent works full time.
Hispanics are least likely to have health insurance. During the three-year period
from 2002 to 2004, an average of more than 32% of Hispanics were not covered.
Young adults in America constitute the age group least likely to have health in-
surance. As of 2004, more than 31% of young adults (18-24 years old) were not cov-
ered.
The percentage of middle-class workers without insurance coverage has risen
enormously. Among American workers ages 25-34 who earn the median income or
more, the uninsured rate is 26%, double what it was in 1979. As for middle-income
workers ages 35-44 earning at least the median income, the rate almost doubled,
standing at 19%.
The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in America is unpaid health care
bills.
Health insurance premiums for businesses, especially small businesses, have
risen enormously, to the disadvantage of both small employers and their employees.
In the five-year period ending in 2004, annual inflation averaged 2.5% while health
insurance premiums for small businesses jumped about 15% annually.
American workers planning to retire in the next several years are likely to be se-
verely affected by a disturbing trend regarding health care benefits for retirees. A
study released in January 2004 showed that in 2003 alone 10% of larger U.S. com-
panies (those with 1,000 or more employees) eliminated health care benefits for fu-
ture retirees. An additional 20% of the large companies surveyed said they were
likely to eliminate such benefits within four years.
The health care delivery system in America has not been designed for the bottom
95% of America’s patients and is desperately in need of overhaul.
Although the purpose of this book is not to propose a solution to America’s
health care crisis, one fact is clear—the leadership of the Republican Party wants
tens of millions of Americans to be without health coverage, and it works relent-
lessly and successfully to increase that number every day. Although one reason for
the GOP’s opposition to universal coverage is legitimate ideology relating to goals
such as self reliance, the main reason for the opposition is that scores of huge corpo-
rations—which contribute to both major parties but predominantly to the GOP—
stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars annually if the inefficiencies, political
influence peddling, and public trough opportunities—including “perfectly legal”
price fixing—are eliminated.
Even though America’s health care system needs major surgery, it is the kiss of
death for any political leader to push reform because the corporate and political
forces on the right have demonstrated their ability to kill the messenger and sidetrack
any serious policy debate on the merits.
A second central fact is that America can and must massively improve its health
care system. Studies indicate that more than $250 billion annually could be saved in
reduced paperwork alone under a system of national health care financed by the fed-
eral government, in place of the current one run by private insurance companies.
Americans need health care—not health insurance companies.

One excellent solution is universal coverage with a single payer, based on indi-
vidual choice and modeled after America’s efficient public Medicare system—just
eliminate Medicare’s age requirement and give each American the right to choose
Medicare or not.
In any case, it is criminal for Congress and the American people not to have this
debate. One feature deserving more consideration is a value-added tax (VAT) to pro-
vide partial funding for universal health coverage. Although a VAT tends to be re-
gressive, it would significantly reduce the competitive disadvantage faced by U.S.
businesses that now pay employee health coverage costs when their foreign competi-
tors do not. Another advantage is that everyone would pay into the system as they
purchase American goods and services. This would include millions of illegal aliens,
as well as foreigners legally visiting the United States—just as Americans visiting
Europe help pay for European health care costs when they pay a VAT in Europe.
Slamming Education—Leave No Rich Child Behind
SIDEBAR: Bush Discusses Children and Learning
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”

—George W. Bush, Jan. 11, 2000.
In his proposed budget for 2005, which is typical of all his budgets, Bush wanted
to kill 65 federal programs, more than half of which relate to education. The total
projected savings from killing the 65 programs was under $5 billion, a significant
sum but only one percent of the projected budget deficit, and about equal to what the
United States spends in Iraq in only two weeks. The cuts, which would affect many
children, are microscopic when compared to the GOP’s tax cuts for the Super Rich.
Bush’s real education motto is “No Rich Child Left Behind.” Because this motto
has always worked well for Bush and other members of his family, he must think it
makes sense as an educational policy for all.
SIDEBAR: Bush Discusses Children and Illiteracy
“[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling.”

—George W. Bush, Jan. 23, 2004.
In February 2004 the Utah House of Representatives, which is dominated by Re-

publicans, defiantly expressed its frustration with the No Child Left Behind federal
education program by voting to prohibit Utah’s education authorities from using any
local money to comply with the federal law. The Utah lawmakers said the federal
legislation invades the state’s right to run its own education programs, and costs a lot
more money than the federal government provides. The Bush administration has
become increasingly more intrusive in dictating costly requirements to state and local
governments without adequately funding the associated costs.
SIDEBAR: Bush Discusses Childrens and Learning
“[C]hildrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.”
—George W. Bush, Sept. 26, 2007.
Many other states have voiced similar objections. In January 2004 the GOP-
controlled Virginia House of Delegates adopted a resolution, 98 to 1, to ask Congress
to exempt Virginia from the federal law. The resolution said No Child Left Behind
presented the “most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in
the history of the United States.” The chairman of Virginia’s House Education
Committee said the law was “utopian nonsense.” The 700-page federal law has
strong bipartisan opposition and is unpopular among both local educators and voters.
During Bush’s tenure, the cost of attending college greatly outpaced the rate of
inflation. Nevertheless, Bush in his 2005 budget proposed cutting federal assistance
for needy college students by $550 million, and he also jacked up the interest rates
paid by college students on their loans. Our “education” president is certainly
“schooling” young Americans and their families in the realities of rightwing politics.
Bush League Unemployment—in Iraq and America

A major contributing factor to the failure in Iraq was the inability of the Bush ad-
ministration to create jobs in Iraq following the initial military successes. America’s
troops did their job superbly, but their civilian commander in chief was AWOL—
again. The most casual observer would have known that Iraqis, like Americans, need
and want jobs in order to support their families. America had a tremendous unprece-
dented opportunity to show Iraqis and the world that freedom and progressive capi-
talism could improve their lives.
Unfortunately, Bush and his neocons—without an ounce of working class DNA
among them—made the decisions. With neither a plan nor the desire to help the Iraqi
masses, they focused instead on making Iraq profitable for American contractors, a
dubious mission at best, which they botched with tragic consequences. Their mis-
guided malignant focus cost the support and goodwill of the Iraqi people, and, ironi-
cally, in the process Iraq became much more dangerous for American contractors.
The Bush regime has little empathy for people who must work to survive. Bush
personally has more in common with Saudi princes and the world’s Super Rich than
he does with America’s working class.
Consider Bush’s “plan” regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi military and
police forces living and working in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Here, in effect,
are Bush’s communications to the Iraqi armed forces:
1) “Trust me and America. We are on your side against Saddam. Please do not
resist our invasion. We are going to build a new Iraq together.” (By and
large, Iraq’s armed forces happily did as requested. Their hopes were high.)
2) “You’re fired. We terminated your salary and your dignity. You are worth-
less. Be a good capitalist and go find a way to support your family. Go
away.”
3) “Don’t expect any social safety net—didn’t you know we’re busy destroying
this very thing in America?”
4) “Iraq will have an enormous number of job openings for security forces and
armed guards. However, we will fill these with foreign contractors because
we don’t trust you. We are telling you this so you wouldn’t waste your time
(and ours) completing job applications.”
5) “We plan to pay foreign workers 10 or 20 times the market rate—many
times the salary you would happily accept. For example, a non-Iraqi truck
driver may make $10,000 or more per month.”
6) “Keep all your weapons, as you may need them later. Take whatever ammu-
nition and explosives you wish. To help you, we have left unguarded hun-
dreds of Iraqi weapons storage facilities.”
7) “See you later!”
This is Bush’s Bring-em-On Plan. Bin Laden could not have devised a plan more
harmful to Iraqis and America’s troops. Yet none call it treason.
But let’s be fair to Bush. Since Bush can’t create good jobs in the United States,
how could he be expected to create jobs in Iraq?
When it comes to job creation, Bush is in the same Bush League as his father,
who also had a dismal record. In responding to Bush’s 2004 State of the Union
speech, Al Franken noted that Bush and his father presided over a net loss of jobs
during their combined seven years in office. This means that if “the Bushes had run
this country from its very beginning to the current time, not one American would
have ever worked. We’d be hunter-gatherers.”102
You have to go back to Republican Herbert Hoover and the start of the GOP
Great Depression of the 1930s to find a job creation—well, job destruction—record
that bad. The American people back then had the wisdom to replace Republican
Hoover with Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, who united the nation in its most trou-
bled times, and worked for all Americans as he charted a better course, including
putting Social Security in place for America’s workers.
Herbert Hoover was well named. Like a Hoover vacuum cleaner, he sucked up
and destroyed millions of American jobs. The Bushes are also well named. Millions
of unemployed workers now are unsuccessfully beating the bushes to find good jobs,
or even rotten jobs, or even two rotten jobs each.
102
During the first three years of Dubya, America lost about 2.2 million jobs.
SIDEBAR: Bush and Work
“You work three jobs?…Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that
you’re doing that. Get any sleep?”
—George W. Bush talking with a divorced mother of three in Omaha, Nebraska,
February 4, 2005
In Bush’s America, three jobs are sometimes necessary to make ends meet. Of
course, Bush himself never held even one regular workingperson’s job.
In Bush’s America, tens of millions of workers give an honest day’s work for
much less than an honest day’s pay.
The message of Bush and the Cons to American workers and Iraqi workers is the
same. You are worthless. In fairness, there are a few moderate Cons in Congress who
are not quite this coldhearted. Many of these compassionate Cons view America’s
workers not as worthless, but just worth less, and this is why they voted to keep
America’s minimum wage frozen at $5.15 per hour since 1997.
The freezing of the minimum wage by the Republican Party meant that during
each and every year since 1997 the purchasing power of minimum wage workers
declined, increasing poverty among the working poor. The purchasing power of the
minimum wage declined by 20% from 1997 to 2006, to its lowest point in fifty years.
Increases in the minimum wage most help working women and other disadvan-
taged American workers. The Economic Policy Institute reported in 2006 that
women constitute 59% of the American workers who would benefit from an increase
of the minimum wage to $7.25 by 2008. About 3.9 million parents with children
under 18 would benefit from this change.
The GOP’s decade-long screwing of America’s working poor ended only in
2007, when the new Democrat-controlled Congress—in the face of GOP obstruction-
ism and veto threats—managed to push through modest increases in the minimum
wage.
Bush’s “plan” to create jobs in America includes making permanent the GOP’s
tax cuts for the Super Rich. Perhaps he thinks the Super Rich will use the additional
cash to retire, thereby freeing up jobs for regular working Americans. But most of
the Super Rich don’t have real jobs, and, in any case, the crony positions they open
up by retiring aren’t available to Joe and Judy Lunchpail.
As for dealing with the difficult issue of American jobs going overseas, Bush of-
fers nothing, not even vague ideas. Somehow, good new American jobs, like Iraqi
jobs, are supposed to magically appear. They don’t. However, what does magically
appear is more profit for large multi-national corporations and GOP contributors.
The shifting of the tax burden from the Super Rich to middle- and low-income
working Americans—primarily through increased Social Security taxes and huge tax
cuts for the Super Rich—increases the incentive for good American jobs to be
shipped overseas. The greatly increased Social Security taxes disproportionately
make middle- and low-income jobs more costly to employers, thus increasing the
cost savings and profits to be gained when employers ship jobs abroad. This added
incentive would not exist if the Super Rich were still paying their fair share of taxes,
and Joe and Judy Lunchpail were not subsiding them through increased Social Secu-
rity taxes.
Ross Perot referred accurately to the tremendous sucking sound caused by these
jobs going offshore. Well, the GOP loves and promotes this sucking sound, and
American middle class workers are the unfortunate suckees.
Bush’s numerous predictions about job creation have been very inaccurate. He
lied. Monkeys randomly picking numbers would have done better.
• 2002: The Bush administration predicted that 100,000 jobs would be lost.
The United States actually lost 1,450,000 jobs!
• 2003: The Bush administration predicted a gain of 1.7 million jobs. The
United States actually lost 440,000 jobs. That’s a swing of 2,140,000 jobs in
just one year.
• 2004: Early in this election year the Bush administration predicted that 2.6
million new American jobs would be created during the year, a view much
too rosy for most economists, even given the turnaround in the economy.
To reach this 2.6 million figure, Bush would have needed the job creation
abilities of Bill Clinton.
• After 2004: The presidential election was over, and the Bush regime
stopped giving rosy estimates from Bush’s alternate universe. Through the
first six years of Bush’s presidency, the total number of jobs created was
dismally low compared to the six-year figures for other presidencies. The
six-year figure for Bush was only 3.6 million jobs created, versus almost 18
million jobs for Clinton.
When it comes to wages and jobs, Bush is our American Idle. Bush’s DNA and
privileged rich-boy upbringing make it impossible for him to empathize with anyone
other than the Super Rich. One result is a growing divide in Bush’s and the GOP’s
two Americas—something in which he must take great pride.
Bush simply has no frame of reference, no empathy really, for average working
Americans or Iraqis who are unemployed or just scrape by from payday to payday,
where the loss of a job is catastrophic. Clueless Bush must be thinking, “Why don’t
they just get a bunch of money from their daddy or out of their trust accounts? Why
don’t they just get some crony dough from their public trough cronies?”
To make matters worse, the jobs created during Bush’s presidency are not as
good on average as the jobs lost. They don’t pay as well, and the medical insurance
coverage is not as good, if there is any coverage at all.
Many of the new jobs are at Wal-Mart, that wonderful profit-generator and advo-
cate of low prices, crummy wages, and rotten benefits. Wal-Mart rabidly opposes
any increase in the minimum wage. By way of comparison, Costco’s lowest wage is
higher that Wal-Mart’s average wage.
Wal-Mart also features discriminatory personnel policies, especially policies that
discriminate against women. Many of its workers qualify for food stamps and cannot
afford to pay for the company’s skimpy medical plan. It hires illegal aliens to save
money. It abhors unions, has none, and will spend any amount and do anything to
keep them out.
During the three-year period ending January 31, 2004—the first three years of
Bush’s administration—Wal-Mart increased its U.S. employment from 962,000 to
1.2 million, for a total increase of 238,000. This means that if Wal-Mart’s employ-
ment had remained unchanged during this period, the total U.S. job losses would
have been greater by 238,000. However you look at it, a lot of great jobs were re-
placed by crappy Wal-Mart jobs. Unfortunately, this trend is continuing as Wal-Mart
expands its empire. Also, Wal-Mart is a major reason why so many U.S. manufactur-
ing jobs have been exported, since it strong arms its vendors to manufacture over-
seas.
The employee turnover rate at Wal-Mart is an incredible 44% per year. If Wal-
Mart did not grow at all, it would still have to hire about 600,000 employees annu-
ally to replace all the ones who quit or are fired.
A Wal-Mart memo leaked in 2005 showed that the company wanted to reduce
the percentage of its workforce who are full-time employees from 40% to 20%, the
reason being that benefits and wages were rising too fast. Paul Krugman of The New
York Times sums it up: “The problem from the company’s point of view is that its
workers are too loyal. It wants cheap labor that doesn’t hang around too long. But
not enough workers quit before acquiring the right to higher wages and benefits.”
Workers who shop at Wal-Mart are like prisoners who help construct their own
gallows.
Wal-Mart is an ideological campaign contributor, with a huge majority of its con-
tributions going to the Con Party. Yes, “W” stands for “Wal-Mart,” and “Wal-
Martization of America.”
Wal-Mart has been a fabulously successful company for its shareholders. The
2003 Forbes 400 Richest Americans list showed five Waltons occupying the spots
from 4 through 8, each with a fortune of $20.5 billion. (Helen Walton, S. Robson
Walton, John Walton, Jim Walton and Alice Walton were all tied for fourth place.)
Much has been written about Sam Walton’s tax avoidance successes. Son John died
in 2005 at age 58 in a private plane crash and was a director of Wal-Mart until his
death.
From day one in his administration, Bush focused first on helping the most needy
in America—the Super Rich—and he successfully pushed through his $1.6 trillion
tax cut, of which more than half went to the top 1%. In order to sell the tax give-
aways, Bush said that the cuts would create 800,000 new jobs. Boy, that sounded
good. It is nice to know you have a president who cares about the little people. But
wait—there are a couple of problems here.
• First, let’s do the math, pretending for the moment that we believed Bush’s
line about jobs created. It’s a $1.6 trillion tax cut for 800,000 new jobs—
that’s $2,000,000 in tax incentives for each new job created! (You really
have to do the math a couple of times before you believe the answer. Bush
apparently counts on his supporters not being able to divide two large num-
bers each having lots of zeros.) Well, this is Bush’s Con administration in a
nutshell. Give the money to the Super Rich, and some of it might trickle
down as the Super Rich hire more gardeners, security guards, tax attorneys,
and lobbyists. But it doesn’t work.
• Second, but wait—even though $2,000,000 for each of those new jobs was
given to the Super Rich, America didn’t actually gain those 800,000 jobs. In
fact, it didn’t gain a single job, not one! America actually lost 2,600,000
jobs. Shouldn’t we get our money back from the Super Rich? Yes, plus lots
more.
The average American worker makes less than $50,000 per year. What rational
person would even think of giving $2,000,000 in tax incentives to create one new
job? It would have made more sense to use the money to directly hire the workers
America needs, including police, firefighters, national guardsmen, soldiers, medical
care workers and teachers. Rather than giving a check for $2,000,000 to one of the
Super Rich in the hope that he would somehow create one new job, the $2,000,000
could have been used to pay the annual salary of 40 such workers.
Spending the money directly on salaries for workers has other advantages.
• First, these workers pay taxes on the salaries received, which directly re-
duces the budget deficit. This is not the case with the tax-giveaways for the
Super Rich, who pay no taxes on their gifts from Uncle Sam. And who
really knows what the Republican Super Rich do with their elephant’s
share. Paris anyone?
• Second, spending the money directly on salaries for workers favors work
over the idleness of the Super Rich, who don’t have to do any extra work
for their cut, or any work at all.
• Third, spending the money directly for new jobs reduces unemployment
compensation payments.
• Fourth, WWJD?103 Jesus would say, “Yes, hire my working folk at $50,000
per job. But, Good God, don’t give $2,000,000 to a Pharisee as an incentive
to non-create one new job!”
Think of the many services that have been cut under Bush’s watch so that he and
his GOP could give humungous tax cuts to the Super Rich. All of the tax cuts for the
Super Rich must be reversed, and their tax rates must be returned to what they were
in the early 1980s or even earlier.
Poverty in America
SIDEBAR: Bush Knows Poor People
“First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren’t necessarily killers. Just because
you happen to be not rich doesn’t mean you’re willing to kill.”
—George W. Bush, May 19, 2003
103
WWJD?: “What Would Jesus Do?”
The poverty rate in America rose dramatically during Bush’s watch, reaching 12.6%
by 2006, according to the Census Bureau. In 2005, 37 million Americans were living
below the poverty level. The GOP’s global war on the poor is working, especially on
America’s working poor.
The “poorest of the poor” have done even worse. In 2005, 43% of Americans in
poverty were living below one-half the poverty line that year ($8,045 for a family of
three), which was the highest percentage for extreme-poverty Americans since the
federal government began tracking this data in 1975.
The last decline in poverty was in 2000 during Clinton’s presidency, when 31.1
million people (11.3 %) lived under the poverty threshold. This means that an addi-
tional 5.9 million Americans fell below the poverty threshold during just the first
five years of Bush’s regime.
During the Clinton administration, the poverty rate dropped from a high of
slightly more than 15% in 1993 to 11.3% in 2000.
Children and women have been among the hardest hit during Bush’s watch.
About 13 million American children live in poverty, and their poverty rate increased
more than 17% under Bush.
Contrary to Republican propaganda, America’s enemy is not the poorest 10% of
its citizens. Although the Republican Party makes war on the poor, the disabled and
the defenseless—most of whom are children and all of whom are portrayed as
leeches—the real battle is between the top 1% of our population and everyone else.
In Bush’s America, the top 1% has won, and the bottom 99% has lost. Rightwing
Republicans accomplished this by focusing America’s rage on America’s poorest,
who are easy voiceless targets of the vicious right.
Bush and the Cons do believe whole-heartedly in welfare, but only welfare for
the Super Rich, Big Business, and their Crooked Cronies. They care not for the wel-
fare of the least of Christ’s people. Yes, “W” stands for “welfare for the wealthy and
wicked.”
Perhaps you’ve heard a wealthy Republican congressman “explain” why Con-
gress was justified in automatically giving itself frequent generous increases in salary
and benefits at the same time it refused to increase the minimum wage for America’s
workers. “I challenge anyone to live on my salary,” declared former GOP House
majority leader Tom DeLay from Texas, whose annual base salary alone was then
more than $167,000, and only God knows what his special perks and under-the-table
“benefits” were worth. We challenge DeLay and other congressmen who voted
against increasing the minimum wage to live on $5.15 per hour.
Jesus was a Robin Hood, but Bush and the Cons are Robbing Hoods.
The Bush administration’s addiction to lying rather than dealing with facts is a
principal reason its credibility is shattered both at home and abroad. After a Camp
David meeting with his economic advisors in August 2006, Bush summarized the
situation, “Things are good for American workers.” In an editorial, The New York
Times replied, “The comment is preposterous.”104
104
New York Times editorial, August 29, 2006.
Bush also asserted, “solid economic growth is creating real benefits for American
workers and families.” In a Labor Day 2006 editorial, The Washington Post replied,
“This assertion was false. Mr. Bush should use this Labor Day to rethink his rhetoric
and adjust his policies.” The Washington Post editorial dated September 4, 2006, was
entitled, “Mr. Bush and Labor Day— Workers aren’t benefiting from growth.”
A Census Bureau report released that month (August 2006) regarding workers
income in 2005 did at first glance have one piece of data that appeared to be positive
for America’s workers, and this tidbit was seized upon by rightwing shills who
wanted to paint a rosy picture. The particular piece of data was that median house-
hold income had risen 1.1% to $46,326 from the prior year, the first increase since
1999. Unfortunately, even this piece of “good news” was bad news for America’s
workers, as 100% of the gain was among the retired (23 million households headed
by someone age 65 or older.) The median household income for the rest of working
America—93 million households—actually fell by 0.5% from the previous year.
In addition, the small uptick in household income in 2005—the so-called “good
news”—was not due to higher wages—in fact, wages had decreased, and family
members were taking additional jobs to make ends meet. More telling, the $46,326
in median household income in 2005 was about 5.7% less than the 2000 amount
($49,133.)
The heralded Census Bureau report in fact was additional evidence that the eco-
nomic benefits of America’s latest growth cycle, which began near the end of 2001,
were going almost exclusively to America’s big businesses, with virtually nothing
going to America’s workers and small business enterprises. The Washington Post in
its editorial noted, “Between 2001 and 2005 the income of the typical, or median,
household actually fell by 0.5 percent after accounting for inflation, even as workers’
productivity grew by 14 percent.” Full-time workingmen and workingwomen under
65 experienced another drop in wages and salaries during the year. The median
hourly wage for American workers declined 2% from 2003 to 2005, taking inflation
into account, with workers also paying more for benefits. America’s workers are
working smarter and harder, but all the productivity gains accrue to big business and
senior executives.
While corporate profits have climbed to their highest share of America’s econ-
omy in several decades, the portion going to wages and salaries is at its lowest point
ever. (The U.S. government began keeping these records in 1947.) The portion going
to wages and salaries equaled 45% of GDP (gross domestic product) in the first quar-
ter of 2006, an enormous drop from its almost 50% share in the first quarter of 2001,
which was the start of Bush’s watch. The principal factor for increasing corporate
profits is the American workers’ declining share of the economy. W’s worker
whacking is working. Yes, “W” also stands for “worker whacking.”
To make matters worse, the above figures for wages and salaries include the
compensation packages for America’s most highly paid executives, many of whom
have gorged themselves at the expense of Joe and Judy Lunchpail.
In January 2006 David Cay Johnston reported105 on new U.S. government data
indicating that “the concentration of corporate wealth among the highest-income
Americans grew significantly in 2003, as a trend that began in 1991 accelerated in
the first year that President Bush and Congress cut taxes on capital.” According to an
analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of the latest economic data:
• In 2003 the top 1% of American households owned 57.5% of corporate
wealth, up from 53.4% the year before.
• In 1991, the top 1% owned “only” 38.7%.
• For every group in the bottom 99%, the percentage of corporate wealth has
decreased since 1991.
• The bottom 20% of households—America’s poorest—dropped by 57% to
only 0.6% of corporate wealth in 2003, down from 1.4% in 1991.
• In other words, the top 1% increased their share by 4.1 percentage points
(from 53.4% to 57.5%), which increase in share (just the 4.1 points) is 6.8
times the total corporate wealth of the bottom 20%.
• In 2003, the incomes of the top 1% ranged from $237,000 to several billion
dollars. The average income of the bottom 20% was less than $16,300 that
year.
Such dramatic changes in the distribution of wealth and income in America—a
destabilizing tsunami—are not the God-given result of a free enterprise system, but
primarily result from government policies that are of, by and for the powerful and
Super Rich. The GOP supports not a free enterprise system, but rather a “freebie
enterprise system” rigged for the chosen few.
The economic expansion that started in 2001 is the first expansion since World
War II that failed to significantly increase wages for America’s workers. In the past,
the cliché has been that a rising tide lifts all boats. However, the Cons have been
running America to ensure that only the yachts of the Super Rich are lifted.
SIDEBAR: Welfare Reform
2006 was the tenth anniversary of the signing by Bill Clinton of historic welfare re-
form legislation known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec-
onciliation Act of 1996. Clinton had promised the nation in 1992 to “end welfare as
we know it.”106 Clinton continued, “We will say to those on welfare: You will have
and you deserve the opportunity through training and education, through child care
and medical coverage, to liberate yourself. But then, when you can, you must work,
because welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life.”
105
“Corporate Wealth Share Rises for Top-Income Americans,” New York Times, January 29,
2006.
106
This is from Clinton’s “Our New Covenant” address of July 16, 1992, at the Democratic
National Convention in New York City, during which he accepted his party’s presidential
nomination. He repeated the promise in later State of the Union addresses.
The 1996 welfare reform legislation included work rules and set an outer five-
year limit on how long an individual could receive welfare. Clinton showed his
backbone by signing the reform legislation even though he was criticized for the
compromises he made with the GOP-controlled Congress.
There were two sides to the legislation. On one side of the bargain, Americans
receiving welfare had to commit to work if they could, and to diligently pursue edu-
cational and training programs designed to help them achieve gainful employment.
On the other side of the bargain, the government agreed to provide programs to im-
prove the environment and opportunity for employment. This proactive government
involvement included:
• a higher minimum wage;
• increased aid for child care;
• a block grant program for states administering the program;
• health care coverage for children in low-income families;
• an expansion in the earned income tax credit designed to reward work over wel-
fare; and
• various other pro-work policies.
What happened? Notwithstanding some criticism, Clinton’s welfare reform legis-
lation is widely viewed as successful, at least during the years of his administration.
Welfare rolls decreased by more than 50%. Poverty rates among children, especially
black children, dropped dramatically. Employment rates for single mothers rose.
During Bush’s reign, however, the progress slowed and then reversed, thanks to
GOP policies that favor the Super Rich at the expense of the poor. The GOP cut
budgets for the welfare-to-work programs and froze the minimum wage at its 1997
level, $5.15 per hour. Since 2000, child poverty rates increased, and the employment
rate for single mothers decreased. In the GOP’s America, it is more important that
multi-millionaires get additional millions than it is to help a hungry child get that
next meal.
Much needs to be done to ensure the reforms remain successful, and to undo the
damage inflicted by the GOP. Government involvement was a key part of the suc-
cess, and government must stay engaged. It is this government involvement—one
half of the bargain—that the GOP crippled during Bush’s regime. Without substan-
tial continued governmental involvement, millions of working poor will be perma-
nently trapped in poverty, with a growing portion of them in extreme poverty.
On February 6, 2006, Bush signed the cleverly named Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, which reduced support for America’s poor and maintained welfare for Amer-
ica’s wealthy. As for America’s poor, the legislation reauthorized for another five
years the welfare reform begun in 1996, which Bush said, “has proved a tremendous
success over the past decade.” He read these remarks in a signing ceremony before a
group of rightwing supporters, including many from the Religious Right, who were
pleased with the additional federal funds that would be funneled through faith-based
organizations (i.e., rightwing churches and groups that pass the GOP’s religious fil-
ter.) Under a new rightwing policy euphemistically called “charitable choice,” reli-
gious groups receiving these federal funds can discriminate in hiring.
In an article published September 14, 2006, in the Salt Lake Tribune, Michael
Leavitt, Bush’s Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
also praised the welfare reform, declaring that it “had been an unqualified success.”
However, Leavitt failed to address the Bush regime’s reneging and underfunding
regarding this program to move Americans from welfare to work. He made no men-
tion of the minimum wage or GOP budget cuts in effective programs that were help-
ing America’s working poor. In Leavitt’s words, the only actions left were to
“strengthen work requirements while putting a renewed focus on marriage.” Truly
incredible.
Leavitt then bragged about the $750 million that the new legislation made avail-
able to faith-based organizations and other organizations for “healthy marriage pro-
jects” and “to promote responsible fatherhood.” Further, he said this was being done
“without increasing federal spending”—which, when translated into plain English,
meant that the government funds diverted to rightwing Christian groups would be
taken from effective welfare-to-work programs.
The GOP’s war on America’s working class is one war Bush and the GOP are
winning. It is one more reason why Bush and his regime are so detested around the
world.
In the next chapter we turn our attention to the GOP’s bankruptcy of America.
CHAPTER 12
The GOP’s Bankruptcy of America

Living from Grandchild’s Paycheck to Grandchild’s Pay-
check
A government, for protecting business only, is but a carcass, and soon falls
by its own corruption and decay.
—Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888)
The Republican Party does not believe in living from paycheck to paycheck.
It believes in living from grandchild’s paycheck to grandchild’s paycheck.
—James A. Swanson
Financial Responsibility Does Matter, But You Won’t Find It in

the Republican Party
SIDEBAR: Definition of GOP Conservatives
Conservatives Con you when it Serves their interests, which is all the time. They Con
you in order to Serve the Super Rich and Big Business.
Over decades the political right worked hard to equate “conservative” with fiscal
responsibility. The message has been repeated so often—like misleading commer-
cials for cigarettes and alcohol—that even many liberals and progressives believe it.
Virtually all of the media repeat it as a truism. If you believe “conservative” implies
fiscal responsibility, you have been conned by the Cons.
Looking back at the last quarter century of American history, “conservative” has
meant the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. The Democratic Party has been and
remains the party of fiscal responsibility. Over the last quarter century the Republi-
can Party has gone on a spending rampage and, at the same time, slashed govern-
ment income by giving massive tax cuts to the Super Rich. Bush has merely taken
the Con insanity to dangerous new levels of madness.
The result has been record annual budget deficits and a rapidly escalating na-
tional debt. The massive Republican deficits and debts would have been much worse
if there had not been a tremendous increase in the Social Security tax burden on
working Americans, which as noted previously was not set aside in a trust fund but
was used to fund the current operating expenses of the United States. The Super Rich
take the money out the back door of the U.S. Treasury by the truckload, and middle-
and lower-income Americans, like sheep, keep delivering it through the front door.
The perfect storm for this record fiscal irresponsibility was created when Repub-
licans took control of the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Represen-
tatives and the Supreme Court. They took the keys to Fort Knox and America’s
greenback printing press, gave the keys to the Super Rich and large corporations, and
turned America into the world’s No. 1 Banana Republic. America’s Banana Repub-
lican Party had won.
Let’s take a look at the facts. The following chart shows the annual federal sur-
plus/deficit numbers for the last 36 years, together with the name and political party
of the president in charge.
1969-73: RICHARD NIXON (Republican)—5 Years

• Started with a small surplus and turned it into a large deficit.
CHAPTER 12 — THE GOP’S BANKRUPTCY OF AMERICA 267
• Set a new record for total deficits during his term in office, even though he
left office early to avoid impeachment and removal from office.
• GRADE: D
1974-76: GERALD FORD (Republican)—3 Years

• Increased the deficit each year of his administration.
• During last two years, had the two largest deficits in history.
• GRADE: F
1977-80: JIMMY CARTER (Democrat)—4 Years

• The average deficit during his 4 years was less than the deficit he inherited.
• GRADE: B
1981-88: RONALD REAGAN (Republican)—8 Years

• Exploded the deficit to crippling levels.
• Gave humongous tax cuts and tax dodges to the Super Rich.
• Increased taxes on middle- and lower-income workers.
• Launched the GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle Class.
• In 8 years, created the 8 biggest deficits in history.
• The father of Voodoo Economics.
• GRADE: F
SIDEBAR: Reagan’s Reckless Records
As in the Olympics, record-setting performances in Washington deserve to be recog-

nized. Therefore we pay tribute to Ronald Reagan and his place in the record books,
as of the time he left the White House.
American Presidents with the Worst Annual Deficits, as of 1988:
Worst Deficit Ever: Ronald Reagan 1986
Second Worst: Ronald Reagan 1985
Third Worst: Ronald Reagan 1983
Fourth Worst: Ronald Reagan 1984
Fifth Worst: Ronald Reagan 1988
Sixth Worst: Ronald Reagan 1987
Seventh Worst: Ronald Reagan 1982
Eighth Worst: Ronald Reagan 1981
Whew! Reagan must have been exhausted after single-handedly inflicting that
much damage on America’s unborn who will be stuck with the IOUs. Can you imag-
ine the outrage of America’s Big Media if Reagan had been a Democrat? What if
Bill Clinton had given those eight years of Reagan shafts to America? One rumor107
is that Kenneth Starr spent millions of taxpayer dollars investigating that very possi-
bility—that Clinton somehow was responsible for the fiscal madness that occurred
several years before his presidency when Reagan was “at the helm.” Or maybe it was
Hillary.
Reagan was the godfather of Voodoo Economics, which put America in the fi-
nancial toilet. In fairness, we should also credit the two later Republican American
presidents—both financial numbskulls and both from Red Texas—who broke
Reagan’s records for the worst annual deficit and took Voodoo Economics to new
Texas-style levels:
1) Bush the Father
2) Bush the Son
3) Let’s pray they never have a dog or grandson named “Holy Ghost.”
1989-92: GEORGE H. W. BUSH (Republican)—4 Years

• Increased the deficits steadily during his term.
• In 1991, smashed Reagan’s record deficit.
• In 1992, mightily smashed his own record deficit.
• GRADE: F
1993-2000: BILL CLINTON (Democrat)—8 Years

• Finally, after 12 years in the Land of the Cons, America had a president
who told the fiscal truth, and walked it. Yes, a Democrat. Of course.
• Turned the largest deficit in history into the largest surplus in history.
• Greatly decreased the deficit (or increased the surplus he created) every
year he was in office … 8 years of improvement in a row.
• GRADE: A+
2001-07: GEORGE W. BUSH (Republican)—6 Years and counting

• In just three years, turned the largest federal surplus in history (Clinton’s
surplus) into the largest deficit in history.
• His first six years were the six worst years in history in the worsening of the
federal budget.
• Joined his father and Reagan in the Holy Triumvirate of Voodoo Econom-
ics. Praise the Lord!
• Achieved record federal spending each year while never vetoing a single
spending bill.
• Inflicted great pain on the middle- and lower-income workers of America.
107
Which I am starting by writing this.
• Gave humongous tax breaks to the Super Rich.

• Presided over the largest expansion of government pork and corruption in
history.
• Protected America’s fiscal position the same way he protected America on
9/11.
• GRADE: F
• GRADE DESERVED: W
In summary, the only period of financial responsibility since 1981 was when a
Democrat was in charge.
Bill Clinton’s eight years of Grade A financial responsibility—a noble patriotic
effort—stemmed temporarily the catastrophic tidal wave of 18 years of GOP Grade
F mismanagement and looting (under Reagan, Bush the Father, and Bush the Son).
Giving credit where credit is due, here are some additional facts about Clinton’s
Grade A management:
• Over eight years, with financial improvement each and every year, Clinton
turned an annual budget deficit of $290 billion into an annual budget sur-
plus of $127 billion, the largest ever.
• The turnaround to financial responsibility did not occur without straight talk
and unpopular painful medicine. In his 1993 budget Clinton increased taxes
and slashed expenses. He knew this medicine was necessary to reverse
years of financial irresponsibility under the Republican Party, whose poli-
cies featured wasteful spending along with tax cuts and dodges for the Su-
per Rich and GOP cronies.
• Every Republican member of Congress opposed Clinton’s 1993 budget and
the 1993 Debt Reduction Act. They claimed that Clinton’s tough medicine
would cause greater deficits and a recession, but they were wrong—again.
• Many Americans thought Clinton’s 1993 budget should have contained
more money for education and health care, but Clinton showed strong lead-
ership in administering the needed but unpopular medicine. Clinton knew
that deficits do matter, and he was concerned about the financial health of
the country we would leave our children and grandchildren. The Republican
Party was AWOL, basking in the glow of its ill-gotten loot.
• Clinton’s financial stewardship had numerous other benefits, including: a
big reduction in interest rates; the largest budget surplus ever; huge growth
in excellent jobs; tremendous strength in the stock markets; strength and re-
spect in the world; an America that believed in itself again; and an America
that believed in helping its unborn, wanting to leave them—countless future
generations of children—a valuable financial legacy, not an immoral IOU in
the form of a cold GOP Banana.
Upon being appointed president in 2000, Bush immediately planted his “Of the
Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich” banner in the U.S. Treasury and stuck his
greedy hands into the pockets of all middle- and lower-income Americans. This was
his number one priority, ahead of national security and everything else. With in-
credible incompetence and Orwellian doublespeak, Bush recklessly reversed the
eight years of fiscal responsibility under Clinton. If they were alive today, honest
conservatives such as Eisenhower and Goldwater would take Bush and his GOP out
behind the woodshed for a thrashing.
Economists agree that the budget deficits and other huge GOP deficits discussed
in this chapter cannot be sustained indefinitely. With the Republican Party in charge,
it’s not a question of “if” there will be a Financial Armageddon—a Big Bang, a Hell
on Earth—it is only a question of “when” and “how.”
The Super Rich do well financially no matter what happens, as will their off-
spring in perpetuity. So will the extended Bush family and its cronies. Unrestricted
by national boundaries, they maintain extravagant life styles anywhere they wish,
even as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are gutted.
Under Bush, the Super Rich pocketed hundreds of billions of dollars and will
pocket trillions (that is, millions of millions) more over the next two decades if the
Con Party’s tax cuts for the Super Rich are made permanent.
Bush and the GOP Congress ransacked America’s finances like thieves and
drunken sailors. They eliminated checks and balances while they wrote unlimited
checks and IOUs. The GOP Congress abdicated its constitutional duties by refusing
to oversee and investigate financial malfeasance, fraud and waste in the executive
branch, and it changed and gutted congressional ethics rules to protect its own
“crooks within.”
Until the 1980s both parties believed in fiscal responsibility and balanced budg-
ets. They understood the unfairness of stealing from grandchildren and the unborn to
fund current financial addictions. They knew America needed to be fiscally strong in
order to be morally and militarily strong. But then Reagan and the deficits-don’t-
matter neo-GOP rode into town.
Even some Republican leaders said they were appalled by the pork barrel politics
and fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP Congress and the Bush administration, but
when the chips were down they did little about it. It is “so disgraceful,” noted Sena-
tor John McCain, who said he had never seen it worse. “Republicans used to be for
fiscal discipline,” he commiserated. But, like other GOP leaders, Chameleon McCain
likes to have it both ways, always talking the good talk about fiscal responsibility
and other populist issues, but then working to get Bush reelected. When it comes to
walking the talk, this self-proclaimed “straight talker” is a “crooked walker” who
couldn’t defend his own wife when she was slandered by Bush operatives in South
Carolina’s primary during the 2000 presidential campaign, but later genuflected
shamelessly before Bush’s most rightwing Christian supporters.
The American voter must also shoulder a big share of the blame for the horrible
financial condition of America. The problem is that Americans vote for politicians
who promise to: (1) spend more (on both good things and pork), and (2) reduce in-
come, by cutting taxes. We know that “spend more, reduce income” economics does
not work for our families, but we continue to vote for Alice in Wonderland charla-
tans—Bush League Republicans—who do exactly this to America. The most dishon-
est and dangerous among them assert that Reagan proved “deficits don’t matter.”
Our children and grandchildren will painfully learn that our deficits do matter.
SIDEBAR: A National Lottery for all Taxpayers, Not a Rigged System for the
Super Rich.
Bush’s budget deficit for 2004 was $413 billion, another new all-time record. The
biggest cause of this disaster is Bush’s tax cuts for the Super Rich. Rather than giv-
ing the money to the Super Rich each year—say $300 billion of it—a fairer plan is a
national lottery that each year randomly awards $1 million each to 300,000 different
taxpayers. This means that a new American millionaire would be created every 105
seconds throughout the year, every year, forever. This has many advantages over
Bush’s rigged lottery system for the Super Rich:
• The new lottery system would live up to America’s democratic ideal of equal
opportunity for all, as opposed to an aristocratic worldview that reserves oppor-
tunity for men of position and wealth.
• The new lottery would reduce the annual budget deficits because the recipients
would pay income taxes on their winnings. In sharp contrast, the Super Rich pay
zero taxes on their winnings under the rigged lottery that Bush and the GOP run
for them.
• The winners of the new lottery would be more likely than the Super Rich to
spend their winnings in America, thereby providing greater stimulus to the econ-
omy and creating more jobs.
In fiscal year 2005 the U.S. government had to spend $352 billion of taxpayer
money just on interest payments to the holders of America’s national debt. This rep-
resented about 40% of all individual federal income taxes collected during the year.
The interest paid ballooned to $406 billion the following year (fiscal year 2006), and
similar huge unsustainable increases can be expected until America falls off the GOP
Debt cliff.
Bush disingenuously announced plans to slash his massive deficit in half within a
few years, but even Republicans did not believe him. “The numbers simply do not
add up,” said the Republican chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Repre-
sentative C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), in early 2004.
The GOP’s fiscal policies and performance were so bad under Bush’s watch that
he finally stopped saying his policies would lead to balanced budgets.
Bush’s White House sees no problem with lying and using creative accounting
when it comes to the federal budget. For example, in January 2004 the White House
said that in the prior fiscal year the discretionary spending increase was limited to
4%. However, as the rightwing Wall Street Journal pointed out, the White House
excluded supplemental increases, and when those are counted, the increase is 15%,
“the largest single-year increase in at least three decades.”
The truth about the Bush administration’s intentions—to enrich the Super Rich
regardless of the consequences to America—is made abundantly clear in the bestsel-
ler, The Price of Loyalty, which is about Paul O’Neill’s experiences as Treasury Sec-
retary in the Bush administration. Unlike Reagan and his early supply-side econo-
mists—who were true believers but wrong—O’Neill saw Bush and his closest advi-
sors for what they are—political opportunists with virtually no interest or skill in
economics. When O’Neill pointed out his great concern that another big tax cut was
moving America towards a fiscal crisis, Cheney infamously said, “Reagan proved
deficits don’t matter … We won the midterms. This is our due.” O’Neill was
stunned; he couldn’t believe that Cheney would say such a thing. Let’s remember
that O’Neill is a conservative, not some leftie opponent of Bush, and was handpicked
by Bush to be his Treasury Secretary.
From the beginning of Reagan’s presidency and continuing through the Bush re-
gime, the GOP worked relentlessly to create the Second Gilded Age in America, an
era in which government power is used to promote the interests of corporations and
the Super Rich at the expense of common men and women. During the Gilded Age
(1872-1900), corporations assumed all the rights and privileges of American citizens,
and more. The U.S. military was used imperialistically to promote corporate inter-
ests. Government and corporate corruption was widespread, and monopolies ruled
America. The GOP wants to turn the clock back to 1900, killing America’s progress
in human rights since then, and gutting Social Security, Medicare and other security
programs for all Americans.
SIDEBAR: The Same Answer Every Time
“Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep.’”108 John 21:15-18. And Bush replied, “How about
feeding your sheep to my wolves?”
On the first day of Algebra class the math students solved the first equation and
found that X = 9. One student had trouble understanding the concept, and so he
wrote “X = 9” as the answer to every subsequent problem. That created some laugh-
ter in the classroom, but the student caught on pretty quickly and later laughed about
it too.
The GOP is like that slow student, except it doesn’t get it, and we’re the joke. For
every problem or non-problem, whatever the facts, the GOP has the same answer:
“X = Huge Tax Cut for the Super Rich.”
When Bush became President, he inherited from Bill Clinton a federal govern-
ment that Clinton had restored to fiscal responsibility after 12 years of Republican
mismanagement and misdeeds. The newly appointed Bush was looking at rapidly
growing budget surpluses “as far as the eye could see.”
Bush’s answer to this “problem” was:
108
The GOP’s Neo-Bible says, “Feed my wolves.” Yes, “W” stands for “wolves.”
Bush said things similar to the following, “We is returning the surplus to the peo-
ple. You knows better than the government how to spend it.”
Then when Bush ran the budget back into Republican Red and created record
deficits, his pre-programmed “solution” was still:
However, because the surpluses had disappeared, Bush switched to different

“justifications” and different lies like, “These tax cuts will eliminate … I mean, cre-
ate … lots of jobs, and explode …er, eliminate the deficits.”
Many of the political slogans written for Bush by Karl Rove are intended to
evoke the response, “Boy, that sounds good—anyone with half a brain would agree
with that.” Fortunately, dear reader, you have a whole brain. Fortunately, a growing
number of traditionally conservative voters have begun using more of their brain-
power, as reflected in the 2006 midterm elections.
Here’s the GOP’s bedrock principle: No matter what the facts, no matter what the
impact on America, no matter what the truth, Bush and the GOP will religiously
push “Of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich” policies. To Hell with the unborn
who will suffer the consequences.
The GOP believes in winner-take-all, wealthy-take-all, public-trough politics. It’s

no surprise that the Bush League of Nations is such a dismal failure. The nations of
the world—whether longtime American allies or adversaries, whether developed or
undeveloped, whether democracies or dictatorships—see Bush and the GOP as rotten
role models, and they oppose their blueprints for the world.
Among Republican senators, there were at least three (all from New England,
none from the South) who tried, more or less, to block Bush administration budgets
that did not balance the huge tax cuts for the rich with spending cuts or other tax
increases. The three are Senators Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, and Olympia
Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Just like former GOP Senator Jim Jeffords of
Vermont, they began to realize they were in the wrong party. After losing his bid for
reelection in 2006, Chaffee even indicated he was considering leaving the Republi-
can Party. This should surprise no one. The Con Party has morphed into the
Confederate Party, having reintroduced Confederate currency, military adventurism,
and toxic divisive values to America.
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility, com-
mented on Bush’s $2.4 trillion budget for 2005: “This president is running us right
over the fiscal cliff. The president says he wants to go to Mars. He’s taken the deficit
to the moon.” Conrad noted that Bush’s deficit alone is $991,000 per minute.
National Debt
More national debt was added during the eight years of Ronald’s presidency than in
the entire prior 200+ year history of the United States. During its first 200 years,
America incurred most of its debt during troubled times such as World Wars I and II.
Yet, on Reagan’s watch of only eight years (1981-89)—a time without major war
when no American soldier killed a single Russian soldier or vice versa—our national
debt increased by more than 260%, primarily because of reckless tax cuts for the
Super Rich, and secondarily because of profligate spending. Yes, Reagan was a big
spender—a big spender and a big borrower.
During the eight years of Reagan’s watch, the national debt increased by an aver-
age of 13.8% per year, the highest ever in American history.
Our national debt during the Reagan years increased from less than $1 trillion
($937 billion) to $2.6 trillion. This is Reagan’s Legacy of Debt to America’s children
and grandchildren. It can accurately be called “Reagan’s Leave-No-Rich-Person-
Behind Legacy of Debt for America’s Unborn.”
America is not indebted to Reagan—America is in debt because of Reagan. That
is Reagan’s biggest legacy. He spawned the wild notion that “deficits don’t matter,”
which allowed the GOP to loot and bankrupt America.
Visit www.reagandebt.com to see America’s current, up to the second, national
debt, which is accurately labeled, “The Ronald Reagan Memorial National Debt.”
The website notes the astute comment in 1989 by ultra conservative George Will
regarding Reagan’s legacy:
... something fundamental happened in American governance when a conservative

Republican administration produced deficits of $200 billion—and nothing hap-
pened. Nothing, that is, dramatic and immediately visible. ...for the political class,
the event was a splendid liberation: all the rules were repealed.
Assuming an annual weighted-average interest rate of just 4% on America’s na-

tional debt—it’s actually higher—the interest payment on just the additional debt
incurred under Reagan is approximately $65 billion per year, which painfully comes
out of our government’s annual operating budget each and every year. This perpetual
annual $65 billion drain could have been used for better purposes, for example, to
increase our annual defense budget by more than 20% in perpetuity, or to fund the
equivalent of 200 Peace Corps each year in perpetuity, or to save tens of millions of
lives in third world countries. But Reagan and the GOP worked instead for the Super
Rich.
At a news conference in March 1981 Reagan said that a “drastic reduction in the
deficit ... will take place in the fiscal year 1982.” This was based on what his nitwit
supply-side economic advisors told him to say. However, rather than falling as prom-
ised, the deficit ballooned to a record $128 billion that year. Reagan learned the hard
way that his economic advisors were wrong, and he thereafter made fewer rosy pre-
dictions.
Under GOP mismanagement and looting that started with Reagan, America lost
its financial backbone and went from being the largest creditor nation in the world to
the largest debtor nation. Thanks to the neo-GOP, America’s national debt increased
more than 900% since Reagan entered the White House!
In the years ahead, when you talk with your grandchildren about what America
once stood for, be sure to tell them about that wonderful gift of debt the Republican
Party gave them. It should be named the “Reagan-Bush I-Bush II National Debt,” in
honor of the crooks and fools who created it.
The reckless fiscal mismanagement by Republican presidents continued unabated

during the entire period from 1980 through W’s watch, interrupted only by eight
years of tough fiscal stewardship by Democratic President Bill Clinton. If Clinton
had not been at the helm for those eight years—if some GOP lackey of the Super
Rich had been in charge—the rightwing looting would have continued, and the
United States would now be several additional trillions of dollars further in the hole
than it actually is.
The Reagan - Bush I - Bush II National Debt

10
9
National Debt (Trillions of Dollars)
2007
8
7
6 GOP Insanity: Bush
League
5 "Deficits Don't Matter"
4 "Borrow, Spend, and Steal"
3 End of Reagan
2 1989
Birt h of Nat ion St art of Reagan
1 1776 1981
0
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
Year
Bush took Republican fiscal recklessness to new levels of madness. The amount
that Bush and the GOP add to the national debt in a typical year is more than one-
third of the total national debt incurred by the United States during its first 200
years.
When Bush became president, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that
there would be a total budget surplus of $5 trillion during 2002-2011. In 2004—after
Bush had been in office only three years—it was estimated that, during this same
2002-2011 period, the United States would suffer a total deficit of more than $4 tril-
lion. That’s a Bush League turnaround, a catastrophic freefall, of $9 trillion.
Bush and the GOP coupled irresponsible record spending with four rounds of ir-
responsible tax cuts primarily for the Super Rich, and the result was as certain as
night following day: record budget deficits and an explosion in our national debt.
In 2004 the U.S. government under Bush spent $2.3 trillion and suffered a $410
billion deficit. In the last full year of Clinton’s administration the U.S. government
spent only $1.8 trillion, and it enjoyed an $86 billion surplus.
Let’s consider the additional annual interest America must pay on just the addi-
tional national debt created by the GOP since 1980. This additional interest was
about $360 billion in 2006, or about one billion dollars per day. (Imagine 360,000
piles of one million dollars each.) This should be called the “GOP Debt Tax,” and it
is an enormous waste of limited resources. This annual GOP Debt Tax is equal to
about 70% of the entire annual Department of Defense budget, and it increases every
day.
The interest paid on America’s national debt represents an enormous lost oppor-
tunity. This money is annually flushed down the Republican Voodoo Economics
toilet. It is real cash that is no longer available for a host of needs: Homeland
Security, national defense, Social Security, Medicare, education, health care for
every American, and so forth. The budget deficits and growing interest payments
harm America’s long-term strategic interests by boosting interest rates, reducing
saving, reducing investment, and reducing jobs.
When the GOP is in charge, America needs no enemies.
Thanks to Bush and the Republican Party, there is no GOP plan on the horizon to
ever repay even one penny of the principal of the national debt. Bush may be count-
ing on the rapture—or a huge meteor destroying Earth—before the real financial
Bushit hits the fan. Although Bush can retire safely to the gated community of Bush
World when he leaves office, America’s children and grandchildren, plus genera-
tions of the unborn, cannot.
America has become a Banana Republic run by Banana Republicans, and their
GOP Welcome Wagon for the unborn is a huge GOP shaft, a cold Bush Banana.
Republicans no longer just “tax and spend”—they “borrow and spend,” or, more
accurately, they “borrow, spend and steal.”
As for spending, the “borrow and spend” GOP put spending on steroids. Even
Reagan—especially Reagan—who pandered for votes by railing against Big Gov-
ernment, expanded the federal government with unprecedented spending increases.
Most appropriately, the largest government office building in Washington was built
in his honor and has his name on it.
The GOP believes in Big Government because huge corporations and the Super
Rich now own and milk it—the U.S. Government should be renamed America,
Inc.—and the GOP has no social responsibility other than to themselves and their
cronies. Low- and middle-income schmucks, on the other hand, fight and die in fool-
ish wars not of their own making, ultimately have to pay the bills, and receive noth-
ing in return.
Republicans have created an imperial corrupt government of wasteful consump-
tion and multiple wasteful deficits. The savings rate in the United States is now
negative, personal debt is at a record high, and people are consuming the equity in
their homes.
GOP America is consuming itself, as it consumes much more than it makes. It is
burning the furniture to keep warm. This parallels Bush’s personal profligate life-
style. As a leach on every company and organization to which he was appended,
Bush always sucked out more than he contributed. The GOP concluded this is a good
model for America.
Honest conservatism in the GOP is dead. Its leadership is Confederate, and its
agenda is Confederate.
The GOP is “consumptive,” not “conservative.” “Consumptive” is accurate not
only in the economic meaning of “consumption”—i.e., the using up of resources—
but also in the old medical sense of “consumption”—i.e., a disease of the lungs in-
volving the wasting away of the body, now known as pulmonary tuberculosis. Yes,
the Republican Party is the Consumption Party, skilled in the wasting away of Amer-
ica. Yes, “W” stands for “wasting away.”
The reckless fiscal policies of the GOP compromised America’s ability to re-
spond effectively to future economic and terrorist shocks such as 9/11. The budget
surpluses and strong fiscal position of the United States existing on 9/11 gave Amer-
ica the ability to respond flexibly, swiftly and aggressively to the challenges. More
than ample resources were readily available to fund a strong appropriate military
response, as well as diplomatic and economic initiatives. The Federal Reserve had
ample room to implement an aggressive stimulatory monetary policy. Resources
were available to rebuild and move forward. Unfortunately, the Bush regime’s tax
cuts for the Super Rich and other reckless decisions greatly reduced America’s op-
tions to respond to any major future shock or challenge, whether military or eco-
nomic. Bush League policies painted America into a dangerous corner.
More and more members of Bush’s own party are grumbling. Senator George
Voinovich (R-OH) in 2004 gave his realistic perspective to the Senate: “The coun-
try’s finances are in dire condition. We face a sea of red ink as far as the eye can see
… We are on the edge of an abyss and we must stop before we commit fiscal sui-
cide.” Yes, Republican Voinovich used the right word—suicide. Bush and the Re-
publican Party put America on the road to financial Armageddon. Praise the Lord!
You might ask where the more than $350 billion in additional annual interest
goes after it disappears down the Republican Voodoo Economics Toilet. Well, it is
gobbled up by the holders of U.S. bonds, treasury bills and other debt instruments,
who are mainly the Super Rich, large corporations, foreign governments and other
entities. Unfriendly foreign governments hold a rapidly increasing portion of Amer-
ica’s debt. Saudi Arabia, which holds an enormous share, effectively uses a portion
of the hard American dollars it receives to fund its anti-America and anti-West poli-
cies, which are seeped in Wahhabism. At the end of the day, it and other unfriendly
nations use a portion of the GOP Debt tax to fund terrorist organizations. Communist
China’s share of America’s debt is also rising rapidly.
SIDEBAR: Research Project for a Student
If you’re an economics or political science student looking for an interesting topic

for your class, you could consider investigating the “special” financial relationships
between Saudi Arabia and the United States. What are the implications for Amer-
ica’s energy policy? What investments has Saudi Arabia made in America? What
percentage of America does Saudi Arabia already own? How does Saudi Arabia
compromise America’s so-called war on terrorism? What are the foreign policy im-
plications for America?
Another irony is that America’s Super Rich, in addition to receiving huge tax
cuts, also receive humungous annual interest payments on the U.S. debt they hold, a
portion of which had to be issued to fund their huge tax cuts! This is like a bank rob-
ber stealing a fortune from a bank and then sending the bank an invoice each year for
interest on the money he stole.
SIDEBAR: Insanity
Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but
expecting different results. The irresponsible tax cuts by Bush meet this definition.
So does voting for the Republican Party—unless perhaps you are a member of the
Super Rich who doesn’t care about the moral and financial condition of the nation
that we leave our children and grandchildren.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof described Bush’s 2005 budget as
“dazzlingly deceitful,” with fudging and gimmickry, noting that he had seen such
irresponsibility before—“in Argentina.” Kristof revisited Bush’s first speech on
budgets—one before a joint session of Congress on February 27, 2001—and notes
that in it, according to Paul O’Neill, Bush made statements about retiring the debt
that the White House knew to be false. The following is from Bush’s speech: “Many
of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I
agree. (Applause.) We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I
hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. (Ap-
plause) ... We should approach our nation’s budget as any prudent family would,
with a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs.” Yes, from
its first days in power, the Bush regime lied to the American people.
As of 2006, each newborn American is immediately saddled with a GOP-
inflicted “birth tax” of $28,000, together with large increases annually imposed by
the Big Spenders and Big Borrowers known as the GOP. This $28,000 is the new-
born’s share of the national debt. This GOP birth tax is like a serious birth defect,
and America’s unborn will have to live with it and pay interest on it forever.
In reality, the financial news is much worse than that. The large “birth tax” of
$28,000 (plus additional principal and interest each year) reflects only what is com-
monly called the “national debt,” which is primarily publicly held debt, and does not
include other huge commitments and contingencies of the U.S. government, includ-
ing Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ health care. The larger total—the “total
burden”—is more than five times as large as the national debt. This means the “birth
tax” on the newborn is really more than five times the $28,000. In a few moments
we’ll return to this larger looming GOP-caused catastrophe.
Apologists for the GOP’s fiscal policies assert that the huge annual budget defi-
cits are manageable. “Sustainable” is another adjective frequently used. But even if
the budget deficits were sustainable—which they aren’t—this doesn’t mean the poli-
cies are prudent for America. A rotten policy that may be sustainable is still a rotten
policy. Asserting that the deficits are “sustainable” is like a neocon saying that his
daily rapes of a neighbor’s daughter are sustainable. (You can imagine the argument:
since the victim is young and strong, a daily rape should be sustainable, whereas
maybe ten rapes a day might not be.)109
The spend and borrow GOP has put America in a deep financial hole, and the
prudent course is to stop digging—stop the financial raping of America and its un-
born—and figure out a prudent way out of the hole.
Temporary budget deficits can make good sense during a recession or depression
when an economic stimulus is needed (with the understanding that debt is paid off
during good times.) But that is not America’s situation. GOP deficits are permanent,
and they loom before us “as far as the eye can see.”
The incredible power of compounding interest is now working against America,
the world’s biggest debtor. Before Reagan, it was working for America.
Responsible professionals in the U.S. government including the Comptroller
General of the United States know that the path charted by the Cons is not sustain-
able. In his November 7, 2005, report covering fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the
Comptroller General warned: “Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually
erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living and ultimately
our national security.”
The Comptroller General is America’s chief accountability officer and is head of
the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). It is his job to report on Amer-
ica’s financial health.
In addition to the huge federal debt (the $28,000 per American discussed above),
there has been explosive growth during Bush’s watch in the gap between future
promised and funded benefits (primarily Social Security and Medicare), as well as
tremendous growth in many other federal commitments and contingencies, including
veterans’ health care. This total burden (“Total Burden”), as calculated by the GAO,
has risen to a staggering $46.4 trillion at the end of the government’s fiscal year
2005, versus “only” $20.4 trillion as of the end of 2000. Thus the Total Burden far
more than doubled in only five years under Bush and his Con-controlled Congress,
and it is continuing to grow rapidly every second of every day.
It is virtually impossible for anyone to truly comprehend a staggering number
like the $46.4 trillion in Total Burden, or “just” the additional $26.0 trillion added to
the Total Burden during just the first five years of Bush’s watch. But let’s give the
numbers some common sense perspective by calculating how rapidly the Total Bur-
den increased for the average American household during Bush’s first five years. We
do this by evenly spreading the $26.0 trillion (Bush’s five-year contribution only)
over all 113 million American households. Here’s the bad news:
The rate at which additional Total Burden (Bush’s contribution only) was im-
posed on American households during the first 5 years of Bush’s watch is equal to:
• $5.25 per hour, per American household, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,
for the entire 5-year period.
• $22.14 per hour, per American household, based on a 40-hour workweek,110
for the entire 5-year period. Incredibly, this hourly rate is about 138% of the
109
If you have a more ugly metaphor or simile that you prefer, please let me know. It is tough
to come up with one that is more ugly that what the Cons are actually doing to America.
average hourly earnings of private, non-farm, production or non-

supervisory workers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• $46,050 per year, per American household. Incredibly, this is more than the
median household income! (See the GAO figures in the sidebar below.)
In other words, if during the first five years of the Bush regime, 100% of Ameri-
can households had applied 100% of their total household income to reduction of the
Total Burden—and thus had not spent one red cent for food, shelter, medical care,
taxes or anything else!—it would not have been enough to cover just the financial
burden added during those five years by Bush and the Cons!
America’s Comptroller General, David Walker, has worked hard to inform the
public of America’s growing fiscal crisis. His many trips and presentations across
America include his “Fiscal Wake-up Tour” of the United States in 2006. The fol-
lowing is taken from one of his presentations regarding America’s huge fiscal bur-
den:
SIDEBAR: How Big is Our Growing Fiscal Burden?111
Our total fiscal burden can be translated and compared as follows:
Total fiscal exposures (as of 9/30/05) $46.4 trillion

Total household net worth $51.1 trillion
Burden/net worth ratio 91 percent
Burden
Per person $156,000
Per full-time worker $375,000
Per household $411,000
Income
Median household income $44,389
Disposable personal income per capita $30,431
Many prominent economists have openly talked about America being on the road
to bankruptcy. Some, such as Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a researcher for the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, believe America by some measures is already
bankrupt. In a research paper he published in 2006, Kotlikoff wrote that “the US
government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who,
in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implic-
110
This assumes no vacation time. The calculation is based on 52 workweeks per year, each
40 hours long.
111
The source of this table is the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). It is a finan-
cial snapshot as of the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005.) www.gao.gov/cghome.
itly promised future net payments of various kinds.” Some, including Kotlikoff, have
calculated the fiscal gap (i.e., the “Total Burden,”) to be as high as an incomprehen-
sible $65 trillion. There are a few terrifying scorched earth “solutions” to this loom-
ing disaster, one of which would be to immediately and permanently cut all Social
Security and Medicare benefits by two-thirds.
In the sad tradition of Banana Republics, a future American president may be re-
quired to beg for massive debt forgiveness from America’s domestic and interna-
tional lenders, with catastrophic consequences. Ironically, the Banana Republican
Party’s financial recklessness is a much greater threat to America’s power and sover-
eignty than the threat of “world government” imagined by conspiracy-theory right-
wingers in their most hallucinatory nightmares.
Following the horrors of 9/11, Americans united behind their president, George
W. Bush, and his approval rating soared to almost 90%. Expecting Bush to lead,
Americans were eager to answer the call, eager to give sacrificially in a grand his-
toric response to the challenges of 9/11. The call never came. Americans wanted to
unite in a shared transformational sacrifice that would not only punish those respon-
sible for 9/11, but would also transform America and the world to make both better
and safer. But Bush and the GOP never made the call.
The Bush White House and the GOP-controlled Congress had no noble plan to
lead America, let alone the world, and they still don’t. They had only blind ideology,
incompetence and greed, which are ingredients of a toxic stew, not a noble plan.
Their efforts in Afghanistan were tentative and unsuccessful; their immoral and ille-
gal war on Iraq bogged down and inspired more terrorism; and their efforts to lead
and secure America were half-hearted, seeped in fear mongering and propaganda.
Handed opportunity by 9/11, the Bushies created catastrophe and turned the
world against America. They united America’s enemies and divided America’s
friends. They caused America the victim to be seen as the bad apple. They trans-
formed America’s military into Goliath and spawned a multitude of enemy Davids.
They sold out America and its Constitution.
Bush made no inspirational call to the children and grandchildren of that “Great-
est Generation” of Americans who answered the call following Pearl Harbor. The
American blood spilled abroad in Bush’s wars would not be the blood of America’s
rich and powerful. There would be no military draft or other shared sacrifice. There
would be no noble focus, no grand strategy other than making sure that America’s
Super Rich and well-connected cronies profit from the 9/11 opportunity.
Bush’s various so-called “emergency” funding requests raised the cost of his
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2008 to a staggering, mind-boggling $196
billion—more than $16 billion each month, more than $1 billion every 48 hours.
Yet there would be no new or old tax to pay for Bush’s wars. In fact, the Super
Rich would continue to receive their huge tax cuts each and every year. One hundred
percent of the enormous bill for the Bush regime’s incompetence and greed would be
passed to future generations of Americans. Screw the unborn.
Trade Deficits and the GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle

Class
Lester Thurow, MIT professor of economics, famously said that the epitaph of the
Reagan presidency will be: “When Ronald Reagan became President, the United
States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the
world’s largest debtor nation.”
When Reagan rode into Washington in 1981, he launched the GOP’s 25-Year
War on America’s Middle Class, which catastrophically restructured America, dev-
astated its manufacturing infrastructure, and crippled America’s national security in
the process. This economic war became the GOP’s new religion and acquired among
those on the extreme economic right a status higher than that of Christianity, with
venerable godlike Reagan increasingly spoken of in reverential tones, and—as the
years rolled by—with facts and reality being replaced by Reagan lore and rightwing
hallucinations.
When Reagan became president, America imported more raw materials than any
other nation, and it exported more manufactured products than any other nation. The
GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle Class completely reversed this and turned
America into a Banana Republic—of, by and for Banana Republicans. America now
exports more raw materials, and imports more manufactured products, than any other
nation.
Bush took the GOP’s 25-Year War on America’s Middle Class to new levels of
madness, and his and the GOP’s anti-union, anti-worker, pro-Big Business economic
policies cost America and America’s workers dearly.
The humongous growth in America’s trade deficit under Bush destroyed millions
of higher-wage, higher-skill manufacturing jobs in the United States, and pushed
millions of Americans into restaurant and other service employment where wages
and benefits are much lower. W and Wal-Mart won the battle to downgrade Amer-
ica’s workers.
Economists believed America’s record trade imbalance of $418 billion in 2002
under Bush was very ominous for America’s financial health and its workers. How-
ever, much worse performance was yet to come. The 2003 trade deficit under Bush
grew by 17.2% to $489.9 billion. The 2004 trade deficit exploded by another 26.1%
to $617.7 billion, and the 2005 deficit jumped another 17.5% to $726 billion.112 The
2006 deficit hit $763.3 billion, a new record for the fifth consecutive year.
An International Monetary Fund report in early 2004 warned that America’s bal-
looning trade and budget deficits are “significant risks” to the world economy. It
predicted that in a few years the total amount of money owed to foreign creditors
could rise to 40% of the United States’ domestic economy, “an unprecedented level
of external debt for a large industrial country.”
112
For each year, the merchandise-only deficit (versus both goods and services) is actually
much higher than the stated figure. For example, the merchandise-only trade deficit was $666
billion in 2004, versus the stated figure of $617.7 billion for aggregate goods and services.
SIDEBAR: Kansas For Sale—America For Sale
When it comes to deficits, Bush and his Republican Party rely upon obfuscation and
ignorance. They count on millions of their supporters not wanting to look at the
numbers, not knowing the difference between a million dollars and a trillion, and not
having the time to understand and size the problem.
But the multiple GOP deficits are in fact staggering and constitute a much greater
threat to America than 100 bin Ladens and 100 9/11s.
Reagan was not proud of the fact that he transformed America from the largest
creditor nation ever into the largest debtor nation ever. In contrast, Bush cares not in
the least that he has broken all of Reagan’s worst financial records and weakened
America catastrophically.
In order to finance Bush’s record annual trade deficit, America in 2004 had to
suck up 80% of total world savings that year, and the percentage has increased since
then. Foreigners held about 43% of all U.S. Treasury bonds, notes and bills, and the
percentage is growing. This nuclear cannon pointed at America’s head should alarm
even Bush’s hardcore supporters, especially those who believe America should never
be influenced by foreigners. At the same time, America’s foreign owners recognize
that it is becoming increasingly risky to buy and hold Bush League Confederate dol-
lars, which have fallen precipitously in value thanks to the GOP printing presses
working day and night to churn out record amounts of Confederate currency.
Naturally, America’s growing horde of foreign creditors increasingly invests in
American assets in addition to U.S. Treasury debt instruments, such as American real
estate and American businesses. Although most conservatives no longer believe in
“Buy American,” America’s foreign lenders and owners do believe in “Buy Amer-
ica.”
Regarding “Buy America,” let’s size the looming GOP-inflicted catastrophe by
asking how much of America could be purchased with Bush’s $2 billion per day
trade deficit. Let’s consider Kansas.
The area of Kansas is 82,282 square miles, which is 52.66 million acres. Assum-
ing a purchase price of $1,000 for Kansas farmland (which is actually higher than the
average 2004 sale price),113 American farmland equal in area to the entire state of
Kansas could be purchased for $52.66 billion. This sum is only a small fraction, less
than one-thirteenth, of America’s annual trade deficit ($726 billion in 2005.)
This means that if those dang foreigners used all those Bush-deficit dollars that
they collected in just one year, they could buy American farmland more than 13
times the size of Kansas.
This means that, in less than six years of Bush League government, foreigners
could pocket enough dollars to buy Kansas-like farmland equal in area to all of
America, including Alaska.
113
For comparison, a 2005 survey in Nebraska indicated that Nebraska agricultural land sold
for an average of $829 per acre.
The GOP’s national anthem is “Come Buy US,” sung to the tune of “Kumbaya.”
Thanks to the GOP, it is “Bye Bye America.”
But Bush and the GOP—both afflicted with attention deficit disorder—pay no at-
tention to deficits. “Deficits don’t matter.” Truly incredible.
Tax Shelters: GOP Kleptomania for the Super Rich

“The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway,” noted Bush on Au-
gust 9, 2004, while explaining why he refuses to tax the wealthy.
Don’t believe figures you read about the percentage of income that the Super
Rich pay in taxes. Much of the income of the Super Rich never gets reported in the
first place, largely because the tax code was written by and for them. Although actual
tax fraud is a big problem (as discussed below), the real crime is all the perfectly
legal tax avoiding devices and tricks available to the Super Rich. The real tax rates
for the Super Rich are undoubtedly much lower than the reported numbers.
On the other hand, every penny of Joe Lunchpail’s wages for work gets accu-
rately reported through his employer, and taxes are withheld from every paycheck.
The billionaire Waltons of America benefit from one set of rules, while Walton
workers are subject to another. Guess who is screwing whom.
According to reviews and reports by the IRS itself, the tax underreporting or
fraud by W-2 Joe Lunchpail is virtually nothing when compared to that of wealthy
individuals and proprietors. In early 2006 the Internal Revenue Service reported that
there was 99% compliance regarding America’s workers and their wages, salary and
tip income. This fact was noted in the IRS’s updated estimates of the tax year 2001
“tax gap” based on the IRS National Research Program (the “NRP”), a comprehen-
sive three-year study of the 2001 tax year returns of individuals. The IRS noted that
compliance is highest where there is third-party reporting.
Incredibly, according to the NRP report, the noncompliance rate is 57 times
higher for non-farm sole proprietor income, which, unlike the case with W-2 Joe
Lunchpail, does not rely upon third-party reporting. The IRS news release noted:
For example, one percent of all wage, salary, and tip income is misreported, contrib-
uting an estimated $10 billion to the tax gap. In contrast, non-farm sole proprietor
income, which is reported on a Schedule C and is subject to little third-party report-
ing or withholding, has a net misreporting percentage of 57 percent, contributing
about $68 billion to the tax gap.
Regarding the total amount of tax underpayment (i.e., fraud), the IRS concluded:
The updated estimate of the overall gross tax gap for Tax Year 2001—the difference
between what taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid on a timely
basis—comes to $345 billion. … IRS enforcement activities, coupled with other late
payments, recover about $55 billion of the tax gap, leaving a net tax gap of $290 bil-
lion for Tax Year 2001.
That last incredible figure of $290 billion is worth repeating. If all Americans had
paid their federal income taxes in full without fraud, the United States would have
had additional tax collections of $290 billion! This total was for tax year 2001, the
year of the comprehensive IRS study, and the current total is undoubtedly higher.
Whatever the exact amount, if Americans didn’t cheat on their taxes, the additional
taxes collected would eliminate, or almost eliminate, the humongous annual budget
deficits of the Bush administration ($318 billion in 2005).
However, the GOP-controlled Congress over the years handcuffed IRS tax en-
forcement by changing the rules to make it harder for IRS enforcement employees to
do their jobs, and easier for the Super Rich to evade taxes. Also, tax collection ef-
forts under the Cons focus too much on the small fish.
In August 2006 The New York Times reported that the Internal Revenue Service
was planning to outsource collection of delinquent taxes of less than $25,000 to pri-
vate tax collectors, even though federal employees can perform this work much more
efficiently. The outsourcing also raises issues of privacy and fraud. At the same time,
the IRS planned to lay off almost half of its auditors who examine the estate tax re-
turns of America’s wealthiest.
When Saddam’s trucks backed into the Iraqi treasury and left filled with cash, it
undoubtedly was perfectly legal, since Saddam and his government made the laws. A
signed document authorizing the withdrawal was even provided to the Iraqi treasury.
Well, the U.S. tax laws operate pretty much the same way for America’s Super Rich,
except that the loot pocketed by them dwarfs Saddam’s take.
Many of America’s brightest and most creative professionals work as tax lawyers
and tax accountants for the Super Rich. Their job is not simply to do all the routine
paperwork for their clients and calculate the amount of taxes due under the tax laws.
Rather, their main added value is creatively pushing the envelop of tax avoidance
techniques and schemes. A tax code that is 14,000 pages long provides lots of paint
for financial artists to paint creative tax-avoiding masterpieces. Their question is:
“What kind of masterpiece do you want me to paint?” Answer: “One that shows me
not paying any taxes.” Reply: “No problem.”
SIDEBAR: Grand Jury Investigation of KPMG’s Tax Shelters
KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms, was one of the more aggressive crea-
tors and sellers of strategies to eliminate huge tax liabilities. Thanks to a whistle-
blower, the IRS learned of the KPMG tax shelters in 2003 and took action to end
them. A federal grand jury in Manhattan investigated and indicted KPMG, which
had collected at least $124 million in accounting fees for its fraudulent tax shelter
work. In 2005 KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in helping wealthy clients cre-
ate at least $11 billion in phony tax losses, thereby helping them dodge $2.5 billion
in taxes, and agreed to pay $456 million as part of a deferred-prosecution settlement.
In March 2006 one of nineteen indicted senior KPMG executives pleaded guilty, and
more indictments appeared likely. It’s unclear what action, if any, will be taken
against the wealthy investors, who are predominantly rich individuals and corpora-
tions. In some cases, the statute of limitations to collect delinquent taxes has expired.
Some investors sued KPMG regarding their tax exposure.
KPMG is not an isolated example. The Dallas-headquartered law firm of Jenkens

& Gilchrist shut its doors on March 31, 2007, a few days after agreeing to pay the
IRS a penalty of $76 million in connection with the firm’s violation of tax laws and
promotion of abusive and fraudulent tax shelters to high-net-worth individuals. In
2005 the law firm and its insurers agreed to pay $81.6 million to settle lawsuits filed
by more than 1,000 tax shelter clients. Founded in 1951 and headquartered in Dallas,
this well-regarded firm had more than 600 attorneys at its peak in 2001. Many of the
tax-elimination packages Jenkins marketed to the Super Rich had catchy names such
as:
• “HOMER” (Hedge Option Monetization of Economic Remainders);
• “BART” (Basis Adjustment Remainder Trusts);
• “COBRA” (Currency Options Bring Reward Alternatives);
• “BLISS” (Basis Leveraged Investment Swap Spreads);
• “BEDS” (Basis Enhancing Derivatives Structure); and
• “BOSS” (Bond & Option Sale Strategy).
An eye-opening description of the tax shelter business is contained in Perfectly
Legal, by David Cay Johnston. It describes a host of specific cases and tricks that
should make you sick. The tax system creates an incentive for the Super Rich to
cheat, and the professionals doing their dirty work are paid dearly. For example,
Johnson writes,
Only the very rich can buy these tax shelters. Ernst & Young has been known to
charge people a fee of $1 million just to look at a tax shelter proposal. But then,
compared to paying taxes, tax shelters can be a real bargain. One Ernst & Young
shelter cost $5 million to wipe out $20 million in tax obligations, according to its
confidential offering. Ernst & Young sold a similar shelter that promised people
with salaries of $20 million or more that they could live tax-free. KPMG and BDO
Seidman, in particular, fought government efforts to learn about their tax shelters
and who used them.
Many of the tax schemes rely upon secrecy—by being structured so that key in-
formation is not filed with the IRS. Also, Congress has taken many steps to protect
the Super Rich by effectively handcuffing IRS enforcement.
Environment and Energy Policy—Attacking America’s Security

Within a few days after his inauguration in January 2001, oilman Bush appointed
oilman Cheney—the former head of public-trough energy giant Halliburton—to
chair an energy task force that would determine America’s energy policy, which
would include gutting environmental protections at every opportunity. The task force
was named the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), and on paper
was composed solely of Bush administration officials. However, lobbyists and oil
and energy company executives, including several from Enron, dominated the
agenda and the proceeding. Environmental groups and consumer representatives
were excluded from meaningful participation.
America’s energy policy was determined in secrecy by Cheney’s team as they
met with lobbyists from the coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries. The rushed energy
policy—presented in a report in May 2001—was a payback to corporate polluters

that funded the Bush/Cheney campaign.
The NEPDG report was widely criticized for many obvious reasons, including
the fact that it was “of, by, and for” the oil and energy industries. Among the indus-
try lobbyists and representatives was Bush’s own “Kenny Boy” Ken Lay, the chair-
man of Enron, who by coincidence gave the most cash to the Bush/Cheney 2000
election campaign.114 Bush stopped talking about his buddy “Kenny Boy” when the
Texas-style corruption at Enron was exposed. Lay was later convicted on numerous
counts and sentenced to prison, but he dropped dead in 2006 before justice was
served.
Industry lobbyists participated extensively in private meetings of the NEPDG. In
addition to telling NEPDG what they wanted, they even wrote key parts of the report
and legislative agenda.
The NEPDG report called for everything that was good for oil and energy com-
panies, and it sacrificed America’s broader interests. The report called for increased
tax breaks and subsidies for energy companies, more privatization and deregulation,
drilling in the Arctic wilderness, and reduced environmental protection.
In short order, consumers in California and other states paid billions more in bo-
gus energy charges due to fraud and diminished federal oversight.
The Bush administration fought legal action to open the NEPDG’s records to
public review and sunlight. At the insistence of two congressional Democrats, Con-
gress ordered its investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), to
obtain the records of the energy task force. The records were needed in connection
with Congress’s investigation of California’s 2001 energy crisis and the fraud lead-
ing to the looting and collapse of Enron. Cheney completely stonewalled all requests,
arguing that the principle of separation of powers prevented Congress from intruding
into meetings between the executive branch and private individuals. The GAO then
filed a lawsuit in federal district court. Unfortunately, the case was assigned to a
judge, John Bates, who had just been appointed by Bush, and who previously was an
assistant to Kenneth Starr—the Whitewater Independent Counsel and hatchet man
for the extreme right. In a partisan ruling, the judge dismissed the case, and the
GAO, under pressure from the Bush White House, declined to appeal the ruling.
Fortunately, two public interest organizations, Judicial Watch and the Sierra
Club, had also filed lawsuits, arguing that the Bush administration ignored “open
government” protections of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which generally
requires public meetings whenever agency officials seek outside advice. There is an
114
The following movie scene is for Casablanca fans, with Ken Lay playing the part of Jan
Brandel, who is trying to get out of Casablanca, and Bush playing the part of the crooked Cap-
tain Louis Renault:
Ken Lay (as he tries to hand Bush a bribe at Rick’s Café Americain): President Bush ...
may I?
Bush: Oh no! Not here please! Come to my office tomorrow morning. We’ll do everything
businesslike.
Ken Lay: We’ll be there at six.
Bush: I’ll be there at ten.
exception if an agency committee is “composed wholly of full-time officers or em-

ployees” of the federal government. The plaintiffs argued that the energy lobbyists
and representatives were de-facto members of NEPDG. The district court sided with
the plaintiffs and ordered discovery to proceed. Cheney stonewalled the discovery
requests for information and petitioned the federal Court of Appeals, again asserting
the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court of Appeals rejected his petition,
leaving him free to claim executive privilege in opposing specific information re-
quests. Cheney then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2004 gave
Cheney at least a temporary victory. It did not order Cheney to respond to the dis-
covery, nor did it uphold his blanket claim of privilege. Rather, it said that the lower
federal courts should have made the plaintiffs narrow their informational requests to
avoid compelling Cheney to claim executive privilege. The legal proceeding would
thus bubble along, with the assurance that no seamy details regarding the task force
would see the light of day until after the 2004 election, if ever.
It didn’t hurt Cheney’s case that his longtime duck-hunting buddy, Antonin
Scalia, sits on the Supreme Court. Extreme rightwing Scalia was one of the five Re-
publicans on the Supreme Court who stopped the vote counting in Florida in 2000
and anointed Bush president and Cheney vice president. Although Cheney and Scalia
went duck hunting together in Louisiana while the case was before the Supreme
Court, Scalia ignored federal judicial rules and refused to remove himself from the
case. The host of the duck-hunting outing was another prominent oilman.
Scalia and rightwing Clarence Thomas joined in a concurring opinion that would
have gone much further. They wanted Cheney to be immune from any discovery,
which would be a big step forward on the road to a presidential dictatorship. Bush
later successfully packed the Supreme Court with two more similar extreme right-
wing justices who consistently side with corporate and executive power over the
public interest.
The activities of Cheney’s NEPDG unfortunately remain classified. However,
thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club and a prior decision of the
Supreme Court in July 2003, the Commerce Department in 2003 made a partial dis-
closure of some NEPDG documents, including charts and maps dated March 2001 of
oil fields and pipelines in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Two charts contain details regard-
ing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and one project was entitled, “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts.” Of course, the Bush League invasion of Iraq had nothing to do
with oil.
But Iraqis for some reason believe Bush’s invasion and occupation was about
Iraq’s oil. In a survey conducted in 2006 by Michigan University and Eastern Michi-
gan University, 76% of Iraqis, when asked to give the three main reasons why the
United States invaded Iraq, gave “to control Iraqi oil” as their first choice. (This high
figure does not include Iraqis who gave “to control Iraqi oil” as their second or third
choice.) The same study indicated that 91% of Iraqis opposed the presence of
American troops, an increase of almost 20% over 2004.
Imagine you are a Middle Eastern Muslim wrestling with this conundrum: “Why
in Allah’s name is America’s oil located under my land?” Is it “intelligent design”
perhaps? Also imagine you are trying not to harbor any skepticism as to the Ameri-
can armies occupying your land. Imagine also that both the U.S. president and the
vice president previously ran—or rather, mismanaged—oily companies and have

benefited greatly from enormous bribes—er, political contributions—from their
crude oil cronies. Imagine further that Bush’s National Security Advisor—yes, the
same clueless and malfeasant one who was sleeping on the job before 9/11, but later
was promoted to Secretary of State because of her incompetence—had a Chevron oil
tanker named after her: the Bahamian-registered, double-hulled, 129,000-ton “Con-
doleezza Rice.”115 Saturday Night Live could not make this stuff up.
Aided by the Religious Right, big corporate polluters control the Bush admini-
stration’s environmental policies, which no longer are based on hard facts and scien-
tific analysis. The NEPDG said nothing serious about global warming. Faith-based
environmental nihilism is in vogue in Bush’s America, where bashing God’s envi-
ronment has become a sign of rightwing religious fervor. The administration favors
increased consumption of oil by the United States, and it counts on America’s mili-
tary to remove all obstacles. The world looks on in horror.
SIDEBAR: Bush and Consumption
“We need an energy bill that encourages consumption.”

—George W. Bush. Sept. 23, 2002
The West Wing of the White House should be renamed the “Waste Wing” in
honor of oily “W” and his crude oil puppeteers.
Bush’s role as Chief Waster greatly upsets allies and friends, who bear the cost of
global warming, higher oil prices, a degrading environment, and increased terrorism
worldwide. America must boot out the gluttonous GOP elephant and become the
world leader in energy conservation, clean energy and alternative energy. America’s
national security hangs in the balance.
Bush’s energy program is better known as “Leave No Ayatollah Behind.” In-
creases in the price of crude generate enormous piles of cash for crude dictators,
helping them remain in power and avoid democratic reform.
Thomas Friedman, a rightwing columnist for The New York Times who supported
Bush’s war on Iraq, is very critical of the Saudi educational system and culture
which breed and encourage terrorists by teaching intolerance for other religions and
cultures, as well as hatred for the West. Friedman wants “an energy policy that re-
duces our dependence on Saudi oil. I don’t want the difference between a good day
and bad day to be whether Saudi Arabia reforms its education system.” He is particu-
larly critical of Cheney:
A few years ago, Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed those of us who advocate
energy conservation as dreamy do-gooders. Had he spent the last three years using
his bully pulpit to push for conservation and alternative energies, rather than dis-
115
It’s the oil tanker that is 129,000 tons, not Rice, and, contrary to some reports, Rice the
Homo sapien was appointed Secretary of State, not Rice the oil tanker.
missing them, we’d be a lot less dependent today on foreign oil. Oh, that is so naïve,
says the oil crowd. Well, what would you call a Bush energy policy that keeps
America dependent on a medieval monarchy with a king who has lost most of his
faculties, where there is virtually no transparency about what’s happening, where
corruption is rampant, where we have asked all Americans to leave and where the
education system is so narrow that its own people are decrying it as a factory for ex-
tremism? Now that’s what I’d call naïve. I’d also call it reckless and dangerous.
By religiously opposing energy conservation, the Bush administration made the

U.S. more dependent on foreign oil, which in turn greatly distorted and misguided its
foreign policy.
By helping prop up rightwing oil dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, which pro-
vides funding, arms and support to many terrorists groups, Bush and the GOP are
helping finance both sides in the war on terrorism.
Contrary to the Bible and common sense, the faith-based Bush administration is
engaged in a war against God’s world. In Bush’s dictionary, “environment” and
“conservation” are four-letter words.
The Bush administration devotes more energy to deceptive marketing campaigns
and slogans than it does to protecting America’s environment for future generations.
For example, the so-called “Clear Skies Initiative” actually increased air pollution
and degraded human health by weakening pollution laws. The so-called “Healthy
Forests Initiative” is welfare for the logging industry, and it does not make forests
healthy.
Unfortunately for both America and the rest of the world, America’s top two
leaders are Texas politicians with oil on the brain and oily money in their bank ac-
counts. They favor the oil industry at every opportunity and refuse to address the
reality of a world that will run short of oil. It is simply a matter of time before the
rapidly increasing demand for oil outstrips the ability of oil-producing nations to
squeeze oil from Mother Earth at a price that does not trigger global depression and
additional oil-based conflicts.
Of course, when it comes to the price of oil, the interests of consumers and oil
producers and profiteers diverge 180 degrees. That’s one clue as to why the Bush
administration sets Neanderthal energy policies. Bush’s oil cronies and multinational
oil companies love it when the price of oil skyrockets. That’s when the good old
times start rolling in oil producing areas of West Texas, including Bush’s hometown
of Midland, and sales of Hummers and huge SUVs jump. Happy plump executives
and directors in oil company boardrooms gleefully rake in the record compensation
that they together set for themselves. In an oily love fest, ayatollahs and dictators in
Iran and Saudi Arabia wear the same smiles as their oily counterparts in Texas.
Notwithstanding record profits, Big Oil continues to receive billions of dollars in
tax breaks and subsidies, thanks to the GOP Congress. Sometimes it received this
largesse without even having to ask. In return, Big Oil is the biggest donor to the
GOP and Bush’s campaigns.
Compensation for oil company executives has gone through the roof, even faster
than the price of gasoline. The average annual pay of oil company executives is more
than $32 million, almost three times the average compensation of CEOs at the largest
350 U.S. corporations, which in turn is a multiple of CEO compensation at compara-
ble foreign companies. The three highest-paid oil company CEOs in 2005 each took
home an average of more than $80 million in loot.
When Lee Raymond, the chairman of Exxon, and other oil company executives
were hauled before Congress in November 2005 to explain skyrocketing gasoline
prices and record oil industry profits, Raymond and other oil executives said it was
just a matter of supply and demand. “We’re all in this together, everywhere in the
world,” Raymond testified. Well, not exactly—unless both rapists and their victims
are viewed as being “all in this together.” Raymond retired at the end of 2005 with a
retirement package worth $400 million, apparently the largest ever for an American
public company.
Raymond serves as chairman of the conservative American Enterprise Institute,
the rightwing neocon propaganda mill that helped shape the catastrophically failed
foreign policies of the Bush administration.
Raymond’s company, Exxon, actively opposes prudent environmental policies
and is a leading exploiter and despoiler of God’s world. It may be just a coincidence
that Raymond was president of Exxon at the time of the Exxon Valdez tanker disas-
ter in Alaska in 1989 when 30 million gallons of crude oil were spilled into Prince
William Sound.116 To commemorate Bush’s disastrous environmental actions, the
infamous Exxon Valdez should be renamed the Exxon Valdez Bush in his honor.
Exxon generates an enormous amount of disinformation regarding global warm-
ing. It is a major obstacle to energy independence for America, and its propaganda,
money and political influence jeopardize America’s strategic security interests. But
none dare call it treason.
Phillip Cooney, the former chief of staff of the Bush White House’s Council on
Environmental Quality, left his position in 2005 after The New York Times exposed
his editing of scientific government reports so as to downplay the impact of human
activity on global warming. Cooney, a political appointee with no scientific creden-
tials, was quickly rehired by—guess who—Exxon, the world’s number one corporate
enemy of God’s creation. The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform in March 2007 released documents showing hundreds of instances in which
Cooney made changes, which, according to Committee Chair Henry Waxman, sug-
gested a “systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate
change.” (These documents saw the light of day only after the GOP lost control of
Congress in 2006.) Before his oily stint in the Bush administration, Cooney worked
for the American Petroleum Institute, where as “climate team leader” he was paid
royally to deny climate change.
Cooney epitomizes the well-oiled revolving door between GOP-style government
and Big Business, with countless political hacks going from oily position to oily po-
sition to oily position. There’s a rumor, which I’m now starting, that candidates for
positions in the Bush administration, in addition to proving their rightwing Christian-
ist credentials, must also prove their loyalty by pimping their mothers for a 55-gallon
barrel of crude.
116
The infamous Exxon Valdez, now named “The Sea River Mediterranean,” operates under
the flag of the Marshall Islands and is prohibited by law from entering Prince William Sound.
Here are several additional interesting data points—perhaps gentle signals from
God—that should serve as bellwethers of things to come:
• The fabulous Texas oil fields have seen their best days. By 2004 daily oil
production in Texas had declined to about 360,000 barrels, about one-third
of what it was in 1978, the last year in which Texas oil production broke
1,000,000 barrels a day. Fortunately for oil tycoons but not consumers,
higher oil prices have helped offset the decline in oil production. Texas is
rapidly becoming an empty oilcan.
Texas Crude Oil Production
1400
1972 - Peak
Crude Oil (millions of barrels)
1200 Texas Oil

1000
800
600
400
200
0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
• The same applies to the rest of America. Serious oil production in Alaska’s
North Slope started in 1978, the year after the completion of the 800-mile-
long trans-Alaska pipeline that moves oil from the North Slope to the ice-
free port of Valdez. By 1988 North Slope production had peaked at 2 mil-
lion barrels per day. Since then it has steadily declined, and by 2006 it was
at only 45% of its peak. It seems like only yesterday that the North Slope oil
resources were discovered and the pipeline opened.
• Since the North Slope is over the hump and rapidly on its way to depletion,
the Bush administration wants to also exploit and empty the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR.) One advantage of the GOP’s “burn it now”
agenda is that future generations of Americans won’t have to worry about
managing this wonderful natural resource—there will be nothing left to
manage.
• U.S. crude oil production peaked in 1970 at more than 11 million barrels
per day, and it has been on a decline ever since, notwithstanding the open-
ing of Alaska’s North Slope in 1978.
• By the end of 2005, U.S. crude oil production had dropped to 4.86 million
barrels per day, which is less than 45% of America’s peak production in
1970.
• By 2005 America was producing less oil that it did in 1950, when its popu-
lation was less than half its 2005 total.
• The 1970 record oil production represented more than 40% of total world
production, but it was still not enough to meet America’s appetite for oil—
almost 15 million barrels per day in 1970.
• Much is written about the definition and timing of “global peak oil,” and it
is a question of when, not if. Given the long lead time needed to transition
to meaningful conservation and alternative energy sources, global peak oil
is effectively staring America in the face.
• As many as 54 of the top 65 oil producing nations have already passed
through, or are now experiencing, their “peak oil.” As previously noted,
America passed through its peak oil in 1970, having used its limited oil re-
sources earlier and faster than any other nation.
• Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Russia head the short list of nations with huge
oil reserves that have not yet hit their peak oil. With increasing speed each
year, rudderless America, paralyzed by the do-nothing Bush administration,
is sliding down a slippery crude oil slope, dissipating its wealth, strategic
power, and ability to control its own future, while at the same time increas-
ing the economic and strategic advantage of foreign powers unfriendly to
America.
That’s the sad story on the production side. What has happened on the demand
side?
• America continues to be the oil pig of the world, with enormous implica-
tions for U.S. policy and security.
• With 5% of the world’s population, the United States consumes about 25%
of the world’s oil. Consumption by the rest of the world, especially China
and India, is rising even more rapidly.
• In 1950 America consumed about 5 million barrels of oil daily, about equal
to what it then produced.
• In 1970, the year of America’s peak oil production, America consumed al-
most 15 million barrels of oil per day, about 4 million barrels more than it
produced.
• By the end of 2005, U.S. oil consumption had increased to about 21 million
barrels per day, while U.S. production, as noted above, had dropped to 5
million barrels. America now has to import more than 75% of the oil it con-
sumes.
• By way of comparison, at the time of the 1973 oil crisis, during which
Americans endured closed gas stations and gas lines blocks long, the United
States imported less than one-third of its oil. America at that time was thus
much less susceptible to the “oil weapon” than it is now under the Bush re-
gime, which has made things worse with its “head in the sand” and “army in
the sand” energy policies. During the 1973 energy crisis, the seven Arab na-
tions in OPEC plus Egypt and Syria announced an oil embargo against the
nations (the United States, Western Europe and Japan) that supported Israel
in the fourth Arab-Israeli war, also known as the “Yom Kippur War” and
the “Ramadan War.” At the same time, OPEC took actions to greatly in-
crease the price of oil. It later came to light that Egypt and Saudi Arabia se-
cretly met and agreed before the Yom Kippur War to use the “oil weapon.”
• Under Bush’s and the GOP’s watch, not only has the total amount of im-
ported oil increased each year, the percentage of our oil consumption that is
imported has also increased each year.
Not fans of reality, the oil addicts in the Bush administration believe they can
drill their way out of America’s energy hole. That is simply not possible.
• In 2004 there were only 1,200 rigs actively exploring for oil and natural gas
in the United States, a drop of almost three-quarters from the 1981 peak of
4,530 rigs. This drop occurred notwithstanding a huge increase in the price
of oil and reflects the fact that almost all of America’s oil has already been
discovered.
• The United States has lots of oil wells, more than 500,000, but they on av-
erage don’t produce much—slightly more than 10 barrels of oil per day
each. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has only 1,500 producing wells, but
they average about 5,000 barrels per day (500 times the U.S. average.)
The Bush regime and the GOP are like a pack of dogs adrift in a lifeboat that de-
cides on the first day to eat all the dog food.
Their energy policies have made America much more energy dependent than
when Bush took office. America now imports much more oil than in 2001, with in-
creased dependence on dictators and cartels.
It is as if Bush decided to play Russian roulette with dictators, but after foolishly
loading bullets into all six chambers of his six-shooter, Bush then says to Iranian
President Ahmadinejad, “I’ll go first.”
America must move away from both its fossil fuels and its fossil fools.
In Part V of this book (“Tools of the Trade,” Chapters 13-18) we focus a bright
light on many of the duplicitous and illegal tools used by the GOP to seize power
and wage its War on Iraq and its War on America.
PART V
Tools of the Trade

CHAPTER 13
An Outlaw Presidency—From Crimes

Against Humanity to the Rape of the U.S.
Constitution
The George Orwell Party (GOP) at Work
Naturally the common people don’t want war… But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. … Voice or no voice, the people
can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the peace-
makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same in any country.
—Nazi Herman Goering, second in command of the Third Reich, during
his Nuremberg War Crimes Trial in 1946.
The Fourth Reich

There is broad worldwide consensus that the Bush administration has committed war
crimes and crimes against humanity in its war on Iraq and its broader so-called
global war on terrorism. Broadly-supported international criminal proceedings
against Bush, Cheney and their chief neocon henchmen would already be underway
but for the fact that America is, well, America, the world’s number one superpower.
America’s traditional allies and friends rightly refused to drink the toxic Iraqi
Kool-Aid brewed by the Bush League neocons, and they do not understand why tens
of millions of Americans in the face of Bush’s imperialism, lying and tyranny—
especially his war on Iraq and his assault on America’s civil liberties—behave like
sheep going to the slaughter. They are appalled that Americans took so long to grasp
the sad truth about their imperial incompetent president, the outlaw George W. Bush.
Where is that America—the land of the free and the home of the brave—they once
admired?
SIDEBAR: “Watch Us, Wiretap Us, Search Us, Jail Us … The High Price of
American Gullibility”
A growing number of prominent conservative and libertarian Americans also have

sounded the alarm against the Bush regime’s illegal and unconstitutional spying on
Americans and the gullibility of countless millions of Americans, especially conser-
vatives and America’s media, who succumbed to emotional appeals to fear and false
patriotism, and turned a blind eye to reason and reality.
In a June 28, 2006, article in CounterPunch entitled, “Watch Us, Wiretap Us,
Search Us, Jail Us … The High Price of American Gullibility,” Paul Craig Roberts,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and former Associ-
ate Editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page, writes: “In National Socialist
Germany, by the time propaganda lost its grip, Germans were in the hands of a po-
lice state. It was too late to take corrective measures. Not even the military could
correct the disastrous policies of the executive. In the end, Germany was destroyed.
Does a similar fate await Americans?”
The Bush administration since 9/11 has isolated America in unprecedented fash-
ion precisely at that point in history when America most needs allies and multina-
tional cooperation to fight stateless violence and terrorism.
• According to a June 2006 poll conducted in Great Britain, France, Spain
and Italy by the Harris Poll and the Financial Times—regarded by many as
the world’s foremost English-language daily newspaper—the United States
is viewed as the number one threat to world security. Incredibly, 36% of
those polled in this survey of our allies identified America as the greatest
threat, followed by Iran with 30% and China with 18%.
• According to a 15-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey released June 13,
2006, positive views of the United States continued to decline, and majori-
ties in most nations believe America will not achieve its objectives in Iraq.
In Great Britain, which is America’s staunchest ally in Iraq, 60% say the
Iraq war made the world more dangerous, compared with 30% who say it
made the world safer.
The Bush administration has engaged in a broad assault on what America’s
friends have long admired most about America: the U.S. Constitution and Bill of
Rights; America as the brightest beacon of freedom and hope in a troubled world;
and America’s huge inspirational role in leading competent democratic partnerships
in times of conflict. Ironically, the Bush administration has rejected the main institu-
tions of world order that generations of American leaders helped form and de facto
led.
Over several decades America was the chief architect and supporter of a host of
international alliances, organizations and treaties having progressive purposes and
ideals, including the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, GATT
and the Geneva Conventions. The principal structures were birthed in abhorrence to
CHAPTER 13 — AN OUTLAW PRESIDENCY 299
twentieth century warmongering and totalitarianism, characteristics that now are

associated with Bush’s regime and the neo-GOP.
Secretary of State Colin Powell opposed the Bush administration’s efforts to gut
America’s international treaty obligations and the Geneva Conventions, one of his
many concerns being that captured American soldiers could be greatly endangered.
It’s a fair conclusion—and a widespread belief among America’s allies and friends—
that the Bush regime’s above-the-law attitude led directly to the torture abuses at
Abu Ghraib and elsewhere—including but not limited to waterboarding—and to a
precipitous drop in America’s moral standing throughout the world.
SIDEBAR: International Criminal Court
America can improve its standing and influence in the world by joining the Interna-
tional Criminal Court (ICC)—the world’s first permanent and independent interna-
tional criminal court—and working to expand the ICC’s enforcement powers. The
ICC was born in 1998 when 120 nations voted to adopt the Rome Statute of the ICC
treaty, and became effective in 2002 according to the Rome Statute’s terms when a
minimum of 60 nations had formally ratified it.117
Only seven nations voted against the Rome Statute: the United States, Israel, the
People’s Republic of China, Iraq, Qatar, Libya and Yemen. What a friendly, peace
loving bunch!
Although the United States signed the ICC treaty just prior to the treaty’s 2000
signature deadline, the United States never ratified it.118 Upon becoming president,
Bush nullified the U.S. signature, withdrew U.S. support, and declared that the
United States would not ratify the treaty. One concern was that American soldiers
and members of Bush’s administration—including possibly Bush himself—could be
brought before the ICC for trial. Many of America’s closest allies—satisfied with the
many protections and exemptions available under the ICC—have urged the United
States to also join. The worst case foreseen by America’s allies was that the United
States would refuse to join and simply ignore the court. Unfortunately, imperial Bush
went much further and launched an all-out campaign that was seen by many as an
attempt to strangle the ICC at birth. Bush also threatened many third-world nations
with various sanctions and punishments if they supported the ICC.
Nations ratifying the treaty have granted the ICC authority to try its citizens for
war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Many assert that the nations
most opposed to the ICC are the nations more likely to engage in these activities.
Pro-torture officials and other war criminals in the Bush regime come to mind.
117
By mid-2005, 99 nations had ratified the treaty. A nation is not subject to the ICC unless
and until it ratifies the treaty.
118
Desiring to negotiate an exemption for U.S. citizens participating in UN peacekeeping
missions, the United States signed the ICC Statute just before the deadline in order to remain
part of the negotiating process regarding ICC legal procedures.
The ICC—a complement to the national judicial systems of its members—steps

in only if a nation’s legal system is unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute
covered crimes. A principal concern of the ICC is to help protect powerless people—
especially women and children—who are not adequately protected by any umbrella
of justice.
With U.S. ratification and support, the ICC could become the best hope for
countless millions of victims of ethnic cleansing, rapes, torture and genocide. By
obstructing the ICC, Bush has cast his lot with the “evil doers,” a term Bush fre-
quently evokes in neocon propaganda promoting the so-called war on terrorism. One
case in point is Darfur—for years Bush helped prevent the Darfur case from being
referred to the ICC.
Apart from the ICC, it appears likely that several senior Bush administration offi-
cials, including Bush himself, could be tried for various war crimes arising out of
torture committed under their watch. Some of Bush’s most senior lawyers, including
then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, worried about this very possibility be-
fore the Iraq invasion, as reflected in an internal White House memorandum dated
January 25, 2002, signed by Gonzales. The problem facing the nasty nefarious neo-
cons was how to neuter and circumvent the War Crimes Act—passed by the U.S.
Congress in 1996—and the related Geneva Conventions. White House lawyers also
apparently worried that they themselves could be tried for war crimes.
In 2005 Bush rewarded Gonzales—his longtime crony and loyal lapdog—by
naming him to be the Attorney General of the United States, the most important law
enforcement official in America and the person in charge of over 100,000 employees
in more than 50 divisions in the Department of Justice. The Republican-controlled
U.S. Senate confirmed Gonzales’ appointment as Attorney General notwithstanding
unprecedented concern among America’s most respected senior military leaders. For
example, in an open letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a group of 12 retired
American military leaders—including admirals, generals and a Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff—expressed their deep concern about the detention operations Gonza-
les helped shape: “It is clear that these operations have fostered greater animosity
toward the United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to
the risks facing our troops around the world.” America’s Uniform Code of Military
Justice and the Geneva Conventions—which live in the soul of every graduate of
America’s military academies—are just quaint niceties to Bush, Gonzales and the
other civilian neocons.
When the cause is just, America’s allies and friends are willing to fight the good
fight shoulder to shoulder with America. But they reject any American suggestion
that America is superior, more moral, more competent, and more entitled. In short,
they reject the notion of American exceptionalism. They reject Bush’s American-
centric view of the world, which is inherently myopic. They reject his American
chauvinism, jingoism and bullying.
American competence—once the envy of the world—has taken an extraordinarily
severe beating under Bush. Bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina,
Lebanon and Iran—the list is endless. America, America, wherefore art thou, Amer-
ica?
As for Katrina and Iraq, the GOP would do better to, “Make Levee, Not War.”
Other than the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, nothing would help more to
restore America’s reputation, and bring more cheer and reassurance to America’s
friends and allies, than the total repudiation of the neocons’ Project for the New
American Century. Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Mao Tse-Tung’s The Little Red Book,
and Marx’s Das Kapital, that nice little neocon “book” known as The Project for the
New American Century must be tossed in the garbage can of history, along with its
imperial practitioners.
The Republican Party—the Cons—rubber stamped every madness of the Bush
regime, thus making themselves an essential part of the problem. The GOP-
controlled do-nothing-good Congress abdicated its constitutional role of oversight of
the executive branch, and became a willing co-conspirator in a continuing, system-
atic cover-up for the most corrupt and incompetent government in U.S. history. The
Cons cannot be trusted to defend America’s democracy and constitution. They can-
not be trusted to govern.
Millions of traditionally conservative Republicans withdrew their support for the
Bush administration and its policies, especially regarding his incompetent and du-
plicitous war on Iraq. The Project for the New American Century has even been re-
jected by some of its signers, including Francis Fukuyama, who wrote:
“Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved
into something I can no longer support.”119
Former neocon Fukuyama also noted the obvious: “By invading Iraq, the Bush
administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan
as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with
plenty of American targets to shoot at.”
America must unequivocally reject The Project for the New American Century,
and it must return to constitutional government. The only certain way to accomplish
this is to impeach Bush and Cheney. Anything short of that is half-hearted and inef-
fective. The world cannot wait.
In the last chapter of this book, we set forth three plans to help America “out of
the wilderness,” including: Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International
Plan. Here are three additional small but important actions the United States should
take to improve its credibility and effectiveness in the world:
• America must fire the numerous incompetent Neanderthals that Bush ap-
pointed to the United Nations and high government positions. The departure
of UN ambassador John Bolton shortly after the 2006 midterm elections
was worth celebrating. The long list of other thugs who need to be booted
out include: John Negroponte, the U.S. director of national intelligence,
previously U.S. ambassador to Iraq, who as U.S. ambassador to Honduras
in the 1980s performed shamefully regarding U.S.-backed death squads that
killed tens of thousands of civilians during Reagan’s illegal secret war on
Central America; and Elliott Abrams, Bush’s deputy national security advi-
119
“After Neoconservatism,” New York Times article by Fukuyama, Feb. 19, 2006.
sor, who also was instrumental in the 1980s in supporting the Central
American death squads and was convicted of lying to Congress about the il-
legal Iran-Contra affair.
• America must turn away from the Dark Side and once again base its foreign
policy on reasoning and reality, recognizing that force multiplication results
from friends and allies working willingly together to attain shared moral ob-
jectives. Success against terrorism requires mutual trust, shared values, and
the cooperation of people and organizations worldwide. Unfortunately, sen-
ior officials in both the Bush White House and the Pentagon have virtually
no understanding, and even less curiosity, regarding the varied cultures and
peoples with whom they muck. As destroyers, not builders, these amateur
carpenters have only sledgehammers, and everything they see is a nail.
• America must stop appointing so many ambassadors and diplomats who
cannot speak the principal language of the host nation. Virtually none of
America’s ambassadors speak Arabic, making it impossible for America to
communicate effectively with more than 200 million people in more than 20
nations whose first language is Arabic. One would expect, years after 9/11,
that every American embassy in an Arabic-speaking nation would have
several American Foreign Service personnel fluent in Arabic, but this is not
the case. In the entire Foreign Service there are fewer than ten Foreign Ser-
vice personnel who speak Arabic at a 4+ or 5 level of proficiency on the
Foreign Service Proficiency Scale. Although teaching Arabic to Foreign
Service professionals is helpful, Arabic is a very difficult language to learn,
and the best solution is to recruit first and second generation Arabic-
speaking Americans. However, Bush does not trust “such people.” He pre-
fers instead to appoint culture-deaf cronies like Texan Karen Hughes, who
shamefully fell on her face during her farcical, know-nothing tour of the
Middle East in 2005 as Bush’s official mouthpiece, a job for which she had
little more experience than Monica Lewinsky. As the laughing stock of the
Middle East, and one of the last of Bush’s Texas Mafia to slither out of the
White House, “heck-of-a-job” Hughes resigned in October 2007, thus end-
ing her two-year immensely-damaging run as America’s undersecretary of
state for public affairs. In December 2007 the Iraq Study Group reported
that only six of the 1,000 workers in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad spoke
Arabic fluently.
The problem with the Bush administration is not simply that the ends justify the
means. It is much more sinister than that. Both the ends and the means of Bush’s
underworld are unlawful and un-American. In this chapter, we’ll discuss just a few
of the un-American and unlawful means, although it is sometimes difficult to sepa-
rate the ends from the means, as one dirty Con hand washes the other.
The Outlaw Bush—An Imperial Presidency Above the Law

The Project for the New American Century is one huge evil, and the Bush admini-
stration’s assault on the U.S. Constitution is a second. Bush and Cheney married
these two poisonous endeavors in order to put their evil schemes into hyperdrive. It
was not enough that their party controlled all three branches of the U.S. Govern-
ment—the executive branch, both houses of Congress, and the U.S. Supreme
Court—and enjoyed the cheerleading support of America’s fourth estate, the Corpo-
rate Media. No, Bush and Cheney desired to be above the law—unfettered by over-
sight and accountability, and bathed in secrecy—and so they rewrote and mutilated
the Constitution that stood in their way.
The Bush regime uses the Constitution as toilet paper in the Waste Wing. Yes,
“W” also stands for “Waste Wing.”
In Bush-speak, it is: “The Constitution Don’t Matter.”
Just as that nefarious neocon-conceived America must stand above and outside
international law, so also must America’s King George III stand above and outside
domestic law. He can do whatever he chooses at any time, unilaterally, in open or in
secret, unhindered by such anachronistic niceties as the Constitution and the other
two constitutional branches of government. Yes, the neocon wet dream works best
when Bush—America’s number one outlaw—places himself above and outside the
law.
After all, even with the two other constitutional branches of government in
friendly GOP control, at best they are an inconvenience, and, at worst, there’s the
risk that a few Republicans might find enough backbone to permit investigations of
some of the most egregious madness emanating from that Bush League lunatic asy-
lum previously known as America’s White House.
Privacy—a sense of minding your own business and allowing others to mind
theirs, all without governmental interference—has been thrown on the trash heap of
discarded American values. Without increasing America’s security, Bush and the
Cons gleefully trampled freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.
SIDEBAR: America’s Liar in Chief Speaks About Illegal Wiretaps
Bush willfully violated, and continues to violate, the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-
lance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (which prohib-
its searches and seizures without judicial warrants based on probable cause), and
other constitutional protections of American citizens, by directing the National Secu-
rity Agency and other executive personnel to conduct illegal electronic surveillance
or other illegal investigations of American citizens without a court order. Thousands
of telephone calls by American citizens were illegally monitored without court order,
and the full truth will never be known without a full investigation.
This criminal behavior alone, without regard to numerous other impeachable of-
fenses, demands the immediate impeachment of Bush.
Conducting wiretaps (also known as “electronic surveillance”) without a court
order was a central charge in the articles of impeachment brought against Richard
Nixon in 1974, and the illegal wiretaps by Nixon led not only to his resignation but
also to the passage of FISA in 1978, the violation of which is a felony punishable by
up to five years in prison on each count.
Our central focus here in this sidebar, however, is not so much on impeachment
or impeachable offenses, but rather on Bush’s role as America’s Liar in Chief, and,
in particular, the mind-boggling adolescent manner in which he went out of his way
to lie to the American people about wiretaps, long before the public knew of the ex-
istence of his illegal wiretapping operation.
Bush’s totally voluntary unnecessary lies about wiretaps are stunning. He started
lying in Buffalo, New York, on April 14, 2004, and he lied later in other venues. No
one had even asked him a question about his illegal wiretapping operation because
no one outside his regime knew of its existence. Yet Bush went out of his way to lie.
Perhaps remembering where he was speaking, Bush decided to “Buffalo” his audi-
ence, like a spoiled child lying to his teacher or parents. Perhaps he just wanted to
have a little fun, like poking out the eyes of a baby bird, or—harking back to his
youthful days in Midland, Texas—like putting firecrackers up the anus of frogs and
blowing them up. Bush is just not wired right. He has the conscience of a cesspool.
Here are just a few of Bush’s dumbfounding wiretap lies from Buffalo and else-
where:
• Bush lied: “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the
way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.
When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a
court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand,
when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes
to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Con-
stitution.” (April 20, 2004, in Buffalo, New York.)
• Bush lied when he asserted, “the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving
wiretaps without getting a court order.” (July 14, 2004.) He knew then that his
regime was engaged in a broad illegal spying operation.
• Bush lied: “One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is
called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects
who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be
approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers
and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists
had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That
means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell
phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to
use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and
mob bosses.” (June 9, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio.)
• Bush lied: “The Patriot Act helps us defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil
liberties for all Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the
application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s
permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, or to track his calls, or to
search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of the tools
we’re talking about. And they are fully consistent with the Constitution of the
United States.” (July 20, 2005, in Baltimore, Maryland.)
The official White House Fact Sheet dated July 20, 2005, continued the cam-
paign of lies: “The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of
the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge’s permission to
wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict
standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the ap-
plication of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single
verified abuse.”
In December 2005 The New York Times broke the story that the Bush administra-
tion had been violating FISA since 2002 by conducting illegal surveillance of
American citizens without the knowledge of the FISA court (the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court.) A few days later Judge James Robertson resigned from that
court, apparently to protest the illegal operation.
The most plausible explanation—you can bet on it—for the Bush regime’s cir-
cumvention of the FISA procedure is that it was wiretapping in situations it knew it
could not obtain the FISA court’s approval, such as wiretapping the regime’s real
and imagined enemies, including journalists, citizen activists, government employees
and political opponents.
The illegal wiretapping operation certainly had nothing to do with national secu-
rity, although Bush apologists argued that the FISA process didn’t work well
enough. But it did. Of the more than 18,000 wiretap warrants requested from the
inception of FISA in 1978 through 2004, only five had been rejected, and at least
four of these five were partially granted after being resubmitted.
Also, the claim that sometimes the situation is so urgent that the government
cannot afford the time to seek court approval rings hollow, since FISA has an emer-
gency procedure that allows the government to immediately start a wiretap without a
warrant, and then go the court within three days to seek approval after the fact.
Nixon’s evil side was alive and on steroids in the Bush White House.
Most of Bush’s assaults on Americans’ constitutional freedoms and civil liberties

can be grouped into three broad categories:
1) While promoting fear, Bush pushed the Republican-controlled Congress to
include as many draconian measures as possible in the so-called Patriot Act
and other anti-civil rights legislation.
2) Bush acts unlawfully in secret—a la Nixon—in violation of Americans’ civil
liberties, praying that his skullduggery will never see the light of day (two
good examples being his secret warrantless surveillance of American citi-
zens by the NSA, and the secret unconstitutional data mining regarding tril-
lions of telephone records of tens of millions of Americans); and
3) Bush takes the unprecedented, unconstitutional position that both Congress
and the courts are superfluous when the issue is the extent of his powers as
unitary president—also know as unitary executive—especially during the so-
called war on terrorism, which in fact is a perpetual non-war.
The novel theory of the so-called unitary executive (i.e., unilateral executive) is a
noxious tool trumpeted by the Bush White House that is intended to neuter the other
two constitutional branches of America’s democracy and to authorize virtually any

action by Bush, America’s dictator wannabe. Although unitary executive sounds
innocuous, under Bush’s radical unprecedented interpretation it is a nuclear bomb
threat to the U.S. Constitution and America’s democracy. If American voters really
understood the import of Bush’s actions, they would clamor for his head, as well as
the head of every GOP Con who blindly genuflected before America’s King George
the Mad.
To be clear, unitary executive does not mean that Bush has joined the Unitarian
Church. It has nothing to do with that, unless perhaps you wish to extend the reli-
gious humor by postulating that the term unitary executive—as immaculately con-
ceived by Bush’s legal toadies—means that the three roles of Father, Son and Holy
Ghost have been usurped by one evil person, a self-appointed king, an American
president known in the Constitution-free underworld as Lucifer the Bush. Whew!
One of the young acolytes during Reagan’s presidency who supported the novel
notion of a unitary executive is a lawyer by the name of Samuel Alito, Jr., who un-
fortunately in 2006 was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court, a no-review
position of power from which he will expand rightwing presidential powers at the
expense of the legislative and judicial branches, in addition to his major political
role, which is promoting and expanding the freedom of corporations to do whatever
they want, all at the expense of human freedoms and rights.
Presidential signing statements, which are addenda attached by the president to
laws passed by Congress, are a deceptive, below-the-radar tool used by Bush to pro-
mote the notion of a unitary president while emasculating Congress and the courts.
Bush has used them more often than all other presidents combined, and he has used
them in novel unconstitutional ways. Popularized during Reagan’s presidency by his
Attorney General Ed Meese III, signing statements have been taken by Bush in un-
precedented fashion to absurd and dangerous levels.
Previous signing statements had been used infrequently and did not carry much
weight, since they were intended to ask a reviewing court to perhaps take the presi-
dent’s perspective into account in determining the intent of Congress in passing leg-
islation. But Bush’s signing statements are not intended to provide minor interpreta-
tive gloss to legislation. Rather, they are a rogue attempt to assert the supremacy of
the president over the legislative and judicial branches, making those two branches
of government irrelevant when the issue is presidential authority.
America’s founding fathers wisely recognized that a three-legged stool is both
stable and strong, in contrast to a one-legged stool, which serves no beneficial pur-
pose other than as a metaphor for the unstable Bush administration—a one-legged
stool, like the deranged Bush regime, ultimately falls and fails.
In contrast to the dubious signing statement, the presidential veto is a power
granted to the president by the Constitution. If the president objects to a bill, he can
veto it, and then Congress has the constitutional power to override his veto by a two-
thirds vote. Ironically, more than five years into his presidency, Bush had never ve-
toed a single bill.120
In comparison, by 2006 Bush had used signing statements with respect to more
than 750 laws passed by Congress, an incredible total under any circumstances, but
all the more incredible because Congress was controlled by the president’s own
party. Yes, the score was more than 750-to-1, signing statements to vetoes.
Bush’s style—the style of his entire regal life—is to ignore laws he doesn’t like,
and he undoubtedly was advised that signing statements may be more effective than
vetoes in accomplishing this. Signing statements offer several advantages over ve-
toes:
1) With a veto, the president has to accept or reject the entire bill, whereas with
a signing statement, the president has the flexibility to say whatever he
dreams up about each provision of a bill;
2) The veto, but not the signing statement, is subject to a two-thirds override by
Congress;
3) The signing statement, although a public document, until recently was not
covered by the media and was read by virtually no one; and
4) The signing statement allows the president to “have the last word.”
Let’s digress for a moment to consider the interplay between signing statements
and Bush’s AWOL financial stewardship. During Bush’s presidential watch, a core
plank of the GOP’s party platform was “borrow, spend and waste.” Yet Bush never
used a signing statement to counter this, and he never vetoed a spending bill during
his first six years in office.
Bush’s deceptive use of signing statements to gut the Constitution and usurp
power was at work when Congress’ anti-torture bill was signed into law in late 2005.
To the dismay of the world community including coalition partners, Bush strongly
opposed the anti-torture legislation and, incredibly, even attempted to carve out an
exception that would permit torture by the CIA, which was at the heart of the torture
problem in the first place. However, it soon became clear that a veto-proof superma-
jority in Congress—as well as a huge majority of Americans—supported the legisla-
tion. Yes, torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, as well as torture throughout a
Bush-friendly gulag of torture chambers hosted by friendly dictatorships in several
third world countries, had cast a dark shadow. Thus Bush, with great fanfare at a
photo op with key supporters of the anti-torture legislation, announced he would sign
the bill, duplicitously giving the impression he opposed torture. But when Bush later
signed the bill out of the limelight, he added a signing statement to it.
Was it possible that Bush had dropped his support for torture and had become a
supporter of human rights? No. His signing statement in effect claimed that his
presidential powers—his King George III powers—reigned supreme over those of
the other two branches of government, and that he would ignore the anti-torture law
whenever he thought it might interfere with his role in supervising the unitary execu-
tive branch.
120
On July 19, 2006, Bush used his veto power for the first time when he vetoed an embryonic
stem-cell research bill. Bush declared the vetoed bill “would support the taking of innocent
human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others.”
“He issues a signing statement that says he retains all of the inherent power that
will permit him to go out and torture just the way they’ve gone ahead and tortured
before,” said Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), describing the process as an “arrogance
of power.” In this 21st century it is shocking that Bush and the GOP made torture a
debatable topic.
It is disheartening that there is even a question as to whether America should
comply fully with the letter and spirit of the anti-torture provisions of U.S. law (in-
cluding the Uniform Code of Military Justice) and international law (including: the
Geneva Conventions; the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which became effective in 1987; and other
agreements to which the United States is a party.)
It is disturbing that the U.S. Senate had to even contemplate anti-torture legisla-
tion in 2005, and that senators opposing torture (including Ted Kennedy and John
McCain, himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War) were threatened with a
White House veto, which would have been the first veto of his presidency. All
Americans should have been outraged. Christians especially should have been out-
raged.
But things got even worse in 2006 with the passage of the U.S. Military Commis-
sions Act, which the GOP pushed through just before the 2006 midterm elections.
America’s bright beacon of liberty and human rights grew dimmer, and billions of
people around the world could no longer see it at all.
SIDEBAR: The 2006 Military Commissions Act: McCain Caves on Torture
The 2006 U.S. Military Commissions Act (MCA) set a new low in GOP attacks on
the U.S. Constitution and liberty in America. It was drafted and passed after the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, ostensibly to set up a new proce-
dure for bringing terrorists and other “unlawful enemy combatants” to justice, but it
greatly damaged America and is worse than the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts
passed in 1798.
The GOP rushed the legislation to signature right before the 2006 midterm elec-
tions so they could claim they were tough on terrorism.
Notwithstanding its name, the MCA dealt with more than military commissions.
The MCA gave the most incompetent and distrusted president in America’s his-
tory unprecedented and unilateral authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions and
determine interrogation methods to be used. Bush became the Decider on torture.
There is virtually no judicial check on the president’s power under the MCA to de-
termine who is an “unlawful enemy combatant,” a broad category and status that
does not even exist under international law.
A dagger was thrust through the heart of habeas corpus. Alien torture victims
have no right to bring claims for redress to any court. The person charged has no
right to know the charges against him. Hearsay evidence is permitted.
Evidence and confessions resulting from torture are allowed, including torture
done on behalf of America at rendition sites in countries such as Syria, Egypt and
Uzbekistan. The accused has no right to effective legal counsel. Detainees can be
imprisoned forever without charges being brought. Of the hundreds of prisoners held
for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, far fewer than 5% have even been charged
with crimes.
Just in case, the MCA gave criminals in the Bush regime retroactive immunity
for war crimes already committed.
If the worst dictatorial regimes in the world adopted similar schemes in their
countries, they could then lawfully continue torture and other barbaric practices with
impunity.
McCain lied when he declared, “There’s no doubt that the integrity and letter and
spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.” McCain caved, along with
the small group of anti-torture GOP senators he led, and the GOP-controlled Con-
gress gave Bush everything he wanted, on every major point. At the same time, re-
cruiters for terrorists worldwide got exactly what they wanted.
With noble chest thumping, McCain for years had positioned himself as the
leader who would prevent Bush and his GOP regime from torturing.
But when the chips were down, McCain cried uncle and went AWOL. Protecting
America’s Constitution and liberties took second seat to his upcoming presidential
campaign. The image of McCain as a champion of human rights is a Con job.
The reason for America to honor the Geneva Conventions and our own tradition
of constitutional liberties is not because we believe terrorist groups will do the same.
They won’t. No, we do it for ourselves. We do it for America and the kind of people
we want to remain. We do it in order not to surrender the moral high ground to those
groups who claim America is anti-Muslim and pitch militant jihad to potential new
recruits. The draconian MCA confirms negative views of America, causing America
to lose hearts and minds worldwide.
Colin Powell summed up the problem succinctly in his letter opposing the MCA:
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” He
said the legislation “would add to those doubts” and furthermore “would put our own
troops at risk.”
Bush gutted America’s system of government—its constitutional separation of

powers and system of checks and balances—by claiming that it is he, not Congress
and not the courts, who will determine the limits, if any, on his powers. In the mean-
time, he does what he wants, ignoring or rewriting federal law whenever he wishes.
He frequently acts completely contrary to federal law, knowing that even if lawsuits
are filed, it will take a long time for them to wind their way through the judicial sys-
tem, especially when the Bush White House obstructs the judicial process every inch
of the way.
In addition, Bush has virtually no appreciation or understanding of states’ rights
and America’s unique system of federalism. Driven totally by narrow, Machiavellian
politics—the ends justify the means—Bush asserts willy-nilly either that something
is a federal matter, or that it’s a matter to be left to the states, if it helps him win the
immediate prize. To the chagrin of many principled conservatives, Bush inserts the
federal government into areas traditionally reserved for the states, whenever the pol-
icy meets the demands of his donors. Bush is Mr. Big Government.
Early on, America’s allies and friends accurately read Bush’s heart and con-
cluded he was incompetent, morally corrupt, a disgrace to America, and a danger to
the world. On November 4, 2004, the day after Bush’s reelection, the British woke to
read the Daily Mirror’s front page headline: “How can 59,054,087 people be so
DUMB?” Bush’s supporters of all stripes—including many GOP politicians destined
to wear prison stripes—should ask themselves that question each morning when they
look in the mirror.
In addition to the twin evils of The Project for the New American Century and
the assault on the U.S. Constitution, Bush and the GOP use a variety of other anti-
democratic imperial tools to get Bush and other rightwing candidates elected. As-
sisted by Big Money and America’s fawning corporate media, these tools work well
domestically for America’s rightwing regime. However, they do not work well out-
side the United States, where neither Bush nor Cheney would have a chance of being
elected village dogcatcher, let alone a national leader, in any other democracy.
America’s allies and friends see the diverse wonderful world outside the Bush
Bubble occupied by America’s president, who from their perspective is a hugely
dangerous simpleton from another planet. They detest his polices and don’t trust him
and his administration. The nefarious tools used by Bush and the GOP contributed to
this worldwide distrust and to the dismal failure of his coalition in Iraq, the Bush
League of Nations.
In the next five chapters, we’ll look at just a few of the other nefarious tools used
by the Bush administration, the worst in American history, and the GOP, better
known as the Cons, which has morphed into the most corrupt American political
party ever.
CHAPTER 14
Fear Mongering
Chickenhawk Lies, Lies and More Lies
It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now
geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psy-
chosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
—General Douglas MacArthur (speech on May 15, 1951)
In the face of adversity, Bush and the Republican Party chose to promote fear, rather
than inspire courage. They appealed to xenophobia. In every election cycle since
9/11 they mongered fear in order to intimidate and attract the most gullible and timid
of America’s electorate. The Cons count on frightened people to be more accepting
of lies and whatever mischief and skullduggery their bellicose leaders concoct. They
created millions of bedwetting conservatives.
Under GOP rule, the Land of the Free became the Land of the Afraid.
The Cons are not interested in educating America about world affairs, since the
more Americans know, the more likely they are to reject the Con agenda. According
to a Roper poll of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 conducted in December
2005 and January 2006 for National Geographic:
• six in 10 could not locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East, even though
America had been at war there for almost three years;
• 75% could not locate Israel on a map of the Middle East;
• fewer than 30% believe it is important to know the locations of nations in
the news; and
• only 14% believe learning a foreign language is a necessary skill.
The Cons recognize that fear and ignorance are partners, their partners.
When it comes to fear mongering, Bush is the exact opposite of courageous
American leaders such as President Franklin Roosevelt. Facing real dangers, includ-
ing the GOP Great Depression and World War II, Roosevelt declared, “We have
nothing to fear, but fear itself.” America and its allies—united and led by Roose-
velt—faced far greater evil than a gang of criminals armed with box cutters. But
Chickenhawk Bush and his GOP chose fear in order to divide—and loot America.
Roosevelt strived to unite America and its allies, to acknowledge and face the
challenges head on, and to not be dispirited or weakened by fear. Unlike Bush,
Roosevelt was a world leader, widely respected for integrity and courage in the face
of evil—and, unlike Bush, feared by America’s enemies.
Bush’s principal fear, immediately following 9/11, might well have been that an
angry nation was going to rightfully pin the tail of responsibility on him for not pre-
venting 9/11. He probably thought, “Oh, no! They’re going to find out we ignored all
the terrorist warnings and advice from our intelligence agencies and the Clinton ad-
ministration. I hope there’s a Bush Family Pass big enough to cover my tail on this! I
shouldn’t have taken all those vacations. Dang, I was AWOL again!”
It was profoundly disappointing that Bush after 9/11 did not immediately chal-
lenge all Americans to show their bravery and patriotism by continuing their normal
activities, including flying on U.S. airlines. Bush’s timidity in the aftermath of 9/11
cost the nation’s psyche and economy dearly, giving the 9/11 criminals a bigger vic-
tory than they ever could have imagined.
Yes, thanks to Bush’s weak knees, America’s suffering was magnified. Many
Americans stopped flying, and U.S. carriers, already experiencing a slowdown in air
travel, were sent reeling. The United States later paid the carriers billions and billions
of dollars with the goal of keeping them operating. Boeing also felt the pain, and
over a period of about two years reduced the number of employees in its commercial
aircraft unit from 90,000 to 45,000. Highly skilled manufacturing and engineering
workers at Boeing lost their jobs, taking whatever employment they could find, in-
cluding checking luggage in airport security at the Seattle-Tacoma International Air-
port.
Contrast the fear of Bush and bedwetting conservatives with the courage of Israel
and its citizens in the face of deadly suicide bombings. What happens when a
Palestinian suicide bomber kills several Israeli civilians in a restaurant? Do Israeli
restaurants shut down? No. The Israeli people rally and, in an awesome display of
gritty courage and patriotism, continue their daily activities as before without com-
promise. All bodies and body parts at the bombing site are handled with religious
respect, the restaurant is restored and reopened as soon as possible, usually within 24
hours, and Israeli families return immediately to the restaurant to dine.
Bush had the opportunity to lead America along such a path of courage, but he
didn’t. He could have said something like, “Do not surrender to fear. Yes, be vigi-
lant, but continue to live your lives as before. In particular, don’t cancel any travel
plans for yourself or your family.” But he didn’t. Israelis in a similar situation would
not expect or need such reassurances.
Bush could have cited statistics showing that flying is much safer than alternative
forms of transportation. For example, Boeing calculations show that it is 22 times
safer to fly in a commercial aircraft than it is to drive, on a per-mile-traveled basis.
As for total numbers, more people are killed in automobile accidents in the United
States in an average three-month period than have been killed in U.S. commercial
aircraft accidents in the last 40 years. Bush could have pointed out that the 276 crew
and passengers killed on 9/11 do not appreciably change these numbers. Bush then
CHAPTER 14 — FEAR MONGERING 313
could have told Americans that it was their patriotic duty to fly even if it were more
risky to fly than to drive, which it isn’t.121
Notwithstanding years of GOP propaganda to the contrary, Bush is a coward, and
the GOP is a party that promotes cowardice. As Bush sat in that Florida classroom
on 9/11, he looked like a frightened deer in the headlights. When he flew to Baghdad
on Thanksgiving Day in 2003 for a surprise, in-a-protective-bubble, photo-op visit
for a few hours with our troops, he not only insulted all Iraqis by not meeting with
them or their leaders, but he also presented a cowardly image of the American presi-
dency.
He showed similar weakness and bad judgment regarding a brief surprise trip he
made to Baghdad on June 13, 2006. By arriving totally unannounced in a nation that
supposedly is sovereign, Bush insulted and weakened Iraq’s newly named prime
minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The secrecy and extraordinary security surrounding his
visit, together with the shortness of his visit, only five hours, spoke volumes about
the real security situation on the ground in Iraq. Most of Bush’s cabinet did not even
have advance notice of the trip.
Bush oozed fear when he refused to testify alone before the 9/11 Commission in
2004, even though—as he demanded—the hearing was closed to the public and no
recording was made. He insisted that Cheney attend with him.
Almost all of Bush’s campaign stops and other so-called public appearances are
in fact private appearances. They are staged, invitation-only, in-the-bubble events
limited to supporters and cheerleaders, and any questions asked of him are friendly
softball questions.
He prefers to receive questions in advance before he gives one of his rare inter-
views. He is America’s fearful “Bubble President,” a joke to the world, and a black
mark on American courage. On those rare occasions when he faces tough unscripted
questions, his gaffes are legendary.
Bush fearfully saw a terrorist behind every bush, and terrorists in return saw fear
behind Bush every day.
Ironically, strategic diplomatic and military blunders by Bush, as well as further
terrorist attacks he caused, perversely helped the GOP’s campaign to cultivate fear.
So when there’s another bombing, say in Madrid or Dallas, the GOP Dixie Chicken-
hawks can say, “See, we told you the world is a dangerous place. We need to stick
with our tough president in these tough times.” Bush is like cocaine to his fear-
addicted supporters—the more Bush screws up and misuses them, the more they
think they need him.
Clever new slogans are important tools to increase the fear level. Just throw some
focus group nonsense on the wall and see if it sticks. The epithet “Islamofascism”
was one that stuck for a while. Many rightwing politicians and talk show hosts seized
upon the term to describe any Islamic group they wanted to disparage, but they might
121
The media help create a fearful perspective regarding air travel. Arnold Barnett, an MIT
professor and expert in aviation safety, determined that the front pages stories of The New
York Times for a two-year period (1988-89) ran 0.02 cancer stories for each 1,000 cancer
deaths, 1.7 homicide stories for each 1,000 homicides, and 138 airplane crash stories for each
1,000 aircraft crash deaths.
just as well have called them Islamocommunists or Islamotexans. If these rightwing

name callers want to be more accurate with their fascist lingo, they could look in the
mirror and consider the words of the world’s number two fascist, Benito Mussolini,
who said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power.” Welcome to GOP America.
Bush and the GOP perform a balancing act when it comes to manipulating fear.
On one hand, they strive to keep the fear level high, and, on the other, they duplici-
tously try to take credit for making America safer. For example, in February 2004,
then CIA director George Tenet stated that the world is at least as “fraught with dan-
ger for American interests” as it was a year earlier, notwithstanding the “major suc-
cesses” claimed by the Bush administration, such as overthrowing and capturing
Saddam Hussein and picking off numerous Saddam henchmen in the famous “deck
of cards.”
That goofy color-coded, terror-alert system was confusing from the beginning
and never provided specific information that Americans could act upon. However, it
was a clever political tool to manipulate fear. Big Media helped stoke the fires of
fear by blindly passing along the useless information generated by the Bush admini-
stration. The alerts always sound like useless vague weather reports: “There are
threats of terrorist thunderstorms somewhere in the world in the next 90 days.” All
considered, it was “mission accomplished” for rightwing propaganda, since the
American public did develop a heightened level of numb dumb fear. If Americans
really wanted to use a color-coded system that does in fact reduce death and destruc-
tion, they would do better by simply paying more attention to the red, yellow and
green colors of ordinary traffic lights when they drive.
In another exercise of simplistic black-and-white thinking, the Bush administra-
tion overuses and misuses the word “terrorist” to refer to just about anyone who op-
poses its unilateralist military policies. The sentiment that “you’re either with us or
against us” is just one of many famous examples of Bush’s defective thinking. It
never occurred to the Bushies, for example, that Iraqis who wanted to see Saddam
removed would also want to kick out American troops.
Surprisingly, the Bush administration’s use of the word “terrorist” even extends
to American teachers. When addressing a closed-door meeting with the nation’s
governors, Bush’s mean-spirited Education Secretary Rod Paige compared Amer-
ica’s three million teachers to terrorists when he referred to the National Education
Association as a terrorist organization.
In 2004 the Senate Intelligence Committee reported that there were no weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq, and it promised to report later—in the so-called “second
phase” of its report—on whether the Bush administration pressured America’s intel-
ligence agencies to distort and cherry pick the evidence, or whether Bush and his
cronies flat out lied to Congress and America. However, GOP Senator Pat Roberts of
Kansas, who chaired the intelligence committee, successfully stalled and killed the
second phase through the congressional midterm elections of 2006. The deceptive
campaign to promote fear for political gain still begs to be investigated.
Colin Powell enjoyed a stellar military and diplomatic reputation in the interna-
tional community before be joined Bush’s administration as Secretary of State. Many
friends and allies were embarrassed for him and regretted his subsequent fall. Espe-
cially shameful was Powell’s fear-mongering presentation to the Security Council on

February 5, 2003, during which he played the good soldier, doing the best he could
with flimsy and bogus evidence—bobbing and weaving, lying and misleading, doing
anything he could to make the case for war. In doing so, he acted like a defense at-
torney for a guilty criminal, not like America’s Secretary of State.
However, defense attorneys operate in an adversarial system where they have the
legal duty to be the best advocate for their clients, no matter how guilty. Powell, on
the other hand, had a duty to be truthful. At some point, the good soldier has to rec-
ognize a higher duty than blind allegiance to a lying president. It will be interesting
to read Powell’s memoirs some day, should he find the backbone to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He should have resigned in indignation rather
than being a lying patsy for his commander in mischief.
The Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress established a culture
of lying that is unprecedented in American history. They lie because they know
Americans would oppose their actions if the cold truth were on the table. Their ends
always justify the means, one of which is chronic lying. When you decide to exploit
9/11 to wage war on a nation with zero responsibility for 9/11, you need to lie. Lies
are a valued currency in the Bush administration. Never admit to a lie, and keep cir-
culating the same counterfeit Confederate currency.
The rules that apply to regular mortals, including the truth, do not apply to right-
wing fundamentalists, whether they are Muslims or Christians. As for the donor class
that supports Bush and his propaganda machine—the Super Rich and Big Busi-
ness—they may not like the lies, but they love their tax cuts and corporate welfare.
When it comes to Iraq, virtually the entire world, with the exception of Bush’s
dwindling loyal base in the United States, knows Bush to be the most dangerous liar
of our times. Bush’s Iraq war, based on lies, has caused far more deaths than Saddam
would have caused in this period, and far more deaths than bin Laden and all the
other Islamic fundamentalists have caused during the same period. More important,
Bush’s invasion of Iraq, coupled with his inept planning and execution of the war,
set the stage for greatly increased death and destruction in the future.
Many of the Bush administration’s lies regarding Iraq have been well docu-
mented, notwithstanding the GOP’s efforts at every juncture to conceal the facts and
obfuscate the truth. In spite of the stonewalling, the truth is slowly emerging, some
of it coming from former members of Bush’s inner circle who decided to put patriot-
ism and truth above rightwing lies and secrecy.
The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq, a 2003 book by Christopher
Scheer, Robert Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry, describes in persuasive detail the
following five biggest lies of Bush:
• First Lie: Al Qaeda’s Ties to Iraq
• Second Lie: Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons
• Third Lie: Iraq’s Nuclear Weapons
• Fourth Lie: The War Will Be a “Cakewalk”
• Fifth Lie: Iraq As a Democratic Model
The book appeared in 2003 and thus does not include: (1) subsequently uncov-
ered piles of evidence of lies; (2) piles of evidence still uncovered, and (3) the myr-
iad of new Bush lies since 2003, including especially his lies about his unconstitu-
tional actions and other impeachable offences, including the unlawful surveillance of
American citizens without probable cause and without a court order.
When Bush and Cheney became fixated on that imagined grand prize—the inva-
sion and control of Iraq—they were willing to say anything, and permit all those
under them to say anything, to seize the prize.
SIDEBAR: The Party That’s Strong on National Defense
Over many years the GOP Cons have created out of thin air several favorite myths
about themselves. One of these myths—that the Republican Party is fiscally respon-
sible—is debunked in Chapter 12, “The GOP’s Bankruptcy of America,” where it is
shown that the Democratic Party is the one party of fiscal responsibility. We turn
now to another favorite rightwing myth, namely that it is the Cons, but not Democ-
rats, who are strong on national defense. But “that dog don’t hunt.” It doesn’t now,
and it never did.
The most charitable thing you can say about Bush and his Cons is that they are
incompetent on national defense.
Just for fun, let’s look at some facts. Before doing so, however, we note that De-
mocrats are naturally inclusive and love to debate issues in an inclusive, respectful,
problem-solving manner, with the goal of setting the best policy for America, all of
America. This is due to their DNA and also because they read the Bible, the whole
Bible, not the holey Bible of the Cons.
Democratic leaders prefer not to question the patriotism of other Americans or
the testosterone levels of weak-kneed rightwing American males. However, if De-
mocrats did, they could point out the following facts regarding the major wars that
America has fought in the last century:
• Under the leadership of the Democratic Party and Democratic President Wood-
row Wilson, America and its allies won World War I.
• Under the leadership of the Democratic Party and Democratic President Franklin
Roosevelt, America and its allies won World War II. It is noteworthy that under
that same Democratic Party and that same Democratic president, America also
won the war against the GOP Great Depression, which was inaugurated by
President Hoover—a Republican, of course.
• Under the leadership of the Democratic Party and Democratic President Harry
Truman, America successfully resisted the communist attack that started the
Korean War. Beginning with the decisive invasion known as the Battle of In-
chon, they rolled back the commies. The Republican Party, under Republican
Dwight Eisenhower, later threw in the towel by agreeing to a draw, and as a re-
sult North Korea has been enslaved ever since by one of the world’s most re-
pressive regimes.
• Ditto in Vietnam. America under the leadership of the Democratic Party had the
guts to fight the Vietnamese commies, but Republican Nixon—who campaigned
for election in 1968 with a bogus claim that he had a “secret plan” to end the
war and win the peace—carried on the war for several more years without a plan
for victory, during which time countless more lives were lost. Nixon finally
raised the white flag in a peace treaty signed with North Vietnam in January
1973; Saigon fell to the communists on April 30, 1975, during the GOP’s watch;
and America had lost its first war.122 Yes, America and France each lost a war in
Vietnam, but the French, unlike Bush and the Cons, study history to learn from
it.
• Consider Afghanistan. Bush and the do-nothing-good GOP put America on the
road to losing another war.
• Ditto in Iraq, only worse. Does anyone believe Bush and the Cons have, or ever
had, a “plan” to win in Iraq?
Well, you see the truth. When it comes to war and national defense, the Democ-
ratic Party is tough and smart, and the Republican Party is weak and dumb—and
deceitful. Democratic leadership is willing and able to assemble strong coalitions to
fight in just causes. Con leadership is not.
If the above facts were reversed, Bush and the Cons wouldn’t have to lie about
their patriotism, bravery and support for America’s military.
Bush and the Cons foolishly put America on the road to losing two more wars—a
just war in Afghanistan that has been incompetently waged, and Bush’s unjust war
on Iraq, which is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place by the wrong
leader, and which is both genocide and a civil war.
If Bush and his neo-Republican Party had been in charge at the time of Pearl
Harbor—December 7, 1941—we’d all now be speaking German east of the Missis-
sippi River, and Japanese to the west.
Americans are willing to take and give casualties in war, provided they believe
the war is just, and provided they believe their commander in chief is truthful and
competent regarding the mission. But Bush and his team in the Bush League White
House are neither. They try to govern by gonads, but they lost theirs long ago.
An honest strong president would not have lied, or encouraged his advisors to lie,
in order to justify preordained policies, but rather would have made decisions on the
merits, with full debate, laying out the facts for the American people and explaining
why he chose a particular course.
George Tenet’s book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, provides
additional evidence of the dysfunctional nature of Bush’s inner circle. Regarding the
war cabinet meeting on December 21, 2002 (three months before the invasion of
Iraq), in which Tenet famously uttered “slam dunk,” he writes that his words applied
to the UN presentation being prepared, not to the intelligence. He writes that the
122
Between two and four million people died in the Vietnam War (1955-1975), also known as
the Second Indochina War. The dead included 58,169 Americans, with an average age of 23.
meeting in the Oval Office was “essentially a marketing meeting.” Bush wanted a
better slide show and even suggested that attorneys could help prepare a better pitch
for war.
The GOP tactic of creating Big Lies for a huge fearful gullible segment of Amer-
ica’s voters remains surprisingly effective. For example, in a Newsweek poll con-
ducted in June 2007—more than four years after the invasion of Iraq—an incredible
41% of Americans polled answered “yes” to the question: “Do you think Saddam
Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying
out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?”
Americans who still believe the various false claims about Iraq—such as Saddam
having WMDs in 2003, or Iraq being involved in 9/11, or Saddam being in bed with
al Qaeda—have a terminal case of cognitive dissonance. Perhaps wanting to believe
they were really right in supporting Bush’s war on Iraq, they are predisposed to be-
lieve anything. Rightwing bloggers, the rightwing media and the Bush White House
are all too happy to continue to mislead them. None of this bodes well for the future
of America’s democracy. A Harris Poll released July 21, 2006, found that an in-
credible 50% of Americans—74% of Republicans and 29% of Democrats—still be-
lieved the long since disproved claim that Saddam had illegal WMDs when Bush
invaded Iraq in 2003.
Bush is the most chronic and dangerous liar among all American presidents ever.
The previous record holder, Richard Nixon, is a saint compared to Bush, and Nixon
resigned in disgrace during impeachment proceedings.
Well, how about Bill Clinton? During every day of his administration, Clinton
was labeled a liar and accused of all sorts of fabricated crimes by America’s corpo-
rate rightwing Big Media and rightwing politicians, who calculated that if they re-
peated a lie enough, it could become truth.
The nonstop tsunami of negative press coverage would lead one to conclude that
Clinton was the first Washington politician ever to lie about some aspects of his pri-
vate behavior. Yes, Clinton lied about sex, specifically rotten disgusting sex between
consenting adults in the White House. Although the Cons would have waged their
immoral vendetta against Clinton no matter what the facts—even if Clinton’s con-
duct had been as pure as that of Mother Theresa—the vendetta was helpfully fueled
by sex, that titillating topic upon which so many old white males in the GOP are psy-
chologically fixated.
By the way, many people disagree with the characterization that it was “sex.”
Many people, primarily younger folk, view Clinton’s physical bonding with Monica
Lewinsky as not real sex, but simply pre-sex, rather more like an intimate handshake
between good friends. Well, perhaps your author is too old-fashioned to understand
these subtleties, but it certainly sounded like sex. In any case, let’s agree that Clinton
lied about sex, and not quibble about whether it was sex or just pre-sex. Who cares?
And what happened? The Cons used their control of both houses of Congress
during Clinton’s administration to prosecute numerous politically motivated investi-
gations—witch hunts without boundaries—against Clinton and his family, and ulti-
mately they brought impeachment proceedings against him, all to the GOP’s great
shame. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted in the smear directed by
extreme rightwing Republican Kenneth Starr, who hated Clinton long before he
stepped into his position of trust, and, notwithstanding conflicts of interest, was ap-
pointed to the office of independent counsel by a partisan GOP-controlled three-
judge panel intent on persecuting Clinton.123 The intense personal hatred for Clinton
was especially shameful when it involved Con politicians claiming to be Christians,
especially the many adulterers and fornicators among them, including leading GOP
candidates for the presidency in 2008.
Setting aside for the moment the big lies of Bush, where is the moral and legal
consistency of the far right when it comes simply to Bush’s personal transgressions?
Well, for every personal criminal violation or moral lapse by Bush during his adult
life (including public drunkenness, drunk driving, automobile collisions, use of ille-
gal drugs, foul language, fornication, adultery, illegal campaign donations, impreg-
nation of someone not his wife, and bestiality),124 his rightwing supporters and the
mainstream rightwing media gave him an inexhaustible supply of Bush Family
Passes. Any progressive American family in North Dakota or Massachusetts would
be ashamed if it had a family member with Bush’s rap sheet, and if the neighbors
found out, the family would have to move to a red zone of Texas. That’s the law.
But who really cares about Bush’s personal transgressions at this point? Well, in
stark contrast with the lies of Clinton regarding pre-sex, the lies of Bush really do
matter, since they include lies about: going to war; life and death; not properly
equipping and supporting America’s troops in harm’s way; national security; the
reputation and power of the United States in the world; the outing of CIA agents;
treason; illegal spying on American citizens; and other abuses of the U.S.
Constitution and the very fabric of America’s democracy.
Any one of Bush’s lies about Iraq would lead, slam dunk, to his impeachment if
there was a shred of moral and legal consistency on the far right. But there is not.
Unfortunately for America’s democracy, the Cons controlled all branches of Gov-
ernment, and they gave Bush one pass after another.
Sadly, it is Bush’s intellectual detachment and mental deficiencies that may offer
him the best chance to escape accountability. His supporters occasionally argue,
somewhat delicately, along the line that Bush is so detached that he doesn’t really
know what’s going on. So, for example, if Bush really believes, or suspects, that
today is Monday when it’s really Saturday, then it’s not a lie for him to say today is
Monday. In effect, Bush’s incompetence, his stupidity, his utter lack of curiosity—
call it what you wish—entitles him to a “stay in office” card for whatever he says or
does.
Bush applies the same low standard—no standard, really—to his closest advisors.
Bush, a chronic distorter and liar, naturally accepts distortion and lies from his clos-
est advisors, without ever holding them personally responsible for anything, pro-
vided only that they remain loyal to him. It should be no surprise that this loopy
123
The Office of the Independent Counsel expired in 1999.
124
At least 70% of the items on this list are accurate, but it’s difficult to be certain because
Bush and the media choose not to cover these things. “Bestiality” is just a joke intended to get
you to read this footnote. Well, on second thought, even that (bestiality that is) may have hap-
pened since Bush is a member of Yale’s ultra-secret Skull and Bones Society. You know, it
could have happened. Who knows?
“management style” has caused some of the most lethal blows to his presidency and
legacy.
During his entire tenure in the White House, Bush has never uttered words like
the following: “Mr. Rumsfeld, you said A, B, C and D about Iraq, and none of them
turned out to be true—none of them! It is my duty as president to hold you responsi-
ble. You’re fired!”
To the contrary, Bush and his GOP rubber stampers focused more on spinning
than winning the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq. Rumsfeld and Feith system-
atically introduced spinning and propaganda—better called treasonous lies—into the
Pentagon, with the blessing of Bush and Cheney. In late 2001 the Pentagon covertly
created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), with the purpose of broadening in-
formation warfare into nations allied with the United States. In February 2002 The
New York Times and other major U.S. media reported the existence of the OSI, and it
was only after intense public discussion of the OSI’s role and impact—including the
undermining of the credibility of the Pentagon and other U.S. institutions caused by
lying to the public—that Rumsfeld announced the decision to close the OSI. How-
ever, nine months later Rumsfeld bragged that the OSI was shut down in name only
and that its activities would continue.
The disclosure in 2007 of Rumsfeld’s “snowflake” messages to his staff and oth-
ers further revealed and reinforced his manipulative nature. Rumsfeld sought to rally
American support for the GOP’s failed war through the development of “bumper
sticker statements.” He wrote of the need to “link Iraq to Iran” and to “keep elevating
the threat.” He also made disparaging comments about Muslims.
Let’s return for a moment to that embarrassing presentation by Colin Powell be-
fore the UN Security Council in February 2003 in which he presented the case for
war against Iraq. Let’s not forget that then CIA Director George Tenet, who was on
occasion a lackey to Bush’s inner circle and ultimately its scapegoat, also played a
supporting role in that tragic UN farce. In order to provide reassuring visual support
to those being duped, Tenet sat right behind Powell during Powell’s Security Council
song and dance. Tenet apparently had trained himself to go along with the war party
line. In his 2007 book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, in which
Tenet downplays his own shortcomings, he writes about Powell’s UN speech: “It
was a great presentation, but unfortunately the substance didn’t hold up. One by one,
the various pillars of the speech, particularly on Iraq’s biological and chemical
weapons programs, began to buckle. The secretary of state was subsequently hung
out to dry in front of the world, and our nation’s credibility plummeted.” Although
the Bush White House, especially Bush and Cheney, is the major reason for the de-
cline in the CIA’s reputation and capabilities, Tenet must share some of the respon-
sibility. He resigned in June 2004, and Bush rewarded his incompetence with the
Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Tenet is on a long list of senior Bush League incompetents—including Rice and
Wolfowitz—who received some of America’s highest civilian awards, or were pro-
moted beyond their level of competence.
As for Bush, his numerous personal weaknesses led him to become a willing oc-
cupant of that famous Bush Bubble and a president prone to manipulation by flatter-
ers and liars. Our next chapter is “Puppetry in the White House.”
CHAPTER 15
Puppetry in the White House

A Blind Man in a Roomful of Deaf People
I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?

—George W. Bush, in a handwritten note to Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice during a UN world summit meeting, September 14,
2005
In April 2004, after many months of stonewalling and flip flopping, Bush and Che-
ney finally agreed to testify—or rather, chat—before the commission investigating
9/11, but only if the proceedings were subject to certain conditions. One truly bizarre
condition was that Bush would appear only if he and Cheney appeared together.
Can you imagine Richard Nixon refusing to testify before a commission unless
his vice president, Spiro Agnew, appeared with him? Or consider Bush’s father,
George H. W. Bush—certainly not the shiniest penny in the jar—can you imagine
him refusing to appear unless Dan Quayle was there to hold his hand? Or consider
Ronald Reagan. Or Bill Clinton—well, you get the idea.
SIDEBAR: Spiro Agnew
Note to younger readers: If you don’t recognize the name of Spiro Agnew, you
should Google him and spend a few minutes learning about his infamous place in
American history. This Republican vice president famously had a way with words,
frequently using alliteration, such as describing the media as “nattering nabobs of
negativism.” He also had a way with money, including taking cash bribes while in
public office, which led to his resignation in disgrace.
If you need a good topic for a paper for an American history class, you could
consider writing about the parallels and differences between the Nixon/Agnew team
and the Bush/Cheney duo. One obvious difference is that the Bush/Cheney financial
schemes for their cronies are much bigger.
However, Bush and Cheney are a different duo, and they simply had to appear
together. Some wags offered the explanation that a dummy cannot talk without his
ventriloquist present. Some even suggested that Bush and Cheney are physically
joined at that place on Bush’s body where ventriloquist Cheney inserts his hand.
The other conditions demanded by Bush and Cheney were: (1) they would not
answer questions about 9/11 under oath, (2) the proceedings would not be recorded,
and (3) the proceedings would be private. This meant that the families of the more
than 3,000 victims of 9/11 would never know what Bush said or didn’t say, and they
would have no right to ask him a few questions.
When it comes to standing up for traditional American values and working for all
Americans, not just the privileged and the Super Rich, Bush lacks a backbone. He is
the perfect puppet for Cheney and his band of neocons.
Although Reagan eventually found the common sense and backbone to ignore the
lunatic advice he was getting from the same neocons who recently ran America and
its military into the ground, Bush continues to fall for their fairy tales hook line and
sinker. Perhaps he is afraid to fire them, knowing they are likely to write embarrass-
ing tell-all books about him and his fiasco of a presidency.
It is instructive to consider how Cheney became vice president. Bush asked him
to head the efforts to pick his vice presidential running mate. After fondling this task
for several weeks, Cheney decided he would take the VP job himself, and Bush pas-
sively went along. It would be amusing to see the vetting sheet that Cheney prepared
for candidate Cheney.
Bush has numerous personal shortcomings that make him an ideal participant in
puppetry. In the following pages, we will discuss just a few of these shortcomings:125
• intellectual laziness;
• a lack of curiosity about the world;
• a weak work ethic (also known as laziness);
• inability to empathize with anyone less fortunate;
• an AWOL backbone when it comes to personal sacrifice;
• poor judgment;
• inability to form public policy through a fact-based analytical framework;
• allergy to personal responsibility; and
• a warped set of personal values that place ideology over truth, and fealty
over competence.
America’s friends and allies are amazed that a person of Bush’s BB-gun caliber
could garner 50% of the vote in an American presidential election. They are espe-
cially bewildered by that peculiar rightwing American notion that even the village
idiots from time to time should have a village idiot in the White House representing
them.
125
Numerous books have been written about Bush’s character defects and sordid life history,
but that is not the purpose of this book. An encyclopedia set would be needed to do the subject
justice.
CHAPTER 15 — PUPPETRY IN THE WHITE HOUSE 323
Intellectual Laziness and Lack of Curiosity About the World

Bush’s legendary intellectual laziness is a major reason his foreign policy slate was
blank when he walked into the White House. He had, and still has, a stunningly low
level of curiosity about the world. When a leader cannot locate most nations on a
map, his probability of success in a complex world is about equal to that of a monkey
randomly flipping coins and randomly going about his monkey business.
Diplomats around the world have been astonished by Bush’s ignorance, intellec-
tual laziness and lack of curiosity regarding foreign affairs. Shocked that America
has such a shallow man to lead it, they want America’s president to be better in-
formed, to be willing to listen and learn, to be street smart and world wise, and to be
an effective world leader. They are tired of Bush League name calling and juvenile
taunting. They want an honest American leader who believes in diplomacy and has
the backbone to meet America’s worst enemies face to face.
According to Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, Bush’s father called his old
buddy Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to America, in 1997 to
tell him that his son needed a tutor because he was thinking about running for presi-
dent. The younger Bush, then Governor of Texas, later told Bandar: “I don’t have the
foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy.”
Paul O’Neill, a Republican conservative hand-picked by Cheney and Bush to
serve in Bush’s cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury, was stunned by Bush’s disinter-
est and lack of knowledge regarding policy issues. In his 2004 book, The Price of
Loyalty, O’Neill said that “President Bush showed little interest in policy discussions
in his first two years in the White House, leading Cabinet meetings ‘like a blind man
in a roomful of deaf people.’”
These comments are not those of a Bush hater, but are those of a conservative
Republican who worked directly for Bush and was the most competent executive
ever in Bush’s cabinet. O’Neill notes that Bush was so inscrutable that his closest
advisors had to devise White House policy on “little more than hunches about what
the president might think.’”
Bush’s inability to think deeply about any issue made him putty in the hands of
Cheney and the other neocons, who kept him in the dark like a mushroom and
steered him at will in virtually any direction. In a cover story entitled, “Bush in the
Bubble,” Newsweek described him as perhaps “the most isolated president in modern
history.”
When interviewed on 60 Minutes, O’Neill described his first working meeting
with Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage
[Bush] on. And as the book said, I was surprised that it turned out to be me talking
and the president just listening … As I recall it was mostly a monologue.”
Bush’s speeches are prepared almost entirely by others with little or no input
from America’s “Decider.” With practice he began to read his speeches better after
9/11. He has had a surprisingly small number of press conferences (a record low for
recent administrations) because he does not think well on his feet, or at all. He pre-
fers that questions be submitted in advance, which gives his handlers time to prepare
answers for him.
As for his “public meetings” on the road across America, with rare exception the
audiences are handpicked to be friendly and supportive. This allows the president to
avoid hard questions, hard thinking and hard answers. Americans with dissenting
views are excluded from these meetings, even though American taxpayers pay for
the trips. In a systematic unconstitutional program that suppresses free speech, the
Secret Service at taxpayer expense visits locations in advance and instructs local
police to establish free speech zones—another Orwellian phrase—where people op-
posed to Bush and his policies are rounded up like cattle and quarantined away from
the event. Keeping dissenters out of sight helps America’s media participate in rosy
dissenter-free photo ops for Bush.
A Weak Work Ethic

Especially during the early months of his administration, Bush prided himself on not
working hard. He took a record number of days of presidential vacation in the sev-
eral months from his inauguration until 9/11—he vacationed more than 40% of the
time before 9/11—and frequently demonstrated to reporters his various ranch vaca-
tion activities, principally brush clearing and weed whacking. Yes, “W” stands for
“weed whacking” (not to be confused with his avocation of “women whacking,”
which he does in Washington.)
Karl Rove thought he could create a regular workingman image for Bush if Bush
had his own ranch. So in 1999 Bush bought his so-called “ranch” in Crawford,
Texas, and had a big new house built, like a movie set for a media phony. At best the
ranch is a mini-ranch or ranchette, but it is more accurately described as a farm. Bush
and Rove use the word “ranch” because they believe ranchers are manlier than farm-
ers.
Of course, Bush is neither a rancher nor a farmer. As for being a rancher, the cat-
tle you see on his ranch are not even his. Someone else owns them, pays for grazing
rights, and actually knows how to take care of cattle. Bush himself wouldn’t dare get
near either end of a bull or cow, unless he was wasted.126 Regrettably, Bush does not
know how to ride a horse—or, presumably, even a cow, but who knows with cer-
tainty.
You won’t find any of these facts in Karl Rove’s media guide for Bush, that
popular work of fiction for gullible voters also known as Dummies for Bush. This
revelation that Bush doesn’t know how to ride a horse could inspire Rove to claim
that Bush really is a rodeo champion from way back. If so, America’s media would
happily ride along.
As for Bush perhaps being a farmer, that really stretches the imagination. Anyone
from a farming state, such as your author, knows that farming takes far too much
knowledge, risk, and hard work for people like Bush. Also, it’s a safe bet that Bush
couldn’t tell the difference between wheat and a weed, unless the weed was mari-
juana. Yes, “W” also stands for “weed.”
Lacking in Empathy
If Bush’s DNA had included even the tiniest bit of empathy for the people of Iraq, he
would have realized that a reconstruction and development plan—a “plan to win the
126
Yes, “W” also stands for “wasted.”
peace”—was necessary, and that the neocon “bomb-em and fire-em” madness was,
well, mad, in addition to being mean, unchristian and incredibly counterproductive.
Unfortunately, Bush, like his father, has no ability to create good jobs—whether
in America or Iraq—although he does know how to enrich the Super Rich, with
whom he shares loads of DNA.
A president with an ability to empathize with average workers in America and
Iraq would not have become such a passive puppeteer for policies that have signifi-
cantly harmed the vast majority of people in both countries. But Bush’s elitist up-
bringing and country club DNA prevent him from having any sympathy for either
Joe Lunchpail in Baltimore or Mohammed Lunchpail in Baghdad.
Here’s a revelation for President Bush. Americans and Iraqis want the same
things: good honest jobs that allow them to support their families; medical care; safe
vibrant communities in which to live and raise their children; education; a fair soci-
ety that is not run by and for the privileged few; and the hope that the future will be
better for their children.
An AWOL Backbone regarding Personal Sacrifice

If Bush had had a distinguished career in America’s active military, or even an un-
distinguished career in the active military, he would not have been so easily manipu-
lated by his neocon puppeteers, who themselves had no active military service. Bush
did not realize or care how insular and incompetent his warrior wannabes were. Yes,
“W” stands for “warrior wannabe.”
With no appreciation for the complexities of war, Bush didn’t know what ques-
tions to ask, and he chose not to seek advice from military experts outside his tight
clique of true believers. For example, when told that the case for WMD in Iraq was a
“slam dunk,” Bush didn’t even have the intelligence to say, “OK, so within 24 hours
show me a bunch of the compelling evidence. If it’s a slam dunk, that should be easy
to do.”
President Truman—and any other president—would have said, “Show me.” Bush
didn’t. Bush had heard what he wanted to believe, and facts might get in the way if
he asked questions, especially if he knew what questions to ask.
The Bush family, like many other privileged Con families in America who sup-
ported the war on Iraq, believes that young men and women of other families should
fight it. In practice, this means the war is being fought almost entirely by middle- and
low-income American soldiers in the military and National Guard, all of whom de-
serve our prayers and greatest respect. Many of them enlisted due to economic need,
but all of them share a sense of patriotism and shared sacrifice missing from Amer-
ica’s privileged class.
During World War II the privileged class understood that a special responsibility
came with their special privileged status. All four of President Franklin Roosevelt’s
sons enlisted in America’s armed services after the outbreak of World War II and
were decorated for bravery. Bush’s father served with honor and distinction during
that same war. Unfortunately, the linkage between privilege and responsibility has
been broken in America, and this is especially true with Bush’s extended family.
Bush and Cheney were draft evaders, and Bush also apparently went AWOL
from the National Guard. Today no member of their extended families is in military
service in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else.
Only a handful of America’s leaders in Congress have sons or daughters in the
military. As of the start of Bush’s second term, the only son or daughter of the 535
members of Congress who had served in Afghanistan or Iraq was Brooks Johnson,
the eldest son of Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), who suffered a stroke in December
2006. While on active duty in the U.S. Army, Brooks Johnson served in Bosnia,
Kosovo, South Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. Nevertheless, GOP slime balls attacked
Senator Johnson’s patriotism during his 2002 reelection campaign in South Dakota.
It’s troublesome that none of the senior policy setters in Bush’s administration,
including the Defense Department, have any immediate family members who served
in Iraq or Afghanistan. With the exception of Colin Powell, none of the Bush policy
makers were ever in the active armed services, and Powell himself, long before he
was booted out of the White House, was neutered and isolated by Bush’s armchair
civilians who willfully ignore the advice of America’s best military minds.
Poor Judgment / Lack of Analytical Framework

Poor judgment has been a consistent hallmark of Bush’s personal and public life. A
major contributing factor is that he apparently is devoid of any analytical framework
for making rational decisions and optimal public policies.
Although the extent to which Tony Blair voluntarily drank the neocon Kool-Aid
on Iraq can be debated, it was reasonable for Blair to expect any American president,
even Bush, to be reasonably competent and serious in setting about the serious busi-
ness of war. In this assessment Blair was bitterly disappointed. His poodle-like
stickiness to Bush cost him dearly with the British people, who from day one broadly
opposed the Bush League war on Iraq. By the time Blair was forced into early re-
tirement, his legacy had dropped to Grade W.
The headline on the cover of the May 13-19, 2006, issue of The Economist
summed it up nicely: “Axis of feeble: The closing of the Bush-Blair Era.”
Until Bush, all American presidents in the last 50 years willingly sought informa-
tion and advice from a broad array of experts and sources. Especially in critical pol-
icy areas where the president has little experience, the president needs to solicit the
perspective of people with contrary views, including leaders of the other major po-
litical party, as well as foreign leaders.
Bush does not have the smarts or emotional makeup to do this. He chose to re-
main “bubbled-in,” receiving ideologically driven direction from a stunningly small
group of advisors who do not value critical thinking and who share a similar narrow
worldview. They manipulate him and the agenda as they promote their preconceived,
extreme rightwing, neocon ideology. They promote the agenda of the few, not what
is best for America and the world.
The decision making process in the Bush White House is run in reverse. The
Bushies start with the answer and then conveniently plug in the “facts” and the
“problem” later.
When it comes to war, Bush does not even understand the difference between
strategy and tactics. As late as 2006, when asked about such niceties regarding Iraq,
his public responses were borderline gibberish.
The Bush regime determines and sells its war policies like a marketing firm pro-
motes cigarettes. Regarding Iraq, it rejected the best minds, the best intelligence, and
the best critical thinking.
Bush’s handlers, especially Cheney, keep dissenting voices outside Bush’s Bub-
ble. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Fortunately, disclosures by courageous
whistle blowers, the ferreting out of the truth by both American and foreign patriots,
and the growing list of revealing books written by Bush’s own people, expose the
administration’s incompetence, arrogance, corruption and disregard for human life
and the rule of law.
The narrow groupthink in the White House results in a host of evils. In addition
to misleading America and the world about Iraq, the Bush team began to believe
many of its own lies. Bush, a weak leader surrounded by people who think and say
the same things, mistakes this conformity for correctness, with catastrophic conse-
quences for America and the world.
Denial of Responsibility—Denial is Not a River in Egypt

The Bush administration is the first administration to run America without making
any mistakes—at least they never take responsibility for any. Whatever the disaster,
such as the quagmire and civil war they created in Iraq, they pretend all is as they
foresaw. If mistakes were made, someone else must have made them. Senior White
House officials are fortunate to have a boss who applies to them the same Teflon
standard that he applies to himself: “The Buck Does Not Stop Here.”
In return, Bush’s handlers continuously tell him how strong he is and how well
everything is going. Of course, when you don’t have a plan with specific measurable
objectives, anything and everything can be said to be “on plan.”
Denial of responsibility is a necessary weapon for politicians who run on ideol-
ogy and blind faith, rather than reason and reality. Living in a house of cards, these
political hacks face the perpetual fear that acknowledging a mistake will expose their
actions to the sunlight of fact-based analysis, leading to a collapse of support for
their fraudulent schemes.
Bush’s Teflon policy sends a horrible message to both friend and foe. Whether or
not Bush was personally involved in some wrongdoing—say, for example, torture at
the Abu Ghraib prison—it would help America if he said, “I take full responsibility
on behalf of America and apologize for the mistakes made. They won’t happen
again.” This would affirm American values and perhaps win some Muslim hearts
and minds.
Such acceptance of responsibility is helpful even when it has no legal signifi-
cance. Consider the style of Pope John Paul II, who on several occasions apologized
for horrendous sins of the Catholic Church over the years. On November 22, 2001,
he even made his first “virtual” email apology when he apologized to victims of sex-
ual abuse committed by Catholic priests. Observers may have thought: “Wow, the
Pope is going to do hard time when he’s sentenced … thousands of years in prison.”
Of course, it doesn’t work that way. Nevertheless, John Paul II’s apologies did help
change the church’s positions, in addition to perhaps giving some comfort to the
church’s countless victims.
It is odd that the Pope—God’s infallible representative on Earth—apologizes, but
Bush—a regular mortal—does not. Perhaps Bush believes he alone is the infallible
Super Pope with an exclusive channel to God.
Bush’s hardcore supporters, especially rightwing Christians, are like a mother
who refuses to see shortcomings in the child she wants to love and trust. She gives
unconditional love, without responsibility and consequences. But love without re-
sponsibility and consequences is not love at all. Slowly but surely, more and more
“Bush mothers” are awakening to the fact that this modern day Judas exploited them
as he betrayed Christ and his message.
SIDEBAR: A Real Christian Would Repent
What is the single most important deeply personal action that Bush could take to
help America in the so-called war on terrorism and to restore American respect and
credibility among its allies and friends? It is for Bush to repent for his illegal and
immoral war on Iraq.
Christian theology and the Bible compel this repentance by Bush. A real Chris-
tian would do so. Unfortunately, pigs will fly before Bush takes even the first baby
step on the road to Christian repentance, which is for him to admit his mistakes and
say he’s sorry.
But Bush simply saying “I’m sorry” would not be enough. True Christian repen-
tance is much more than feeling remorseful about something. Rather, the Bible re-
quires that a sinner who seeks repentance and the forgiveness of those wronged must
make sincere efforts to turn his life around. Repentance requires appropriate efforts
to right the wrong, to compensate those who have been wronged. It contemplates a
radical change of attitudes and direction, with a sincere vow not to repeat the of-
fences.
Bush the Infallible is not even to first base when it comes to repentance. During
the televised 2004 presidential debates, a woman in Missouri asked Bush to identify
just three mistakes he had made while president, and he famously could not think of
even one. Not one.
Do not expect Bush to repent. After all, he is protected by the Bush Family Pass,
which exempts him from consequences. Sadly, Bush will never receive on Earth
even a tiny fraction of the punishment he deserves. But one can dream. Wouldn’t it
be heroic for Bush to turn himself over to the Iraqi people for trial regarding his war
crimes? Heaven and Earth would rejoice. Even a modest personal sacrifice—say a
public tarring and feathering in Baghdad—would do much to help restore America’s
credibility.
So would his impeachment.
In blaming others for its own mistakes in Iraq, the Bush regime even blames
America’s troops. While speaking about Iraq in Blackburn, England, on March 31,
2006, Condoleezza Rice would not admit to any strategic mistakes by America’s
leaders, as she said, “I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them I am
sure.” She spun it this way because she knows strategic decisions are made at the
top, while tactical decisions are generally made down the chain of command. But the
sad reality is that all of the key mistakes regarding Iraq were strategic mistakes, not
tactical mistakes, and America’s civilian leadership—primarily Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld—made them.127 Once again, Rice had it exactly backwards.
Iraq is Bush’s and the GOP’s Five Wrong War—the wrong war, in the wrong
place, at the wrong time, by the wrong leader, against the wrong enemy. Yes, “W”
stands for “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.”
Bush’s instinct to “blame it on the troops” was on display during a joint news
conference with Tony Blair on May 25, 2006, at the White House. Regarding mis-
steps and mistakes in Iraq, Bush and Blair were each asked “which missteps and
mistakes of your own you most regret?” [Emphasis added]. After saying he had
learned “some lessons about expressing” himself, Bush went on to say that the big-
gest mistake so far was Abu Ghraib. However, he then placed all the blame for Abu
Ghraib on America’s troops, and none on himself or Cheney or Rumsfeld or any
neocon in Washington—even though the question was about his mistakes. Bush then
lied, “the people who committed those acts were brought to justice. They’ve been
given a fair trial and tried and convicted.”
That’s it? Incredible! Bush was asked about his own missteps and mistakes, and
he goes out of his way to raise Abu Ghraib as the “biggest mistake” and then blame
it only on low-level scapegoats. If Bush really wanted to identify those responsible
for Abu Ghraib, he could look in the mirror, and he could also look at the lying faces
of war criminals Rumsfeld and Cheney. When it comes to responsibility and support-
ing America’s troops, Bush has not a shred of personal integrity or decency. Blame
the troops—incredible!
On the other hand, America’s military personnel carried to success every tactical
mission they were assigned in Iraq, no matter how difficult, and they prevailed in
every single firefight. They took seriously their various oaths of service. Among the
several military oaths is the following, which is taken by all personnel inducted into
the U.S. armed forces:
The Military Oath

I, (name) , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, ac-
cording to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
127
The Bush regime’s habit of blaming others brings to mind a classic line from Casablanca.
In the airport scene at the end of the movie, Captain Louis Renault proclaims: “Major Strasser
has been shot. Round up the usual suspects.”
Unlike Bush—who violated his oath of office—America’s finest with rare excep-
tion honorably fulfilled their oaths of military service.
Ideology Over Truth—Fealty Over Competence

Bush and his neocons are quite loyal to those who faithfully stick with the Con pro-
gram and mouth the party line, and they savage truth tellers who deviate from the
neocon scripture. They place no value on differing viewpoints and conflicting facts.
Incompetent ass kissers and yes men have job security.
Dissenters, especially the most competent and honest, are weeded out because
they are “disloyal.” Axing dissenters is a favorite weapon of politicians driven by
ideology and blind faith. Whether it’s Bush’s Washington or Saddam’s Baghdad,
only the “loyal” can be counted on to safeguard fascist policies. Cult leaders elimi-
nate members who question the cult’s Kool-Aid.
Saddam surrounded himself with a circle of fearful suck-ups. They learned to tell
him what he wanted to hear. In early 2003, just before the U.S. invasion, they told
him the United States would not invade, because that is what he wanted to hear. Dur-
ing that same period, Bush’s key neocon advisors told him that the war would be a
“cakewalk,” which is what he wanted to hear. Like Saddam, Bush rewards those who
“loyally” tell him the lies he wants to hear, and the rest are toast.
Bush’s top economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired in 2002, before the
Iraq war, because he was an intelligent independent thinker who refused to docilely
support the neocon fable regarding the projected cost of the war. He made the mis-
take of honestly giving his best analysis, which was that the war would cost between
$100 billion and $200 billion. (Lindsey had apparently forgotten to take his GOP
hallucinatory medication that morning.) Since the Bush neocons did not want to hear
a number higher than their low-ball figure of $60 billion,128 Lindsey was fired.
Paul O’Neill, one of those rare individuals in the Bush administration who suc-
cessfully and honestly ran a public company, was fired for giving his candid views as
Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury. One “mistake” O’Neill made was truthfully telling
Cheney that America was headed towards a financial crisis and that the huge deficits
and tax cuts threatened the U.S. economy. Cheney told him, “Reagan proved that
deficits don’t matter,” and fired him in December 2002.
SIDEBAR: The GOP Needs a Real French Guillotine
Bush rewards and promotes incompetent cronies, provided they remain loyal. Fortu-
nately, there is a growing conga line of former Bush loyalists who have repented and
told their truth after leaving Bush’s sinking ship.
128
Surprise! The Bush neocons were low on their estimate. The direct costs alone will exceed
$1 trillion dollars before the United States leaves the mess behind. The indirect cost—
including especially the toll of human lives—will be a multiple of that. Priceless.
Competent truth tellers who stray from the party line are routinely and figura-
tively “guillotined.” Bush and his henchmen need to purchase the official French
model of the guillotine, the one that actually severs the head from the body, thus
preventing the victim from telling the truth.
Since Bush treats his own people like this, it is not surprising that he mistreats
foreigners. Enemies such as North Korea and longtime allies such as France are all
targets for Bush’s infamous petulance and snide comments.
Kill the messenger of good news and truth. If Christ returned tomorrow morning
to deliver his message of peace and compassion, the Bush regime by sundown would
award Halliburton a profitable no-competitive-bid contract for a cross and nails.
Drop old cronies and supporters like hot potatoes if they become an embarrass-
ment. Bush becomes touchy and defensive when asked about such relationships,
rather than taking the high road and truthfully giving his perspective, which might
help restore his shattered credibility. After all, he couldn’t possibly have personal
knowledge of all the nefarious activities of his regime and his friends. But truth tell-
ing is as foreign to Bush as French, and thus bad.
SIDEBAR: Chalabi Who?
Iraqi leader Ahmed Chalabi sat in a photo-op seat of honor behind first lady Laura
Bush during Bush’s State of the Union speech to Congress in January 2004. Unfor-
tunately for Bush, the neocons’ long-term romance and bribery of Chalabi soon hit a
rocky stretch.
When a reporter a few months later started to ask Bush a general question that
was not even directed at Bush’s personal role in Chalabi-gate, Bush became unnec-
essarily defensive. Rather than taking the opportunity to clarify Chalabi’s disastrous
fraudulent relationship with his regime, Bush sought cover for himself by assuming
his familiar “What do I know?” posture.
Q: “Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that’s fallen out of
favor within your administration. I’m wondering if you feel that he provided any
false information, or are you particularly …”
A: “Chalabi?”
Q: “Yes, with Chalabi.”
A: “My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the
State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might
have come with a group of leaders. But I haven’t had any extensive conversa-
tions with him.”
(This exchange occurred on June 1, 2004, when Bush spoke in the Rose Garden
regarding Iraq’s interim government.)
Chalabi was the darling of the neocons, who marketed him as the “George Wash-
ington of Iraq” and groomed him to be the America-pliant leader of Iraq, even
though he had not lived in Iraq for decades and had virtually no support within Iraq.
The United States paid him tens of millions of dollars over several years to provide
made-as-instructed “intelligence” to support the case for the invasion of Iraq. Ac-
cording to the Government Accountability Office, the United States paid Chalabi’s
Iraqi National Congress more than $33 million from March 2000 to May 2004.
In a February 2004 interview with London’s Daily Telegraph, Chalabi, then a
member of the Iraqi Governing Council, bragged about the impact of the false WMD
information his organization provided. “We are heroes in error,” he said during his
Baghdad interview. “As far as we’re concerned, we’re been entirely successful. That
tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is
not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat.”
The Bush neocons turned against Chalabi later in 2004 only after he started criti-
cizing Bush’s Iraq strategy.
Among the most disturbing allegations regarding Chalabi is that he sent classified
U.S. information to Iran, including disclosure that U.S. intelligence had broken
Iran’s secret codes, thus compromising the ability of America’s intelligence agencies
to decipher intercepted Iranian communications. Since Chalabi was not cleared to
receive classified information, the obvious question was whether someone in the
Bush administration betrayed the United States by unlawfully passing the classified
information to Chalabi.
According to a June 2004 report by Jim Stewart of CBS News, counter-
intelligence agents in the FBI focused on the highest levels of the Pentagon in trying
to determine who leaked the information. Lie detector tests were given to a small
number of civilian Pentagon employees, according to The New York Times. The fact
that Iran’s code had been broken was known only to a small number of key officials.
Incredibly, this is just one more investigation that the Bush administration is not in-
terested in pursuing, and the self-neutered U.S. press quickly lost interest.
At that time—June 2004—Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s National Security Ad-
viser, promised a thorough FBI investigation of the Iranian leak. However, neither
the FBI nor any other counter-intelligence agency has even bothered to interview
Chalabi.
Instead, 17 months later, in November 2005—in another flip flop—the Bush ad-
ministration invited prime suspect Chalabi to visit the White House and meet with
several senior officials, including Vice President Cheney and five cabinet members,
including Rumsfeld and Rice. While in Washington for this royal treatment, Chalabi
also gave a triumphant speech to the American Enterprise Institute, that infamous
neocon-infested White House partner in warmongering.
In the next chapter we turn our attention to America’s corporate media and their
shameful role regarding the Iraq war and the GOP’s assault on America’s democ-
racy.
CHAPTER 16
Control and Bullying of the Media

America’s Corporate Media—Right, But Not Correct
To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American people.
—Theodore Roosevelt
Even Mickey Mouse, that lovable Disney creature, was afraid of the Bush family
Cons and their famous retribution. If Mickey exercised his first amendment rights
and “squeaked up,” he knew that Bush’s little brother Jeb would likely come mouse
hunting with a big, taxing, State of Florida mousetrap. All loyal Mickey Mouse fans
would mourn his loss, but the Bush family would not shed a single tear, not even a
small mouse tear.
What are you talking about? The Walt Disney film studio refused to allow its
Miramax unit to distribute Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 because it
links Bush to prominent Saudis, including Osama bin Laden’s family, and is critical
of Bush’s inactions and actions before and after 9/11. Miramax, under contract with
Moore, had invested in the film and agreed to distribute it.
However, Disney blocked the film’s distribution, an action challenged by its
Miramax unit. Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, revealed that Michael Eisner, Disney’s
chief executive officer, had asked him to pull out of the Miramax deal because of
concerns that the critical film could jeopardize Disney’s tax breaks in Florida, where
Jeb Bush was governor. Would the crooked Jeb Bush really squash that lovable
mouse? Is there no limit to the Bush family’s depravity?
Disney, however, does not need the Bush family to help it promote the GOP
agenda. Disney and the ABC television network, which is part of the Disney corpo-
rate empire, are ready, willing and able to do that on their own. The Path to 9/11 is a
good example of this institutional Big Media bias. On the fifth anniversary of 9/11,
the ABC television network aired The Path to 9/11, a two-part, commercial-free,
rightwing propaganda miniseries about 9/11, loosely based on the 9/11 Commission
Final Report. ABC initially tried to pass it off as a balanced truthful documentary. It
wasn’t.
The film received enormous pre-broadcast publicity not only because of ABC’s
extensive advertising campaign, but also because ABC selectively sent advance
viewing copies to many conservative commentators, bloggers, groups, and political

talk show hosts—but not to progressive organizations or individuals. The conserva-
tive media machine happily promoted the film as if it were God’s truth. A good clue
as to the movie’s political bias is the fact that Rush Limbaugh, who boasted he was a
“personal friend” of the writer, promoted the movie on his broadcasts.
The office of former President Clinton, however, was denied viewing copies, as
were others progressives such as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Pro-
moting its propaganda as a “public service,” ABC even directly pushed it to schools
across America. The only member of the 9/11 Commission who consulted for the
project was its Republican co-chair, Thomas Kean. ABC paid $40 million for this
politically slanted movie, which was produced by the right and for the right’s
agenda.
Because of numerous pre-broadcast complaints, ABC modified some scenes and
included a milk toast disclaimer in the movie, acknowledging that it was a “dramati-
zation.” However, outside the United States, it still marketed the hatchet job as the
“Official True Story.”
Mainstream Media that Kowtows to the Bush Administration

For too long America’s mainstream corporate media kowtowed to Bush and the Con
agenda. This was especially true following 9/11, which created a heightened sense of
American patriotism that Bush immediately exploited. Journalists were afraid of
being labeled unpatriotic by his rightwing wingnuts, and yellow journalism became
popular in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Warmongering squashed freedom of
speech and reason. Critical reporters could expect retaliation by the Bush administra-
tion and lots of hate mail. Voices of peace were among the first victims of Bush’s
war on Iraq.
America’s journalists by and large uncritically accepted and amplified the moun-
tain of distortions and lies used by the Bush administration to sell its Iraq war to the
American people. More than two years after the invasion of Iraq, 70% of Bush’s
supporters still believed the United States had actually found WMDs in Iraq. A large
majority still believed Saddam was behind 9/11 and worked hand in hand with bin
Laden!
The White House controls the press in many subtle and not so subtle ways. For
example, Bush propagandists and shills in the media such as Fox News expect and
receive special access and privileges.
As the Bush regime’s principal propaganda organ, Fox News is America’s
Bushevik version of Pravda. The de facto merger of the Bush White House and
Fox/Pravda News became complete in April 2006 when Bush picked Fox pundit
Tony “Snowjob” Snow to become his new White House press secretary.
Although America’s domestic press by and large gave Bush a continuous pass
regarding Iraq, thousands of journalists, both American and foreign, have coura-
geously risked their lives in Iraq doing their job. On May 29, 2006, Memorial Day, a
three-person CBS News crew was hit by a car bomb in the Karada section of Bagh-
dad. Correspondent Kimberly Dozier was critically injured, and James Brolan and
Paul Douglas, both British citizens, died in the attack. The explosion also killed an
American soldier and an Iraqi interpreter and wounded six American soldiers. The
CHAPTER 16 — CONTROL AND BULLYING OF THE MEDIA 335
journalists were doing a Memorial Day story about the life of soldiers in Baghdad
and were embedded with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division.
Reporters Without Borders reported in March 2006 that 86 journalists and media
assistants had been killed in Iraq in the first three years of the war. By comparison,
about 63 journalists were killed in Vietnam during twenty years of war.
If one had followed only America’s mainstream media, one would have con-
cluded that Bush had been blessed with a flawless set of character traits and leader-
ship skills that began to corrode only after the Iraq war was about nine months old.
Unfortunately, it was only after the pile of lies got so big that the mainstream media
started to raise long overdue questions about Bush and his regime. Only then did a
small portion of America’s press start to fulfill its independent, fair and balanced
role.
Bush’s image has been carefully crafted over many years. Countless buckets of
whitewash, fumigants and makeup were used to create a bogus portrait of an honest
person, a compassionate conservative, and a moral leader who is strong on defense
and supportive of democracy and religious freedom. America’s media shamefully
helped put the lipstick on that pig.
Unfortunately, it required years of Bush League mismanagement and several
hundred thousand dead in Iraq for a majority of Americans to realize that a pig with
lipstick is still a pig.
Bush’s image—like that of the Marlboro Man—was the product of media ma-
nipulation. Advertisers know that the endless repetition of slogans like “compassion-
ate conservative” cause them to become truth. The Bush team understood this, and
Corporate Media pretended they didn’t. However, America eventually realized that
Bush’s phony image—like that of the Marlboro Man—could not forever mask the
cancer within.
Media Concentration
Every American should be alarmed by this disturbing fact: Six huge media conglom-
erates now own more than 90% of America’s mass media. These six huge conglom-
erates are: Time Warner; Bertelsmann (of Germany); Disney; General Electric;
News Corporation (owned by Rupert Murdoch and usually called News Corp); and
Viacom (formerly CBS). When we say America’s “mass media,” we are not talking
about just radio and television, but rather all mass media, including the Internet, ca-
ble, publishing and movies, as well as radio and television.
Each of the six conglomerates owns a constellation of interconnected companies
sprinkled throughout the various segments of the mass media world. You would need
a huge scorecard or a computer to keep track of everything. It is likely that not one
American in a million could draw a detailed map of this huge Big Business oligopoly
that dominates America’s media.
For example, let’s consider just one of the six giants, Time Warner. Time Warner
controls: CNN; Time Warner Cable; many magazines, including Time, Sports Illus-
trated, Fortune, Money, People and MAD; The WB television network; several cable
channels including TNT, Cartoon Network, TBS Superstation, Turner Classic Mov-
ies, Cinemax and HBO; television networks including The WB; AOL and AOL’s
Web Properties Group which includes MapQuest, Netscape, a network of weblogs,
Mirabilis (ICQ), CompuServe and Advertising.com; Timelife music and books;

movie studios including Warner Bros. and Cinemax; the Atlanta Braves major
league baseball team; Castle Rock Entertainment (a production company); and DC
Comics.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which created the Federal Commu-
nications Commission (FCC), the electromagnetic spectrum used by radio was
viewed as public property. The U.S. government granted licenses for spectrum fre-
quencies to private companies and individuals provided they broadcast in the public
interest. Large radio networks like ABC lobbied the government to impose a signifi-
cant charge on each license, which had the desired effect of pricing amateur and
small broadcasters out of the market, including those who were already broadcasting.
A principal purpose of FCC regulations over several decades was to limit the
percentage of each geographical market that could be licensed by a single company.
These anti-monopoly regulations made sense and served the public interest well for
several decades—that is, until the Cons and Big Media jumped into bed together and
began screwing America’s democracy.
Big Media and the Republican Party over the last two decades pushed various
deregulation schemes, all of which were wolves in sheep’s clothing. Well, the media
war is over, and Big Media, Big Money and Big Brother have won. America’s de-
mocracy has lost. Here are some of the lowlights:
• The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was deceptively advertised as
pro-competition, resulted in a tsunami wave of mergers involving huge
companies.
• By 2003 the ownership limits on single companies had been emasculated by
the GOP-dominated FCC and its chairman, Michael Powell, the son of
Colin Powell. (We’ll discuss this more later.)
• Stations using America’s airwaves no longer have to be run in the public in-
terest.
• Stations no longer have to provide equal time to opposing views.
Big Media now control the vast majority of news disseminated to the American
public. The structure of America’s media imposes a Big Business bias in news re-
porting. Funding from Big Business advertisers also plays a role in this bias. To in-
crease profits, budgets for investigative reporting and honest journalism are cut, re-
placed by the easy regurgitation of propaganda from official government sources and
Big Business. Small independent news sources are ignored and discredited. Enter-
tainment and news are commingled because it is profitable and easy—versus tough
professional reporting, which is hard. News is dummy downed, and talking points
substitute for substantive coverage and debate.
Stories created and paid for by Big Business are frequently aired as news, with-
out indicating their source. Don’t expect much from the FCC investigation of these
so-called “video news releases,” or VNRs, which are public relations videos paid for
by Big Business and crafted to look like objective TV reporting. VNRs are also
called “fake news” in the industry.
Big Media have countless conflicts of interest involving the constellation of
companies they control. Largely ignoring these conflicts, they protect and promote
their various business interests in the news stories they select, and in what is reported
in each story. They cross promote their business interests in their various media
properties. They avoid offending Big Business advertisers.
In 2004 Forbes magazine calculated that more than one-third of the 40 wealthi-
est Americans derived most of their income from media and media-related busi-
nesses.
Number of Corporations That Control a Majority of U.S. Media:

(newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books,
music, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies)
60
50
50
40
29
30 23
20 14
10
10 6 5
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
The information in this graph is from Ben Bagdikian’s book, The Media Monop-
oly, which has gone through six editions. As early as 1983 Bagdikian was labeled an
alarmist for pointing out that 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all U.S.
news media. He later accurately predicted that America’s news media would eventu-
ally be dominated by only about half a dozen huge corporate conglomerates, as he
watched the monopolization trend with growing concern. By 2000, the year Bag-
dikian published the sixth edition of his book, the number of controlling media giants
had in fact dropped to six. His new 2004 book, The New Media Monopoly, which
expanded the broad definition of media to include the Internet, shows that a majority
of the U.S. media market is controlled by only five humongous corporations. These
five for-profit giants are: Time Warner; Disney; News Corporation (owned by
Murdoch); Bertelsmann (of Germany); and Viacom. General Electric follows closely
in sixth place.
A great source for links and resources on media reform is the Media Reform In-
formation Center (www.corporations.org/media/).
In pursuing greater profits, the large media corporations have a vested interest in
influencing legislation affecting their business, in particular doing whatever they can
to limit free speech and to eliminate barriers to their expansion and concentration.
They have a tremendous amount of influence with politicians of both major parties,
but they are especially in the pockets of the Cons who get the lion’s share of both
illegal and perfectly legal money. Big Media offer massive campaign contributions,
media access and favorable reporting. There are now far more Big Media lobbyists
than there are members of the U.S. Congress, and none of them work for you.
Big Media were an un-elected partner in the Con-controlled Congress. Big Media
not only buy the legislation they want, but in unprecedented fashion they also fre-
quently write the legislation. Writing your own laws is a huge advantage, especially
when the legislation is complex, as media legislation is. This also saves the time of
lazy corrupt Con legislators and their staffers.
The large media conglomerates have a natural structural bias to support rightwing
politicians who support Big Business over other broader public interests, such as
consumers, labor, the environment, human rights, and fair balance in the media.
Birds of a feather flock together. Vultures flock together. Big Media have a natural
bias to support Big Business and Big Money over middle- and low-income workers.
They have an incentive to not say or do anything that might offend politicians who
write legislation affecting them. At the same time, Big Media have the money—and
the mass media, of course—to punish politicians who oppose them.
Europeans especially are staggered by the decline of democracy in America.
Money buys anything and everything in America, including the mass media upon
which a healthy democracy depends. It buys Congress and the White House.129 It
buys elections. It buys journalists. In short, money—really Big Money, not the
chump change of the bottom 99% of Americans—has purchased and perverted
America’s democracy. One tragic offspring is the Bush administration. Honesty,
integrity and responsibility are gone. America’s capitalism—as in m-o-n-e-y—
outranks human values and individual rights. Everything is measured in money, and
everything is for sale, especially politicians, and the price is incredibly cheap. This
may be Right, but it is not right.
There is a growing demand for progressive media to balance the oligopoly of
rightwing media, especially in radio and television. Although the profit incentive
may cause Big Media to offer more progressive alternatives to their pervasive right-
wing rant, it’s a safe bet that most of Big Media will continue to engage in a mini-
malist strategy regarding balance and the progressive message, doing just enough to
allow them to claim they are fair and unbiased. Unfortunately, nascent progressive
talk alternatives—such as Air America Radio, which offers Randi Rhodes, Thom
Hartmann, Rachel Maddow and Al Franken (before he left to run for the U.S. Senate
in Minnesota)—do not own any media. They only provide content to the media con-
glomerates that own the airwaves, and are thus at their mercy.
Amy Goodman (Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!) and Ed Schultz are also
strong progressive voices.
America’s allies and friends are extremely skeptical of the rightwing, Big Busi-
ness bias in America’s media. They are amazed that the Big Lie—“the media is lib-
eral”—gets any traction in America. America’s Big Media are owned and controlled
by Big Conglomerates and Big Money, not by the poor, the unemployed or the
129
Perhaps this scene from Casablanca was written with GOP corruption in mind:
Captain Louis Renault: Rick, there are many exit visas sold in this café, but we know that
you’ve never sold one. That is the reason we permit you to remain open.
Rick Blaine: Oh? I thought it was because I let you win at roulette.
Captain Louis Renault: That is another reason.
homeless, not by lower or middle class workers, not by people of color or other mi-
norities, not by women, not by America’s small businessmen and businesswomen,
not by victims of war, and not by America’s finest who are making the sacrifice in
Iraq and elsewhere.
America’s media were culpable in the run-up to Bush’s War on Iraq. America’s
allies are shocked by the decline in America’s press and the extent to which it fear-
fully regurgitates rightwing government propaganda. A 2005 survey showed that
America had dropped to 27th place on a list of nations with the freest press.
The biggest mistake of the progressive movement is its failure to invest the time
and money to develop an information distribution system than is comparable in clout
to that of America’s extreme right, including the Religious Right and hate radio.
SIDEBAR: Rightwing Rant
Michael Savage, popular rightwing radio talk host, May 12, 2004, on the Savage
Nation:
I tell you right now—the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear
weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don’t even care which one. They’d like
an indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon. … I think these people need to be forcibly
converted to Christianity … It’s the only thing that can probably turn them into human
beings.
Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don’t think smallpox and a
blanket is good enough incidentally. … Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave
to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what
I’d like to see done to these people.
Rush Limbaugh, another popular rightwing propagandist, May 12, 2004, on the
Rush Limbaugh Show, commenting on the victims at Abu Ghraib prison:
They are the ones who are sick. They’re the ones who are perverted. They are the ones
who are dangerous. They are the ones who are subhuman. They are the ones who are hu-
man debris, not the United States of America and not our soldiers and not our prison
guards.
Rightwing Rupert Murdoch is a principal shareholder and the chairman and manag-
ing director of News Corporation, which owns rightwing Fox News. Murdoch, the
Australian-born son of Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch, became a naturalized U.S. citizen
in 1985 because only Americans could own American television stations. He has
been fabulously successful in expanding his global media empire, spreading right-
wing propaganda in America, and cross marketing his various cross-media compa-
nies.
• The Economist reported in 1999 that Murdoch had paid no net corporate tax
over the previous 11 years even though he had made $2.1 billion in profits
over that period. Based on its examination of available accounts, The
Economist further noted that Murdoch would normally have been expected
to pay $350 million in corporate taxes during that period.
• If you are a warmonger lusting to invade a nation that had zero to do with
9/11, it helps to have a knuckle dragger like Rupert Murdoch on your side.
During the run-up to Bush’s Iraq war, all 175 Murdoch-controlled newspa-
pers worldwide supported the war in editorials. Perhaps you mistakenly as-
sumed each newspaper’s editorial board would make its own informed
thoughtful decision. But, no, this is Big Media, the antithesis of democracy.
Australian-born Murdoch is Exhibit A for the case that America needs bet-
ter border security.
• In 1995 Murdoch funded and started The Weekly Standard, the neocon
magazine that had much to do with Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Its founder
William Kristol is the chairman of The Project for the New American Cen-
tury. Kristol and neocon Robert Kagan wrote, four years before 9/11, the in-
famous November 17, 1997, cover story for The Weekly Standard entitled,
“Saddam Must Go.”
• The Weekly Standard does not practice objective journalism, but rather is a
shill for rightwing causes, whatever the objective reality. In an interview
with JournalismJobs.com published in May 2003, Weekly Standard senior
writer Matt Labash described how it works: “We come with a strong point
of view, and people like point of view journalism. … We’ve created this
cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective
as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criti-
cize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s
a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.”
Progressives by nature relish diverse opinions and try to find the best solutions to
problems. They typically do not want to hear a one-sided rant that might mirror the
rightwing rant of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News. The progressive
mind doesn’t want to hear propaganda; it uses facts and objective reality to deter-
mine its conclusions. The small amount of progressive programming that exists
serves the greater public good and is centrist for America.
A plethora of rightwing radio shows dominate political talk radio. Even when
driving through a predominantly Democratic city like Los Angeles, you will find
four or more major rightwing rant radio stations simultaneously striving to outdo
each other in hatred and bigotry as they compete for gullible minds, and you’ll be
lucky to find even one liberal or progressive station. A major factor is media con-
solidation by Big Media. Rightwing rant by Big Media supplanted local program-
ming and local control. A handful of national rightwing voices provided by Big
Sewage replaced local hosts, local callers and local issues.
According to A.C. Nielsen ratings, the top four talk radio programs—all right-
wing—are those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck.
A survey in 2006 placed two other rightwingers (not-a-real-doctor Dr. Laura
Schlessinger and Laura Ingraham) in the top five (behind Limbaugh, Hannity and
Savage.)
The corporate media in both America and in pseudo-democratic Russia have en-
gaged in self-censorship in their investigation and coverage of policies of the central
government. Two examples regarding war coverage are Bush’s decision to invade
Iraq, and Vladimir Putin’s handling of the war in Chechnya. In both countries, the
press abdicated its essential democratic role, largely out of fear but also out of lazi-
ness and institutional bias.
Commentators and so-called investigative journalists in America’s mainstream
Big Media almost uniformly got the Iraq war wrong. A few later apologized, but it is
difficult to find even one regurgitator of Bush League propaganda whose career suf-
fered as a result.
Rush Limbaugh and American Forces Network

American taxpayer dollars are used to fund a rightwing, pro-Iraq war, pro-GOP mes-
sage to more than one million uniformed radio listeners in the U.S. military in more
than 150 countries. Funded by the U.S. government and operated by the Defense
Department, the American Forces Network (a brand name used by the United States
Armed Forces Radio and Television Service) pushes rightwing propaganda, includ-
ing that of Rush Limbaugh, over the airwaves on a daily basis to our armed forces
around the world. Prior to December 2005, no long-form political talk show other
than Limbaugh’s enjoyed this special privilege.130 At that time—after almost three
years of war in Iraq—the American Forces Network finally added Al Franken and
Ed Schultz (along with another conservative, Sean Hannity) to the radio programs it
provides to its affiliates. It took a lot of progressive effort and congressional action
for government to make even this simple change. In June 2004 Senator Tom Harkin
of Iowa introduced an amendment to a defense authorization bill that required the
American Forces Network to meet its stated goal of providing political balance in its
public affairs and news programming. Although the amendment passed the Senate
unanimously, it did not become law.
The rightwing bias of our American Forces Network sends a wrong message to
our troops, as well as to other listeners around the world. Listeners could fairly con-
clude that our troops were fighting to promote rightwing media and rightwing
causes. This bias makes it more difficult for America to win the hearts and minds of
people throughout the world.
Limbaugh’s comments about the prisoner abuses in Iraq are especially trouble-
some because they put our troops at greater risk in Iraq. Limbaugh dismisses all the
abuses as just so much fraternity fun or Skull and Bones Society initiation fun. Al-
though it is a big joke to him, it is not to Iraqis and to American troops whose jobs he
makes more difficult.
In September 2007 Limbaugh labeled American soldiers who disagree with the
Iraq war as “phony soldiers.” By so insulting American soldiers and their service, he
does America a disservice and deserves to be kicked off taxpayer-funded American
Forces Network.
A survey of U.S. troops in Iraq conducted in Iraq in the first two months of 2006
by Le Moyne College and Zogby International shows that the troops were greatly
130
Armed Forces Radio did allow a few other shows with different formats, the most promi-
nent of these with a political message being rightwingers Laura Schlessinger and Focus on the
Family’s James Dobson.
misinformed as to the reasons why America went to war in Iraq. The political ma-
nipulation of American Forces Network is part of the problem. An astounding 85%
of our troops said America’s mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the
9/11 attacks.” On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, in a rare moment of truth, Bush him-
self finally admitted that Saddam had no role in 9/11. Nevertheless, he and support-
ers of his regime continue to use 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence in order to mis-
lead the listener.
Bush and the GOP do not support the troops—they lie to them.
The same survey also showed that an astounding 77% of America’s troops in Iraq
also thought that the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from
protecting al Qaeda in Iraq,” which is another complete fabrication. America’s
rightwing media deserve much of the credit for this “misunderstanding.”
The point bears repeating: Bush and the GOP do not support the troops—they lie
to them.
The Bush administration and America’s military leadership have a duty to correct
misinformation regarding Iraq and to tell the troops the truth. They must clearly ar-
ticulate the mission in Iraq, something they have never done. American Forces Net-
work must also shoulder its share of responsibility for America’s troops being misin-
formed. Our troops are entitled to the truth and an apology. They are also entitled to
a balanced mix of politics. They deserve a choice. They deserve the truth.
Clear Channel Communications

Founded in 1972 and based in San Antonio, Texas, Clear Channel Communications
benefited greatly from the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
greatly deregulated radio stations by eliminating the national ownership limits appli-
cable to radio stations and greatly reducing the local market ownership limits. Prior
to this 1996 legislation, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the
United States. Also effectively discarded was the long-established principle that the
public airways should be used for the broader public good. America’s Big Media
were on the prowl.
This deregulation led to tremendous consolidation in the U.S. radio market, with
effective power over the exercise of free speech being increasingly concentrated in
the hands of a few humongous politically motivated conglomerates. Leading the
charge in radio, Clear Channel grew rapidly by making two huge acquisitions of
communication companies. It now owns more radio stations in the United States than
any other entity—more than 1,200—which is more than 10% of all stations in the
United States, and about five times the number of its nearest competitor.
Clear Channel has a dominant audience share in the vast majority of 112 major
markets. It also owns TV stations and outdoor advertising, and, as discussed later, it
also handles the vast majority of ticket sales for concerts and clubs in the United
States—about 70% in 2001.
Clear Channel’s chief executive officer, Lowry Mays, told senators that he be-
lieves the radio industry would not be harmed if all radio stations in the United States
were owned by only four or five large companies.
One of the most troublesome aspects about the Clear Channel behemoth is its ex-
treme rightwing political agenda when it comes to the Bush family and news report-
ing. Clear Channel organized most of the so-called “Rally For America” pro-war
demonstrations in support of Bush’s war in Iraq. The Clear Channel network also
airs several rightwing radio programs (such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh)
that offer nonstop support for Bush and the rightwing agenda. Limbaugh’s show is
syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, which is owned by Clear Channel.
Of course, it is only a coincidence that Bush and Clear Channel’s top manage-
ment have close financial ties. Tom Hicks, the vice chairman of Clear Channel, pur-
chased the Texas Rangers in a sweetheart deal that turned Bush into a multimillion-
aire. Also, when Hicks was chairman of the board of the University of Texas’ en-
dowment management company, he (along with Clear Channel’s Lowry Mays, who
also sat on the same board) placed a large portion of the university’s endowment
under the management of companies connected to the Bush family and the Re-
publican Party.
In another remarkable coincidence, the GOP-controlled FCC pushed further
deregulation favoring Clear Channel’s interests. The Con Party has been working
hard to merge Big Government and Big Business, which is the classic definition of
fascism. One hand washes the other. It’s a two-way street of favors and big money,
and its victims include a democratic free press and middle- and lower-income
Americans.
Another instructive lesson was provided when Clear Channel pulled the plug on
Howard Stern’s radio show just two days after he announced that he had become an
“Anybody But Bush” voter. Clear Channel, strong dope pushers for anything Bush,
wanted America to believe it axed Stern because of his vulgarity. It’s quite remark-
able that after many years Clear Channel suddenly realized Howard Stern was vul-
gar!
Well, what happened is that Stern saw the truth about Bush and had a sudden
change of political heart. Previously described as “a pro-Bush celeb” by Fox News,
Stern made his “Anybody But Bush” announcement to the world on February 23,
2004. This followed a week’s vacation during which Stern read Al Franken’s book,
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them—a Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.
Clear Channel suspended Stern just two days later, on February 25. When it comes
to freedom of speech, ownership has its privileges.
“As soon as I came out against Bush, that’s when my rights to free speech were
taken away. It had nothing to do with indecency.” (Howard Stern, March 19, 2004.)
All Americans—whatever their political views and whatever they think of How-
ard Stern’s show (which is vulgar)—should be outraged by Clear Channel’s censor-
ship and assault on the First Amendment. All Americans should be concerned about
media consolidation and the control of our national airways by the few.
Perhaps the profit incentive will cause rightwing media conglomerates like Clear
Channel to eventually offer an array of progressive alternatives, but don’t count on it.
One modest positive sign is that Clear Channel by 2006 had started to change some
of its AM radio stations to a progressive talk format, including making some room
for upstart progressive Air America Radio. Air America, however, does not own any
media. As previously noted, it just provides content to the conglomerates that do, and
is thus at their mercy. In any case, your support of progressive programming like Air
America and its advertisers is important.
Clear Channel and Minot, North Dakota

Ownership in the radio industry has become very concentrated in the United States,
especially in small and mid-sized markets in America’s heartland, and Clear Channel
leads this concentration. A notorious example of this antidemocratic trend is Minot,
North Dakota, where Clear Channel owns six of the eight commercial radio stations.
That’s correct—it owns six of the eight stations.
In the early morning of January 18, 2002, a train loaded with 10,000 gallons of
anhydrous ammonia derailed in Minot, resulting in a dangerous toxic spill and cloud.
Hundreds of people became ill, and one death was reported. Local authorities, want-
ing to warn Minot residents to stay indoors and keep away from the spill, telephoned
seven Minot radio stations, six of which are owned by Clear Channel, but no one
answered the calls.
As the citizens of Minot discovered, you cannot count on absentee-owner, con-
glomerate-run radio stations to be there when an emergency strikes. They aren’t
there.
SIDEBAR: “Just For Fun”
If you’re a small business owner in Minot, North Dakota, and would like to advertise
your business on local radio, just drop in on the local production and advertising
sales offices of each of your local radio stations. Yes, get to know your business
neighbors—offer them some of that lefse and hospitality for which North Dakota is
famous. Try to talk with the people who put together the local programming, includ-
ing the local news. It will take you only a few minutes to visit all six Clear Channel
stations—since they all have the same local address! Here’s the Minot Chamber of
Commerce listing for the six Clear Channel stations:
Clear Channel Communications

Address:
KIZZ / KZPR / KRRZ / KMXA / KYYX / KCJB
1000 20th Ave. SW
PO Box 10
Minot, ND 58702-0010
Phone no: 852-4646
Fax no: 852-1390
For extra credit—assuming you want to buy some radio advertising—try to nego-
tiate with your six Clear Channel radio stations at that one location, playing each one
against the others, to get competitive rates. Good luck.
Clear Channel has a well-deserved reputation for cutting costs with little regard
to the impact on news reporting, especially local reporting. It is a poor substitute for
diverse, full-service, locally owned stations. Senator Dorgan (D-ND) expressed his
concern in 2003: “The public airwaves are extraordinarily valuable and we have li-
censed them to be used by companies, and over time the usage has changed very
substantially. I think the public is not getting the kind of benefit from it that they
used to get.”131
Clear Channel strives to create a phony “local feel” to its programming. Using a
technique called voice tracking, prerecorded DJ programs out of a central office (say,
Los Angeles) can be customized for each local market, making it sound as if the DJ
is a local resident. In fact, the DJ may never have visited your town. He simply has
to read localized scripts for your town that are then spliced into the same music
pabulum that is distributed to countless locations across the country.
In addition to its 1,200 radio stations, Clear Channel also controls about 70% of
live events promoted in the United States and hundreds of thousands of billboards.
Rolling Stone reported that Clear Channel sold more tickets in the first six months of
2003 than its 49 biggest competitors combined. According to numerous bands, Clear
Channel ruined the concert business and caused ticket prices to skyrocket. It wiped
out competitors, and through its play lists and other methods it controls what music
the public hears and which artists will be successful.
Media concentration has a chilling effect on free speech, even throwaway com-
ments by popular musicians. On March 10, 2003, just 10 days before Bush’s inva-
sion of Iraq, lead singer Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks between songs told a
London concert audience, “Just so you know … we’re ashamed the president of the
United States is from Texas.”132 Radio stations and conglomerates including Clear
Channel—not Dixie Chicks fans—led a boycott of these wonderful Texas ladies, and
many country music stations immediately removed their music from their play lists.
In this era of media consolidation and censorship, the decision came down from the
top, and DJs who wanted to play Dixie Chicks music couldn’t.
At the time of “the comment,” the Dixie Chicks had the No. 1 country music sin-
gle and were the most popular female group in history. But the Con backlash orches-
trated by Big Media drove them from the country music charts. They received death
threats, and, reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s, crowds joyfully destroyed Dixie
Chicks CDs.
The Big Media backlash created an odd stream of self-censorship and fear-based
behavior. In 2003 the American Red Cross refused a $1 million donation from the
Dixie Chicks, and later declared, “the controversy made it impossible to associate
with the Dixie Chicks.”
Big Media like Clear Channel support rightwing speech, not free speech. In a rare
trifecta of hate, Rev. Jerry Falwell sarcastically called the Dixie Chicks three
“French hens,” thus simultaneously slamming free speech, three strong American
women, and America’s longest-term ally.
Just for the record, your author would be ashamed if Bush hailed from North Da-
kota, Massachusetts or California, three home states that he loves. He’s glad Bush is
131
From National Public Radio’s “On the Media.”
132
Ironically, Natalie Maines made her remark at a London theatre called the Shepherd’s Bush
Empire.
from a red zone of Texas. He’s ashamed Bush is from America. He’s ashamed Che-
ney is from planet Earth.
The Dixie Chicks rock! Lovers of free speech and great music definitely should
buy Dixie Chicks music, especially their fantastic 2006 album, Taking the Long Way.
Their CDs make wonderful gifts for intelligent people.
The Dixie Chicks will do fine. They would rather be appreciated by one million
intelligent lovers of good music who believe women too have a right to free speech,
than to have ten million nitwit fans who worship a warmongering American presi-
dent who shreds the U.S. Constitution.
2003 FCC Rules to Increase Media Concentration

In June 2003 the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) voted 3-2 along party lines to further deregulate the media by adopting new
rules that would allow TV networks to own local TV stations that reach 45% of the
national audience (up from 35%). The new rules would also end a decades-old ban
preventing a company owning a newspaper from also owning a television or radio
station in the same market.
The FCC action, supported by Bush, was a big victory for several large media
companies that lobbied for the new rules—and a loss for just about everyone else.
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) called the action “dumb and dangerous,” noting that
the new rules would result in a news system with many stations, but with just “one
ventriloquist.” He also said, “The airwaves belong to the people. The FCC ignores
that requirement and advances corporate interests at the expense of the public’s in-
terest.”
FCC Chairman Michael Powell, the son of Bush’s former Secretary of State
Colin Powell, received a lot of criticism for the new rules, which is understandable
because they were opposed by a wide variety of organizations and interests across
the political spectrum, including Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), consumer groups, the
National Rifle Association, religious and civil rights groups, and Common Cause.
The only significant support for the new rules came from the handful of huge
media conglomerates that already dominate America’s media. Unfortunately, the
Con Party and the Con-controlled FCC both have a habit of doing Big Media’s bid-
ding.
Senator Lott said that local news will “further deteriorate” if the big networks are
allowed to purchase more TV stations. Referring to the big TV networks, he noted,
“They’re all run by the same crazy people.”
The opposition was so widespread and deep that Congress, after great effort and
despite Bush’s threatened veto, successfully blocked the new rules—a rare loss for
the media conglomerates. “It’s extremely rare to be able to reverse a regulatory deci-
sion that gives away the store to the big boys,” said Representative David Obey (D-
WI).
Unfortunately, Big Media know from experience how to keep pushing, and they
generally get what they want through campaign contributions and under-the-radar
backroom lobbying in Washington. Even in the rare case where the public gets
stirred up and apparently scores a victory about an FCC decision favoring Big Me-
dia—as was the case with these sweeping new FCC rules (where almost 3 million
citizens sent letters protesting the rules)—Big Media count on the public’s interest to
wane, and it generally does. In 2004, in an apparent victory for the public interest,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia ruled that the FCC
had not sufficiently justified its June 2003 rules that weakened the ownership restric-
tions, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case. However, in the
meantime, Big Media still won when the GOP Congress came up with a “compro-
mise” that allows TV networks to increase their local ownership reach to 39%, which
is less than the 45% they wanted, but more than the previous cap of 35%. Plus they’ll
be back for more.
Fox/Pravda News
Here is some valuable advice: If you want to be misinformed about news and poli-
tics, you definitely should tune in to Fox News. If you desire a brain filled with mush
and propaganda for Bush and extreme rightwing Con causes, you can count on Fox.
This advice is intuitively obvious to the independent thinker who compares the
news reporting of the major television news networks. In addition, there is over-
whelming unbiased evidence, including the study discussed below, supporting this
advice.
SIDEBAR: Fox News—Unfair and Unbalanced
In 2003 The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) conducted seven dif-
ferent polls regarding the Iraq war. During the course of the polls the investigators
discovered that “a substantial portion of the American public had a number of mis-
perceptions that were demonstrably false, or were at odds with the dominant view in
the intelligence community.” This investigative poll is entitled “Misperceptions, the
Media and the Iraq War.”
In the run-up to the war with Iraq and shortly thereafter, significant portions of
the public incorrectly believed that:
1) Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks;
2) Evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda had been found;
3) Weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the war;
4) Iraq actually used weapons of mass destruction during the war; and
5) World public opinion approved of the United States going to war with Iraq.
The investigators noted, “While, in most cases only a minority has any particular
misperception, a large majority has at least one key misperception.”
Their findings raised several questions, including:
• How have these misperceptions related to support for the decision to go to war
and subsequently?
• Do these misperceptions vary according to whether the American public gets its
news from print media or a particular television network?
Both of these questions are critical for our democracy and a free press. To ex-
plore the misperception results more fully, the investigators repeated three key per-
ception questions in three polls conducted from June to September 2003. The three
questions were the questions that found the most egregious misperceptions, namely:
• Evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda has been found.
• Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.
• World public opinion favored the United States going to war with Iraq.
The investigators found that the misperceptions “played a key role in generating
and maintaining approval for the decision to go to war.”
Support for Iraq War and Cumulative Effect of Misperceptions
Support for war among those who have:
no misperceptions 23%
only 1
53%
misperception
only 2
78%
misperceptions
all 3 misperceptions 86%
The investigators also found: “Misperceptions were not limited to a small minor-
ity that had repeated misperceptions. A majority of 60% had at least one of these
three unambiguous misperceptions, and only 30% had no misperceptions. (Another
10% just had the more modest misperception that world public opinion was evenly
balanced between support and opposition to the Iraq war.) Thirty-two percent had
just one of the misperceptions (and no more), 20% had two of the misperceptions
and just 8% had all three of the misperceptions.”
So how does this relate to Fox News?
The three polls also included detailed questions as to the individual respondent’s
primary source of news (newspapers and magazines, or TV and radio—and, in the
case of TV and radio, which network.)
Regarding news sources, the investigators summarized their findings as follows:
Variations in Misperceptions According to Source of News:
The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of

news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average
to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less
likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of
differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations
can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.
Frequency of Misperceptions:
Evidence of al-Qaeda Links, WMD Found,
World Public Opinion Favorable
Respondents with one or more misperception:
Fox 80%
CBS 71%
ABC 61%
NBC 55%
CNN 55%
Print M edia 47%
PBS-NPR 23%
Well, there you have it, something you already knew: If you want to be misled
and misinformed about key issues such as the Bush administration going to war on
lies and false pretenses, just tune in to Fox News.
If you are a rightwing warmongering leader who wants to wage an illegal, im-
moral, unjust war on an oil-rich nation, but lack any justification for war other than
your own greed and imperial fantasies, then you can count on Fox News to spin and
spread whatever lies you need.
The study also considered whether misperceptions were derived from a failure to
pay attention to the news. Surprisingly, it found that “overall, those who pay greater
attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions.” However, “among
those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to
have misperceptions.”
“The Memo” is one effective tool used by Fox News executives to help ensure
that their news organization stays “on message” in supporting the Republican Party
and Bush. Management distributes the Memo electronically each morning, discuss-
ing what stories should be covered and how they should be covered. Although right-
wing hatchets really don’t need this direction, Fox newsroom personnel consider it
the Bible and are reluctant to offend management.
Fox News supported the election of Bush in countless creative ways. We’ll note
just one. It concerns Fox polling and Fox’s duplicitous promotion of Ralph Nader’s
third party presidential candidacy in 2004 in order to help Bush (by encouraging
independent and progressive voters to waste their votes on Nader.) Along the way
Fox denied that Nader would take more votes away from Kerry than from Bush. In a
study of 37 polls regarding this issue, only one poll found that Nader took more
votes away from Bush than Kerry. Guess which organization ran this poll? Yes, it
was Fox News, the Bush League shill that masquerades as a news organization.
Fox News’ slogan should be, “Right, But Not Correct.”
David Brock and Media Matters For America

Please sit in a stable chair before you read the following shocking revelation—a few
lying rightwing ideologues actually do have a conscience. Typically the few who are
conscience-afflicted are able to suppress it through years of practiced rage and mind-
less repetition of slogans, lies and talking points. However, in a few rare cases, the
conscience surfaces, the ideologue’s brain and heart get turned on, and the ideologue
sees the light.
A good example is David Brock, the former lying, rightwing, scandal-creating,
paid mouthpiece for the ultra-right, ultra-wrong American Spectator. Among his
more notorious hatchet jobs is his 1993 book, The Real Anita Hill, which became a
bestseller when rightwing talk radio promoted it for free. Brock spent years smearing
liberal and progressive opponents of the far right—inventing muck at will—until his
conscience said, “That’s enough!” Brock now runs a website called Media Matters
For America (mediamatters.org) whose central purpose is to monitor and correct, in
real time, lies and information from the conservative media, which is a full-time job.
It remains to be seen whether other rightwingers such as Rush Limbaugh also
have a conscience, and if so, whether the suppressed conscience is strong enough to
overcome the years of bigotry and lies. That seems unlikely for Limbaugh, but hope
springs eternal. Rush must go to bed each night, crying, “If only Bush and all the
other Con cons were liberals … think of all the real dirt I could work with … I
wouldn’t have to make it up. [sobbing]” No wonder Rush abuses drugs. Please pray
for Limbaugh to find a conscience, leave the Forces of Darkness behind, and join the
correct side.133
In abdicating its traditional watchdog role and putting on its colorful skimpy
cheerleading outfits, America’s rightwing corporate media helped inspire and fuel
the worst criminal and unethical tendencies of the many bad actors in the Bush re-
gime. Even treason became acceptable, which is one of the topics of the next chapter.
133
The following is for Casablanca fans. Here are the last lines of the movie:
Victor Laszlo: Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win.
Rick Blaine (who finally joins the fight against the Nazis): Louie, I think this is the be-
ginning of a beautiful friendship.
CHAPTER 17
Treason, Electoral Fraud—Anything to

Maintain Power
The Most Insidious of Traitors
Though those that are betrayed do feel the treason sharply, yet the traitor
stands in worse case of woe.
—William Shakespeare
The “most insidious of traitors”—these are the strong words that George Bush’s fa-
ther, President George H. W. Bush, used to describe anyone who intentionally dis-
closes the identity of an American CIA agent. Unfortunately, this description applies
to those high-level officials in his son’s administration—including former Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage—who illegally disclosed to journalists that
Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was an operative for the CIA. The
“most insidious of traitors” label likely applies to Rove and Cheney, and very possi-
bly to George W. Bush himself. At a minimum, they failed to cooperate in the inves-
tigation and were part of the cover-up. At a minimum, the Bush administration re-
peated and exploited the disclosure of Plame’s identity in order to attack a war critic
and divert attention from their lying campaign to market their war on Iraq.
The traitors in the Bush administration outed CIA agent Plame in order to attack
her husband, Ambassador Wilson, a patriotic American who told the truth about
Bush’s infamous sixteen-word statement in his 2003 State of the Union address—
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought signifi-
cant quantities of uranium from Africa”—and to deter others from criticizing the
administration. What had inflamed the White House traitors was the July 6, 2003,
op-ed piece, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” that Wilson had written for The New
York Times (published July 6, 2003).
The CIA requested an investigation of the unlawful leak of Plame’s CIA identity,
and Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel to head the investigation after
attorney general John Ashcroft reluctantly recused himself from the case due to con-
flicts of interest. The White House, however, delayed and stonewalled the investiga-
tion with the hope of keeping the truth buried until after the November 2004 elec-
tions, which it successfully did.
In October 2005 Lewis “Scooter” Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury on
five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to the FBI,
and he resigned as Cheney’s chief of staff. On March 6, 2007, he was convicted on
four of the counts. Although Fitzgerald alleged that at least two officials in the Bush
administration told reporters about Plame’s CIA employment, Fitzgerald said follow-
ing Libby’s conviction that he didn’t expect anyone else to be charged in the case.
Obstruction of justice prevented him from formulating charges against anyone else.
Still pending is a civil lawsuit brought by Joseph and Valerie Wilson against
Libby, Cheney, Rove and Armitage.
At a minimum, Bush and Cheney have material information as to the individuals
who illegally blew CIA agent Plame’s cover. They have a higher duty to voluntarily
step forward and let the American people learn what they knew. But Bush is part of
the cover-up and stonewalling. He has not ordered his staff to disclose everything
they know about the case. He refuses to say what he knows.
Bush had said that he would fire anyone involved in the leaking of Plame’s iden-
tity. He should immediately give the bad news to Rove and Cheney, who were both
involved in the leak. He should also immediately look in the mirror. Speaking for the
president, Bush’s press secretary Scott McClellan on September 30, 2003, said, “If
anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this ad-
ministration.” On October 6, 2003, Bush called the leak a “criminal action.” At a
June 10, 2004, press conference, Bush was asked if he would stand by his pledge to
fire anyone found to have leaked Plame’s name, and he replied, “Yes. And that’s up
to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.” Bush has not lived up to this pledge and is
part of the cover-up.
In a May 12, 2006, court filing, Fitzgerald declared that it was Vice President
Cheney who had told defendant Libby that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. But
Cheney is still on the job. Fitzgerald referred to a copy of Wilson’s New York Times
op-ed article “bearing handwritten notations by the vice president.” Cheney’s hand-
written notes were made eight days before Plame’s identity was publicly exposed.
Bush also said during the same June 10, 2004, press conference, “I haven’t talked
to the Vice President about this matter.” This undoubtedly was a bald-faced lie.
After Ambassador Wilson wrote his op-ed piece, the Bush administration looked
for ways to punish or discredit him. Attacking him directly was difficult because
Wilson has had a stellar record of patriotic service to his country over more than two
decades while serving in both Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact,
Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, appointed Wilson to be acting ambassador to Iraq
prior to Gulf War I, a military action that Wilson supported.
On the eve of that war, shortly after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, Wilson
personally confronted Saddam in Baghdad, helped to free and evacuate over 120
American hostages, sheltered several hundred Americans at the embassy compound,
and helped evacuate thousands of foreign citizens from Kuwait.
President George H. W. Bush appreciated Wilson’s courageous service and in
1991 called him a “True American Hero.” Bush senior also said, “Your courageous
leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American
citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our
CHAPTER 17 — TREASON, ELECTORAL FRAUD –AN YTHING TO MAINTAIN POWER 353
tense dealings with the government of Iraq. … The courage and tenacity you have
exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job.”
In February 2002 Wilson traveled to Niger—at the CIA’s request—to investigate
allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger for an
Iraqi nuclear weapons program. This was an important question, and the CIA picked
Wilson because he had the right background for the job. (Wilson had served as a
U.S. State Department officer in Niger in the 1970s, was the U.S. ambassador to
Gabon in the early 1990s, and later had numerous contacts with Niger when he
served as the National Security Council’s senior director for Africa—all in addition
to his exemplary service as acting ambassador to Iraq.) Wilson investigated the claim
and concluded there was no valid basis for it. Two other investigators came to the
same conclusion.
Wilson was later understandingly shocked when he heard Bush repeat the bogus
claim in his 2003 State of the Union address. Wilson subsequently wrote his New
York Times op-ed piece, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” setting forth the facts about
his trip and his findings.
As a lesson to others, senior White House officials decided to harm Wilson in
any way they could. The vicious “revenge and intimidation” recipe they cooked up
was the unthinkable—they contacted several Washington reporters and illegally re-
vealed to them that Wilson’s wife was a covert CIA operative. Robert Novak, a
rightwing columnist and shill for the Bush administration, reported the leak in his
column, and, in the process, apparently aided and abetted the Bush team’s criminal-
ity.
Several reporters contacted Wilson, and he was told that the White House was
“coming after you.” Chris Matthews, another commentator, passed along a direct
quote from Karl Rove: “Wilson’s wife is fair game.”
Wilson sets forth the truth in his book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that
Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity: A Diplomat’s Memoir. In it he
reveals the dangers to the United States created and fed by the White House’s team
of war-hungry officials, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza
Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, as well as Bush himself.
The conspiracy to attack him also damaged national security.
Wilson believes that the Bush administration has turned on its head everything
that Wilson worked for during 25 years of service—including democracy in the
world and the rule of law—and that the United States must now work hard to regain
its status as a world leader. Bush’s inept unilateral foreign policies, grounded in the
lies of zealous ideologues, have created countless terrorists and made the world
much more dangerous for the United States.
SIDEBAR: The Niger Forgeries—Lies Kept Alive
Let’s digress from the main topic—the treachery of the Bush White House in punish-
ing a truth teller by outing his covert CIA wife—and focus on the forged Niger
documents at the center of this illicit affair and their manipulation by the neocons to
provide propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq.
Although the Plame affair has “impeachment” stamped on it, it unfortunately
took the spotlight off the underlying Niger scandal, which history will regard as one
of the most evil of the many Bush regime campaigns of lies, propaganda and im-
peachable offenses.
Much has been written about the Niger scandal, but the whole truth may never be
known. One of the best accounts is an article in the June 2006 issue of Vanity Fair
by Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud. The article is entitled,
“The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed,” and its lead summary reads:
The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy
yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned,
the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly success-
ful “black propaganda” campaign with links to the White House.
Vanity Fair interviewed many former intelligence and military analysts in the
CIA, the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Penta-
gon. Some referred to the Niger documents as “black propaganda,” “black ops,” a
“disinformation operation,” or “a classic psy-ops (psychological-operations) cam-
paign.” The article notes, “But whatever term they use, at least nine of these officials
believe that the Niger documents were part of a covert operation to deliberately mis-
lead the American public.”
The officials are:
1) Milt Bearden, a 30-year CIA veteran who was a station chief in Pakistan, Sudan,
Nigeria and Germany;
2) Colonel W. Patrick Lang, who served as the DIA’s defense intelligence officer
for the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism;
3) Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell;
4) Melvin Goodman, a former division chief and senior analyst at the CIA and the
State Department;
5) Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years;
6) Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who served in the Pentagon’s Near
East and South Asia division in 2002 and 2003;
7) Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who was deputy director of the State
Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993;
8) former CIA official Philip Giraldi;
9) Vincent Cannistraro, former operations chief in the CIA’s Counterterrorism
Center.
Here are salient points about the Niger caper:
The most important of the fake Niger documents was a two-page memo dated
July 27, 2000, that supposedly was sent to the president of Niger regarding the sale
of 500 metric tons of yellowcake uranium to Iraq by Niger.
• The forged documents contained several errors and appeared to be the work of
amateurs. For example, a letter of October 10, 2000, was purportedly signed by
Niger’s minister of foreign affairs, Allele Habibou, but he had not occupied that
office in more than a decade. Another letter dated July 30, 1999, referred to
agreements that did not exist until a year later. The International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) was able to determine in a few hours that the documents were
fake.
• Old documents from the 1980s, including documents from the Italian foreign
intelligence service (the SISMI), were apparently mixed with forged documents
to give the forged documents credibility. The Italian weekly La Repubblica re-
ported in October 2005 that official stamps and letterhead stolen from the Niger
embassy in Rome during a January 2001 burglary were used to prepare the
forged documents. Although no one has proven who forged the documents, it
was helpful to the caper that Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s rightwing prime minister,
was eager to ingratiate himself with the Bush administration and help push the
case for war in Iraq.
• There were many other problems with the Niger claim. The French who con-
trolled the mining operations thought it absurd to think that 500 tons of
yellowcake uranium could be transported without them knowing about it.
• Even if Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa, as Bush claimed, the
yellowcake uranium was just a raw material and many years away from consti-
tuting a nuclear threat. Also, Iraq already had a stockpile dating back to the
Reagan years that could have been used. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern
notes, “The reports made no sense on the face of it. … Most of us knew the
Iraqis already had yellowcake. It is a sophisticated process to change it into a
very refined state and they didn’t have the technology.”
• It has not been proven that officials in the Bush administration were complicit in
any fashion in actually forging the documents. But whether or not complicit, the
Bush neocons relentlessly used the forged documents to press their campaign for
war.
• Whatever its successes and failures, the CIA became the Bush administration’s
principal scapegoat for the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush and
the neocons positioned Iraq as an “intelligence failure” by others, rather than a
strategic and leadership failure by themselves, which it was and always will be.
• Congressional Republicans, including Senator Pat Roberts and other intelligence
committee members, cooperated in the campaign to blame the CIA and protect
the White House. The Niger affair is evidence that the CIA was blamed, and
subsequently gutted, not because its analysts were wrong but rather because they
were right. Their sin was being truthful, rather than lying and telling the Bush
White House what it wanted to hear.
• Unger offers this perspective: “For more than two years it has been widely re-
ported that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of intelligence failures. But in fact it is
far more likely that the Iraq war started because of an extraordinary intelligence
success—specifically, an astoundingly effective campaign of disinformation, or
black propaganda, which led the White House, the Pentagon, Britain’s M.I.6 in-
telligence service, and thousands of outlets in the American media to promote
the falsehood that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear-weapons program posed a grave
risk to the United States.”
• Although intelligence officials disagree as to why the Niger documents were
forged, many intelligence officers believe a simpler explanation. “They needed
this for the case to go to war,” says senior analyst Melvin Goodman, a former
division chief at the CIA and State Department. “It serves no other purpose.”
• During a period of two years, the Niger documents were recycled and re-spun
though various channels in several countries including Italy, Britain, France, Ni-
ger and the United States, and arrived at the CIA at least three times. Numerous
reports and comments along the way helped create the illusion that multiple in-
dependent sources were corroborating the story. But there was no such corrobo-
ration. In fact, the story was repeatedly rejected. Nevertheless, the Republican
Party, the Cons, kept the fairy tale alive.
• In August 2002 the White House Iraq Group (WHIG, also called the White
House Information Group) was set up by the Republican Party to market the war
through its friends in the media. Karl Rove chaired it, which is a clue that skull-
duggery was afoot. WHIG’s well-resourced campaign featured horrific images
of various WMDs, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the
Niger caper was an important element in that campaign of fear and deception.
• During the orchestrated campaign to market the war, the Bush administration
especially adored the threat of a “mushroom cloud” as an effective tool to pro-
mote fear. Test marketing of the pitch started on September 8, 2002, when Con-
doleezza Rice told CNN that they “didn’t want the smoking gun to be a mush-
room cloud.” This fear-mongering pitch proved so popular in the mainstream
corporate media that Bush, Cheney and others immediately began using a simi-
lar theme. By the time the war started, the Bush regime’s lies had convinced
90% of Americans that Saddam was developing WMDs and was an imminent
threat.
• Michael Ledeen is one of the neocons mentioned most frequently in connection
with the Niger affair. He is a central figure at the extreme rightwing American
Enterprise Institute, which helped shape Bush’s foreign policy and provided
more than 20 neocon officials to the Bush Administration. Ledeen also played a
key role in the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s, helping to set up the illegal arms-
for-hostages deal with Iran, the biggest scandal during Reagan’s administration.
Ledeen was a fiery orator for the neocon warmongers during several years lead-
ing up to the Iraq invasion.
• Ledeen wanted to wage war in, or destabilize, the Middle East—not just in Iraq,
but also in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. In 2002 he wrote, “One can
only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there
were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East to-
day.” “Faster, please” became his catch phrase that he frequently used in his
columns for the conservative National Review, and it is frequently referenced by
other neocons. He argued that the United States must be “imperious, ruthless,
and relentless” until there has been a “total surrender” by the Muslim world.
Along with a host of other neocon wingnuts, Ledeen had the ear of the White
House and the GOP.
• The Pentagon’s new Office of Special Plans (OSP) run by neocon Undersecre-
tary of Defense Doug Feith apparently helped introduce the forged documents to
the White House. The OSP was set up by the Bush neocons to circumvent the
CIA and State Department and to create and develop alternative sources of “in-
telligence” that would support the desired war against Iraq. The OSP was adept
at cherry picking “intelligence” both from the real world and its own alternative
universe.
• As for the identity of the culprits behind the forgery, the OSP and the Italian
SISMI are frequently mentioned as prime candidates. Michael Ledeen effec-
tively served as a liaison between the two groups, and he also had special access
to the Bush White House and the National Security Council, including Cheney,
Rice and Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs.
• One reason the full truth about the Niger affair remains in the dark is that the
Con-controlled Congress refused to investigate the Bush administration. By ab-
dicating its constitutional oversight responsibilities, the GOP became part of the
criminal conspiracy. Fitzgerald’s limited investigation regarding the Plame af-
fair focused on the leak, not on the forged documents, not on why they were
created and by whom, and not on their misuse by the Bush White House. The
ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller IV of
West Virginia, in a letter of March 14, 2003, to the head of the FBI, Robert
Mueller, requested an investigation because “the fabrication of these documents
may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opin-
ion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.” However, the Republican committee
chair, Pat Roberts of Kansas, declined to co-sign the letter.
• In late 2002 and early 2003 the Niger uranium deal repeatedly appeared as a
popular talking point in various media. In coordinated fashion, Bush, Cheney,
Rice, Rumsfeld and other warmongers kept alive the myth that Iraq had tried to
buy uranium from Niger. Finally, the Pentagon asked the National Intelligence
Council (NIC), which oversees the various agencies in the U.S. intelligence
community, to review the matter. In a January 2003 memo that went to Bush
and his team, the NIC answered clearly that “the Niger story was baseless and
should be laid to rest.” That should have been the final nail in the coffin. (That
was actually about the tenth final nail in the coffin.) But the GOP neocons
would not take reality for an answer.
• A week after Bush’s State of the Union address, the Bush administration reluc-
tantly sent copies of the Niger documents to the IAEA with, incredibly, a note
saying, “We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some
specific claims.” One month later, on March 7, 2003, the Director General of the
IAEA reported to the Security Council that the documents were fake. Neverthe-
less, on Meet the Press on March 16, 2003, Cheney said the IAEA was wrong,
adding, “And we believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weap-
ons.” Unbelievable.
• Three days later, on March 19 the Bush warmongers eagerly pulled the trigger,
and Bush’s bloody quagmire in Iraq began. “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” Or more
accurately: “Liar, liar, Iraq’s on fire.”
• On at least 14 occasions before Bush’s infamous State of the Union speech, se-
rious doubts about the forged Niger documents were raised by analysts in the
State Department, the CIA, and other governmental agencies. On each occasion
they were turned aside by Bush officials who wanted to use the documents.
“They were just relentless,” says Larry Wilkerson, who helped prepare Colin
Powell’s UN presentation, “You would take it out and they would stick it back
in. That was their favorite bureaucratic technique—ruthless relentlessness.”
• Not interested in the truth, the Bush neocons never took no for an answer. “That
was their favorite technique,” says Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary
of State Powell, “stick that baby in there 47 times and on the 47th time it will
stay. At every level of the decision-making process you had to have your ax out,
ready to chop their fingers off. Sooner or later you would miss one and it would
get in there.”
• Even before ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Niger reports had already
been discredited several times, including by the French, by the CIA in both Italy
and the United States, by the State Department on at least two occasions, by
Pentagon analysts, by the American ambassador to Niger, and by the consortium
that ran the uranium mines in Niger.
• Another example of the Bush warmongers’ antipathy towards any reality-based
intelligence that disagreed with their worldview was their reaction to a major in-
telligence coup of the CIA—namely, the successful “turning” of Iraq’s Foreign
Minister, Naji Sabri, which took place just prior to the war. According to Tyler
Drumheller, the CIA’s chief of operations in Europe until his 2005 retirement,
the Bush White House was initially ecstatic that Saddam’s inner circle had been
penetrated, but that reaction changed dramatically when Sabri told the CIA that
Iraq had no WMD program. Drumheller, who headed the operations that pene-
trated Saddam’s inner circle, told 60 Minutes (April 23, 2006) that he was taken
aback by what happened: “The [White House] group that was dealing with
preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they’re no longer interested.
And we said, ‘Well, what about the intel?’ And they said, ‘Well, this isn’t about
intel anymore. This is about regime change.’” Drumheller told 60 Minutes, “The
policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelli-
gence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”
America’s democracy and constitutional form of government demand the imme-

diate impeachment of Bush and Cheney. They slimed America, and impeachment is
a modest price for them to pay. No other action would help more to restore world-
wide confidence in America and the rule of law.
Electoral Fraud
Electoral fraud has a solid tradition in American politics, and many books have been
written about its impact on America’s democracy. The states of Texas, Florida,
Illinois and Ohio occupy prominent positions of notoriety. For over a century after
the Civil War, Southern whites worked diligently to deny blacks the right to vote,
and many still do. They are now called Republicans—Cons for short. During the
2000 non-recount presidential election in Florida, the Republican Party sent goons to
Florida to intimidate election officials, and the Florida Secretary of State, Republican
Katherine Harris, stopped the recount—just two of many undemocratic steps along
Bush’s sordid trail to the White House. In Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell and other GOP
elected officials over the years abused the public trust by introducing numerous ir-
regularities into the voting system, which systematically reduce the voting rights of
poor people and minorities.
For years GOP officials have suppressed the legitimate voting rights of blacks
and other minorities under the guise of reducing “voter fraud”—a nonexistent prob-
lem, but one of the GOP’s favorite Orwellian terms. After the purging of the nine
U.S. Attorneys by Bush’s Justice Department in December 2006, it came to light that
America’s heretofore independent prosecutors had been illegally pressured to bring
more “voter fraud” cases—i.e., cases to disenfranchise as many blacks and other
eligible progressive voters as possible—and cases against Democrats. Although the
focus of the U.S. Attorneys scandal is on the several prosecutors who were fired,
there also needs to be investigation regarding the prosecutors who were retained.
How many of them succumbed to unlawful outside pressure to carry out a GOP po-
litical agenda, including especially the targeting of Democratic candidates and the
suppression of black votes in the swing states identified by Rove.
Bush destroyed the Justice Department’s long history of protecting voting rights
of traditionally disenfranchised minorities by appointing rightwing ideologues dedi-
cated to denying the ballot to groups of Americans likely to vote Democratic, espe-
cially poor people and racial minorities. His anti-voting rights appointments even
include the head of the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department’s Civil
Rights Division, John Tanner, who could not even restrain himself from making rac-
ist and bigoted comments about minorities.
In every election during Bush’s watch, zealous ideologues in the Bush White
House and their extreme supporters have done whatever it takes to keep Bush and
other Cons in office. In the process, they have driven voter distrust to new levels.
“A black man voting for the Republicans makes about as much sense as a
chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” These words of wisdom are from the father of
J. C. Watts, the former Republican Representative (1995-2003) from Oklahoma who
was then the only black GOP member of Congress.
The recent push to broaden the use of electronic voting machines created the real
possibility for rightwing extremists to nullify the vote and again deliver the White
House, as well as the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, to the Re-
publican Party.
A study by MIT and California after the 2000 election concluded that between
1,500,000 and 2,000,000 votes were not counted due to defective equipment and
confusing paper ballots. To try to solve the problems, the federal government passed
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), which authorized $3.8 billion in
federal funds primarily to replace punch card and lever voting machines. One effect
of this “pro-voting” act was to put the wolf in charge of the henhouse.
Under the GOP’s skillful mismanagement of HAVA, another key part of Amer-
ica’s democracy was privatized—or pirate-ized—by rightwing corporate interests.
Once again, “privatization” meant GOP fraud.
Although HAVA provided substantial funds for states to upgrade their voting
machines to new computerized electronic voting machines, the legislation only in-
creased controversy regarding fraud in America’s elections. The principal vendors of
the new electronic devices are Diebold,134 Sequoia Voting Systems, and ES&S,
which control about 90% of the market for these electronic machines and have ques-
tionable ties to the GOP and rightwing causes, in addition to being involved in a host
of civil and criminal legal proceedings. Testing of their systems by independent third
parties (versus vendors testing their own systems) has identified significant security
risks and vulnerabilities. Fraudulent assertions by the vendors regarding their ma-
chines have not helped matters, and many lawsuits have been filed.
The case of Diebold is instructive. Both Diebold, which is one of the largest sup-
pliers of electronic voting machines, and its chief executive officer, Walden O’Dell,
are extremely partisan rightwing Republican supporters. Between 2000 and 2002,
Diebold donated at least $195,000 to the Republican Party. In 2003 O’Dell even at-
tended an election strategy meeting at Bush’s Texas ranch for wealthy Bush con-
tributors—the so-called Pioneers and Rangers—who each had raised at least
$100,000 for Bush’s reelection.
O’Dell later wrote a fundraising letter for Bush in which he stated that he was
“committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”
Having been caught red-handed, O’Dell later said it was a “huge mistake” to have
expressed support for Bush in the letter, given that he is the head of an electronic
voting machine company. In reality, his only “huge mistake” was getting caught. In
any case, there was no shortage of GOP operatives willing to do whatever it took to
get Bush reelected, including electoral fraud, and they succeeded.
O’Dell actively raised lots of money for the Ohio Republican Party. Ohio’s Re-
publican Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, favored Ohio awarding a contract to
Diebold to supply touch-screen voting machines for most of Ohio.
In April 2004 the California Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley, decertified all
electronic touch-screen voting machines in California, citing security problems and
deceitful practices by Diebold. Shelley forwarded evidence to California’s attorney
general supporting possible criminal and civil charges against Diebold for fraud. In
October 2004 the State of California ordered that 15,000 new Diebold voting ma-
134
In August 2007 Diebold changed the name of its election systems subsidiary to Premier
Election Solutions.
chines would not be used in the November 2004 presidential election, citing major
flaws with the machines and “absolutely deplorable behavior” by Diebold. California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer in September 2004 announced plans to sue Diebold
for fraud regarding Diebold’s aggressive marketing and fraudulent claims regarding
its equipment. Diebold settled the matter three months later by agreeing to pay $2.6
million and implement certain reforms.
In August 2007 California Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified several
electronic voting systems including Diebold, following a “top-to-bottom review” of
voting machines previously certified for use in California.
There have been numerous other complaints and actions against Diebold in other
states. There have also been numerous studies showing that the Diebold machines
are poorly designed, weak from a security point of view, and prone to computer
hacking. One of the many problems is that the machines don’t provide a verifiable
paper record of the votes, making recounts impossible. Another major problem is
that the vendors do not want to disclose their machines’ software including source
code.
Voting machine vendors typically pay the testing labs, which presents an obvious
conflict of interest, and at least one leading testing lab was unable to meet federal
testing standards. At a minimum, the U.S. government should select and pay the test-
ing labs for their services.
The serious problems with electronic voting machines and the rightwing compa-
nies that design them have given rise to the term “black box voting,” which has been
defined as follows:
Black box voting: “Any voting system in which the mechanism for recording
and/or tabulating the vote is hidden from the voter, and/or the mechanism lacks a
tangible record of the vote cast.” (www.blackboxvoting.org)
When it comes to electoral fraud, however, Diebold and the other vendors of
electronic voting machines constitute only a small piece of a much larger rotten pie.
Electoral fraud occurs in many other areas of the electoral process, including:
• obstacles to voter registration
• improper purging of voter registration rolls
• voter suppression, including voter “caging”—a favorite illegal tactic of the
GOP to deny the vote to the poor, minorities, college students and other
citizens likely to vote Democratic
• ballot stuffing, ghost voting, and “overcounting” (with votes counted ex-
ceeding voter signatures in election poll books)
• weaknesses in other voting machines, not just electronic voting machines
• absentee ballots
• provisional ballots
• obstacles to recounts
• and, of course, the financing of election campaigns
In words attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, “Those who cast the votes de-
cide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
Many Republican leaders know that God is on their side in the war against poor
people, minorities and others who they believe are not qualified to vote. The Cons
are much more comfortable with “one dollar, one vote” than with “one person, one
vote.” For them, “one black, one-tenth vote” and “one poor person, one-tenth vote”
might be an acceptable compromise. Let’s just call it “black tithe” vote counting—
Southern style, Confederate style, GOP style.
Although black Americans constitute about 12% of the population, more than
50% of the “spoiled” (i.e., uncounted) ballots in the 2000 presidential election (1.0
million ballots out of a total of 1.9 million) were submitted by blacks. Ballots can get
“spoiled” in many ways. For example, optical reading machines reject ballots that
have stray marks that cannot be read properly.
However, the main reason why a disproportionate percentage of black votes get
spoiled is not that blacks don’t know how to mark ballots as well as whites, but
rather is because of the intentional design of the system. This is intelligent design,
GOP style.
Consider how this can work to the advantage of officials who do not want black
votes counted. Greg Palast, investigative reporter for the British Broadcasting Corpo-
ration and author of Best Democracy Money Can Buy, reports one scenario in
Florida. Gadsden County in Florida has both the highest percentage of black voters
in Florida and the highest rate of uncounted votes, about 12%. The voters in Gadsden
County who submitted spoiled ballots in 2000 never knew their votes were not
counted. However, in nearby predominantly white Leon County, each voter placed
his or her ballot directly in the optical scanner and was informed on the spot if the
ballot was spoiled. If the ballot was spoiled, the voter received another ballot and
could correct the problem, and therefore the spoilage rate in Leon County was virtu-
ally zero. The net impact is huge: in predominantly black Gadsden County, if you
made a mistake, your vote was not counted and you never even knew it, whereas in
predominantly white Leon County, if you made a mistake, you received another bal-
lot, and your vote was counted.
The risk of electoral fraud continues to be very high in Florida where Jeb Bush,
the president’s brother, was governor, and GOP operatives in the style of Katherine
Harris run the system. One problem is the increasing use of voting machines that
leave no paper trail. In a state where voting fraud is as common as oranges, many
parties have requested that the state permit independent auditors to review the integ-
rity of the new machines. However, Governor Bush refused, saying he had “every
confidence” in the state agencies in charge. What he really had was confidence in the
ability of his handpicked bureaucrats to make sure that any mistakes made would be
in the favor of the GOP. Blacks have been the victims of Jim Crow election laws and
fraud in Florida for over 150 years, including during the 2000 and 2004 presidential
elections.
Consider the so-called “felon list,” which in both 2000 and 2004 was an election
fraud issue in Florida, where felons do not have the right to vote. After the 2000
election it was determined that thousands of Florida voters were denied the right to
vote when their names were erroneously placed on a felons list, with black voters
being disproportionately affected by the “mistake.” In 2004 Florida paid Accenture
to prepare a similar list to be used to purge the voter lists for the 2004 elections. This
time around many people asked for copies of the list, but Governor Bush’s office
refused, with subsequent events showing clearly why. It took a court order for the list
to be made public. The Miami Herald discovered that over 2,000 people were im-
properly placed on the “cannot vote” list. Later the Sarasota Herald-Tribune discov-
ered that there were only 61 Hispanics on the list of 47,000 who couldn’t vote. The
net effect was that lots of blacks who had the right to vote and tend to vote Democ-
ratic were going to be denied that right, while thousands of Hispanic felons who did
not have the right to vote and tend to vote Republican were going to be given that
right. Caught with their pants down and their hands in the voters’ shorts, Republican
officials first denied that there was any problem, and then they later changed their
story to say it was just a mistake.
Regarding election “mistakes” and the use of suspect electronic voting machines,
Paul Krugman, columnist for The New York Times, hit the nail on the head:
Let’s not be coy. Jeb Bush says he won’t allow an independent examination of vot-
ing machines because he has ‘every confidence’ in his handpicked election officials.
Yet those officials have a history of slipshod performance on other matters related to
voting and somehow their errors always end up favoring Republicans. Why should
anyone trust their verdict on the integrity of voting machines, when another conven-
ient mistake could deliver a Republican victory in a high-stakes national election?
Americans who believe in democracy and fair elections should be appalled at the
GOP’s track record. The “just a mistake” defense is reminiscent of the “innocent
billing mistakes” made by Halliburton and other public-trough companies. Hallibur-
ton’s huge billing “mistakes” don’t go randomly in either direction—say, with 50%
being overcharges, and 50% being undercharges—but, instead, their “mistakes” al-
most always favor Halliburton. What a coincidence! Similarly, voting “mistakes” in
Florida, Ohio and elsewhere virtually always go against blacks and poor people. Just
as Halliburton is in the business of systematically overcharging the U.S. government,
the GOP is in the business of systematically undermining the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the U.S. Constitution and America’s democracy.
All Americans of faith should pray that America’s children, grandchildren, and
countless generations of unborn American citizens will never ever have to live and
suffer under a government that is even one tenth as corrupt as the GOP government
that humped America during the reign of George W. Bush. We will focus on more of
that corruption in the next chapter, “Corruption in America and Iraq—GOP Style.”
CHAPTER 18
Corruption in America and Iraq—GOP

Style
Profiles in Corruption
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote
peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much
that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them
have it.
—Dwight D. Eisenhower
It is not a coincidence that the GOP corruption and incompetence rampant in Amer-
ica parallel the corruption and incompetence rampant in Bush’s Iraq. Plague-infected
rats spread their disease wherever they scurry and feed.
We’ll begin this chapter by focusing some sunlight on just a few of the biggest
GOP rats in the U.S. Congress. This is a difficult task at best, partly because there
are so many of them, and largely because this pack of vermin is skilled at covering
its tracks.
Profiles in Corruption: The Modern GOP

A party and its leaders who do not believe in government should not be entrusted
with the reins of government. Crooks belong in jail, not in Congress.
The GOP-controlled Congress during Bush’s reign was the most corrupt in the
last century. The infamous 109th GOP Congress of Crooks and Creeps richly de-
serves its place in history as the worst ever. GOP now means “Grease Our Palms.”
As of early 2007 at least four GOP members of the infamous 109th had already
gone to prison or resigned under a cloud of criminal corruption. Unfortunately, they
are merely the tip of a GOP iceberg of sewage.
The GOP congressional leaders carried to the extreme Ronald Reagan’s 11th
Commandment—“Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican”—as they system-
atically protected the scoundrels and criminals in their midst. Reagan’s 11th Com-
mandment became synonymous with obstruction of justice.
Well, America’s democracy demands that much ill be spoken about the GOP
crooks and scoundrels in the U.S. Congress. We’ll cover just a few—about a dirty
dozen—of America’s favorites in the next few pages.
Tom DeLay: GOP Representative (1984-2006) from the extreme right fringe of
Texas; GOP House Majority Leader (2003-06.) DeLay resigned in June 2006 while
under indictment in Texas, and after winning the Republican primary. He was the
first legislative leader ever to be indicted. As a frontrunner in the race for America’s
favorite crook and creep in Congress, DeLay has too many sins and ethics violations
to list here. Nicknamed “The Hammer” and “The Exterminator,” he helped midwife
the K Street Project. Two of his former political aides, Michael Scanlon and Tony
Rudy, pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges relating to the Abramoff scandal, as did
Abramoff himself, and other DeLay associates are under indictment. After the House
ethics committee began to investigate DeLay’s corruption, the GOP leadership re-
placed several GOP committee members with DeLay allies light on integrity, and
GOP rules were changed to keep DeLay as majority leader. However, notwithstand-
ing heroic efforts, the GOP leadership could not protect the crook from everything.
Bob Ney: GOP Representative (1995-2006) from Ohio. Another in a long crooked
line of GOP leaders, Ney pleaded guilty in 2006 to various corruption charges in
connection with the Abramoff lobbying scandal, and in early 2007 he was sentenced
to prison for 30 months. Ney withdrew from his reelection race in August 2006,
pleaded guilty to criminal corruption charges in October, finally resigned his con-
gressional seat on the eve of the 2006 midterm election (which was won in a land-
slide by Democrat Jack Space), and was sentenced to prison in early 2007. The
Abramoff investigation focused on several former and current GOP legislators, and
Ney was the first congressman to plead guilty. As of early 2007, at least four lobby-
ists, including Neil Volz, Ney’s chief of staff, had pleaded guilty to criminal charges.
Another former chief of staff, William Heaton, pleaded guilty to corruption charges
in February 2007. Heaton’s plea agreement revealed that he helped Ney stash some
of his ill-gotten loot from a trip to Britain in his congressional office safe, and that he
would open the safe for Ney whenever cash was needed. Heaton, a former congres-
sional page, became Ney’s chief of staff at age 23. At Wikipedia you can easily lo-
cate a photo of various GOP crooks and petty thieves, including Abramoff and Ney,
at St. Andrews in Scotland during happier days. As chairman of the House Admini-
stration Committee, Ney ordered that French fries be relabeled “freedom fries” on
House menus. He was a leader of GOP-style diplomacy.
Randy “Duke” Cunningham: GOP Representative (1991 to 2005) from California.

Cunningham resigned from Congress in late 2005 after pleading guilty to federal
charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, tax evasion, mail fraud and wire fraud. He
admitted accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes for steering defense contracts to
favored contractors. In March 2006 he was sentenced to eight years and four months
in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 in restitution. He is expected to be released in
2013. In January 2007 the Bush Justice Department forced the resignation of Carol
C. Lam, the United States Attorney who led the criminal prosecution of Cunningham
and was in charge of an important continuing investigation of other wrongdoers.
Lam had been nominated by Bush and approved by the U.S. Senate in 2002.
CHAPTER 18 — CORRUPTION IN AMERICA AND IRAQ – GOP STYLE 367
SIDEBAR: Assault on U.S. Attorneys—The Corruption of American Justice
In addition to purging Carol C. Lam, the U.S. Attorney who led the successful crimi-
nal prosecution of Duke Cunningham, the Bush regime in early 2007 also axed at
least eight other U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
At the time of her termination, U.S. Attorney Lam was leading a massive investi-
gation into public corruption that extended well beyond Abramoff and the successful
Cunningham conviction, and reportedly included high officials in the Pentagon, the
Congress, and perhaps the White House. Former CIA Executive Director Kyle
“Dusty” Foggo resigned in May 2006 shortly after The Wall Street Journal reported
that the U.S. Attorney’s office in San Diego—Lam’s office—was investigating
whether Foggo illegally influenced the awarding of CIA contracts.
The San Diego investigators were trying to determine if defense contractors who
bribed Cunningham had similar success with other congressmen. In early 2007 fed-
eral prosecutors issued subpoenas regarding influence peddling and special-interest
earmarks to three House committees—armed services, appropriations and intelli-
gence—after GOP leadership refused to release the information voluntarily.
Thanks to the outrage spawned by the sacking of Lam and other U.S. Attorneys,
at least some of the prosecutorial efforts continued. In November 2007 Brent Wilkes
was convicted of 13 felonies for bribing Cunningham in exchange for tens of mil-
lions of dollars in government contracts. It was even alleged that Wilkes set up a
prostitution ring to provide prostitutes to Cunningham on demand.
U.S. Attorneys are supposed to be highly qualified, highly respected and fiercely
independent. For good reason, they must be nonpartisan. By tradition, they are ap-
pointed by the president, are subject to confirmation by the Senate, and are not re-
moved unless there is fraud or other serious cause. The Bush administration shattered
that tradition by firing U.S. Attorneys across the country for political reasons under a
cloud of secrecy, and then appointing interim U.S. Attorneys without Senate confir-
mation under a provision sneakily slipped into amendments to the Patriot Act.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ office tried to cover its misdeeds by lying
about the reasons for the terminations. Gonzales selectively lost his memory. How-
ever, as the conspiracy began to unravel, it became crystal clear that the terminations
were not due to poor job performance. America’s system of federal criminal law
enforcement, which lives and dies by its integrity and independence, had been un-
dermined.
Have no doubt about it. America is living through the biggest scandals in the his-
tory of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the morale of the department is at an all-
time low. Many books should be written about this malevolent and malignant period
of nonstop GOP corruption that strikes at the heart of American jurisprudence and
government. The U.S. Attorneys scandal is just one chapter, albeit an extremely im-
portant chapter, in the Bush regime’s despicable legacy of corruption and unconstitu-
tional governance.
The principal incubators of the deadly disease are Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gon-
zales. The corrupt campaign by the Bush White House to politicize America’s gov-
ernment extended even to the Department of Justice, and it will take years and many
investigations for the entire truth to be uncovered.
The disease was nurtured and spread by numerous GOP congressmen who had
grown accustomed to acting without ethical or legal boundaries. The notion of a
“permanent GOP majority” undoubtedly further emboldened GOP politicians who
had arrived in Washington with less than a full tank of ethics.
Here are just a few of the important threads in the broader U.S. Attorneys scan-
dal:
• H. E. “Bud” Cummins, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
was fired for the purpose of replacing him with an aide to Karl Rove, Timothy
Griffin, who formerly was a political director for the Republican National
Committee and an “opposition researcher” for Rove. On February 6, 2007, a
senior Justice Department official, Paul McNulty, testified before the Senate Ju-
diciary Committee that Cummins had been dismissed without specific cause in
order to give the position to the lawyer closely tied to the Bush White House.
McNulty agreed in his testimony that Cummins had done nothing wrong to jus-
tify his removal. Cummins told the Senate committee that the deputy attorney
general’s top aide, Mike Elston, had threatened him if he “went public.”
• Although the focus has been on the terminated U.S. Attorneys, why was the
Bush regime apparently happy with the ones it didn’t fire? Expect the criminal
investigation and resignation of other U.S. Attorneys around the country.
• In Missouri, Bradley Schlozman was appointed to replace U.S. Attorney Todd
Graves who had been forced out as part of a complex scheme to help the GOP
win a pivotal U.S. Senate seat in Missouri in 2006. If the GOP scheme had been
successful—the GOP lost the Senate race anyway in a very close election—the
GOP would have retained control of the Senate (and the Senate’s constitutional
oversight role would still be in cold storage.) Graves has been termed the
“ninth” U.S. Attorney in the unfolding scandal.
• Monica Goodling, the former Director of Public Affairs under Gonzales, is one
of several Department of Justice employees near the center of the storm. Along
with others, she apparently was involved in planning the U.S. Attorney dismiss-
als, as well as subsequent efforts to obstruct justice and limit the damage. She
invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to tes-
tify before Congress. Subsequently, the House Judiciary Committee on April 25,
2007, granted her immunity (which was approved by the U.S. District Court)
and authorized a subpoena. Time will tell whether Goodling will truthfully tell
what she knows, or instead will put loyalty ahead of truth and the best interests
of America, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Constitution.
• Goodling received her undergraduate degree in 1995 from Messiah College and
her law degree in 1999 from Regent University Law School, which is ranked in
the lowest tier of American law schools. Regent University was founded by Pat
Robertson, who also serves as its chancellor. When the Bush regime put conser-
vative credentials and appropriate religiosity ahead of relevant experience and
academic achievement in its hiring decisions, the number of Regent graduates
working in the federal government soared. Regent proudly claims that about 150
of its graduates have served in the Bush administration. The school’s name was
changed to Regent University in 1990 to acknowledge the sovereignty of God.
• Two GOP politicians from New Mexico, Senator Pete Domenici and Represen-
tative Heather Wilson, each telephoned then U.S. Attorney David Iglesias right
before the November 2006 election, improperly asking about the investigation
of a Democratic politician. As noted above, Iglesias was later fired.
• At least two of the terminated U.S. Attorneys (David Iglesias in New Mexico
and John McKay in Washington State) believe Rove was behind the firings and
that criminal charges could be brought against high-level personnel in the De-
partment of Justice. “I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of
this,” McKay told Seattle Times journalists. “This is going to get worse, not bet-
ter.” Other U.S. Attorneys stepped forward with similar testimony. By the way,
none of this testimony is partisan—Bush appointed all of the terminated U.S.
Attorneys, and, as far as we know, all are Republicans.
Attorney General Gonzales and several of his subordinates disgraced themselves
and the Department of Justice. In addition to obstructing justice, they took outra-
geous Alice-in-Wonderland positions on numerous critical issues, including torture
and wiretaps, and misused both the Patriot Act and national security letters. Their
assault on U.S. Attorneys and the integrity of criminal law enforcement is just one
chapter in this sad history.
No one should be surprised that Gonzales became the worst Attorney General
ever. After all, he worked for many years as the consigliere for the Confederate poli-
tico who became the worst American president ever.
Gonzales finally resigned and slithered out of town in September 2007, just
ahead of the posse. Under pressure from both parties to resign, this lying political
hack and war criminal should have been impeached, but—thanks to lethargic efforts
of the Democratic leadership in Congress—Gonzo escaped this just remedy. Full
investigation of Gonzales’ crimes must nevertheless be aggressively pursued, even
though Bush is likely to pardon him in order to silence this key Bush regime accom-
plice and enabler.
Gonzales caused unprecedented damage to the U.S. Department of Justice and
the rule of law. He ran the department as a political tool of the White House, thus
jeopardizing pending and future criminal prosecutions. Department morale plunged,
and many career prosecutors quit. Although it isn’t on the list of “Gonzo’s 10 Worst
Crimes,” Gonzales’ visit to a hospital on March 10, 2004, to take advantage of ex-
tremely sick and hospitalized John Ashcroft (then Attorney General) would provide
good grist for a television series showcasing personal depravity.
As for the difficult job of extracting the truth from the Bush regime, White House
counsel Fred Fielding in March 2007 offered the following “generous” compromise
to the Senate Judiciary Committee. White House staff members Rove, William
Kelley, Scott Jennings and Harriet Miers would testify before the committee, but
only if:
• the testimonies are given in a private closed-door session,
• no transcript of the meeting is kept, and
• those testifying are not under oath.
Senator Patrick Leahy replied: “I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive and
it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its
outcome .... Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investi-
gating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large
portions that they do not want to see the light of day. Testimony should be on the
record, and under oath.”
Impeachment of the Bush regime is long overdue.
Mark Foley: GOP Representative (1995-2006) from Florida. Foley resigned his
House seat in September 2006 following publicity about his hitting on underage (and
overage) male congressional pages, including sending numerous sexually explicit
instant messages. Using that favorite dodge of GOP sinners, Foley cited an alcohol
problem and checked himself into a rehab center. GOP leaders responsible for the
page program and other GOP leaders including Speaker Dennis Hastert did nothing
to stop Foley’s predatory tendencies and were eventually tainted by the scandal they
covered up. Perhaps they relied upon Foley’s frequent promises “to turn over a new
page.”
Don Sherwood: GOP Representative (1999-2007) from Pennsylvania. Another

proud member of the “party of values,” Sherwood was defeated in the 2006 midterm
elections. It didn’t help his reelection bid that he had recently settled a lawsuit by a
mistress who claimed that he repeatedly assaulted her, including repeatedly choking
and attempting to strangle her at his D.C. apartment. Sherwood denied any extra-
marital affair when reports of the abuse surfaced, but he later admitted a five-year
liaison. A host of GOP politicians, including strong-on-family-values George W.
Bush and Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, supported Sherwood’s losing reelec-
tion campaign. (In a landslide, Santorum also lost his 2006 bid for reelection.)
Richard Pombo: GOP Representative (1993-2007) from California. Pombo lost his
reelection bid in 2006, largely because of a host of allegations of corruption, nepo-
tism, misuse of government resources, and other sleazy activity. As one of many
House members reportedly under investigation in the Abramoff corruption and influ-
ence peddling scandal, including the Indian lobbying scandal, Pombo apparently
took about $500,000 from Abramoff, more than that received by any other con-
gressman. Bragging about the pork he brought home to his district probably didn’t
help Pombo’s reelection campaign, and neither did his incredibly awful record on the
environment.
Curt Weldon: GOP Representative (1987-2007) from Pennsylvania. Weldon lost

his race for reelection in November 2006 by 12 percentage points, amid numerous
media reports that the Justice Department and the FBI were investigating whether he
unlawfully used his political influence to help one of his daughters secure lucrative
consulting and lobbying contracts with foreign firms, including a Russian company
called Itera International Energy Corporation. In October 2006 it was reported that
the FBI raided the daughter’s home, as well as several locations of associates of
Weldon, searching for evidence, and that a grand jury proceeding had begun. The
Los Angeles Times reported almost two years earlier, on February 20, 2004 (in a
lengthy article entitled, “Lucrative Deals for a Daughter of Politics—Karen Weldon,
whose dad is a Pennsylvania congressman, is a lobbyist for three foreign clients who
need his help, and get it”), that all three known clients of the daughter’s firm (a part-
nership called Solutions North America, or SNA, which she formed two years earlier
when she was 28 years old) had connections to Weldon. For example, here is a
summary of the Itera timeline: On September 24, 2002, Weldon co-hosted an event
at the Library of Congress to honor Itera’s chairman; two days later, Weldon gave a
congressional floor speech praising Itera; and four days later, on September 30, his
daughter’s firm received a $500,000 annual contract from Itera. The other two lucra-
tive contracts obtained by Weldon’s daughter were with: (1) another Russian firm,
Saratov Aviation, which, after Congressman Weldon and his daughter visited Sara-
tov’s plant in Russia, signed a contract to pay her $20,000 per month plus a 10%
commission, and (2) Dragomir and Bogoljub Karic, associates of Slobodan Mil-
osevic, who paid $240,000 to the daughter’s firm in March 2003. American intelli-
gence officials had warned the congressman that the Karics were too close to Milos-
ovic, who is infamous for the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslav federation.
The foregoing only scratches the surface of the various lobbying scandals associated
with Curt Weldon.
John Doolittle: GOP Representative (since 1991) from California. Doolittle barely
won reelection in 2006 with less than 50% of the vote, whereas he had won previous
elections with about 65% of the vote. He won notwithstanding his connections to
Abramoff and various corruption and ethics issues, including payments made to his
wife relating to his campaign fundraising and political action committees. Doolittle
is the subject of a federal investigation regarding his Abramoff relationship and has
hired criminal defense attorneys. In April 2007 Doolittle gave up his seat on the
House Committee on Appropriations after FBI agents searched his home in Northern
Virginia. On the day of the FBI raid, Doolittle’s former chief of staff, Kevin Ring,
who had left Doolittle to work with Abramoff, resigned from a law firm in Washing-
ton. In September 2007 three aides to Doolittle—including his chief of staff, Ron
Rogers, and his deputy chief of staff, Dan Blankenburg—were subpoenaed to testify
before a federal grand jury in an investigation of ties Doolittle and his wife had to
lobbyist Abramoff.
Rick Renzi: GOP Representative (since 2003) from Arizona. Renzi is facing a slew
of allegations of corruption, including a land-swap deal and legislation he sponsored
that benefited his father’s company, ManTech International Corporation. His father,
a retired major general in the U.S. Army, is Senior Executive Vice President of
ManTech and also President of ManTech’s Defense Systems Group. The Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in a 2006 report named Renzi as one of the
“20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress.” He is under investigation, and the FBI
raided his family business on April 19, 2007. Shortly thereafter, Renzi resigned from
the House Intelligence Committee, and on August 23, 2007, he announced he would
not seek reelection in 2008. Renzi is also connected to the U.S. Attorneys firing
scandal. Paul Charlton, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, in September 2006 opened a
preliminary investigation into some of Renzi’s activities, and almost immediately
Charlton was added to a hit list of U.S. Attorneys to be purged. On September 13
Attorney General Gonzales’ chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, wrote to White House
Counsel Harriet Miers that Charlton was someone they “should now consider push-
ing out,” and on December 7 the White House demanded his resignation without
explanation. Charlton is a highly regarded professional and had consistently ranked
among the best performing federal prosecutors.
David Vitter: GOP Senator (since 2005) and GOP Representative (1999-2005) from
Louisiana. Serial john and adulterer David Vitter replaced disgraced “family values”
GOP Congressman Bob Livingston in Louisiana’s 1st district after Livingston re-
signed (in 1999) following his own adultery scandal, and who—serial adulterer
Livingston, that is—in turn, as GOP Speaker-elect of the U.S. House of Representa-
tives, had been slated to replace disgraced serial adulterer “family values” GOP
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and who—serial adulterer Gingrich that is—in turn
had resigned in a self-inflicted cloud of GOP hypocrisy. Whew! Vitter’s photograph
should appear next to the definition of hypocrite in the dictionary, although he has
countless other GOP leaders competing for this dubious honor. After being identified
in July 2007 as a client of “D.C. Madam” Deborah Jean Palfrey’s prostitution service
in Washington, Vitter publicly acknowledged “a very serious sin in my past,” went
into seclusion for a week, and thereafter refused to talk about it. Vitter noted that he
had “asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife”—that’s apparently
enough for the GOP “family values” crowd in the U.S. Senate, which readily swal-
lowed his explanation and welcomed him back with a standing ovation, even though
prostitution is a crime and typically debases the paid participant. Many commenta-
tors correctly predicted that the GOP leadership—in sharp contrast with the way it
handled Senator Larry Craig’s scandal (see next paragraph)—would not call for Vit-
ter’s resignation from the U.S. Senate, for the simple reason that upon such a resig-
nation the Governor of Louisiana—a Democrat—would appoint a replacement for
Vitter until a special election could be held. In March 2007—just four months before
Vitter’s latest scandal erupted—serial adulterer Vitter announced his support for se-
rial adulterer Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential campaign, with Vitter serving as
Giuliani’s southern regional chair. Vitter is one of the most sanctimonious Bible
thumpers and rightwing nuts in Congress. One wonders how much longer American
voters and America’s Big Media will allow the GOP to beat the “family values”
drum.
Larry Craig: GOP Senator (since 1991) and GOP Representative (1981-1991) from
Idaho. On June 11, 2007, Senator Larry “family values” Craig was arrested for lewd
conduct in a men’s toilet at the Minneapolis airport, and on August 8 he pleaded
guilty to disorderly conduct and paid a $575 fine. After the Washington newspaper
Roll Call on August 27 disclosed these events, Craig found himself on the proverbial
hot toilet seat. At his “I am not gay, I never have been gay” news conference on Au-
gust 28—and perhaps thinking he was auditioning for Saturday Night Live—Craig
prefaced his prepared comments by thanking everyone present “for coming out to-
day.” Indignant that they had been left out of the stall—well, out of the loop—GOP
leaders quickly tried to flush Craig down the toilet, but Craig’s “wide stance” made
that more difficult than expected—Craig soon reneged on his announced intention to
resign from the Senate at the end of the month. The GOP and especially its Christian
Reich cut their teeth bashing the GLBT community—while teaching self-hate and
self-denial to millions of young Americans—and many of the GOP’s most venomous
bashers are closeted self-haters and hypocrites. Let’s be clear. The issue here is not
sex—it’s hypocrisy. The more your GOP politician or preacher talks about family
values, the faster you should count the spoons. As for Craig, for some reason this
“family values” senator stepped down from his senior position in the “family values”
campaign of Mitt Romney—just as Florida State Representative Bob “Blow Job”
Allen resigned his “family values” position as co-chair of John McCain’s presiden-
tial campaign in Florida. On the board of directors of the National Rifle Association
since 1983, Craig is not a “straight shooter.” By the way, the controversy surround-
ing Craig goes back at least to the congressional page scandals of 1982—yes, page
scandals have persisted for decades, without rectification, notwithstanding frequent
GOP promises to “turn over a new page.”
Other GOP Crooks: Alas, there are numerous other Republicans in Congress who
deserve to be added to the foregoing list. Regarding just the Abramoff scandal, at
least two dozen more GOPers have ties to Abramoff’s web of influence-peddling
associates. In addition, many GOP staffers and associates—too many to name here—
have already been convicted of corruption charges.
Alas, it’s a safe bet that other GOP scandals will emerge before the ink is dry on the
pages of this book.
Therefore, dear readers, here’s some space for you to jot down your “Top Five” fa-
vorites not previously mentioned:
My Favorite GOP Congressional Crooks, Criminals and Hypocrites:
1) ____________________________________________________
2) ____________________________________________________
3) ____________________________________________________
4) ____________________________________________________
5) ____________________________________________________
If you’re from the great state of Alaska—a place dear to your author’s heart ever
since he worked in Alaska during a summer many years ago—you’ll probably want
to include at least two-thirds of Alaska’s entire congressional delegation—GOP

Senator Ted Stevens and GOP Representative Don Young—on your list of “Favorite
GOP Crooks, Criminals and Hypocrites.”
The GOP Congress holds the record for highest “Grime Rate”—which is short
for “GOP Crime Rate”—among all demographic groups in America. Only multimil-
lionaire rightwing Christian media evangelists give GOP congressmen a serious run
for their money—or your money, for that matter.
If the 109th GOP Congress of Crooks and Creeps had its own zip code, it would
have the highest crime rate in America, and the dollars involved would be orders of
magnitude greater than that stolen in total by all of America’s run of the mill crimi-
nals. The best way to lower the crime rate—and the Grime Rate—in the city of
Washington and in America is to stop electing GOP politicians.
But the problem is not just a few bad apples like Bush and the congressional
rogues mentioned above. The problem is the Republican Party itself, which has lost
its way and is rotten to the core. America finally began to wake up in 2006 when it
ended GOP control of both houses of Congress.
The GOP’s Destruction of America’s Constitutional Democracy

Never has Washington been so controlled by Big Money. By carrying the banner of
the Super Rich and huge corporations Bush and the Cons raised record amounts of
campaign funds. One hand washes the other. In the Cons’ Washington, legislation is
frequently drafted without any public input other than that of lobbyists for big busi-
ness and the Super Rich. Large corporations have far more lobbyists in Washington
than Congress has staff members.
When Profiles in Corruption is written about the Bush regime and its cronies, it
will be an encyclopedia set, not a single volume. In sharp contrast, John F. Kennedy,
who wrote the inspirational Profiles in Courage, never suffered an approval rating
below 56%, notwithstanding the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Kennedy, a Catholic,
represented all the people, not just Catholics.
For good reason, the GOP Congress operating during Bush’s administration was
known as a “do nothing Congress.” It refused to hold even one comprehensive hear-
ing into the wartime failures of the Bush administration. Abandoning facts and criti-
cal thinking, the GOP Congress blindly supported Bush’s “stay the course” plan of
waste, fraud and failure in Iraq. The GOP refused to investigate anything that might
embarrass Bush, the GOP, or their well-heeled masters.
For example, between 1997 and 2002, the GOP-controlled House Government
Reform Committee issued more than 1,052 subpoenas regarding alleged misconduct
by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party, but as of late 2005 the
committee had issued only three subpoenas to the Bush administration, and none of
the three related to Iraq. (Two subpoenas went to the Energy Department regarding
nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one went to the Defense Department
regarding Hurricane Katrina documents.)
Although the acts of corruption by individual members of Congress are despica-
ble, the GOP collectively did several orders of magnitude greater damage to America
and the U.S. Constitution by rubber stamping every madness of the Bush administra-
tion and by abdicating its constitutional oversight role regarding war and the execu-
tive branch. The GOP became a de facto coconspirator in a systematic cover-up for
the most corrupt and incompetent government in U.S. history. The Cons simply can-
not be trusted to govern for the greater good. They cannot be trusted to defend Amer-
ica against threats, both domestic and foreign. They cannot be trusted to respect and
protect America’s Constitution and democracy.
U.S. troops stand out as the one bright exception in a sea of American and Iraqi
corruption in Iraq. Iraqis widely regard U.S. troops as highly competent, trustworthy
and dedicated professionals, even though the vast majority of Iraqis want America to
remove its forces. In sharp contrast, the Bush administration and its private blood-
sucking profiteers, as well as Iraqi politicians and Iraqi security forces, are widely
viewed as incompetent and corrupt, seeking only what is best for themselves.
America desperately needs an independent Truman-style commission to root out
waste, corruption, incompetence and war profiteering in America’s war efforts. Such
a commission would attempt to make government and contractors accountable to
taxpayers. Truman, a Democrat, headed what became known as the Truman Com-
mission in World War II during the Democratic administration of Franklin
Roosevelt, and his respected nonpartisan efforts helped the war cause and America’s
troops, in addition to propelling him on a path to the White House.
In contrast, the Republican Party has blocked all attempts to create a Truman-
style commission, or any kind of commission, regarding corruption in the conduct of
America’s current wars. For example, in May 2005 the GOP-controlled House voted
224-196 along party lines to prevent such a commission.
The first congressional hearings regarding fraud and corruption in Iraq began
only after the Democratic Congress took control in January 2007. Only then did the
true extent of the Bush administration’s corruption and utter incompetence begin to
emerge.
For example, the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to account
for billions of dollars in cash shipped to Iraq shortly after the 2003 invasion. In 2005
the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that America’s provi-
sional authority in Iraq, which was run by Paul Bremer, could not account for more
than $8 billion of Iraqi oil revenues previously held by the United States. But the
curiously uncurious Republican Congress sat on its hands.
The awful truth began to surface only after the new Democratic Congress starting
investigations in early 2007. What did happen to the 363 tons of cash from the
Federal Reserve Bank that had been flown to Iraq on 484 pallets in 2003? Investiga-
tors reported that one huge outlay of $500 million in cash was explained in the coali-
tion authority’s books with only a one-word entry, “security.” That’s it, just one
word explaining what happened to $500 million dollars in cash blowin’ in the wind.
There is no documentation for it or for another ten huge disbursements ranging from
$120 million to $900 million each.
According to the investigators, Bremer’s provisional authority gave about $12
billion in cash to questionable Iraqi authorities and other recipients, with much of the
cash being stuffed in duffle bags and doled out of the back of pickups. When you try
to visualize $12 billion, you might try to imagine 12,000 stacks of $1,000,000 each,
all in crisp new U.S. $100 bills.
It’s a safe bet that a big chunk of the cash was used to fund militants who killed
Iraqis and American soldiers.
The GOP’s recent rise to power began in 1994 when it seized control of the
House under the banner of its Contract with America, better termed its Contract on
America. The many signing GOP congressmen promised term limits of 12 years for
themselves, but many ignored this promise 12 years later during the 2006 midterm
elections.
Running on “values” in 1994, the GOP promptly forgot and broke their campaign
promises and became the Carpenters of Corruption, proceeding over the next dozen
years to turn America’s government into a cesspool where the sleazy profited and
traditional American values died.
The 1994 GOP gang had complained endlessly about the amount of pork passed
by the preceding Democratic Congress, but the new GOP—the “Gang Of Porkers”—
promptly took pork to the moon, as part of its broader campaign to turn Washington
into a public trough for generous lobbyists, the wealthy and favored corporate inter-
ests.
An October 2004 article in the Boston Globe pointed out that congressional con-
ference committees, which reconcile differences between Senate and House versions
of legislation and which were given greatly expanded powers, added a record 3,407
pork barrel projects to the year’s federal budget. In comparison, the joint panel added
just 47 such projects in 1994, the last year Congress was controlled by the Democ-
ratic Party. Pork projects, including an explosion of earmarks, are snuck into legisla-
tion at the last minute, without identifying the politicians pushing the particular pork,
and they are not debated beforehand.
Far more damaging, the GOP leadership fundamentally changed the way
Congress did business, and in the process made America’s democracy a laughing-
stock. The GOP leadership controlled everything. Time for debate in Congress was
cut drastically. Congress set records for fewest days in session. Amendments on the
floor were rarely permitted. Legislators intentionally were not given time to read
favored special-interest legislation being rammed through. For example, members of
Congress were given only one day to read the Medicare bill that exceeded 400 pages.
Democrats were largely excluded from conference committee meetings that pre-
viously had been bipartisan. Major pieces of legislation were drafted in private ses-
sions that excluded Democrats. “Debate” meant the minority party would be told
after the fact what the GOP had decided. “Reaching across the aisle” meant the mi-
nority party should bend over and reach for the KY jelly.
The legislative process was changed and manipulated to ensure that the GOP
leadership alone controlled what bills reached the floor. Even legislation supported
by a bipartisan majority of the House did not reach the floor unless the GOP king-
pins wanted it there. If Bush opposed certain legislation, the GOP leadership would
ensure that no vote took place, even if a bipartisan majority in the House supported
the legislation. Legislation was decided in backrooms before it reached the floor for
“debate” and vote.
Favored lobbyists were given unprecedented access and control, and they fre-
quently wrote their own laws, which saved the time of lazy corrupt GOP congress-
men and their staffers. Secrecy ruled. The legislative process was defiled.
The GOP dimmed the lights and closed the doors on open government. America
became a Banana Republic run by Banana Republicans. Huge defense appropriation
bills were railroaded through with the time for consideration and debate cut to a
small fraction of what was previously customary. Defense profiteers and the GOP
donor class were protected and pampered with special access. Legislators of both
parties complained that they didn’t really know what they were voting for or against.
SIDEBAR: Hurricane Katrina—A Costly Lesson in GOP Corruption and In-

competence
The chickens came home to roost when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in late
August 2005. Political hacks in FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management
Agency) who had been selected because of their political loyalty and ideology, not
their expertise and experience, failed the citizens of the Gulf Coast, especially the
residents of New Orleans and coastal Louisiana and Mississippi. It addition to illu-
minating the incompetence of the Bush administration, Katrina exposed the under-
belly of GOP economic policies that favor the Super Rich and punish America’s
middle- and lower-income workers, especially Americans of color most in need.
Yes, racism is alive and well in Bush’s America. Although most Confederate
Party members are not racists, the Confederate Party can claim the loyalty of a huge
supermajority of those voters who are. America’s friends shook their heads in
amazement as they watched Bush turn off the power on America’s once-bright bea-
con of justice and opportunity.
Katrina shocked America’s friends, especially because America for many dec-
ades had ably and generously answered the call throughout the world in times of
natural disaster. But Bush and “his people” saw Katrina as an opportunity to estab-
lish a pork barrel at FEMA and push through unrelated legislation for their own
benefit. The battered Gulf Coast needed a government that could fix things, but
Bush’s people knew only how to fix contracts.
The following is what two Republicans said about FEMA’s Katrina performance,
as reported by The New York Times on June 27, 2006. “This started off as a disaster-
relief program, but it turned into a cash cow,” said Representative Michael McCaul
(R-TX), then chairman of a House panel investigating Katrina waste and fraud. “The
blatant fraud, the audacity of the schemes, the scale of the waste—it is just breathtak-
ing,” declared Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), chairwoman of the Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Seeing Bush’s response to Katrina, Americans began wondering more about
homeland security too, especially since Bush claimed that America’s security was
his administration’s “number one job.” Now, that is scary. You can bet the farm that
mountains of additional evidence of raw greed and incompetence will surface in the
years ahead—like puss oozing from a gangrene wound—as more and more of
Bush’s own appointees and other U.S. employees find the courage to tell their truths.
Consider the Department of Homeland Security. Under Bush, it has a workforce

with terrible morale, ranking 29th out of 30 in a 2005 survey of employee satisfac-
tion, including 29th in both “effective leadership” and “teamwork.”
Another major-league eye opener came on December 5, 2005, in the form of a fi-
nal “report card” from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission regarding the dismal per-
formance of the Bush administration and GOP Congress in implementing the com-
mission’s counter-terrorism recommendations. The report card included 5 F’s, 12
D’s, two “incompletes,” and only one A (an A minus.) The Bush administration op-
posed the creation of the commission in the first place, and acquiesced only because
of intense pressure from the families of 9/11 victims. Its failure to implement the
commission’s recommendations and protect the American people should not have
surprised anyone.
GOP Corruption and Incompetence Exported to Iraq

The corruption and incompetence of the GOP Congress contributed directly to both
the Iraq war and its corrupt and incompetent execution.
A Congress of just average integrity and competence would almost certainly have
prevented the Iraq war. But the do-nothing-good GOP Congress supported every
White House madness, helped fuel fear, and “debated” only two days before rubber
stamping the Iraq war.
Also, a Congress of just average integrity and competence would have fulfilled,
or at least tried to fulfill, its constitutional obligation to oversee the executive branch
and the conduct of the Iraq war. But the GOP Congress refused to hold even one
oversight hearing regarding the rampant waste and fraud in Iraq, thus allowing Iraq
to become a magnet for corrupt contractors and incompetent political appointees. It
allowed Iraq to descend into that hell known as Bush’s Iraq.
Given the passage of time, it is most unlikely that justice will ever be served re-
garding the fraud and corruption in Iraq, even if the investigations that began only
after the GOP lost control of Congress in 2006 are permitted to run their course.
There is the risk that the American public as well as its Democratic leaders will grow
weary of the onslaught of sleaze uncovered and just want to forget and move on.
That would be a tragic mistake.
Here are some examples of the Bush League mess in Iraq:
• The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) run by Paul Bremer was a free-
wheeling government of corruption and incompetence, two areas in which
Iraqi politicians and bureaucrats needed no encouragement. The CPA hired
employees based on political correctness, not experience and expertise.
Young and clueless rightwingers from America were on the loose.
• Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for The Washington Post,
revealed in his 2006 book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, that job appli-
cants who wanted to help run post-invasion Iraq were even asked for their
opinions of Roe v. Wade and for whom they voted in America’s 2000 presi-
dential election. This is both illegal and un-American.
• Most of $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds was wasted. The Bush
government’s refusal to prosecute American firms accused of corruption
turned Iraq into a “free fraud zone,” according to Frank Willis, a senior ad-
visor to the CPA when it ran Iraq into the ground. In early 2005 Willis
compared Iraq to the “wild west,” and said prophetically that the “corrup-
tion will only get worse.” And it did, GOP style.
• Oil smuggling and other types of corruption are “a second insurgency” in
Iraq reported Stuart Bowen, Jr., a GOP appointee who served as the Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) and was responsible for
auditing Iraq’s reconstruction efforts since 2004. In late 2006 he agreed
with the assessment that corruption had gotten so bad that it threatened the
survival of the Iraqi state. Bowen is not a leftie out to get Bush. To the con-
trary, he is a GOP lawyer who campaigned for Bush and was in the army of
GOP lawyers who helped Bush steal the election in Florida in 2000.
• Incredibly, the GOP-controlled Congress passed legislation, signed by Bush
in October 2006, that included a provision to eliminate Bowen’s oversight
position by killing his oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction. Over objections of Democratic minority
members, GOP members of the House Armed Services Committee slipped
the sneaky provision into a massive military authorization bill at the last
minute. After all, oversight is not compatible with war profiteering. Fortu-
nately, public indignation and the realities of the 2006 midterm elections
helped to reverse the travesty, and Bowen stayed on the job.
• Bowen made the mistake of trying to do an honest professional job in Iraq,
with a focus on reducing corruption and improving the efficiency of recon-
struction efforts. Because his periodic reports embarrassed the Bush ad-
ministration and GOP-connected firms like Halliburton, Bechtel, DynCorp
and Parsons, Bowen in effect pinned a bull’s eye on his own back, and GOP
operatives were more than eager to insert a dagger.
• “It appears to me that the administration wants to silence the messenger that
is giving us information about waste and fraud in Iraq,” said Representative
Henry Waxman (D-CA), who later became Chairman of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
• Asking the GOP Senate and GOP House of Representatives to investigate
the Bush regime was like asking Vito and Michael Corleone to investigate
the Mafia.
• Here’s how it works. Let’s say you’re a Republican in Congress. And let’s
say you’re a crook. Oops, sorry, that’s redundant.
• Just kidding. Yes, there are many GOP members of Congress who techni-
cally are not crooks. However—not kidding—whether crooks or not, they
aided the looting of both America and Iraq by not doing their jobs, by ac-
tively preventing the legislative branch from doing its job, by rubber stamp-
ing every action of their GOP leaders and the Bush White House—whether
moral or immoral, whether legal or illegal—including both the decision to
wage war on Iraq and its incompetent execution, including bankrupting
America by not paying for one penny of the war’s cost, and including the
shredding of the U.S. Constitution.
• The Bush League corruption and incompetence gave comfort to America’s
enemies, helping to fund Iraqi insurgents in countless ways. Even American
weapons were not adequately safeguarded. Bowen’s office reported that
14,000 weapons paid for by the United States could not be accounted for. In
violation of U.S. law, no record of serial numbers was kept for more than
96% of the weapons distributed, thus making it impossible to determine the
source of stolen weapons later recovered by U.S. forces.
• Later, in August 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) an-
nounced that the Pentagon could not account for 30% of the weapons dis-
tributed in Iraq during the previous three years. The GAO estimated that
110,000 AK-47s and 80,000 pistols were included in the missing weapons.
It is widely believed that many of these weapons are being used against
American troops in Iraq.
• Although Bush and the GOP did not create the preexisting religious, tribal
and ethnic tensions in Iraq, these unknowing, uncaring, irresponsible fools
eagerly put the match to the powder keg, and their relentless incompetence
just added fuel to the resulting fiery holocaust. Iraqis rightly expected so
much more from America, but our Bush League government let them down.
Bush’s America is not the America of our fathers, or the America that Bush
inherited when he became president.
• However much Bush and the GOP screwed America, they screwed the Iraqi
people a thousand times more—without ever killing in Iraq a single crimi-
nal responsible for 9/11. Not one. Americans cannot imagine the horror
unleashed by Bush’s and the GOP’s War on Iraq.
• Companies like Cheney’s Halliburton and KBR needed no encouragement
to commit fraud, but the Bush administration and the GOP Congress never-
theless helped them. No-competitive-bid contracts encouraged war profi-
teering, as did contracts that encouraged waste and fraud by guaranteeing a
profit equal to a percentage of total cost. Because “perfectly legal” crony
deals virtually ensured fat contracts with fat profits, the thousands of con-
tractors who milked the system had no compelling reason to commit out-
right fraud, but many did so anyway. Greed has no limits.
• The Bush administration divided Iraq into “no competition” sectors and
gave the work to nine large U.S. companies. Most of their contracts were
awarded on a cost-plus basis, thus reducing the risk and jacking up the prof-
its. It became the antithesis of “free enterprise”—the new GOP paradigm
was “freebie enterprise.”
• “GOP” now stands for “Gang of Plunderers.”
• Many thousands of contractors feed at the GOP public trough in Iraq. No
one knows the exact number.
SIDEBAR: Creation of Massive Patronage System Loyal to the GOP
Upon assuming power in 2001 the Bush administration immediately embarked on a

political mission to replace America’s civil service system based on expertise with a
massive patronage system based on political ideology and loyalty to the Republican
Party.
The Heritage Foundation, a rightwing “think tank,” helped provide the framing
for the new corrupt structure.
Everything was driven by divisive politics. Professional expertise took second
seat to political hacks. Truth took second seat to ideology. Witness the U.S. intelli-
gence function. Witness the military, yes, incredibly, even the military.
One key Bush initiative was to outsource as much federal work as possible to
private contractors who could be counted on to fund the GOP and its cronies. While
talking about the benefits of bringing competition to the game, the Bush administra-
tion did the opposite. The New York Times reported in early 2007 that “fewer than
half of all ‘contract actions’—new contracts and payments against existing con-
tracts—are now subject to full and open competition,” a big drop from 79% in 2001.
To be clear, the GOP’s intent was not to increase competition in order to drive
better performance and lower costs. The goal was to reduce competition, or to elimi-
nate competition entirely, in order to steer fat contracts and fat profits to politically
loyal corporations and executives in a vast, morally corrupt, patronage system.
The result is that the Bush administration sabotaged the performance and cost ef-
fectiveness of America’s government in both: (1) the work provided by America’s
civil service professionals, and (2) the work provided by outside contractors. The
cancer spread both domestically and internationally. Witness Katrina. Witness Iraq.
• In spite of blatant conflicts of interest, the Bush administration hired CACI

International (which was notorious for supplying private interrogators to
Abu Ghraib) to handle cases of fraud and incompetence by private contrac-
tors in Iraq. This was like hiring Jack the Ripper to investigate sexual preda-
tor cases. Rubbing salt in the wounds, CACI charged $104 an hour, accord-
ing to The New York Times.
• With clumsy assistance from America’s occupation authority, the new Iraqi
government became one of the most corrupt in the world. By 2006 Iraq had
dropped to a tie for second worst in an international index that measures
corruption (kickbacks, embezzlement, bribery, etc.) in 163 nations. Only
Haiti had a worse score in this survey conducted by Transparency Interna-
tional in Germany, which combined the results of 12 surveys of country ex-
perts and businessmen over a two-year period. Primary victims of this cor-
ruption are the poor. The chairwoman of Transparency International, Hu-
guette Labelle, noted that the misappropriation of government funds “feeds
a vicious circle, where those with access to funds or bribes take what they
can, because they can, locking the poor in poverty.” Her words sound like
the GOP’s mission statement for the world.
• The United States dropped three places to 20th place in the same corruption
index, hardly a coincidence, since America’s Republican Party and the Iraqi
successor to Saddam’s Republican Guard operate like Republican Siamese
twins.
• A GlobeScan poll of 26,000 people in 25 nations, released in January 2007,
showed a sharp deterioration during the previous two years in global opin-
ion of America’s foreign policy. Almost half of those polled believe Amer-
ica played a mainly negative role in the world. Almost 75% disapproved of
Bush’s policies regarding Iraq.
• By early 2007 Iraqis were receiving about 7 hours of electricity per day,
with the average in Baghdad being only 4.4 hours, much less than that un-
der Saddam’s rule. Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Recon-
struction, reported to Congress in January 2007 that, despite more than $4
billion in U.S. funds being allocated to the problem, Iraq’s nationwide elec-
tricity output had fallen below the prewar level of 4,200 megawatts. How
did the Bush administration respond to this embarrassing fact? The State
Department cagily eliminated the prewar electricity output line from its
standard weekly report on Iraq’s electricity production, thus eliminating the
unfavorable comparison. Spin is everything.
• Iraq’s drinking water suffered greatly during Bush’s reign. By 2007 only
4.6 million of Iraq’s 26 million people had access to safe drinking water. In
2007 there was a new outbreak of cholera in Iraq.
• Congress initially granted $18 billion for Iraq’s reconstruction, but almost
all of it was wasted. You may recall images of contractors playing football
with bundles of new $100 bills.
• Thousands of members of the Mahdi Army and other militias who attack
American troops are paid a monthly salary with funds diverted from the
Iraqi government.
• Although Americans are largely kept in the dark, the Iraqi people experi-
ence first hand the Bush League corruption and incompetence, as well as
that of Iraq’s government. A poll conducted in late 2006 by the Iraq Center
for Research and Strategic Studies found that “about 90% of Iraqis feel the
situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is to-
day.”
• Although it took several years, a substantial majority of the American pub-
lic eventually became fed up with Bush’s incompetence and deceit regard-
ing Iraq. They lost faith in him and his plans for Iraq. A late 2006 CNN poll
found that only 11% of Americans supported his so-called surge plan to
send thousands more American troops to Baghdad. As for the rest of Bush’s
feeble coalition in Iraq, the Bush League of Nations, not a single member
offered even one additional soldier to the surge—they in fact “de-surged.”
Bush’s Golden Rule is: “He who has the gold makes the rules.” And they do.
Never have the Super Rich done better in America, even though the nation is at war
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush destroyed America’s tradition that all citizens should contribute and sacri-
fice when America is at war. Personally an expert on government freebies and ex-
emptions from sacrifice, Bush not only gave the Super Rich an exemption from pain
during this time of war, he also gave them hundreds of billions of dollars in tax
breaks. War is profitable for Bush’s Chosen People. Thanks to Bush, the GOP’s
“Two Americas” plan, which was started by Reagan, continues to work miracles.
The Bush administration, the Bush family and their cronies are experts at public
trough dining. In Bush’s America, personal success is far less dependent upon educa-
tion and hard work than it is upon family connections, cronyism and pulling gov-
ernment strings. Bush’s entire life, especially his business career, is living proof that
Affirmative Action for the Privileged works.
Our British allies know that “W” stands for “wonga,” which is British schoolboy
slang for money, lots of money.
There are countless huge companies that rely upon cronyism and government
connections for success. Most of their activities are perfectly legal, which is under-
standable since the U.S. Congress works for them.
Many of these companies reek of the revolving door syndrome. Consider The
Carlyle Group, a fabulously successful private company that has done very well in
government business. It has had a political Who’s Who on its payroll, including the
likes of a former American president (George H. W. Bush),135 a former British prime
minister, various U.S. secretaries of defense, state, and treasury, senior CIA and SEC
officials, and so forth.
Carlyle is an important conduit and door opener for anyone wanting to do serious
business with the U.S. Government, especially defense work. Imagine running a le-
gitimate small or mid-sized company that is trying to compete in federal contracting
against firms connected to Carlyle. With the GOP in charge, connections count more
than excellent products and services at competitive prices.
Foreign businessmen and government officials could logically conclude that Car-
lyle is part of the U.S. Government or acting for it. Its offices are conveniently lo-
cated on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington about halfway between the Capitol
building and the White House.
Members of bin Laden’s family were investors in Carlyle until the embarrass-
ment of 9/11 caused them to liquidate their investment.
Bush the Father kept his position with Carlyle until late 2003 when the sunlight
of public scrutiny caused him to leave. Bush the Son also has had connections to
Carlyle.
We mention Carlyle here in passing simply to highlight the cronyism, conflicts of
interests, abuse of America’s taxpayers, and greed that characterize the leeches at-
tached to America’s government and its operations in Iraq. One excellent book that
focuses on Carlyle is The Iron Triangle—Inside the Secret World of The Carlyle
Group, by Dan Briody.
Bush believes with all his heart and soul that The Carlyle Group represents the
way America should be run. After all, it has worked well for his family for decades.
135
In sharp contrast, Jimmy Carter, a Christian who believes in family values, works for or-
ganizations such as Habitat For Humanity.
Bush has no sympathy for low- and middle-income working Americans who are too
lazy or too dumb to snatch the low-hanging gold apples like his family does.136
We conclude this chapter with a sidebar about W’s younger brother Neil, who
does not get the attention he deserves.
SIDEBAR: All in the Bush Family: Valuables over Values
Neil Bush, the son of one president and the brother of another, has led a life of crony
capitalism, taking advantage of his family name and America, and costing American
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Nevertheless, the extent of his shady busi-
ness and political activities appear limited when compared to those of his more
prominent relatives.
Perhaps Neil’s success has been limited because he does not receive the massive
favorable publicity that the American media routinely heap upon other members of
his extended family. In fact, he gets little coverage at all. This is unfair—America’s
rightwing royalty is entitled to better treatment from Big Media. After all, Neil does
share the same lust for valuables that preoccupies his extended family. Therefore, in
the interest of fairness, let’s check in on Neil and see how he’s doing.
To Neil Bush’s credit, he has wisely learned to rely upon family and political
connections for “success” rather than business skills he doesn’t have. The only busi-
ness skill he does appear to have is one he shares with his brother Dubya—the ability
to run businesses into the ground.
You perhaps last heard about Neil in the 1980s in connection with Silverado Sav-
ings and Loan in Denver, Colorado. At age 30 and with no relevant business experi-
ence,137 Neil was appointed to the board of directors of Silverado.
He and his cronies then looted Silverado, and although dimwitted Neil personally
ended up with little of the loot, the total cost to U.S. taxpayers was $1.3 billion.
That’s not a typo—it’s $1.3 billion, not $1.3 million. That’s more than four times the
total worldwide annual budget of the U.S. Peace Corps.
You may wonder how this $1.3 billion loss at the Denver S&L compares with the
total amount stolen by criminals in all bank robberies in the state of Colorado in one
year. Well, Neil wins “hands down,” or rather, “hands up.” The Silverado loss was
hundreds of times greater than the total annual haul by all bank robbers in Colorado.
136
Bush’s two-decades long college career of drinking, drugging and partying ended after he
had several walks in 1985 with Billy Graham, who was visiting the family in Kennebunkport,
Maine. Bush must be thinking, “Why aren’t them average lunch-pail Americans … you know,
the lazy poor and coloreds … I mean, the blacks and browns and greens … smart enough to
use Billy like I do?”
137
Neil undoubtedly had some experience in cashing checks and spending money he never
earned, and perhaps he knew something about trust accounts. This all could be important in
the banking business.
Thinking bigger, you might then compare Neil Bush’s accomplishment with all
the bank robberies in the entire United States for one entire year. Again, Neil wins,
“hands up.” Stunningly, it’s not even close. According to FBI statistics, in 2001 a
bank robbery occurred approximately every 52 minutes in the United States, and the
total annual net loss was $70 million.
This means that the out-of-pocket cost to U.S. taxpayers of the looting and bank-
ruptcy of federally-insured Silverado by Neil Bush and his cronies was more than 18
times the total amount stolen by all bank robbers in the United States in an entire
year! And some people say Neil doesn’t know jack about business.
In retrospect, the FBI could have saved American taxpayers hundreds of millions
of dollars through better 24-hour surveillance tactics, say, by permanently handcuff-
ing two of its agents to Neil Bush and to each of his cronies.
Rather than focusing relentlessly on smalltime bank robbers, the FBI should reas-
sign a few professionals—say, 90% of its thousands of law enforcement officers who
now work on bank robberies—to investigate and police the Bush family and its ex-
tended gang of GOP cronies and white collar criminals. Law enforcement should
work where the big criminals work. It should fish where the big fish swim.
By the way, the average “take” for robberies in America is about $1,000 per rob-
bery, with convenience store robberies coming in at about $400 to $600, less than
one-tenth the average take from a bank robbery (which is about $5,000 to $7,000.)
Street muggings average only about $50.138
If you’re a bank bandit or convenience store robber, or even a lowly mugger, you
might be thinking, “Hey, I’m in the wrong gang. I should marry into the Bush crime
family and enjoy some of those Bush family valuables.”
Well, be careful what you wish for. Neil went through an ugly divorce in 2003,
and the messy divorce papers disclosed just some of the trials and tribulations of
being born into the Bush family, or worse yet, marrying into this crime family.
One of the more outrageous revelations in Neil Bush’s divorce papers is his mor-
ally corrupt business deal in 2002 with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing, a com-
pany backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of Jiang Zemin, the former president and
dictator of communist China. Under this deal, Neil would receive $2 million in com-
pany stock over five years, even though Neil has no skills relating to the company’s
business. In questioning Neil about this surprisingly lucrative deal, the divorce attor-
ney for his former wife asked Neil, “You have absolutely no educational background
in semiconductors, do you?” Neil replied, “That’s correct.”
138
It’s data like this that may have caused Neil to focus wisely on banking. A mugger would
have to do a mugging 49 times every minute, 24 hours every day, for an entire year to get to
$1.3 billion! Perhaps Neil took and perfected the advice of the famous bank robber Willie
Sutton. According to banking legend, when Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he re-
plied, “because that’s where the money is.” Likewise, GOP cronies and thieves go to Congress
because that’s where the money is.
Just for fun, you might try to make an easy couple of million dollars in stock by
writing to the headquarters of Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation in
Mainland China and asking for the same deal that Neil Bush got. Perhaps you should
lie and tell them you are a member of the Communist Party, or second best, the Re-
publican Party. Here’s the address:
Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation
818 Guo Shou Jing Road
Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park
Shanghai, 201203
People’s Republic of China
Address in Chinese:
中国上海
张江高科技区
郭守敬路 818 号
Disclaimer: The “Neil Bush Deal” may be limited to people who have at least as
much experience in semiconductors as Neil Bush. But don’t worry—this won’t dis-
qualify you, or anyone else.
Neil also admitted that during his marriage he had sex with several prostitutes
while on business in Asia. He said the women would just knock on his hotel room
door, come in, and have sex with him. Since they never asked for money, he never
paid them, and he thus didn’t know if they were prostitutes. My goodness, didn’t he
even tip them? Whatever happened to Texan etiquette and Southern hospitality?
These salacious items about Bush family values are just some tidbits from Neil’s
divorce papers, and they came to light only because of the divorce.
Well, that’s enough about Neil Bush. No, wait—let’s include a few more nasty
nuggets, just for fun.
Neil Bush has lots of crony ties with other unusual or bizarre people—all rich
people, of course. As a member of the Bush clan, he is attracted to sleazy deals like a
moth to a flame. He toured Asia with Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the Korean billionaire
and self-proclaimed Messiah of the Korea-based Unification Church. Bush’s parents,
Barbara and George Bush, also have substantial ties to Moon and have received mil-
lions of dollars from him for speaking engagements and other “services.” Moon is
the self-proclaimed Messiah of the world and has supported many dictators and
fascist leaders. He claims he helped Hitler and Stalin be “reborn as new persons.”
Moon claims that he, not Jesus, is the hope of the entire world. Why do the Bush
family and the Cons love him? Because valuables trump values—money trumps
Christ.
Moon has a large financial empire including ownership of the Washington Times,
which should not be confused with the Washington Post or the New York Times. The
Washington Times masquerades as a newspaper and can be relied upon to create ex-
treme rightwing propaganda supporting the Cons and the Bush regime. Moon covers
the huge operating losses of the newspaper, which total more than one billion dollars
since its inception in 1982.
Moon’s bizarre teachings and activities, including his inroads into the Bush fam-
ily and the Bush White House, are too numerous to attempt to summarize here. He
and his “Moonies” are a special danger to gullible young people. But the Bush fam-
ily loves Moon, and Bush the Father even referred to Moon as a “man of vision.” If
you are not very familiar with Rev. Sun Myung Moon, please spend a few minutes
Googling Moon and Bush.
To raise money for his software company, Ignite!—the so-called learning sys-
tems company—Neil Bush traveled around Russia with the infamous Boris
Berezovsky, a shady Russian who sought asylum in London to avoid arrest by Rus-
sian authorities for fraud and conspiracy. Bush also obtained several million dollars
for Ignite! from United Arab Emirates investors eager to ingratiate themselves with
the brother of America’s president. Incidentally, Neil’s company obtained lucrative
No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Texas, Florida and other states.
In 2005 Barbara Bush, the former first lady, made a tax-deductible donation to
the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund in an undisclosed amount, and, oddly, specifically
instructed that the funds be spent with Ignite!, the educational software company
owned by her son Neil. What a nifty way to give a tax-deductible allowance to your
adult child! Is there no shame in this family?
Well, it must be tough being a Bush and living with the family lies. One of the
most devious of the lies—which appears prominently in the political campaign of
any Bush family member—is that this first family of sleaze somehow stands for ap-
propriate family values in America. Well, don’t let them speak for you. Don’t let
them try to teach you anything about values. The Bush family stands for family
valuables for themselves and the Super Rich at the expense of everyone else.
Remember that when George W. Bush says family “values,” the synapses in his
brain are just misfiring again, and he really means family “valuables”—that is, valu-
ables for his family. Being weak on the real issues that matter most to America, Bush
and the GOP simply pick family values as a wedge issue. This is profoundly outra-
geous.
Like we said, if any progressive family in North Dakota or Massachusetts some-
how got infected with the family values of the Bush family, and the neighbors found
out, the family would have to leave the state in shame in the middle of the night and
move to a red zone in Texas. That’s the law.
So don’t let the Bush family or any other Cons try to teach you or your children
about proper family values. Just remember the official motto of the Bush family and
its party: “Rich in Valuables, Poor in Values.”
PART VI
Out of the Wilderness

CHAPTER 19
Out of the Wilderness—Three Plans

Blessed Are the Peacemakers
Gimli: “Never thought I’d die fighting side by side with an elf.”
Legolas: “What about side by side with a friend?”
Gimli: “Aye. I could do that.”
—Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Set forth in this final chapter are the following three plans, which together constitute
a way forward for America:
I. Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan
II. Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan
III. A 6-Point Plan to Support America’s Troops
America has been slowly waking up to the nightmare of Bush’s reign of terror
and wars of error. It took years for America to acknowledge the truth that has been
so obvious to the rest of the world—that Bush is America’s worst president ever, and
that he has waged an imperial, incompetent and unchristian foreign policy.
Roll the calendar back to 2000 and imagine a candidate for president discussing
international affairs and promising you that, as America’s president, he would:
• allow 9/11, the worst terrorist attacks in history on American soil, to occur
on his watch, while ignoring the flashing red warning lights and taking re-
cord vacation time (taking only five years to beat Reagan’s eight-year re-
cord);
• destroy the huge global goodwill towards America following the 9/11 at-
tacks;
• be unable, perhaps unwilling, to kill or capture the criminal ringleader of
the terrorist attacks;
• spin a web of deceptions and lies in order to invade Iraq, a nation that: (a)
was not an imminent threat to the United States or any other nation, and (b)
had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or bin Laden or the Taliban or al
Qaeda;
• cause the death of several hundred thousand Iraqis, not one of whom was
involved in the 9/11 attacks or had any advance knowledge of them;
• become the world’s number one war criminal;
• through faith-based incompetence, implement policies to spawn more ter-
rorists than all other sources of terrorism in the world combined;
• in the rightwing style of bin Laden, assert that he is directed by God;
• by thus hijacking God, absolve himself of the responsibility to deal with re-
ality and truth;
• determine conclusions and policies first, and then manufacture facts “to fit”
the conclusions and policies, counting on America’s cheerleading corporate
media to function as stenographers, not professional journalists;
• become hated by the vast majority of the citizenry in every predominantly
Muslim nation—where his stated mission would be to win hearts and
minds—while achieving a favorable rating only a fraction of bin Laden’s;
• increase America’s trade deficit to record highs, allowing creditor nations
like Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China to buy huge chunks of
American assets and seize control of America’s financial future;
• make America more dependent than ever on foreign oil;
• bankrupt America;
• insult America’s allies and friends, and renege on treaties and other com-
mitments;
• create unprecedented worldwide animosity towards the White House and
America;
• stay the failed course in a failed immoral war of his own creation; and
• disrespect and wreck America’s military.
The world views Bush as an uninformed incompetent who is clueless as to the
job of president of the United States of America. They have “read his heart.” They
see nothing in his entire life experience to suggest he is qualified to make decisions
regarding war or to lead America’s troops. There see nothing in his words or deeds
to suggest he has the slightest interest in learning how to lead.
America’s traditional allies and friends yearn for America to make a 180-degree
turn from the Dark Side and return to America’s core strengths and progressive val-
ues, which were highly respected throughout the world before Bush’s Reign of Error
and Terror.
America’s allies and friends want America to rediscover its moral footing, to re-
verse the catastrophic decline in its effectiveness and trustworthiness, and to once
again join the world community as a partner—the leader among leaders, not a dicta-
tor without followers. They want America to regain its sanity.
They want America to have a leader who is a visionary, not a leader who has vi-
sions.
They want to trust America again.
It will take an incredibly intense effort to restore the goodwill towards Amer-
ica—inherited and squandered by Bush—that existed before and following the 9/11
attacks. Bush and his Confederate Party have repeatedly proven themselves intellec-
tually and morally incapable of doing this.
CHAPTER 19 — OUT OF THE WILDERNESS – THREE PLANS 393
I. Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan

“If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your ene-
mies.”—Moshe Dayan (1915-1981)
1. Immediately withdraw from Iraq.139 140

• Declare victory for America’s troops, who removed Saddam’s regime from
power, destroyed Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs, and carried out every order.
• Declare defeat for Bush, the rubberstamping GOP and the neocons, who
lied to America, America’s troops and the world.
• Immediately withdraw all American forces from Iraq.141
• Immediately also withdraw from Iraq all of America’s private mercenary
armies, an action which is as important as withdrawing America’s troops.
• If necessary, be prepared to be part of a UN or NATO force imposing a no-
fly zone in Northern Iraq to protect Iraq’s Kurds.
• Immediately stop the construction of the huge American “embassy” com-
plex—21 buildings on 104 acres—in the Green Zone in Baghdad, which is
many times larger and more expensive than any other embassy in the world
and has so inflamed Iraqis.142
2. Bury the imperial plans of the Bush League neocons, especially The Project for
the New American Century.
• Repudiate the neocon dream of a puppet regime in Iraq, a permanent plat-
form from which the neocons intended, and still intend, to exert imperial
military and economic power throughout the oil-rich Middle East.
139
See Chapter 5 for a list of ten reasons why the United States must immediately withdraw
from Iraq.
140
The second-best alternative to withdrawal is for the United States to request immediately
an Iraqi referendum in which the citizens of Iraq would democratically decide the fate of the
foreign occupation, including its scale and duration, and including the opportunity to set a firm
date for complete military withdrawal by the United States and its Bush League partners. Al-
though the ideal time for this referendum (2003 or 2004) has long since passed, it could still—
for the first time since the 2003 invasion—show right intentions and improve America’s shat-
tered credibility.
141
Assuming the United States retains an embassy in Baghdad and normal diplomatic and
intergovernmental relations with Iraq, the United States would, of course, retain in Iraq appro-
priate security forces for its embassy and other personnel, on a scale consistent with its secu-
rity policies governing the protection of its diplomats and other personnel elsewhere in the
world.
142
The complex is more an imperial citadel than an embassy. Designed by the heartless and
mindless for the GOP’s Pirates of the Citadel, it is totally inappropriate for an America that
wants to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. During the construction of the complex, the
American embassy was located on a temporary basis in Saddam’s Republican Palace. It thus
may be fitting to name the new embassy complex the Republican’s Republican Palace.
• Repudiate the neocon plan to have up to 14 permanent U.S. military bases

in Iraq.143 Do not enter into treaties to occupy bases in any nation in the
Middle East without the overwhelming approval of the people of the host
nation in each case.
• Immediately shut down the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.
• Immediately disband the Bush League of Nations, the so-called Coalition of
the Willing in Iraq. The few remaining “members”—who for all practical
purposes have already “cut and run”—will gratefully make their own deci-
sions as to withdrawal of their remaining token forces.144
3. Win in Afghanistan—At Least Try

• Strategically re-deploy up to 25,000 additional American troops from Iraq
to Afghanistan, doubling the U.S. military presence there, but only if:
• the American troops in Afghanistan are under UN or NATO com-
mand;
• the total number of American troops does not constitute more than
one-third of the total international forces in Afghanistan under UN
or NATO command;
• the deployment is requested by the Afghani government and ap-
proved by a supermajority of Afghanistan’s citizens; and
• the deployment is part of a comprehensive development-focused
peace plan for Afghanistan and the region approved by Afghani-
stan and all concerned parties.
• The overriding principles are that:
• Afghanistan, purportedly a sovereign nation, must determine its
own future; and
• the United Nations and NATO are the best bodies to lead interna-
tional peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts.
• Strategically re-deploy some troops to nearby locations, principally Kuwait
and Qatar, consistent with the advice of America’s senior military leaders.
• Greatly reduce America’s military footprint in the Middle East.
• The majority of the 160,000 troops in Iraq would return home.
4. Work with Iraq, the United Nations, the Arab League, Iraq’s neighbors (including
the non-Arab nations of Iran and Turkey) and other interested parties, to try to create
an International Peacekeeping Force (IPF) in Iraq that would replace the Bush
League of Nations.
143
Even Bush family mouthpiece James Baker recognizes that these bases are counterproduc-
tive to America’s interests. “Any appearance of a permanent occupation will both undermine
domestic support here in the United States and play directly into the hands of those in the
Middle East who — however wrongly — suspect us of imperial design,” Baker says.
144
Even Bush’s staunchest ally, Great Britain (previously led by Tony Blair, the other “half”
of the Bush/Blair Axis of Feeble), had already cut and run by withdrawing more than 80% of
its forces by 2007, with more withdrawals planned.
• Recognize that creating a viable IPF in Iraq will be difficult at best, perhaps
impossible.
• The IPF should be under UN command if possible, but definitely not under
U.S. command.
• Offer to pay up to 50% of the IPF’s costs over a period of ten years, but
only if the IPF is requested and approved by the Iraqi government and ap-
proved by: (a) a supermajority vote of Iraq’s population, and (b) a majority
vote of each of Iraq’s three major constituencies: Sunnis, Shia and Kurds. In
any case, America’s withdrawal from Iraq is not contingent on the IPF be-
ing approved or put in place.
• If a viable sufficiently muscular IPF is not created—which is likely if too
many nations decide not to help clean up Bush’s and the GOP’s mess—then
the United States is not obligated to make any payments.
• A limited number of American troops could serve in the IPF in Iraq, pro-
vided:
• they are under UN command, not U.S. command; and
• the American forces do not constitute more than 10% of the total
UN blue helmet force.
• The overriding principles are that:
• the United Nations is the proper and best authority to run the
peacekeeping efforts; and
• Iraq, purportedly a sovereign nation, must determine its own fu-
ture, including deciding whether it wants an IPF in Iraq.
5. Working primarily with the United Nations, the Arab League and Iraq’s
neighbors, encourage the Iraqi government to come to a national agreement of rec-
onciliation that recognizes minority rights, provides for power sharing with minority
populations in order to mitigate the tyranny of the majority, and provides for the
sharing of Iraq’s oil revenues on the basis of population or some other acceptable
basis.
• Recognize that under no scenario is it possible or desirable for the United
States to control the outcome, and that continued Bush League mucking
only worsens all possible scenarios, all of which are ugly. Ultimately it is up
to the Iraqi people to make the necessary compromises and reach an agree-
ment of reconciliation.
• Stop the Bush League hypocrisy of mouthing platitudes about Iraqi “free-
dom” and “democracy”—intended for gullible consumption in America but
counterproductive in Iraq—while at the same time manipulating and dictat-
ing results in Iraq. Stop the lying.
6. Repentance and Reparations

• The United States should immediately apologize to the United Nations and
NATO for America’s Bush League policies regarding Iraq and those two
organizations. The apology should include the total repudiation of all neo-
con imperial goals.
• The United States should thank the United Nations for its vote following
9/11 to support U.S. military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It
should request even more support for Afghanistan.
• The United States should thank NATO for its unwavering support following
9/11, including invoking Article 5 of the NATO Treaty to treat 9/11 as an
attack against each and every NATO member. It should thank NATO for its
work in Afghanistan and request even more support for that nation.
• Bush should personally apologize and repent.
• The United States should immediately acknowledge the mistakes that were
made in its name, and apologize to the Iraqi people.
• The United States should pay up to $1 billion per month—which is much
less than 10% of what the Bush regime squanders in Iraq—through the
United Nations for the security and reconstruction of Iraq, provided these
funds are matched, dollar-for-dollar, by other nations. The United Nations
and the Iraqi government would jointly manage the reconstruction efforts,
with U.S. firms receiving no preferential treatment. The Bush League policy
of awarding no-bid and no-audit contracts to rightwing politically connected
war profiteers like Halliburton would end.
• The reconstruction plans would be subject to the approval of the Iraqi gov-
ernment and the Iraqi people. If a particular Iraqi province fails to approve
the plan by a majority vote, then that province would not participate in the
plan and would receive no U.S. funds.
• Iraq should be empowered and encouraged to set policies that maximize the
creation of jobs for Iraqis, not foreign contractors who are paid a multiple of
the market rate for Iraqis.
• The United States must establish a U.S. commission independent of the
White House and Congress, but with congressional oversight, to work with
the United Nations to ensure that comprehensive accounting and auditing
controls are established. Its principal goal would be to eliminate the fraud,
profiteering and mismanagement that are the hallmark of GOP and Bush
League efforts in Iraq to date. The United States would retain comprehen-
sive accounting and auditing authority regarding U.S. funds. With proper
controls, the corruption in the UN and Iraqi managed programs would be
only a small fraction of the corruption under GOP and Bush League mis-
management.
• The United States should immediately cancel all debts owed it by Iraq.
7. Impeach Bush and Cheney. (See Appendix A, “A Doubleheader: Impeach Bush

and Cheney Now.”)
8. Immediately after they leave office—whether or not impeachment is successful—

Bush and Cheney should be arrested, indicted and tried for their war crimes and
other criminal acts.
II. Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan

“The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man or one party or one
nation. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole
world.”—Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)
1. The United States must respect the rule of law, both U.S. law and international
law, and abide by its treaty obligations.
• The United States must unequivocally endorse the just war principles.
• The United States must unequivocally repudiate torture and endorse the
Geneva Conventions regarding torture. This clear unequivocal statement
must come straight from Congress and the president.
• The United States must repeal the 2006 U.S. Military Commissions Act.
• The United States must immediately join the International Criminal Court.
• The United States must support and accept the jurisdiction of the World
Court.
• The United States must support and stop undermining the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Specifically, America must: (1) begin working
effectively again with Russia to safeguard and destroy Russia’s stockpiles
of nuclear weapons and nuclear material; (2) stop testing and developing
“better” nukes; (3) stop undermining the NPT by unilaterally and illegally
cutting separate deals with nations such as India, and by ignoring the obli-
gation of the United States and the other nuclear powers to work together to
reduce and liquidate their stockpiles of nuclear weapons; (4) stop acting as
the world’s number one nuclear proliferator; and (5) immediately and dra-
matically cut America’s stockpile of nukes to a number that still ensures
unquestioned American deterrence.
2. America must rejoin the world community as a leader, not a dictator.

• America must reject the illegal, immoral and counterproductive Bush Doc-
trine of “preemptive intervention,” which gives America the right to attack
any nation and kill its citizens anytime it wishes, without just cause and
without a congressional declaration of war. This rejection will: (a) help re-
store America’s moral position in the world; (b) help restore a proper con-
stitutional balance of power between America’s legislative and executive
branches; and (c) not diminish America’s right of self defense under inter-
national law.
• America must abandon and completely repudiate forever all of the neocons’
imperial goals, which have their noxious roots in The Project for the New
American Century.
• Recognizing that force multiplication results from friends and allies will-
ingly working together to attain shared objectives, America must make ma-
jor league efforts to rebuild bridges with its friends and allies.
• America must follow the Five Pillars of a Strong Coalition proposed in this
book.
• America must dump the “war on terrorism” slogan that means nothing and
justifies everything. Rather than relying on slogans to drive and defend U.S.
military policy, America must define each of its military initiatives with
specificity as to target, objective and justification. It must stop the use of
partisan slogans masquerading as policy.
• America must join and lead the world community in addressing global
warming. The best first step is for America to sign and embrace the Kyoto
Protocol, which has been signed by more than 160 nations.
3. America must support and help lead international peace efforts.

• America must stop bashing—and once again support, improve and lead—
key world organizations, including the United Nations and NATO.
• America must endorse, support and help expand the UN’s role as the
world’s preeminent vehicle to resolve international crises.
• America should pay up to an additional $1 billion per year to strengthen the
UN’s peacekeeping missions, provided these funds are matched, dollar-for-
dollar, in additional funds by other nations.
• America must abrogate its ineffective counterproductive Bush League role
as the world’s self-appointed cop, and help the United Nations meet its
charter obligations to maintain peace. In doing so, the United States will be
able to dramatically strengthen its military at the same time it reduces its
military spending.
• America must end the Bush League bashing and misuse of neutral interna-
tional assistance organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors
Without Borders).
4. America must engage the world community in nation building, with the goal of
justice and freedom for all the citizens of each nation, not just the freedom of ruling
elites and multinational corporations to have their way.
• America should greatly expand the humanitarian capabilities and capacity
of its military. This would include an expanded fleet of hospital ships,
search and rescue teams, and quick response teams, which could act imme-
diately in the event of major natural disaster anywhere in the world.
• A Tithe For Peace: By 2012 America should devote an amount equal to
10% of its annual defense budget to worldwide peaceful initiatives and or-
ganizations such as the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), the U.S. Peace Corps, a permanent “Marshall Plan” for third
world countries, anti-HIV/AIDS programs for sub-Saharan Africa, and UN
assistance organizations.
• Making the United States Number One: By 2012 America should achieve
the intermediate goal of making America the number one nation in the per-
centage of gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to international nonmili-
tary aid.145
145
As of 2004 the United States was dead last among the developed nations, spending less
than 0.15% of its gross domestic product on such aid.
• America must use consistent verifiable metrics to measure the effectiveness

of its nonmilitary humanitarian assistance, and the assistance programs
must be free of religious and racial bias.
• America must adopt a human rights scorecard that tracks freedom, justice
and human rights. This human rights scorecard would replace Bush’s and
the GOP’s corporate rights scorecard that measures only the freedom of
corporate cronies and Big Business to have their way in the world, to the
detriment of the least, the last, and the lost.146
5. Israel and Palestine.

• America should ask and empower Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to repre-
sent America in an international effort to restart a peace process involving
Israel, the Palestinians and their neighbors, with the goal of a permanent
lasting peace mutually agreeable to the nations of Israel and Palestine.

and Cheney Now.”)

III. A 6-Point Plan to Support America’s Troops

“The Bush regime has no respect for America’s foot soldiers. Why should it care for
the footless ones?”—Jim Swanson
1. The best way for America to support its troops is to adopt the two plans set forth
above:
• Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan
• Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan—A 7-Point International Plan
2. America must support its veterans as well as its active forces, together with their
families.
• America must greatly increase education and job training support for its
veterans.
• America must reverse Bush’s and the GOP’s budget cuts for the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs (VA).
• America should pay $1 million to the family of each American soldier who
dies in Bush’s wars. The total amount so paid for all American deaths in
Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 through 2007 would be about $4 billion,
which is much less than the amount Bush spends in two weeks in Iraq.
146
The Bush administration and the GOP avoid using the term “human rights” because it re-
fers to the rights of humans, preferring instead in Orwellian fashion to use the more ambigu-
ous word “liberty,” which in Bushspeak connotes the liberty of huge corporations to pillage
and profit without restraint.
• When the cause is just and our troops are sent into harm’s way, the Ameri-
can people must demand that the commander in chief have a viable plan and
the troops have everything they need to achieve the mission.
• America must kill or capture bin Laden, the criminal who was 100% re-
sponsible for 9/11 (compared to zero percent responsibility for Saddam or
any other Iraqi, whether dead or alive.)
3. America must never again fight a war to gain domestic political advantage, or for
the privileged, the chosen few and the president’s political base.
• When America goes to war, everyone, including the rich, must share the
sacrifice, and the president must specify how it is shared.
• America must restore accountability and auditing to government military
contracting, and stop putting the interests of war profiteers ahead of our
troops.
• The rationale for war must be overwhelmingly clear and based on facts,
analysis and broad public debate, not partisan politics. The lying must stop.
• There must be comprehensive investigation of all aspects of the war in Iraq,
including any and all malfeasance of the Bush administration, both in the
run-up to the war and in the conduct of the war, and including government
contracting.
4. America must restore integrity and accountability to the U.S. military chain of
command.
• America must renounce the shifting of blame for Abu Ghraib and other vio-
lations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to low-level scapegoats in
America’s military, and must establish and empower independent investiga-
tions that lead to accountability and punishment as high in the chain of
command as warranted, which in the case of Abu Ghraib is very high.
• America must discipline its military leaders and other personnel who jeop-
ardize America’s foreign policy interests and the lives of America’s troops
by carrying a Crusader banner against other religions. America must eradi-
cate the bullying rightwing evangelism at the Air Force Academy and else-
where in America’s military.
• America must greatly reduce or eliminate the use of mercenaries to fight
America’s wars, since they are not employees of the United States, are not
directly in the U.S. military chain of command, and are not subject to the
rules of engagement and Code of Conduct that apply to America’s armed
forces.

and Cheney Now.”)

APPENDIX A
A Doubleheader: Impeach Bush

and Cheney Now
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral
crises, maintain their neutrality.
—Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
Although impeachment is a remedy generally not favored by most Americans, never

in America’s history has there been a more compelling case for impeachment than
during the reign of George Bush and Dick Cheney. The U.S. House of Representa-
tives must immediately start the impeachment process against Bush and Cheney by
conducting full and public investigations of their crimes and misdeeds.
America’s founding fathers created the constitutional remedy of impeachment for
exactly the type of situation in which America finds itself. Our founding fathers may
well be turning over in their graves, distressed that the impeachment process against
Bush and Cheney was not started long ago.
Impeachment is not a harsh remedy, especially given the circumstances. Bush
and Cheney will simply be removed from office, taking their incompetence and cor-
ruption with them. They will not be tortured. They will serve no time in prison.
There will be no probation. They will pay no fines. They will not be required to per-
form public service or make restitution to any of their many victims. They will retain
all their cushy retirement benefits including medical care and generous pensions.
They will be free to make millions of dollars hitting the circuit of their loyal cronies
and supporters.
They will simply be fired from their jobs.
Although the criminal rap sheet for Bush and Cheney is long and grim, these two
criminals will never pay for their crimes, and their countless victims, both past and
future, can never be made whole. Although impeachment is but a token payment for
those victims, it is an incredibly important action that must be taken.
The purpose of this impeachment is not to punish Bush and Cheney, but to re-
store America’s democracy and moral standing in the world.
The case for impeachment is overwhelming, even though the GOP-controlled
House of Representatives and Senate steadfastly ignored their oversight obligations
under the U.S. Constitution, impeding and stonewalling any serious investigation of
the misdeeds of Bush and Cheney. Thus the full extent of their culpability is not yet
known, and much may never be known.
The Bush White House is a huge infected elephant that has not had medical care
or a bowel movement in several years. It will take a long time to clean out all the
disease and crap, and much of the stench will linger forever.
Even in the unlikely case that what is known is not the tip of a much larger ice-
berg of corruption and malfeasance, that which is already known is so compelling
that anything short of impeachment jeopardizes America’s democracy and its consti-
tutional form of government.
Serious constitutional investigations became possible only when the 2006 mid-
term elections in November 2006 broke the GOP’s death grip on Congress and
America’s democracy. Many of the same Republicans who supported and lusted for
the impeachment of Clinton for lying about pre-sex with Monica Lewinsky refused
to take any action with regards to Bush and Cheney, whose lies, crimes and misdeeds
are at least one thousand times worse than Clinton’s, and, in sharp contrast to Clin-
ton’s, cost countless lives and diminished America’s democracy and security.
For good reason the American public never supported the GOP’s politically mo-
tivated impeachment of Clinton. In contrast, a growing majority of Americans sup-
ports the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the number continues to rise as ad-
ditional evidence of their malfeasance comes to light.
An October/November 2005 poll by Zogby International, a well-respected non-
partisan polling company that was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, found
that a majority (53%) of Americans favored the impeachment of Bush if he lied
about the war in Iraq. (He did lie, and he continues to lie). The 53% agreed with the
statement: “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war
with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeach-
ment.” Two years later, an increasing majority of Americans believed, correctly, that
Bush and Cheney lied about the reasons for their war on Iraq.
Of course, lying about the Iraq war is only one of several justifications for im-
peaching Bush and Cheney, and a growing majority of Americans favor impeaching
Bush and Cheney for some or all of these other reasons.
Here in abbreviated form is a list of charges (further discussed below) that should
be included in formal Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney:
• the warrantless surveillance and wiretapping of American citizens;
• authorizing torture, rendition, war crimes, and the creation of a Soviet-style
gulag of illegal secret prisons in several countries;
• invading and occupying Iraq in violation of international and U.S. law, and
misleading and lying to Congress, America’s allies and the American peo-
ple about the reasons for this illegal and counterproductive war;
• incompetence, negligence and recklessness rising to the level of impeach-
able misconduct relating to: (1) the just but unfinished war in Afghanistan;
(2) the unjust war in Iraq; (3) the feeble efforts to punish bin Laden and oth-
ers responsible for 9/11; and, possibly, (4) the events leading up to 9/11;
• illegally leaking classified information for partisan political purposes;
• the outing of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame in retaliation against her
husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson;
APPENDIX A — A DOUBLEHEADER: IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW 403
• authorizing or permitting relatives of bin Laden to flee the United States

shortly after 9/11, and obstructing justice, and conspiring to obstruct justice,
regarding investigations of the events leading up to 9/11;
• disregard and contempt for the U.S. Constitution, the Congress, the consti-
tutional separation of powers, the rule of law, and their oaths of office, in-
cluding the novel assertion and unprecedented seizing of unconstitutional
executive powers, and the willful violation of U.S. law, international law,
and U.S. treaty obligations;
• NOTE: We leave room below for the reader to insert his or her favorite
impeachable offenses of Bush and Cheney, and any additional impeachable
offenses that, after the publication of this book, see the light of day thanks
to whistleblowers within the Bush administration and other patriots who
have the courage to step forward and tell the truth about America’s worst
president, worst vice president, and most corrupt administration ever:
• ____________________________________________________
• ____________________________________________________
• ____________________________________________________
• ____________________________________________________
Impeachment Procedure
Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides: “The President, Vice Presi-
dent and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on im-
peachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misde-
meanors.”
The Constitution also broadly sets forth the procedural framework for the im-
peachment proceeding. Here’s a summary:
1) The House Judiciary Committee first decides whether there should be an
impeachment inquiry. If the Judiciary Committee wishes to proceed, it
passes a committee resolution seeking authority from the entire House of
Representatives to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry.
2) The entire House debates the Judiciary Committee request and, if it wishes
the inquiry to go forward, it adopts a resolution authorizing the Judiciary
Committee to proceed with the inquiry. This requires a majority vote of the
entire House.
3) The House Judiciary Committee then conducts a formal impeachment in-
quiry by gathering evidence, conducting hearings, calling witnesses, and so
forth, as it deems appropriate. At the end of its inquiry it prepares Articles
of Impeachment, which are subject to a majority vote of the committee, and
forwards them to the entire House.
4) The entire House then debates the Articles of Impeachment and passes or
rejects each Article of Impeachment by majority vote.
5) If one or more Articles of Impeachment are approved, the president is tech-
nically said to be “impeached,” and the proceeding moves to the Senate for
trial.
6) Based on the Articles of Impeachment received from the House, the Senate
conducts an impeachment trial, with all 100 senators serving as the jury and
the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The senators meet in
private session to debate their verdict, and they then vote in open session on
their verdict. A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required for conviction and
removal from office.
7) Under the chain of succession determined by the 25th Amendment of the
Constitution, the vice president automatically becomes president when the
president is removed. Since the Senate has the sole power to try all im-
peachments, the accused has no right of appeal to any federal court.
Technically, the term “impeachment” is quite narrow and refers only to the
House of Representatives passing, by majority vote, one or more Articles of Im-
peachment, regardless of the outcome of any subsequent trial in the Senate. As noted
above, by adopting Articles of Impeachment, the House is said to have “impeached”
the president. This is somewhat analogous to being indicted for a crime, and a trial in
the Senate is still required. However, the term “impeachment” is most commonly
used in a much broader sense to describe the entire process starting with the im-
peachment inquiry initiated and conducted by the House of Representatives and end-
ing with an impeachment trial in the Senate. We use the term in this broader sense in
this book.
More detailed impeachment charges are set forth in the Articles of Impeachment
below:
Articles of Impeachment
[NOTE: The Articles of Impeachment set forth below charge only George W. Bush.
Similar Articles of Impeachment apply to Dick Cheney and should be prosecuted at
the same time.]
In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, George W. Bush, in
violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Consti-
tution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has:
• participated in a conspiracy directed from the Bush White House to lie to
and mislead the U.S. Congress and the American people about the reasons
for invading and occupying Iraq, including misleading statements and lies
about Iraq’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability, the threat of
weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), connections between 9/11 and Iraq,
connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, and the imminent threat of Iraq to
the United States and other nations.
• waged war on Iraq in violation of U.S. law and international law, including
the United Nations charter, and in violation of Congress’ authority to de-
termine the necessity of war, by means of lying to Congress about the rea-
sons for war, including making false statements to Congress in violation of
the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, the violation of which is a
felony, which false statements include the president’s formal written letter
and report dated March 18, 2003, that he submitted to Congress, as required
by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by Congress in October 2002.
APPENDIX A — A DOUBLEHEADER: IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW 405
• incompetently, negligently and recklessly engaged in misconduct so ex-

treme that it rises to the level of criminal and impeachable misconduct, re-
lating to:
1) the planning and conduct of the just but unfinished war in Afghani-
stan;
2) the planning and conduct of his unjust war in Iraq;
3) the feeble efforts to punish bin Laden and others responsible for
9/11; and
4) the events leading up to 9/11.
• authorized, sanctioned, and engaged in conspiracy and cover-up regarding
war crimes, torture, rendition (including sending people overseas to be tor-
tured), and the creation of a Soviet-style gulag of illegal secret prisons in
several countries, in violation of U.S. law including the War Crimes Act of
1996 (which provides for punishments including the death penalty), and
international law including the Geneva Conventions and international trea-
ties. At a minimum, he sanctioned torture and other unlawful conduct, con-
spired to protect abusers from prosecution, and allowed torture and other
unlawful conduct to continue.
• repeatedly violated, and continues to violate, the Foreign Intelligence Sur-
veillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution,
and other constitutional protections of American citizens, by directing the
National Security Agency and other executive personnel to conduct illegal
electronic surveillance or other illegal investigations of American citizens
without a court order.147
• obstructed justice, and conspired to obstruct justice, regarding the preceding
charge, by repeatedly lying to the American people and Congress about his
violations of FISA and the Constitution, including violations of the constitu-
tional rights of American citizens under the Fourth Amendment, which pro-
hibits searches and seizures without judicial warrants based on probable
cause.
• obstructed justice, and conspired to obstruct justice, by opposing, and fail-
ing to fully cooperate with, investigations into the events leading up to 9/11,
and by authorizing, or failing to prevent, the flight of relatives of bin Laden
from the United States shortly after 9/11.
• illegally leaked classified information for partisan political purposes.
• violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which protects
the identity of undercover intelligence agents, in authorizing the outing of
147
Thousands of telephone calls by American citizens were illegally monitored without court
order, and the full truth will never be known without a full investigation. Conducting wiretaps
(also known as “electronic surveillance”) without a court order was a central charge in the
articles of impeachment brought against Richard Nixon in 1974, and the illegal wiretaps by
Nixon led not only to his resignation but also to the passage of FISA in 1978, the violation of
which is a felony.
Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative, and/or engaging in a conspiracy to

cover up the same.
• fashioned out of thin air and claimed the novel dictatorial power of the
president at any time to openly or secretly imprison American citizens
whom he alone determines or simply asserts may be a threat to America,
without any right of the seized to have legal representation or any other due
process of law guaranteed by the Constitution. Under the dictatorial powers
claimed by Bush, American citizens can be arrested at any time, and simply
disappear into a Bush-styled gulag without a trace for the rest of their lives,
without being informed of the charges against them, and without any notifi-
cation of their families.
• claimed the novel power as commander in chief to violate the new anti-
torture law passed by Congress in 2005.
• disregarded and showed contempt for, and continues to disregard and show
contempt for, the Constitution, the Congress, the constitutional separation
of powers, the rule of law, and his presidential oath of office, and engaged
in the willful systematic abuse of his executive powers, including the novel
assertion and unprecedented seizing of unconstitutional executive powers,
and the willful systematic violation of both U.S. law and international law,
including the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and treaty obligations.
• subverted, and continues to subvert, America’s democracy by claiming that
executive privilege and national security place him above the law and give
him not only the power to do virtually anything he wishes, whether or not
legal and whether or not constitutional, but also the power to keep his ac-
tions secret from both the American people and Congress.
In all of this, George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the
cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial,
and removal from office.
Bush and Cheney threaten America’s Constitution and its democracy. Their
claim to unbridled power echoes that of disgraced Richard Nixon, who in 1977 in-
famously asserted, “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Impeach Bush and Cheney now!
Index
60 Minutes, 323, 358 Albright, Madeleine, 334
700 Club, 209 Alcoa, 237
AARP sellout of Medicare, 248–49 Alcott, Amos Bronson, 265
Abbas, Mahmoud, 182 Alexander Strategy Group, 159
Abbasid Caliph, 140 Algeria, 107
ABC, 122, 189, 333, 334, 336, 349 Al-Haram al-Sharif, 208
Abdullah, King, 106 Alice in Wonderland, 270, 369
Abizaid, John, 82, 139 Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), 308
abortion, 170, 178, 189, 229 aliens, 252
Abramoff scandals. See Abramoff, Jack Alito, Samuel, 306
Abramoff, Jack, 159, 366, 367, 370, 371, Allah, 68, 179, 288
373 Allawi, Ayad, 54, 74
Abrams, Elliott, 11, 86, 301 Allen, Bob, 373
Abu Ghraib, 110, 136, 154, 299, 307, 327, American Civil War, 217, 218, 359
329, 339, 381, 394, 400 American Enterprise Institute, 291, 332,
Accenture, 362 356
Advertising.com, 336 American exceptionalism, 69, 300
Afghanistan, v, 5, 6, 9, 22, 23, 39, 41–49, American Forces Network, 215, 341, 342
57, 60, 61, 79, 83, 85, 95, 113, 116, American Israel Public Affairs Committee
124, 129, 163, 227, 281, 300, 301, (AIPAC), 66
317, 326, 391, 399, 402, 405 American Petroleum Institute, 291
and 8-Point Plan for Iraq and American Red Cross, 345
Afghanistan, 393–96 American Revolutionary War, 34, 43, 72,
coalition deaths by year in, 44 109, 217
Iran's offer to fight with U.S. in, 47–48 American Spectator, 350
opium production in, 42–43 amillennialism, 197, 199
Special Forces removed from, 44 Amin, Idi, 150
Africa, 108, 188, 351, 353, 355 Amman, 80
AfterDowningStreet.org, 402 Amnesty International, 110, 152
Age of Endarkenment, 175 Anbar province, 80
Age of Enlightenment, 175 Angola, 108, 125, 135
Agency for International Development, Antarctica, 61, 108
U.S. (USAID), 398 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 51
Agnew, Spiro, 6, 321 Anti-Christ, 195, 198, 199
agnostics, 212 Antideficiency Act, 245
Agustsson, Helgi, 137 anti-Semitism, 65, 207
AIDS, 150, 188, 189, 398 Anzar, Jose Maria, 145
Air America Radio, 338, 343 AOL, 335
Air Force Academy, 400 Apocalypse, 205
Air Force, U.S., 79 Four Horsemen of the, 60
Al Ghavraf oil fields, 138 Apostles, 205
al Qaeda, 5, 7, 31, 41, 42, 41–44, 58, 85, Arab League, 78, 394, 395
106, 119, 132, 145, 182, 315, 318, Arabic, 44, 192, 302
342, 347, 348, 391, 396, 404 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Al-Aksa Mosque, 208 (ANWR), 292
Alaska, 283, 291, 292–93, 373 Are We Living in the End Times?
Albania, 113, 124 (LaHaye & Jenkins), 201
408 INDEX
Argentina, 278 Baptists, 171, 187, 213, 215

Arizona, 372 Barbour, Haley, 244
Arkansas, 368 Barnett, Arnold, 313
Armageddon, vii, 5, 68, 96, 147, 168, Barroso, Durão, 143
177, 195, 198–200, 240, 270 Bartlett, Bruce, 248
Armed Forces Radio. See American Bashir, Omar el-, 150
Forces Network Basque separatists (ETA), 145
Armenia, 113, 126, 128 Basra, 134, 135
Armenian Christians, 148 Bates, John, 287
Armitage, Richard, 11, 31, 351, 352 Battle Ready (Zinni, Clancy & Koltz), 85
Army, U.S., 156, 160 Bauer, Gary, 175
Articles of Impeachment against Bush Bay of Pigs, 374
and Cheney, 404–6 BDO Seidman, 286
Ashcroft, John, 31, 202, 351, 369 Bearden, Milt, 354
Assad, Hafez al-, 107 Beatitudes, 177
Assyrian Christians in Iraq, 79 Bechtel, 52, 379
asymmetrical warfare, 75 Beck, Glenn, 340
At the Center of the Storm (Tenet), 317, bedwetting conservatives, 20, 56, 311,
320 312
atheists, 196, 212 Beijing, 146
Athens, Greece, 123 Beirut bombing, 151
Atlanta Braves, 336 and Reagan's 9/11, 16
Attorneys, U.S.. See U.S. Attorneys Belgium, 152
Australia, 92, 100, 110, 126, 140, 247, Berezovsky, Boris, 387
339, 340 Berger, Oscar, 135
Austria, iii, 152 Berlusconi, Silvio, 137, 355
Axis of Evil, 19, 37, 44, 47, 57, 144 Bertelsmann, 335, 337
Axis of Feeble, 93, 326, 394 Best Democracy Money Can Buy (Palast),
Azerbaijan, 113, 128 362
Aznar, Jose Maria, 145 Bible, 175, 181, 185, 193, 197, 206, 209,
Baath Party, 84 372
de-Baathification, 53, 75, 84 and Holy Bible vs. Holey Bible, 178,
Babil Province, 207 213, 316
baby boomers, 238, 240 and repentance, 328
Babylon, 196, 206, 208 Eighth Commandment of, 213
Camp Babylon at, 207 prophets of the, 185
Babylonia, Kingdom of, 207 Bible Belt, 219
Bagabandi, Natsagiyn, 140 Big Four accounting firms, 285
Bagdikian, Ben, 337 Big Pharma, 244–48
Baghdad, 206, 220, 313, 328 Bill of Rights, 10, 212, 219, 298, 303
and sacking by the Mongols, 140 bin Laden, Osama, iv, 7, 8, 12, 16, 22, 32,
Bahrain, 106, 152 41, 42, 49, 58, 60, 68, 70, 106, 108,
Baker, James, 394 193, 225, 254, 300, 333, 383, 391,
Baker-Cutler Commission, 35 392, 400, 402, 403, 405
Bandar bin Sultan. See bin Sultan, Bandar and comparison with Bush, 190–93
Bangladesh, 102 and no connections to Saddam, 58–61
Bank Millennium (Poland), 142 post-9/11 evacuation of relatives of, 71
bank robbers, 185, 278 bin Sultan, Bandar, 323
and Neil Bush, 384, 385 birth tax, 278
bankruptcy, vii, 84, 226, 240, 248, 251, black box voting, 361
379, 385 Black Nobility, 169
of America by GOP, 265–94 Black Sea, 128, 143
INDEX 409
Black Watch soldiers (Britain), 134 and bin Laden’s clan leaving U.S., 9,
Black, J. Cofer, 7, 8 70
Blackwater, 55, 78, 154, 158–59, 162 and GOP corruption in Iraq, 378–84
and its Fiasco in Fallujah, 155, 154–55 and illegal wiretaps, 298, 303–5
as the "whores of war", 159 and lack of personal sacrifice, 325–26
Blackwater (Scahill), 158 and Niger forgeries, 354–58
Blackwell, Kenneth, 359, 360 and obstructing the ICC, 299–300
Blaine, Rick, 59, 71, 128, 338, 350 and outing of agent Plame, 351–53
Blair, Tony, 64, 93, 96, 106, 114, 116, and selling out the Kurds, 149
123, 132, 145, 326, 329, 394 and slow response to 9/11, 44
Blankenburg, Dan, 371 and the pottery barn rule, 121
Blix, Hans, 59 and the Vilnius Group, 125
Bob Jones University, 201 and U.S. Attorneys scandal, 367–70
Boeing, 312 as wrong role model for Iraq, 78
Bolton, John, 11, 301 denial of responsibility by, 327–30
Bondevik, Kjell Magne, 141 disrespect of NATO by, 116–17
Bonn Agreement, 41 energy policies of, 286–94
Bosnia & Herzegovina, 113, 128, 326 environmental policies of, 286–94
cost of peacekeeping in, 48 going AWOL in Afghanistan, 47
Boston Globe, 376 groupthink by, 5, 59, 85, 327
Bowen, Debra, 361 immoral budgets of, 173–74
Bowen, Jr., Stuart, 379, 380, 382 neocons in, 11
Boykin, William, 194 Office of Drug Control Policy in, 43
Brahimi, Lakhdar, 21 patronage system of, 381
Brandel, Jan, 287 war crimes of, 297–302
Brazil, 102 Bush family motto, 214, 387
Bremer, Paul, 6, 21, 53, 54, 55, 74, 79, Bush League of Nations, i, iii, v, vi, vii,
150, 157, 375, 378 10, 28, 58, 69, 82, 85, 91–98, 167,
100 Orders of, 52–55, 84 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 182, 192,
Briody, Dan, 383 194, 220, 225, 226, 253, 273, 288,
Britain. See Great Britain 326, 341, 378, 380, 382, 394, See also
British Army, 64 Coalition of the Willing
British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC), 362 and 10 reasons why U.S. must
British Museum, 207 withdraw from Iraq, 117–22
Brock, David, 350 and coalition deaths by nation, 114–15
Brokeback Mountain, 191 and coalition deaths by quarter, 115–
Brokeback Mountain II, 193 16
Brolan, James, 334 and NATO, 116–17
Brown, Bob, 127 and troops contributed by country,
Brown, Gordon, 134 110–14
Bubble of American Supremacy (Soros), Arab and Muslim opposition to, 106–
19 10
Buchanan, Pat, 65, 108 Gulf War I coalition compared to,
Buddhism, 195 103–6
Buffalo, New York, 304 members of, 123–52
Buffet, Warren, 236 Office of Reconstruction and
Buffoon in a Bubble, 137 Humanitarian Assistance of, 135
Bulgaria, 100, 110, 114, 124, 128, 135 other names for, 99–101
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 280 propaganda about, 101–3
Bush administration, 65 bush league, definitions of, i
allowing genocide in Darfur, 98–99 Bush, Barbara, 386, 387
and billions in cash missing, 375
410 INDEX
Bush, George H. W., vii, 10, 18, 42, 48, Bush Family Pass for, 3, 9, 192, 221,
103, 109, 110, 147, 148, 208, 217, 319
254, 268, 321, 323, 351, 352, 383, 386 Bushisms of, 14
Bush, George W., 268, 346, 356, 357, cut-and-run plan of, 55
368, 369 denial of responsibility by, 327–30
and 25 years of college living, 12 earns grade F in Afghanistan, 51
and 9/11—his luckiest day, 8 ended Israeli-Palestinian peace
and arming Iraqi insurgents, 254 process, 68
and banners he carries, vi, vii, 176, entering groupthink chamber, 12, 97
188, 191, 213, 230, 269, 374 flip flopping in Iraq by, 83–84
and baseball, i impeachment of, 401–6
and blaming the troops, 329 intellectual detachment of, 319
and Bush Terrorist Decks, 33 intellectual laziness of, 323–24
and Chalabi, 331–32 lies of, 237
and Clear Channel, 343 meeting Saddam in Hell, 220–22
and comparison with bin Laden, 190– My Pet Goat read by, 3
93 on a crusade, 4–5
and education—Leave No Rich Child on Mission Accomplished, 23
Behind, 252–53 participating in a conspiracy, 119
and explosion in national debt, 273–81 personal exit strategy of, 226
and explosion in trade deficits, 282–84 personal shortcomings of, 12, 322
and extraordinary rendition, 307–9 poor judgment of, 326–27
and God, 180–86 preemptive intervention doctrine of,
and his Five Wrong War on Iraq, 329 96, 397
and his inability to empathize, 324–25 quotes by, 3, 4, 22, 36, 41, 60, 64, 91,
and ideology over truth and 95, 117, 122, 225, 231, 239, 242,
competence, 330–32 252, 253, 258, 289, 321, 323
and increasing poverty, 258–63 squandering historic opportunity, 4
and lack of personal sacrifice, 325–26 State of the Union address of, 47, 75,
and lies about wiretapping, 304–5 216, 254, 331, 351, 353, 358
and need to repent, 328 tax cuts of, 235
and no appetite for nation building, 6 visit to Mongolia by, 141
and no interest in foreign affairs, 14 weak work ethic of, 324
and obstructing 9/11 investigations, 8 Bush, Jeb, 11, 188, 333, 362, 363
and outing of agent Plame, 351–53 Bush, Laura, 75, 331
and Pioneers/Rangers, 360 Bush, Neil, 384–87
and Pseudo Christianity, 192 and prostitutes, 386
and signing statements, 306–8 Bush, Reggie, 108
and unemployment in Iraq and Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, 387
America, 253–58 Bush's poodle. See Blair, Tony
approval rating of, 281 Byrd, Robert, 97, 99
Articles of Impeachment against, 404– CACI International, 381
6 Caesar, 172
as America’s King George III, iv, 34, cakewalk in Iraq, iv, 18, 117, 122, 315
97, 114, 217, 303 Cal State Fullerton, viii
as America's King George the Mad, California, 247, 287, 345, 360, 366, 370,
306 371
as America's Liar in Chief, 304 Calvin College, 189
as the Bubble President, 313 Calvin, John, 199, 205
as the Decider, 14, 91, 204, 308, 323 Cameroon, 135
bankruptcy of America by, 265–94 Camp Babylon, 207
Camp David, 259
INDEX 411
Campaign For Working Families, 175 Cheney, Dick, iv, vii, 3, 6, 11, 18, 19, 31,
Canada, 59, 113, 152, 250 60, 62, 64, 72, 84, 101, 133, 154, 156,
reimportation of prescription drugs 161, 182, 185, 221, 222, 227, 272,
from, 247–48 289, 297, 301, 320, 326, 327, 329,
Cannistraro, Vincent, 354 330, 346, 356, 357, 359, 368, 380
Cardoso, Fernando, 221 and energy task force, 286–89
Carlyle Group, 154, 383–84 and Niger forgeries, 354–58
Carnegie Endowment, 59 and outing of agent Plame, 351–53
Carter Center, 187 and picking himself to be VP, 322
Carter, Jimmy, 10, 188, 267, 383, 399 Articles of Impeachment against, 404–
should lead Middle East peace 6
process, 66–68 impeachment of, 401–6
Carter, Rosalynn, 187 participating in a conspiracy, 119
Cartoon Network, 335 Cheney, Lynne, 227
Casablanca (the movie), 59, 71, 128, 222, Cheney, Mary, 227
287, 329, 338, 350 Cherokee Indians, 339
Casey, George, 82 Chevron, 289
Caspian Sea, 61, 128 Chicago Sun-Times, 4
Castle Rock Entertainment, 336 Chicanos, 186
Castro, Fidel, 188 chickenhawks, 33, 56, 311
Catholic Church, 196, 205, 327 Chile, 135
Catholics, 179, 180, 200, 201, 213, 374 China, 6, 36, 37, 44, 48, 102, 140, 277,
CBOS governmental polling agency, 142 293, 298, 299, 385, 386, 392
CBS, 335, 349 number of foreign military bases, 57
CBS News, 71, 332, 334 Christ, 181, 197, 331
Census Bureau, 259, 260 Second Coming of, 200
CENTCOM, 85 Third Coming of, 200
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Christian Broadcasting Company, 214
Assessments, 56 Christian Coalition of America, 189
Center for Strategic International Studies, Christian Freedom International, 158
82 Christian Peacemaker Teams, 220
Central America, 74, 135, 136, 301 Christian Right. See Religious Right
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 7, 11, Cimoszewicz, Wlodzimierz, 142
18, 44, 54, 314, 319, 320, 367, 383, Cinemax, 335
402, 406 Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics, 372
and extraordinary rendition, 307–9 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 215, 363
and Niger forgeries, 354–58 civilian contractor. See mercenaries
and outing of agent Plame, 351–53 Clancy, Tom, 85
and torture in Uzbekistan, 151–52 Clark, Wesley, 85
Chaffee, Lincoln, 273 Clarke, Richard, 70
Chalabi, Ahmed, 53, 62, 77, 84, 136, Clear Channel Communications, 341–42
331–32 and Minot, North Dakota, 344–46
as darling of the neocons, 331–32 Clear Skies Initiative, 290
Free Iraqi Forces of, 136 Clinton, Bill, 10, 19, 42, 48, 66, 70, 71,
Chaldean Catholics in Iraq, 79 97, 109, 124, 125, 132, 174, 199, 237,
Chandrasekaran, Rajiv, 378 256, 261, 268, 272, 275, 318, 321,
Charlton, Paul, 372 334, 399, 402
Chaudhry, Lakshmi, 315 and A+ grade in fiscal trust, 261–63
Chavez, Hugo, 30, 187 and declining poverty, 259
Chechnya, 341 and jobs creation, 256
Chen, Shui-bian, 146 and pre-sex, 261–63
and warning Bush about bin Laden, 7
412 INDEX
and welfare reform, 66–68 252, 255, 261, 269, 270, 279, 285,
GOP's witch hunt against, 319 287, 290, 291, 300, 303, 305, 306,
rejection of the neocons by, 15 307, 318, 326, 338, 346, 347, 357,
should lead Middle East peace 374, 375, 376, 396, 397, 402, 404,
process, 66–68 406, See also specific committees
Clinton, Hillary, 199, 268 and 109th GOP Congress of Crooks
CNN, 180, 335, 349, 356, 382 and Creeps, 365–74
Coalition, 123 and Big Pharma legislation, 244–48
Coalition of the Billing, 99 and corruption in Iraq, 378–84
Coalition of the Shilling, 100 and the K Street Project, 231–32
Coalition of the Silly, 100, 127 Congressional Budget Office, 261, 275
Coalition of the Sinning, 101 Congressional Quarterly, 33, 105
Coalition of the Unwilling, 99 Conrad, Kent, 273
Coalition of the UN-willing, 99 Conservative Party (Canada), 113
Coalition of the Unwilling to be Maimed, conservative, definition of, 265
100 conservatives. See neocons
Coalition of the Unwilling to be Named, Constitution, U.S., iv, viii, 34, 52, 77, 81,
100 178, 184, 205, 212, 219, 226, 227,
Coalition of the Wanting, 101 270, 281, 297, 298, 302, 319, 324,
Coalition of the Welfare States, 99 329, 357, 363, 367, 401, 404, 406
Coalition of the Willies, 99 and Articles of Impeachment against
Coalition of the Willing, v, 58, 91, 92, 94, Bush and Cheney, 404–6
99–101, 129, 145, 146, 394, See Bush and destruction of constitutional
League of Nations democracy by GOP, 374–78
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), 7, and separation of church and state,
52, 54, 72, 76, 79, 93, 157, 158, 378, 169–76
379 and torture, 299–300, 307–9
100 Orders of, 52–55 and unitary executive, 305–8
Code of Conduct (U.S. Military), 400 and wiretaps, 298, 303–5
Code of Military Justice, 157, 300, 308, First Amendment of, 173, 343
329, 400 Fourth Amendment of, 303, 405
cognitive dissonance, 318 impeachment procedure of, 403–4
Cold War, iv, 18, 19, 29, 30 Nineteenth Amendment of, 218
Collins, Susan, 273, 377 Twenty-fifth Amendment of, 404
Colonel Sanders, 359 Cooney, Phillip, 176, 291
Colorado, 384 Coral Ridge Ministries, 214
Columbia, 129 Corleone, Vito and Michael, 379
Commerce Department, 288 corporatism. See fascism
Committee of 300, 169 Costa Rica, 100, 129
Common Cause, 346 Costco, 256
Communist Party, 386 Council for National Policy, 202
Compassion Capital Fund, 173 Council on Environmental Quality, 291
compassionate conservative, 99, 217, 335 CounterPunch, 298
Comptroller General of the U.S., 279, 280 Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit), U.S., 347
Compuserve, 336 COW, the coalition that milks U.S., 99
Confederacy, 207 Craig, Larry, 372, 373
Confederate Party, 24, 25, 78, 108, 185, Crawford, Texas, 324
186, 218, 273, 377, 392 creation science, 175
Congress, U.S., iv, 8, 12, 13, 15, 33, 37, creationism, 181, 201
55, 60, 63, 65, 68, 75, 79, 119, 156, crimes against humanity, 297, 299
157, 158, 159, 173, 174, 189, 208, Croatia, 124, 125, 129
225, 227, 232, 238, 241, 242, 244, Crocker, Ryan, 63
INDEX 413
Cross, Tim, 135 national defense strength of, 316–17

Cuba. See also Guantanamo Bay Democrats, 181, 186
number of foreign military bases, 57 Denmark, 100, 110, 130
Culture of Corruption, 55, 178 deregulation, 163, 229, 241, 242, 287,
culture of death. See culture of life 336, 342, 343
culture of life, 178, 180 Designated Pagan Driver, 200
Cummins, H.E., 368 Diebold, 360–61
Cunningham, Randy, 159, 366, 367 Disney, 333, 335, 337
Curveball, 62 Dispensationalism, 204
Czech Republic, 113, 130 Divine Comedy (Dante), 401
Czechoslovakia, 143 Dixie Chickenhawks, 313
Daily Mail, 64 Dixie Chicks, 61, 345, 346
Daily Mirror, 310 Dobson, James, 158, 172, 196, 215, 341
Daily Telegraph, 332 Dome of the Rock, 208
Dallas, 286 Domenici, Pete, 369
Dallas Cowboys, 217 Dominican Republic, 100, 101, 110, 130,
Damascus, 80 131, 146
Daniel, Book of, 198 Dominionists, 214
Dannatt, Richard, 64, 65 Donahue, Phil, 92
Dante Alighieri, 401 Doolittle, John, 371
Darby, John, 204 Dorgan, Byron, 247, 345, 346
Darfur, 98–99, 300 Douglas, Paul, 334
Darwin, Charles, 181 Dow Jones Industrial Average, 202
Das Kapital, 301 Dowd, Matthew, 85
David, Kingdom of, 208 Downing Street Memo, 64
Davis, Jefferson, 218 Dozier, Kimberly, 334
Dayan, Moshe, 393 drinking water, 72, 381
DC Comics, 336 Drumheller, Tyler, 358
Dearborn, Michigan, 73 Dubai, 160
death squads, 74, 81, 120, 130, 136, 301 Dummies for Bush, 324
death tax. See estate tax DynCorp, 154, 379
Debt Reduction Act of 1993, 269 Dzurinda, Mikulas, 144
Deck of Cards, 33 earmarks, vii, 174, 367, 376, See also
Defence Weekly (Jane's), 130 pork
defense contractors, 159, 366, 367 earthly people, 204
Defense Department, 12, 36, 37, 79, 160, Eastern Europe, 154
276, 326, 353, 374 Eastern European Task Force, U.S., 143
American Forces Network of, 215, Eastern Michigan University, 288
341 Eastern Orthodox Church, 205
inspector general of, 158 eBay, 79
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), 354 Ebert, Roger, 4
Defense Policy Board, 86 Economic Policy Institute, 255
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 262 Economist, 326, 340
deficits, vii, 24, 174, 178, 226, 232, 233, Edgar Bergen and Charley McCarthy, 8
235, 238, 240, 241, 243, 258, 265–84, Egypt, 48, 67, 102, 106, 107, 108, 293,
285, 330, 392 294, 309
DeLay, Tom, 82, 159, 232, 245, 259, 366 Eighth Commandment, 213
Democratic Congress Einstein, Albert, 241, 278
and start of investigations, 374–78 Eisenhower, Dwight, 10, 270, 316, 365
Democratic National Convention, 261 Eisner, Michael, 333
Democratic Party, 215, 217, 265, 340, El Salvador, 110, 131, 146
374 electoral fraud, 359–63
414 INDEX
electricity, 72, 78, 242, 382 federal budget deficits. See deficits
Elston, Mike, 368 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 70,
Emancipation Proclamation, 217 332, 352, 371, 372, 385
Emanuel, Ari, 333 and tracking of GOP crooks, 385
embassy (U.S.) in Baghdad. See Green Federal Communications Commission
Zone (FCC), 187, 336, 343
End Times, 5, 68, 96, 168, 194, 195–209, media concentration rules of, 346–47
213 federal debt. See national debt
Energy Department, 374 Federal Emergency Management Agency
energy policies, 286–94 (FEMA), 216, 244, 377–78
energy task force. See National Energy Federal Reserve Bank, 277, 375
Policy Development Group (NEPDG) Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 280
England, 204, See Great Britain Feith, Douglas, 72, 86, 320, 357
Enron, 78, 163, 231, 242, 286, 287 Fico, Robert, 144
environmental policies, 176, 189, 286–94 Fielding, Fred, 370
environmentalists, 186 Fiji, 127, 152, 162
Episcopalians, 192 Final Judgment, 195, 199
equal time, 336 Financial Times, 298
Eritrea, 108, 131 Finland, 152
Ernst & Young, 286 First Great Awakening, 205
ES&S, 360 First Temple, 208
eschatology, 68, 195, 203 FISA Court. See Foreign Intelligence
estate tax, 229, 235, 236, 237, 241, 285 Surveillance Act (FISA)
Estonia, 113, 124, 131 fiscal burden. See Government
Ethiopia, iii, 102, 108, 131 Accountability Office
ethnic cleansing, 52, 79, 120, 124, 300, Fitzgerald, Patrick, 351–52, 357
371 Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About
Euphrates River, 155 Iraq (Scheer, Scheer & Chaudhry),
Europe, 98, 116, 252, 338 315
European Union, 133, 137, 149 Five Pillars of a Strong Coalition, 28–29,
evolution, 169, 175, 181 41, 397
extraordinary rendition, 151, 309, 307–9, Five Wrong War, 329
402, 405 Flight 77, 159
Extreme Religious Right (ERR), 169–70 Florida, 214, 288, 333, 359, 362, 370,
Exxon, 291 373, 379, 387
Exxon Valdez, 291 Focus on the Family, 158, 215
Fahrenheit 9/11 (Moore), 3, 333 Foggo, Kyle, 367
faith-based initiatives, 173, 212, 262 Foley, Mark, 370
Fallujah, 84, 107, 134, 154 Forbes, 250, 337
False Statements Accountability Act, 404 Forbes 400 Richest Americans, 257
Falwell, Jerry, 170, 172, 175, 180, 196, Forbes, Steve, 11
345 Ford, Gerald, 10, 267
families of 9/11 victims, 322 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
family farms, 236 (FISA), 303–5, 405
family valuables, 385, 387 Foreign Service, 123, 302
family values, 214, 218, 372, 373, 386, Fort Knox, 266
387 Fortune, 335
FARC rebel forces, 129 Forza Italia, 137
fascism, 69, 137, 167, 297, 330, 386 Foster, Richard, 244
definition of, 314, 343 Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, 60
Fathers of the Church, 205 fourth estate, 303
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 287 Fourth Reich, 297
INDEX 415
Fox News, 11, 23, 103, 334, 339, 340, GLBT rights, 219, 373
343, 347–50 global peak oil. See peak oil
Fox, Tom, 220 global warming, 189, 289, 291
France, 11, 16, 102, 109, 110, 152, 186, Global/World Corruption Report, 83
214, 298, 317, 331, 356 GlobeScan, 382
number of foreign military bases, 57 Glorious Appearing (LaHaye & Jenkins),
Francke, Rend Rahim, 79 202
Franken, Al, 254, 338, 341, 343 God, vii, 37, 69, 72, 168, 170, 171, 172,
Franks, Tommy, 72 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 191, 194,
Free Iraqi Forces, 136 195, 198, 201, 203, 206, 209, 214,
free speech zones, 324 230, 261, 290, 291, 328, 369, 372, 392
freebie enterprise system, 261, 380 and Bush, 180–86
freedom fries, 116, 149, 366 God Bless America, 69
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 183 God Bless France, 69
French guillotine, 330 God Bless Iraq, 69
Friedman, Thomas, 289 God's Politics (Wallis), 213
Fritz, Johann, 101 Goering, Herman, 297
Fukuyama, Francis, 301 Golden Mosque in Samarra, 75
fundamentalism, 20, 171, 172, 173, 176, Goldwater, Barry, 171, 270
178, 180, 185, 190 Goliath, 281
Future of Iraq project, 72 Gonzales, Alberto, 151, 157, 300
Gabon, 353 and U.S. Attorneys scandal, 367–70
Gadsden County (Florida), 362 Goodling, Monica, 368, 369
Gallop poll, 73 Goodman, Amy, 338
Garrido, Augie, viii Goodman, Melvin, 354, 356
Gates, Bill, 236 GOP Crime Rate (Grime Rate), 374
Gates, Sr., Bill, 236 GOP stands for
Gaul, 109 Gang of Pharisees, 179, 196
gay marriage, 189, 226, 227–28 Gang of Pigs, 232
Gaza, 66, 209, 230 Gang of Plunderers, 380
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Gang Of Porkers, 376
(GATT), 298 George Orwell Party, 297
General Electric, 92, 335, 337 Grease Our Palms, 365
Genesis, Book of, 207 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 10, 17, 18
Geneva Conventions, 27, 28, 119, 157, Gore, Al, 71, 234
206, 298, 299, 300, 308, 309, 397, Government Accountability Office
405, 406 (GAO), 73, 245, 279, 280, 287, 332,
genocide, 52, 81, 98–99, 120, 121, 128, 380
143, 148, 150, 183, 299, 317 Total Burden calculated by, 279–81
George III, King, 34, 217 Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing,
George, Boy, 136 385, 386
Georgia, 110, 131 Graham, Billy, 207, 384
Germany, iii, 11, 22, 84, 102, 298, 335, Grand Old Party (GOP). See Republican
337, 345, 381 Party (GOP)
Get Smart "cone of silence", 157 Graves, Todd, 368
Get-Out-of-Jail card, 203 Great Britain, 4, 81, 92, 93, 94, 96, 100,
Gibran, Kahlil, 153 103, 109, 110, 114, 126, 129, 142,
Gilded Age, 272 144, 148, 153, 155, 204, 298, 351,
Gimli, 214, 391 356, 394
Gingrich, Newt, 240, 372 and the Bush League, 132–35
Giraldi, Philip, 354 de-surging troop levels of, 134
Giuliani, Rudy, 372
416 INDEX
Great Depression, ii, vii, 24, 254, 311, health care and health insurance, 249–52
316 Health Maintenance Organization
Great Depression II, 24, 226, 240 (HMO), 244, 245
Great Disappointment, 205 Healthy Forests Initiative, 290
Great Disappointment Redux, 205 Heaton, William, 366
great tribulation. See tribulation heavenly people, 204
Greece, 152 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 360
Green Berets, 162 Helvenston, Katy, 159
Green Party (Australia), 127 Herbert, Bob, 244
Green Zone, 121, 161, 393 Heritage Foundation, 129, 381
Greenspan, Alan, 234, 238, 240 Herod the Great, 208, 217
Griffin, Timothy, 368 Hezbollah, 244
gross domestic product (GDP), 240, 260, Hicks, Tom, 343
398 high crimes and misdemeanors, 11, 29,
Guantanamo Bay, 44, 154, 307, 309, 394 403
Guardian, 51, 207 Hightower, Jim, 59
Guatemala, 135 Hilla, Iraq, 207
gulag, 37, 154, 307, 402, 405, 406 hippies, 204, 205, 227
Gulf Coast, 183 Hirohito, Emperor, iii
Gulf War I, 42, 58, 85, 103, 106, 109, Hispanics, 251, 363
126, 129, 147, 148, 162, 352 Hitler, Adolph, iii, 301, 386
Gun, Katharine, 135 Hoffer, Eric, 179
guns versus butter, 36–39 Hollywood, 186
Gyurcsany, Ferenc, 136 Holy Ghost, 109, 268, 306
Ha'aretz (Israel), 182 Holy Spirit, 205
habeas corpus, 212, 308 Homeland Security Department, 276, 378
Habibou, Allele, 355 Honduras, 100, 101, 110, 131, 136, 146,
Habitat For Humanity, 187, 383 301
Hadley, Stephen, 357 Hood, Robin, 259
Hagel, Chuck, 15 Hoods, Robbing (GOP), 259
Haifa, Israel, 198 Hoover, Herbert, 254, 316
Haiti, 83, 381 House of bin Laden, 191
Halliburton, 6, 38, 52, 54, 61, 78, 99, 141, House of Bush, 191
142, 149, 154, 156, 193, 217, 231, House of Bush, House of Saud (Unger),
331, 363, 379, 380, 396 70, 354
moving to Dubai, 160–61 House of Representatives, U.S., 10, 186,
Hamah (Syria), 107 266, 379, 401
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 308 Administration Committee of, 366
Hanging Gardens of Babylon, 207 Appropriations Committee of, 271,
Hannity, Sean, 340, 341 371
hard power, soft power and stupid power, Armed Services Committee of, 379
29 Budget Committee of, 238
Harkin, Tom, 341 Government Reform Committee of,
Harper, Stephen, 113 374
Harris Poll, 298, 318 impeachment procedure of, 403–4
Harris, Katherine, 359, 362 Intelligence Committee of, 372
Hartmann, Thom, 338 Judiciary Committee of, 368, 403
Hastert, Dennis, 370 Oversight and Government Reform
Hawaii, 140, 147 Committee of, 160, 291, 379
HBO, 335 Speaker of, 372
Health and Human Services Department, House of Saud, 191
245, 246, 263 Houston, 160
INDEX 417
Howard, John, 127 interest on national debt, 271, 274, 275–

Hughes, Karen, 302 76, 278
human rights, 20, 48, 101, 110, 119, 150, Interfaith Alliance, 213
152, 155, 157, 208, 212, 272, 307, Internal Revenue Code, 231
308, 338, 399 Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 229, 284,
Human Rights Watch, 110, 152 285, 286
Hummer, 204, 290 National Research Program of, 284
Hungary, 110, 136 International Atomic Energy Agency
Hunter, Joel, 189 (IAEA), 76, 355, 358
Hurricane Katrina, 162, 216, 244, 300, International Consortium of Investigative
374, 377–78 Journalists (ICIJ), 155
Hussein, Saddam, 10, 23, 30, 33, 34, 58– International Criminal Court (ICC), 299–
64, 74, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 87, 106, 300, 397
109, 119, 120, 129, 130, 131, 132, international law, ii, 27, 28, 51, 72, 97,
136, 139, 148, 150, 180, 182, 192, 119, 154, 158, 208, 303, 308, 397,
222, 225, 254, 285, 314, 315, 318, 403, 404, 405, 406
330, 332, 340, 342, 351, 352, 353, International Monetary Fund, 282
354, 356, 358, 382, 393, 400, 404 International Peacekeeping Force, 45,
and his Republican Guard, 154 394, 395
and lack of connections to al Qaeda or International Plan, 7-Point, 397–99
Taliban, 58–61 International Press Institute, 101
meeting Bush in Hell, 220–22 Internet, 335, 337
Hydra, 32 Iowa, 80
icasualties.org, 116 Iran, v, vi, vii, 23, 33, 37, 44, 47, 70, 73,
Iceland, 136 75, 78, 81, 98, 102, 107, 128, 135,
Icelandic Defense Force, 137 148, 171, 172, 222, 290, 293, 294,
Idaho, 373 298, 301, 302, 320, 332, 356, 357, 394
Iglesias, David, 369 number of foreign military bases, 57
Ignite!, 387 offer to fight Taliban with U.S., 47–48
Illinois, 247, 359 Iran-Contra Affair, 302, 356
illuminati, 169 Iraq, iii, 37, 293, 299, 300, 317, 324
impeachment, iv, viii, 13, 70, 95, 182, 100 Orders of Paul Bremer in, 52–55
301, 303, 318, 319, 354, 369, 396, 9/11 equivalents suffered in, 52, 168
399, 400 and 2004 Olympics soccer match, 143
and Articles of Impeachment against and 8-Point Plan for Iraq and
Bush and Cheney, 404–6 Afghanistan, 393–96
procedure for, 403–4 and GOP corruption, 378–84
Imperial Hubris (Scheuer), 44 anti-American sentiment in, 72
Imperial Life in the Emerald City Bush's and GOP’s Five Wrong War
(Chandrasekaran), 378 on, 329
Imposter (Bartlett), 248 cakewalk in, iv, 18, 117, 122, 315
improvised explosive devices (IED), 73, Camp Babylon in, 207
79 Christians fleeing, 172
India, 70, 102, 293, 397 civil war in, 16, 53, 55, 74, 81, 154
Indian Ocean tsunami, 38 debts outstanding to, 396
Indonesia, 102, 107 failure to secure munitions in, 73
Ingraham, Laura, 340 firing of soldiers in, 73
integration of the military, 218 Health Ministry of, 80
Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 405 Lancet survey in, 51, 168
intelligent design, 288 looting of, 76
intelligent design voting schemes, 362 Migration Ministry of, 173
Ministry of Education of, 80
418 INDEX
Ministry of the Interior of, 120 Jerusalem, 66, 208

number of foreign military bases, 57 Jesus, 20, 69, 76, 79, 167, 170, 177, 182,
Oil Ministry of, 78, 206 185, 189, 194, 198, 201, 203, 205,
One-Percent Solution for, 55–57 211, 215, 216, 217, 229, 259, 272, 386
PIPA polls regarding, 347–49 and separation of church and state, 172
public corruption in, 83 discussing gay marriage with Pat
stockpiles of weapons in, 73 Robertson, 227–28
ten reasons why U.S. must withdraw Jewish Anti-Defamation League, 181
from, 117–22 Jews, 179, 184, 186, 196, 207, 209
U.S. embassy complex in, 121, 302, Jiang Mianheng, 385
352, 393 Jiang Zemin, 385
U.S. military bases in, 180 Jim Crow election laws, 362
U.S. weapons killing Americans in, 37 Joel, the prophet, 209
unemployment in, 253–58 John Paul II, 180, 327
Iraq Center for Research and Strategic John, Book of, 181, 185, 272
Studies, 382 Johns Hopkins School of Public Health,
Iraq Study Group, 302 51
Iraq Syndrome, 25 Johnson, Brooks, 326
Iraqi Governing Council, 79, 83, 332 Johnson, Larry, 354
Iraqi Kurdistan, 148 Johnson, Lyndon, 10, 215, 219, 243
Iraqi Museum, 206 Johnson, Tim, 326
Iraqi National Congress, 136, 332 Johnston, David Cay, 232, 235, 236, 261,
Ireland, 152 286
Iron Triangle (Briody), 383 Joint Chiefs of Staff, 300
Iscariot, Judas, 187 Joint Resolution on Iraq, 404
Islam, 4, 5, 16, 37, 46, 47, 58, 68, 69, 73, Jones, Walter, 174
77, 78, 107, 108, 117, 121, 158, 168, Jordan, 48, 67, 76, 80, 129, 152
172, 185, 191, 193, 194, 195, 198, JournalismJobs.com, 340
202, 208, See also Muslims Judicial Watch, 287, 288
Islamic Jihad, 67 just war principles, 25, 27–28, 29, 42, 43,
Islamofascists, 186, 313 58, 59, 95, 103, 119, 168, 217, 349,
Israel, 20, 47, 65, 66, 67, 106, 108, 196, 397, 402
202, 206, 207, 208, 294, 299, 311, regarding Afghanistan, 41
312, 399 Justice Department, 300
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 7, 66–68 and disenfranchisement of blacks, 359
Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, 67 and electoral fraud, 359–63
Italy, iii, 110, 114, 137, 142, 298, 355, and U.S. Attorneys scandal, 367–70
356 K Street Project, 53, 159, 231–32, 232,
Itera International Energy Corp., 371 366
Iwo Jima, 16 Kagan, Robert, 340
Jaafari, Ibrahim, al-, 74 Kansas, 56, 314
Jack the Ripper, 381 for sale, 283
Jackson, Mike, 135 Karbala, 128
Janjaweed, 98 Karic, Bogoljub, 371
Japan, iii, 22, 102, 110, 137, 294 Karic, Dragomir, 371
Self Defense Forces of, 137 Karimov, Islam, 151
Jefferson, Thomas, 171, 195 Karzai, Hamid, 41, 43, 46, 47
Jeffords, Jim, 273 as the "Mayor of Kabul", 46
Jenkens & Gilchrist, 286 Kashmir, 38
Jenkins, Jerry, 201 Katrina. See Hurricane Katrina
Jennings, Scott, 370 Kaufman, Gerald, 96
Jerry Falwell Ministries, 175 Kay, David, 62
INDEX 419
Kazakhstan, 113, 138, 150 Lam, Carol, 366, 367

KBR, 154, 161, 380 Lancet survey, 51, 168
Kean, Thomas, 334 Lang, W. Patrick, 354
Kelley, William, 370 Laszlo, Victor, 350
Kellogg, Brown and Root. See Late Great Planet Earth (Lindsay), 202
Halliburton Latham, Mark, 127
Kemakeza, Allan, 144 Latvia, 113, 124, 139
Kennebunkport, Maine, 384 Lay, Ken, 287
Kennedy School of Government, 29, 35 Le Monde, 5
Kennedy, D. James, 214 Le Moyne College, 182, 341
Kennedy, John F., 10, 19, 215, 374 League of Nations, xx–xxiii
Kennedy, Ted, 308 Leahy, Patrick, 160, 370
Kerry, John, 85, 188, 350 Leave No Rich Child Behind, 252–53
Khalilzad, Zalmay, 11 Leavitt, Michael, 263
Khan, Genghis, 140 Lebanon, 244, 301, 357
Khan, Hulagu, 140 and Reagan's 9/11—October 23, 1983,
Khartoum, 98 16
Kiesling, John Brady, 123 Ledeen, Michael, 356, 357
Kirkuk, 80 lefse, 344
Knights of Columbus, 180 Left Behind (LaHaye & Jenkins), 201
Koizumi, Junichiro, 137 Legolas, 391
Koltz, Tony, 85 Leon County (Florida), 362
Koran, 172, 191, 200 Lesar, David, 160
Korea, 386 Lewinsky, Monica, ii, 302, 318, 402
Korean War, 126, 316 Lewis, Sinclair, 167
Kosovo, 124, 326 Liasson, Mara, 240
cost of peacekeeping in, 48 Libby, I. Lewis, 11, 62, 86, 352–53
Kotlikoff, Laurence, 280, 281 Library of Congress, 371
KPMG, 285, 286 Libya, 299
Krauthammer, Charles, i Liechtenstein, 152
Kristof, Nicholas, 278 Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
Kristol, William, 11, 340 (Franken), 343
Krugman, Paul, 257, 363 Likud Party, 65
Kuchma, Leonid, 150 Limbaugh, Rush, 334, 339, 340, 343, 350
Kuo, David, 173 and Armed Forces Network, 341–42
Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), 148 Lincoln, Abraham, 172, 217, 218
Kurdistan, 148 Lindsay, Hal, 202
Kurds, 74, 81, 118, 119, 120, 149, 393, Lindsey, Lawrence, 330
395 Lithuania, 113, 124, 139
and Bush regime selling out the, 149 Little League Baseball, i
Kut, 139 Little Red Book, 301
Kuwait, 100, 103, 106, 109, 128, 139, Livingston, Bob, 372
149, 352, 394 Livingstone, Ken, 133
Kwasniewski, Aleksander, 143 lobbyists. See K Street Project
Kwiatkowski, Karen, 354 lockbox, Social Security, 231, 234, 235,
Kyoto Protocol, 398 237, 238
La Repubblica, 355 Lockyer, Bill, 361
Labash, Matt, 340 London, 345
Labelle, Huguette, 381 London protest, 132
Labor Day, 260 Lord Mayor of London's banquet, 132
Labour Party (Britain), 96, 133 Lord of the Rings, 214
LaHaye, Tim, 201 Return of the King, 391
420 INDEX
Los Angeles, 340, 345 McKay, John, 369

Los Angeles Times, 371 McNulty, Paul, 368
Lott, Trent, 346 McVeigh, Timothy, 59
Louisiana, 247, 288, 372, 377 Médecins Sans Frontières, 47, 398
Loya Jirga, 41, 42, 46 media concentration, 335–41, 346–47
Luke, Book of, 177, 201 Media Matters For America, 350
Lunchpail, Joe and Judy, 95, 233, 234, Media Monopoly (Bagdikian), 337
239, 241, 255, 260, 284, 325 Media Reform Information Center, 337
Luther, Martin, 199, 205 Medicaid, vii, 238, 243–49, 270
Lutherans, 213 Medicare, vii, 163, 219, 238, 243–49,
Luxembourg, 152 270, 272, 276, 278, 279, 281, 376
M.I.6 intelligence service, 356 Medicare D Prescription Drug Plan, 246
MacArthur, Douglas, 311 Mediterranean Sea, 149
Macedonia, 113, 124, 139 Meese III, Ed, 306
Machiavellian, iii, 10, 309 Meet the Press, 358
MAD, 335 Megiddo, 198
Maddow, Rachel, 338 Mein Kampf, 301
Madrid, 313 mercenaries, 152, 163, 393, 400
Madrid bombing, 135, 145 and Abu Ghraib, 154
Mafia, 100, 158, 232, 302, 379 Mesopotamia, 207
Mahdi Army, 81, 382 Messiah College, 369
Main Street, 53 Mess-opotamia, 206
Maine, 247, 273 Methodist Church of South Africa, 211
Maines, Natalie, 345 Methodists, 68, 199, 213
Malaysia, 107 Mexico, 102, 113
Maliki, Nouri, al-, 74, 313 Miami Herald, 362
Manchuria, iii Michigan University, 288
Mandaean religion in Iraq, 79 Micronesia, 100, 140
ManTech International Corporation, 372 Middle East, vi, 12, 20, 47, 66, 70, 77, 79,
Mao Tse-Tung, 301 107, 119, 194, 196, 198, 202, 203,
MapQuest, 335 206, 208, 209, 228, 302, 311, 357,
Margarian, Andranik, 126 393, 394
mark of the beast (666), 195 peace process in, 66–68
Mark, Book of, 172, 201 Midland, Texas, 193, 290, 304
Marlboro Man, 335 mid-tribulation rapture, 197
Marshall Islands, 100, 140, 291 Miers, Harriet, 370, 372
Martin, Paul, 113 Military Commissions Act (MCA), 308–
Marx, Karl, 301 9, 397
Massachusetts, 31, 34, 60, 61, 186, 200, Military Oath, 329
217, 219, 247, 319, 345, 387 military spending, 17, 36–37, 398
Match.com, 198 millennialism, 195, 198–99
Matthew, Book of, 172, 181, 198, 201, Miller, William, 205
217 Millerites, 205
Matthews, Chris, 353 Milosevic, Slobodan, 124, 371
Mays, Lowry, 342, 343 minimum wage, 219, 255, 256, 259, 262,
Mazar-e-Sharif, 47 263
McCain, John, 270, 308, 373 Minnesota, 247, 338
and caving on torture, 308–9 Minot Chamber of Commerce, 344
McCaul, Michael, 377 Minot, North Dakota, 344
McClellan, Scott, 352 Mirabilis (ICQ), 336
McGovern, Ray, 354, 355 Miramax, 333
McGuire, William, 250 misogynists, 218
INDEX 421
Mississippi, 244, 246, 377 National Energy Policy Development

Missouri, 328, 368 Group (NEPDG), 286–89
MIT, 282, 313, 360 National Geographic, 311
Mitty, Walter, 94 National Guard, 38, 82, 325, 326
Mohammed, Khalid Shaikh, 47 National Intelligence Council, 73, 357
Moldova, 101, 113, 140 national lottery, 235, 271
Money, 335 National Public Radio (NPR), 240, 345,
Mongolia, 100, 110, 140–41 349
Moon, Sun Myung, 386, 387 National Review, 357
Moore, Michael, 333 National Rifle Association, 346, 373
Moral Majority, 170, 202 National Security Agency (NSA), 85,
Mormon, Book of, 200 125, 129, 135, 303, 305, 405
Mormons, 179, 196, 204 National Security Council, 357
Morocco, 106, 107 NATO, iv, v, 12, 13, 28, 45, 58, 78, 91,
Mother Earth, 290 116, 124, 128, 131, 136, 139, 143,
Mother Theresa, 318 147, 177, 298, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398
Mouse, Mickey, 333 disrespect by Bush for, 117
Moynihan, Daniel, 234 efforts in Afghanistan by, 45–46
MPRI, 155 invoking Article 5, 5
MSNBC, 92 Nazarbayev, Nursultan, 138
Mubarek, Hosni, 108 NBC, 92, 349
Mueller, Robert, 357 NCAA World Series, i, viii
mujahideen, 44 Nebraska, 255, 283
Mukasey, Michael, 151 Negroponte, John, 301
Multi-National Division Central South, neocons, iii, iv, v, 5, 9–12, 28, 30, 31, 32,
142 34, 43, 44, 52, 56, 72, 75, 83, 87, 94,
Multi-National Division South East, 135 97, 99, 103, 123, 136, 149, 160, 167,
Multi-National Force in Iraq (MNF-I), 93, 169, 172, 178, 209, 222, 225, 253,
101, 103, 141 297, 300, 301, 323, 330, 340, 393, 397
Murdoch, Keith Arthur, 339 and Ahmed Chalabi, 331–32
Murdoch, Rupert, 335, 337, 339, 340 and disrespect for NATO, 116–17
Murray, Craig, 152 and Niger forgeries, 354–58
Museveni, Yoweri, 150 and OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation),
Muslim Brotherhood, 46, 107 57–65
Muslims, vi, 5, 16, 44, 49, 67, 68, 72, 77, and unipolar moment, 12
91, 107, 108, 121, 124, 127, 133, 139, and war on terrorism slogan, 20–23
146, 151, 158, 173, 175, 179, 184, as chickenhawks, 19
190, 191, 194, 196, 202, 220, 228, failing in Afghanistan, 47
230, 244, 288, 320, 357, See also groupthink by, 10, 11, 19, 29, 87
Islam propaganda campaign by, 12–15
and opposition to Iraq coalition, 106– rejection by Reagan and Clinton, 15–
10 20
Mussolini, Benito, iii, 314 neoconservatives. See neocons
Nader, Ralph, 350 Netherlands, 76, 110, 141
Najaf, 84, 128 Netscape, 335
Namibia, 162 New Age, 175, 186, 197, 203, 204, 213
Nasiriya, 138 New Colossus, 214
Nation, 159 New Deal, 218
national debt, vii, 24, 235, 238, 266, 273– New England, 273
81 New England Patriots, 217
National Education Association, 314 New Hampshire, 247
New Media Monopoly (Bagdikian), 337
422 INDEX
New Mexico, 369 oil production

New Orleans, 216, 377 and peak oil, 292–93
New Testament, 195 of Alaska, 292–93
new world order, 12, 169, 186 of Texas, 292
New York City Police Department, 49 Oklahoma City bombing, 59
New York Times, 3, 12, 33, 58, 65, 71, 76, Old Europe, 98
99, 108, 201, 232, 244, 257, 259, 261, Old South, 215
278, 285, 289, 291, 305, 313, 320, Olympics, 267
332, 351, 352, 353, 363, 377, 381, 386 Omaha, Nebraska, i
New Zealand, 113, 141, 147 Oman, 106, 152
News Corporation, 335, 337, 339 one world government, 169
Newsweek, 323 O'Neill, Paul, 237, 271, 272, 278, 323,
Newsweek poll, 318 330
Ney, Bob, 116, 366 One-Percent Solution for Iraq, 55–57
Nicaragua, 113, 131, 141, 146 OPEC, 78, 293, 294
Nichols, Terry, 59 Operation Iraqi Freedom, 57, 147
Nielsen ratings, 340 Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), 57
Niger, 353 Operation TELIC, 135
and Niger forgeries, 354–58 opium production, 42–43
uranium purchases from, 351–58 O'Reilly, Bill, 340
Nigeria, 102 Orwell, George, 103, 216, 297, 324, 359,
Nixon, Richard, 10, 207, 266, 303, 305, 399
317, 318, 321, 405, 406 and George Orwell Party (GOP), 297
and New York City, 6 Osama bin Forgotten, 22
No Child Left Behind, 174, 252, 253, 387 outsourcing, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 285,
Nobel Peace Prize, 47, 67, 75 381
Noble Sanctuary (Jerusalem), 208 Oxford English Dictionary, i
No-Fly Zone, 148 Pacific Ocean, 140, 141
Norquist, Grover, 240 Pacific Trust Territory, U.S., 140
North Carolina, 158 Pacifica Radio, 338
North Dakota, 31, 60, 196, 233, 247, 319, Paige, Rod, 314
344, 345, 387 Pakistan, 38, 42, 44, 46, 69, 70, 102, 108,
North Korea, 7, 37, 144, 331 135
number of foreign military bases, 57 Palast, Greg, 362
North Slope oil production, 292 Palau, 100, 141
North Vietnam, 317 coconuts as weapons of, 141
Norway, 113, 141 Palestinians, 5, 7, 66, 69, 182, 196, 208,
Novak, Robert, 353 209, 312, 399
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 397 and role of Clinton and Carter in peace
nuclear weapons, 315, 339 process, 66–68
nuclear weapons policies, 34–35 Palfrey, Deborah Jean, 372
Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, 297 Panama, 100, 141
Nye, Joseph, 29, 30, 36 Paris Room, 221, 222
Obama, Barack, 189 Parsons, 379
Obey, David, 346 Pascal, George, 190
O'Dell, Walden, 360 Passion Play, 187
Odom, William, 85 Path to 9/11, 333
Office of Special Plans, 18, 62, 65, 357 Patriot Act, 304, 305, 367, 369
Office of Strategic Influence, 320 Patterns of Global Terrorism, 31
Ohio, 227, 359, 360, 366 Paul, Apostle, 211
oil crisis of 1973, 293 Pax Americana, 10, 12
oil embargo of 1973, 293 Pax Romana, 10
INDEX 423
Peace Corps, U.S., 32, 274, 384, 398 preemptive intervention doctrine, 96, 397
peak oil, 57, 292–93 Premier Election Solutions. See Diebold
Pearl Harbor, 22, 281 Premiere Radio Networks, 343
Pennsylvania, 370, 371 pre-millennialism, 197, 199
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Presbyterians, 213
24, 242 pre-sex, 318
Pentagon, 12, 18, 62, 65, 71, 72, 73, 82, Presidential Daily Briefing, 7, 8
85, 86, 155, 157, 159, 160, 194, 302, Presidential Medal of Freedom, 320
320, 332, 354, 357, 358, 367, 380 Pre-Trib Perspectives, 201
People, 335 pre-tribulation rapture, 197
People's Republic of China. See China Pre-Tribulation Research Center, 201
PEPFAR (President's Emergency Price of Loyalty (O'Neill), 271, 323
Program for AIDS Relief), 188 Prince William Sound, 291
Perfectly Legal (Johnston), 232, 286 Prince, Erik, 158
PerfectWave, 159 private military contractors. See
Perle, Richard, 15, 64, 86 mercenaries
Perot, Ross, 256 privatization, 229, 231, 241, 242, 287,
Persian Gulf nations, 105 360
Petraeus, David, 63 Prodi, Romano, 137
Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 298 profile in courage, 123
Pharisees, 179, 187, 227, 228, 258 Profiles in Corruption, 374
Philippines, 102, 113, 142 and Republican Party, 365–74
Pilate, Pontius, 187 Profiles in Courage (Kennedy), 374
Pinochet, 162 Program on International Policy Attitudes
pirate-ization. See privatization (PIPA), 118–21, 347
PKK (Kurdish Workers Party), 148 progressive moral values, 24, 215–20
Plame, Valerie, 11, 62, 351–53, 354, 357, Project for the New American Century
402, 406 (PNAC), 11–12, 87, 122, 167, 220,
Plan of Attack (Woodward), 72 301, 302, 310, 340, 393, 397
Plymouth Brethren, 204 propaganda, iii, 11, 12–15, 28, 34, 63, 87,
Poe, Heather, 227 91, 92, 94, 100, 101–3, 104, 106, 129,
Poland, iii, 92, 93, 110, 114, 126, 142, 137, 139, 142, 144, 191, 214, 219,
207 225, 232, 235, 245, 291, 298, 311,
Polish Multi-National Force, 126 320, 333, 334, 339, 341, 354, 386
Politics of Truth (Wilson), 353 Protestants, 196, 199, 205
Pombo, Richard, 370 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), 349
Popular Party (Spain), 145 Pulitzer Prize, 232
pork, vii, 160, 232, 246, 269, 270, 376, Purpose Driven Life (Warren), 189
377 Putin, Vladimir, 341
Portugal, 100, 113, 143 Qatar, 106, 152, 299, 394
post-millennialism, 197, 199 Quayle, Dan, 321
post-tribulation rapture, 197 Rabin, Yitzhak, 209
Potter, Harry, 186 Ramadan War, 294
pottery barn rule, 121 Rand Corporation, 48
poverty, 258–63 rapture, 5, 168, 195, 197–98, 276
Powell Doctrine, 86, 93 the secret rapture, 198, 199–206
Powell, Colin, 14, 62, 64, 100, 123, 125, Rapture Index, 202
133, 299, 309, 314, 315, 320, 326, Rapture Trap (Thigpen), 200
336, 346, 354, 358 Rapture-Ready.com, 202
Powell, Michael, 336, 346 Raymond, Lee, 291
Pravda, 334, 347 Reagan, 279
Pravda Prize, 3
424 INDEX
Reagan, Ronald, 10, 85, 178, 248, 298, Reporters Without Borders, 335
306, 321, 322, 330, 355, 356, 383, 391 Republican National Committee, 368
11th Commandment of, 365 Republican Party (GOP), iv, 8, 13, 29, 49,
8 worst budget deficits by, 267 56, 65, 66, 78, 91, 96, 110, 116, 162,
and deficits don't matter, 270, 271, 167, 171, 173, 174, 187, 199, 216,
272 218, 240, 244, 251, 301, 310, 316,
and growth in national debt, 235 342, 343, 349, 356, 386, See also
and gutting of Social Security, 231–42 Abramoff, Jack (Abramoff scandals)
and his 9/11—October 23, 1983, 16, aka the Banana Republican Party, 266
151 and assault on health care and
and Iran-Contra Affair, 301 insurance, 249–52
and Ronald Reagan Memorial and Chalabi, 331–32
National Debt, 274 and deficits, 265–84
as big spender and big borrower, 274 and destruction of America's
bankruptcy of America by, 265–94 constitutional democracy, 374–78
cutting and running by, 17 and education—Leave No Rich Child
death squads supported by, 74 Behind, 252–53
explosion in national debt by, 273–81 and electoral fraud, 359–63
Grade F budget deficits of, 266–68 and energy policy—Leave No
launching war on middle class, 282 Ayatollah Behind, 289
Legacy of Debt of, 274 and exploding trade deficits, 282–84
rejection of the neocons by, 15–19 and explosion in national debt, 281
turned U.S. into largest debtor nation, and extraordinary rendition, 307–9
274, 282–84 and family values. See family values
voodoo economics of, 233, 243, 267, and freezing the minimum wage, 255
268 and GOP corruption in Iraq, 378–84
Reagan-Bush I-Bush II National Debt, and ideology over truth and
274–75 competence, 330–32
Real Anita Hill (Brock), 350 and increasing poverty, 258–63
red heifer, 195 and its 25-year war on America's
Reed, Ralph, 196 middle class, 282–84
referendum, 74, 393 and its Contract on America, 376
Refugees International, 80 and its Five Wrong War on Iraq, 329
Regent University, 369 and its huge birth tax, 278
Regent University Law School, 369 and media concentration, 347
reimportation of prescription drugs, 247– and price fixing and pork for Big
48 Pharma, 244–48
Religious Reich, 169, 214, 228 and Profiles in Corruption, 365–74
Religious Right, vi, vii, 69, 158, 176–80, and racial bigotry, 215
188, 190, 195, 199, 201, 211, 212, and Restaurant of Puke, 55
213, 218, 219, 227, 228, 229, 262, and tax shelters—kleptomania for the
289, 339 Super Rich, 284–86
and oppressors as victims, 186–87 and the K Street Project, 231–32
and separation of church and state, and U.S. Attorneys scandal, 367–70
169–76 and unemployment in Iraq and
throwing raw red meat to, 5 America, 253–58
Religious Wrong, 163, 167, 169, 209, 227 and upside down Christianity, 176–80
Renault, Capt. Louis, 60, 128, 287, 329, and weakness on national defense,
338 316–17
rendition. See extraordinary rendition and witch hunt against Clinton, 318–
Renzi, Rick, 372 19
repentance, v, 328, 395 as the consumptive party, 276
INDEX 425
bankruptcy of America by, 265–94 Rove, Karl, 103, 189, 216, 221, 241, 273,
control and bullying of media by, 333– 324, 351–53, 356, 359, 368, 369, 370
50 roving wiretaps. See wiretaps
energy policies of, 286–94 Rudy, Tony, 366
environmental policies of, 286–94 rule of law, 327, 353, 359, 369, 397, 403,
gutting Social Security by, 231–42 406
immoral budgets of, 185 Rumsfeld, Donald, 11, 14, 15, 32, 47, 60,
reneging on term limits by, 376 64, 72, 73, 79, 84, 86, 103, 135, 139,
Republican Party convention, 144 221, 308, 320, 159–60, 329, 332, 353,
Restaurant of Puke, 55 357
Reuters, 142 declaring war on the Pentagon, 159–60
Revelation, Book of, 60, 194, 195, 198, Rush Limbaugh Show, 339
199, 203 Russia, 35, 36, 102, 128, 140, 293, 340,
Rhode Island, 273 371, 387, 397
Rhodes, Randi, 338 number of foreign military bases, 57
Rice, Condoleezza, 7, 8, 60, 64, 68, 75, Ruth, Babe, 97
289, 320, 321, 329, 332, 353, 356, 357 Rwanda, 99, 100, 108, 113, 143
and tutoring Bush, 14 Ryan, Jim, 146
promotion to secretary of state of, 4–5 Sabri, Naji, 358
Ring, Kevin, 371 Saca, Elias Antonio, 131
Ritter, Scott, 132 Saddleback Valley Community Church,
Riyadh, 106, 191, 192 189
Roberts, Ivor, 132 Sadr, Muqtada, al-, 74, 81, 84
Roberts, Pat, 314, 355, 357 Saigan, 317
Roberts, Paul Craig, 298 Saint Augustine, 205
Robertson, James, 305 sales tax, 239
Robertson, Pat, 172, 179, 180, 196, 201, Salt Lake Tribune, 263
209, 214, 220, 369 Samawa, 138
discussing gay marriage with Jesus, Sambo, 108
227–28 Sampson, D. Kyle, 372
Robertson, Pharisee Phat, 227–28 San Jose Mercury News, i, 32
Rockefeller, Jay, 357 Santorum, Rick, 178, 370
Rodman, Peter, 11 Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 363
Roe v. Wade, 378 Saratov Aviation, 371
Rogers, Ron, 371 Satan, 16, 194, 198, 199
Rohrabacher, Dana, 146 Saturday Night Live, 289, 373
Roll Call, 373 Saudi Arabia, vi, 46, 48, 60, 69, 70, 106,
Rolling Stone, 345 107, 152, 171, 172, 191, 230, 277,
Roman Empire, 10, 167, 187, 211 288, 290, 293, 294, 323, 357, 392
Romania, 110, 124, 143 and its educational system, 289
Romans, 10, 208 and post 9/11 exit of bin Laden clan,
Rome, 211, 355 70
Rome Statute, 299 Savage Nation, 339
Romney, Mitt, 373 Savage, Michael, 339, 340, 343
Ronald Reagan Memorial National Debt, savings and loan crisis, 241
274 savings rate, 276
Roosevelt, Franklin, 10, 22, 23, 216, 218, Sayyaf, Rasul, 46
242, 254, 311, 312, 316, 325, 375, 397 Scahill, Jeremy, 158
Roosevelt, Theodore, 333 Scalia, Antonin, 288
Rop, Anton, 144 Scanlon, Michael, 366
Roper poll, 311 Scheer, Christopher, 315
Scheer, Robert, 315
426 INDEX
Scheuer, Michael, 44, 49 world behind U.S. after, 5–6

Schiavo, Terri, 226 Sequoia Voting Systems, 360
Schlessinger, Laura, 340, 341 Serbia, 124
Schlozman, Bradley, 368 Sermon on the Mount, 177
Schmitz, Joseph, 158 Seven Wonders of the World, 207
Schroeder, Gerhard, 116 Shakespeare, William, 351
Schultz, Ed, 338, 341 Sharon, Ariel, 65, 209
Schumer, Chuck, 71 Shelley, Kevin, 360
Schwarzkopf, Norman, 85 Shepherd's Bush Empire, 345
Scofield Reference Bible, 204 Sherwood, Don, 370
Scotland, 366 Shias. See Shiites
Scowcroft, Brent, 85 Shiites, 10, 33, 48, 77, 80, 81, 118, 119,
Sea River Mediterranean, 291 120, 128, 135, 172, 395
Seattle Times, 369 Shinseki, Eric, 85, 86, 93
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 312 Shultz, George, 17
Second Coming of Christ, 68, 168, 182, Sierra Club, 287, 288
195, 197, 199, 200, 203, 205, 206, 208 signing statements, 306–8
Second Gilded Age, 272 Silverado Savings and Loan, 384
Second Great Awakening, 205 Singapore, 100, 113, 143
Second Temple, 208 SISMI (Italy), 355, 357
Secret Service, 324 Sistani, Grand Ayatollah Ali, 74–75, 79
Security Council. See United Nations, Sitwell, Edith, 216
Security Council of Sixty Minutes, 85
Senate, U.S., iv, 10, 97, 171, 186, 266, Skull and Bones Society, 192, 319, 341
300, 308, 338, 366, 368, 370, 372, Slate, 99
379, 401 Slovakia, 113, 124, 143
Armed Services Committee of, 82 Slovenia, 124, 125, 144
Homeland Security and Governmental Smith, Nick, 245
Affairs Committee of, 377 Snow, Tony, 334
impeachment procedure of, 403–4 Snowe, Olympia, 247, 273
Intelligence Committee of, 314 Social Security, vii, 163, 178, 218, 219,
Judiciary Committee of, 300, 368, 370 243, 254, 255, 266, 270, 272, 276,
resolution of, 125, 129, 139, 142, 144 278, 279, 281
separation of church and state, vii, 24, 77, feeding the Super Rich by gutting,
169–76, 196, 201, 211, 212, 220 231–42
and Thomas Jefferson, 171 Sodom and Gomorrah, 219
separation of powers, 287, 288, 309, 403, Soft Power (Nye), 29, 36
406 Sojourners, 213
September 11, 2001, attacks (9/11). See Solomon Islands, 100, 144
also separate topics Solomon, King, 208
America united behind Bush after, 281 Solutions North America (SNA), 371
and 9/11 Commission, 7, 8, 47, 313, Somalia, 126, 194
321, 333, 334, 378 Soros, George, 19, 236
and 9/11 equivalents in Iraq, 52, 168 South Africa, 125, 162, 211
and slow response to, 44 Truth and Reconciliation Commission
and the neocons, 9–12 of, 211
blaming Saddam for, 342 South Carolina, 270
Bush asleep at the wheel before, 6–9 South Dakota, 326
Bush on crusade after, 4–5 South Korea, 110, 144, 326
fascist exploitation of, 69 South Pacific, 147
strong U.S. fiscal position on, 277 Southern Baptists in America, 37, 68, 119
timidity of Bush after, 312
INDEX 427
Soviet Union, iv, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 30, Tajikistan, 44
46, 104, 124, 136, 143 Taking the Long Way (Dixie Chicks), 346
Soviet Republics of, 138 Taliban, vii, 5, 22, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47,
Space, Jack, 366 58, 60, 61, 167, 179, 391
Spain, 94, 110, 114, 130, 131, 135, 136, Iran’s offer to fight the, 47–48
141, 145–46, 298 opium production banned by, 42–43
and the Madrid bombing, 145 Tamerlane, 140
Special Inspector General for Iraq Tanner, John, 359
Reconstruction, 76, 375, 379, 382 Taszar airbase, 136
Sports Illustrated, 335 Tauzin, Billy, 245
St. Andrews (Scotland), 366 tax lobbyists, 241
Stalin, Josef, 361, 386 tax shelters, 284–86
Star Wars, 35 TBS Superstation, 335
Starr, Kenneth, 268, 287, 318 Team B, 18
starve the beast, 239, 240 Telecommunications Act of 1934, 336
State Department, 31, 62, 126, 129, 130, Telecommunications Act of 1996, 336,
141, 152, 354, 356, 357, 358, 382 342
Intelligence and Research Bureau of, Temple Mount, 208
72 Tempting Faith (Kuo), 173
State of Denial (Woodward), 7, 8, 323 Tenet, George, 7, 8, 314, 317, 320
states' rights, 253, 309 Terrorist University, 73
Statue of Liberty, 24, 110, 214 Texas, 19, 60, 61, 83, 97, 107, 128, 151,
Stein, Jeff, 33 160, 192, 203, 221, 227, 228, 259,
stem cells, 178, 307 268, 287, 290, 302, 319, 324, 342,
Stern, Howard, 343 345, 346, 359, 360, 366, 386, 387
Stevens, Ted, 374 crude oil production of, 292
Stewart, Jim, 332 Republican Guard Party of, 78
Stewart, Jon, 21, 94 Texas Air National Guard, 56
stock option backdating scandal, 250 Texas Longhorns, viii
Stockman, David, 233 Texas Rangers, 96, 343
Storey, Peter, 211 Thailand, 102, 110, 146
student loan program, 163, 173, 253 Thanksgiving
subpoenas, 367, 371, 374 no French fries or turkey for, 149
Sudan, 98, 150 Thatcher, Margaret, 17
Sunday Times (London), 64 theocons, 178, 191
Sunni Axis, 48 Thessalonians, I, Book of, 197, 200
Sunni Triangle, 134 Thigpen, Paul, 200
Sunnis, 33, 48, 74, 80, 81, 84, 118, 119, Third Coming of Christ, 200
120, 151, 395 Third Reich, 297
supply-side economics, 233, 237, 271, Third Temple, 208
274 Thomas, Clarence, 288
Supreme Court, U.S., viii, 10, 96, 186, Thurow, Lester, 282
194, 235, 266, 288, 303, 306, 308, 347 Tiberius, Emperor, 217
Chief Justice of, 404 Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy, 201
surge in troops, 55, 63, 122, 130, 134, Time, 335
135, 151, 153, 161, 382 Time Warner, 335, 337
Sutton, Willie, 385 Timelife, 336
Swaggart, Jimmy, 196 TNT, 335
Sweden, 59, 152 Tonga, 113, 147
Syria, v, 80, 105, 106, 107, 148, 293, 309, Tora Bora, 43
357 torture, 37, 78, 80, 110, 151–52, 157, 183,
Taiwan, 146 202, 299–300, 307–9, 327, 369, 397,
428 INDEX
401, 402, 405, 406, See also International Security Assistance

extraordinary rendition Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan, 45,
Total Burden. See Government 46
Accountability Office (GAO) Office on Drugs and Crime of, 42
trade deficits, 282–84 peacekeepers of, 131
Transparency International, 381 Security Council of, i, 10, 45, 59, 62,
Treasury Department, 156, 266, 269 93, 103, 104, 108, 125, 129, 135,
tribulation, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203, 315, 320, 358
204 weapons inspector of, 132
Triumph of Politics, Why the Reagan United States. See also specific topics
Revolution Failed (Stockman), 233 1973 oil embargo against, 294
Truman Commission, 375 and 6-Point Plan to Support America's
Truman, Harry, 10, 15, 18, 19, 218, 219, Troops, 399–400
316, 325 and 7-Point International Plan, 397–99
Turkey, 102, 105, 139, 147–49, 394 and 8-Point Plan for Iraq and
and selling out the Kurds, 148–49 Afghanistan, 393–96
Turkmen, 148 and explosion in national debt, 273–81
Turkmenistan, 44 and League of Nations, xx–xxiii
Turner Classic Movies, 335 and number of troops in Iraq, 110
Tutsis, 143 and soldiers for peace, 38
U.S. Attorneys, 352, 372 and ten reasons why U.S. must
and corruption by Bush regime, 367– withdraw from Iraq, 117–22
70 and the Bush League, 150
and pressure to disenfranchise blacks, bankruptcy of, 265–94
359 Education Department of, 201
Uganda, 100, 108, 150 financial pledges to Afghanistan by,
Ukraine, 110, 114, 150 47
Ultra Plus Brigade, 130, 131, 135, 136, military spending of, 36–37, 398
141, 146 number of foreign military bases, 37,
unemployment 57
in Iraq and America, 253–58 poverty in, 258–63
Unger, Craig, 354, 356 unemployment in, 258
Unification Church, 386 weapons inspection team of, 59
Uniform Code of Military Justice. See United States of Europe, 98
Code of Military Justice UnitedHealth Group, 250
unipolar moment, 12 University of Texas, viii, 343
Unitarian Church, 306 unlawful enemy combatant. See Military
unitary executive, 52, 305, 306, 307 Commissions Act (MCA)
United Arab Emirates, 106, 152, 160, 387 UNOCAL, 61
United Kingdom. See Great Britain uranium from Africa, 351, 353–55, 357,
United Nations, i, iii, iv, v, 5, 10, 12, 13, 358
28, 41, 47, 51, 55, 58, 62, 78, 80, 91, US News and World Report, 62
93, 96, 99, 101, 107, 109, 117, 125, USA Today, 79
127, 135, 138, 140, 141, 169, 177, USS Cole, 44
298, 301, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398, 404 Utah, 252
and Convention against Torture, 308 Uzbekistan, 44, 151, 309
Charter of, 97, 119 and extraordinary rendition for Bush
Food and Agriculture Organization of, regime, 151–52
37 V10. See Vilnius Group
High Commissioner for Refugees Valdez, Alaska, 292
(UNHCR) of, 80, 81 value-added tax (VAT), 252
Vanity Fair, 354
INDEX 429
Venezuela, 30, 187 whupping, 182

Vermont, 273 wiggling walleyed, v
Veterans Affairs Department (VA), 246, willowy, 101
250, 399 witless, 14
veto, 255, 268, 306, 307, 308, 346 Witless Without Wardrobe (www), 85
Viacom, 335, 337 wobbly, 43
video news releases (VNR), 336 wolves, 272
Vietnam, 95, 102, 170, 317 women whacking, 324
number of foreign military bases, 57 wonga, 383
Vietnam Syndrome, 25 worker whacking, 260
Vietnam War, 6, 19, 56, 120, 126, 308, worse, 104
317, 335 Wrong Wicked Warmongering (www),
Vikings, 137 36
Vilnius Group, 124–25, 144 Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
Vilnius, Lithuania, 124 (Five Wrong War on Iraq), 329
Virginia, 214, 253 W-Scale for wackocity, 204
Virginia Tech massacre, 52, 168 Wahhabi fundamentalism, 46, 192, 277
Vitter, David, 372 Wailing Wall, 208
Vive la France, 16, 149 Walker, David, 280
voice tracking, 345 Wall Street, 53, 241
Voinovich, George, 277 Wall Street Journal, 237, 271, 298, 367
Volcker, Paul, 236 Wallis, Jim, 213
Volz, Neil, 366 Wal-Mart, 236, 282
voodoo economics, 233, 243, 267, 268, crummy benefits and wages at, 256–57
276, 277 Wal-Martization of America, 155
voter fraud, 359 Walton family, 236, 257, 284
voting rights for women, 218 Walton, John, 257
Vulcans. See neocons Walton, Sam, 257
W (George W. Bush) stands for war crimes, 46, 58, 151, 297–302, 309,
the Worst, 193 328, 329, 369, 396, 399, 400, 402, 405
the Wrong, 208 War Crimes Act of 1996, 300, 405
wacko, iii, 229 War on Christmas, 212
wackocity, 204 war on terrorism, vi, 29, 31, 32, 35, 43,
Wahhabi Wannabe, 192 44, 49, 58, 66, 69, 70, 121, 160, 277,
Wal-Mart and Wal-Martization of 290, 297, 305, 320, 328, 397
America, 257 the slogan that means nothing, 20–23
War on America, vi War on the World, vi
War on the World, vi Warner Bros., 336
warrior wannabe, 325 Warren, Rick, 189
Waste Wing, 289, 303 Warsaw Pact, 128, 143
wasted, 324 Washington Post, 3, 63, 137, 260, 378,
wasting away, 277 386
weak and willowy, 103 Washington Times, 386
weakling, 19 Washington, D.C., 86, 160, 231, 276, 372,
Weakness through War, 17 374, 383
wedge issues, 185 Washington, George, 43
wedgies, 185 Washington, State of, 369
weed, 324 waterboarding, 151, 299
weed whacking, 324 Watergate, 6
welfare for the wealthy and wicked, Watts, J. C., 359
259 Waxman, Henry, 160, 291, 379
Whew!, 186 WB television network, 335
430 INDEX
weapons of mass deception, 202 Wolfowitz, Paul, 11, 15, 18, 62, 64, 65,
weapons of mass destruction (WMD), 34, 72, 86, 138, 320, 353
35, 58, 59, 62, 64, 65, 72, 81, 119, and Defense Planning Guidance, 12
125, 132, 183, 204, 314, 318, 325, Woodward, Bob, 7, 8, 64, 72, 323
332, 334, 347, 356, 358, 393, 404 World Court, 397
Webster, Noah, i World Trade Center, 3
wedge issues, 226–30 World Trade Organization (WTO), 298
Weekly Standard, 11, 340 World War I, ii, 126, 273, 316
Weinberg, Steven, 190 World War II, iii, 22, 72, 137, 147, 218,
Weldon, Curt, 371 261, 273, 311, 316, 325, 375
Weldon, Karen, 371 xenophobia, 311
welfare reform, 66–68 Yale University, 192
Wesley, John, 199, 205 yellowcake uranium, 354, 355
What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD), 69, 76, Yemen, 107, 299
258 Yom Kippur War, 294
White House Fact Sheet, 305 Young Earth Creationists, 175
White House Iraq Group (WHIG), 356 Young, C.W. Bill, 271
Whitewater Independent Counsel, 287 Young, Don, 374
Wikipedia, 14, 366 Yucca Mountain, 374
Wilkerson, Larry, 354, 358 Yugoslavia, 128, 371
Wilkes, Brent, 159, 367 Yushchenko, Viktor, 150
Will, George, 274 Zahn, Paula, 180
Willis, Frank, 379 Zapatero, Jose Luis Rodriguez, 145
Wilson, Heather, 369 Zinni, Anthony, 85–87
Wilson, Joseph, 351–53, 358, 402 Zoellick, Robert, 11
Wilson, Woodrow, ii, 123, 316 Zogby International, 182, 341, 402
wiretaps, 298, 303–5, 369, 402, 405 Zoroastrianism, 198
Wisconsin, 247
About the Author
James Swanson served for two years in the U.S. Peace Corps in Morocco, a Muslim
nation in North Africa. He is appalled at the rise of the Christian Reich’s upside-
down version of Christianity—Pro-War and Pro-Rich—and Bush’s and the GOP’s
War on Iraq and War on America. Raised in the Lutheran tradition in North Dakota
and now a longtime Methodist in California, he is ashamed that George W. Bush is a
fellow Methodist and that Dick “Shooter” Cheney is a fellow Earthling. Swanson
holds MBA and JD degrees from Stanford University and an SB degree from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He and Michael Baird are co-authors
of Engineering Your Start-Up: A Guide for the High-Tech Entrepreneur (second
edition.)

The Bush League of Nations by James A. Swanson

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Bush League of Nations by James A. Swanson

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Bush League of Nations

Also by James A. Swanson

Engineering Your Start-Up: A Guide for the High-Tech Entrepreneur

The Coalition of the Unwilling,

Published by CreateSpace Publishing

Printed in the United States of America

“Six Strong Hands on the Steering Wheel”

“Six Wrong Hands on the Steering Wheel”

PART I The Road to American Imperialism 1

1. Asleep at the Wheel 3

2. A Just War vs. Just War 27

4. The Unjust War in Iraq 51

PART II The Bush League of Nations 89

5. The Bush League of Nations 91

6. Members of the Bush League of Nations 123

7. Private Military Contractors 153

8. The Religious Wrong 167

9. Eschatology and The Book of Revelation 195

10. A Call to Christians and Other People of Faith 211

11. The GOP’s War on America’s Workers, the Poor and

12. The GOP’s Bankruptcy of America 265

PART V Tools of the Trade 295

13. An Outlaw Presidency—From Crimes Against Humanity

14. Fear Mongering 311

15. Puppetry in the White House 321

16. Control and Bullying of the Media 333

17. Treason, Electoral Fraud—Anything to Maintain Power 351

18. Corruption in America and Iraq—GOP Style 365

PART VI Out of the Wilderness 389

19. Out of the Wilderness—Three Plans 391

I. Withdraw from Iraq and Win in Afghanistan—An 8-Point Plan 393

Appendix A: A Doubleheader—Impeach Bush

George W. Bush is surprisingly articulate and engaging when he discusses base-

SIDEBAR: The Real League of Nations

SIDEBAR: Bush League Sportsmanship—Texas Style

Asleep at the Wheel

An Historic Opportunity Squandered

SIDEBAR: Bush’s Crusade

SIDEBAR: President Nixon and New York City

Asleep at the Wheel

SIDEBAR: 9/11—the Luckiest Day in Bush’s Life?

The Propaganda War

branches of which were controlled by the partisan, do-nothing-good, ask-no-

SIDEBAR: Bush the Decider

Bush prides himself on not reading newspapers. He summed it up nicely on Septem-

Reagan and Clinton Rejected the Neocons—Bush Follows Them

used America’s military power unnecessarily, unwisely and ineffectively—and

SIDEBAR: October 23, 1983—Ronald Reagan’s 9/11

it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense of mission is matched

The War on Terrorism—the Slogan that Means Nothing and Jus-

• Fourth—and most important—the war on terrorism provides both distrac-

SIDEBAR: A National Day of Mourning for Bush League Incompetence

SIDEBAR: America the Weakened

3) Military strength. By immorally invading Iraq and incompetently waging that

A Just War Versus Just War

The Five Pillars of a Strong Coalition

3. Trustworthy Leadership—The chosen leaders of the coalition must be trustwor-

5. Excellent Execution—The sensible plan must be properly executed, with a clear

Hard Power and Soft Power—plus Smart Power and Stupid

SIDEBAR: A Key Question

Why do bystanders in Iraq—average Mohammeds—cheer the attacks on American

“Seventy-five billion dollars is a conservative estimate of our projected 2004 military