Deep Blade Journal

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

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

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

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

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

Seems less than candid to me – he seems to know more than he’s saying. “Maintenance” indeed!

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

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

Even Colin Powell confirmed on Fox News “that the United States has been monitoring activities at a ‘potential nuclear test site’”.

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

Seems they’re already doing it in South Korea. “Fear” probably is the right word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

Salad

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

Democratic candidate for vice president rallies 6800 in Orono

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Running dog Cheney says vote against Kerry or risk deadly attack

The full Cheney quote is well worth reading:

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

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

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

Gilliard’s reaction? “Disgust isn’t even the term I would use…Utter revulsion”. Agreed.

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

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

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

Without Zell Miller around to out-crazy him, and unplugged after a convention that tried to “humanize” him with grandchildren, horses and wifely anecdotes about his inability to dance the twist, Mr. Cheney is back as Terrifier in Chief….Mr. Cheney implies that John Kerry couldn’t protect us from an attack like 9/11, blithely ignoring the fact that he and President Bush didn’t protect us from the real 9/11. Think of what brass-knuckled Republicans could have made of a 9/11 tape of an uncertain Democratic president giving a shaky statement that looked like a hostage tape and flying randomly from air base to air base, as the veep ordered that planes be shot down.

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

Does fascism apply?

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

Neiwert, following Paxton, writes

Feelings propel fascism more than thought does. We might call them mobilizing passions, since they function in fascist movements to recruit followers in fascist movements, and in fascist regimes to “weld” the fascist “tribe” to its leader. The following mobilizing passions are present in fascisms, though they may sometimes be articulated only implicitly:1. The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going down Paxton’s list, it is fairly easy to identify these “passions” at play today….

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

1. Group primacy: We have to “get it right”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheney Implies Perpetual War

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

Dual Loyalties

On Douglas Feith and Likud:

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

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

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

Cheney, Halliburton and Iraq: The Purloined Letter

Also on endless war: “Turning the Republic into a praetorian state would permanently yield profits for the military industrial complex in such a way as to create a permanent Republican dominance of all the branches of the US government”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sluggish

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