The more I look at these White House press briefings, the more I don’t understand why Helen Thomas was, apparently, the only regular reporter to catch this guy. Here is a further sampling of questions he posed. Note particularly the alert attention to nonexistent issues that could benefit the White House, the absence of any pretense of nonpartisanship, and the attack on the press:

[June 18, 2003]

Q Democrats in Congress are dragging their feet on the president’s free trade initiatives. Is the president frustrated by the loss of business and jobs, as result of their procrastination?

[June 26, 2003]

Q Two questions, please. Earlier in the year, the president announced a plan to competitively source over 400,000 federal jobs. Democrats in Congress are attaching language to appropriations bills for each of the agencies to prevent that. Is that something that the president would veto if those bills came to his desk with that language in it?

MR. FLEISCHER: On competitive souring?

Q Yes.

[December 22, 2003]

Q I have a six-point question. Does the president share the view of millions of Americans who pray for him every day that hard-left groups like the ACLU and Americans for Separation of Church and State are waging a war on religion, and particularly — in particular, Christianity?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think you’ve heard the president’s views when it comes to religion. He’s spoken out very forcefully on this issue. The president is someone who believes in the right of all people to freely express their religious views. And he is someone that believes in religious tolerance. The president believes that we should welcome people of all faiths, and that those of faith should not be discriminated against. Those are the president’s views, and he’s talked about that repeatedly.

Q In particularly, I’m trying to evoke a statement from the president, who’s a deeply religious person, to a bewildered and angry majority of Americans who see their freedom of religion being infringed by the courts and a shrill minority.[N.b.: This isn’t the only time this speaker has alluded to nonexistent attacks on Christmas by an unspecified minority.]

[January 23, 2004]

Q Thanks, Scott. Some of the president’s most ardent supporters were disappointed that he didn’t say more in his State of the Union Address about the out-of-control judiciary. While the Pickering appointment was well received, what’s the president going to do to break the logjam of the obstructionist minority in the Senate on his judges that are still being filibustered?

MR. MCCLELLAN: The president continues to urge a minority of Senate Democrats to quit playing politics with our nation’s judicial system. The Senate needs to move forward and give all nominees an up- or-down vote. That is their constitutional responsibility. The president has put forward highly qualified nominees, and the Senate — a minority of Senate Democrats have chosen to play partisan politics and obstruct the process. Meanwhile, there are some judicial emergencies that need to be filled, and one of those was the vacant seat that Judge Pickering is now filling.

Q In the 6th Circuit in particular, there is a judicial crisis where the caseloads are far in excess of the average of the other circuits. Will the president recess appointment just to fill those vacancies?

[November 8, 2004]

Q Thank you. With all the reaching out that’s going on around here, the president said Thursday in his press conference that he was reaching out to the press corps.

What did he mean by that? And why would he feel the need to reach out to a group of supposedly nonpartisan people?

MR. MCCLELLAN: I think that was a tongue-in-cheek comment that the president made at the beginning of the press conference. He was showing his outreach efforts by holding that press conference the day after the election was decided.

Q Has he decided to let bygones be bygones and —

MR. MCCLELLAN: Look. Look. You heard — you heard from the president —

Q — (inaudible)?

MR. MCCLELLAN: You heard from the president at the news conference. The media certainly has an important role to play in keeping the American people informed about the decisions that we make here in Washington, D.C. He has —

Q Despite the role that they tried to play, the president won anyhow. Is there some kind of rapprochement that’s going on?

From the transcripts, there is little doubt that “Jeff Gannon” tried to deflect any criticism of the White House re Iraq or domestic security, by any means:

Go ahead, Jeff.
[November 5, 2003]
Q I know that you said you hadn’t seen the Rockefeller memo that Jim referred to, but I have, and it clearly outlines a Democrat plan to exploit the information gathered by the committee to undermine the president’s reelection chances. Under those circumstances, would the White House consider halting the transfer of documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee until a Senate ethics panel investigates the matter?

MR. MCCLELLAN: We have been and will continue to work cooperatively with the Senate Intelligence Committee. That is our position. We want to assist them and help — we want to be helpful in their efforts to review the intelligence relating to Iraq. That’s exactly what we plan to continue doing. Again, I just have not seen that specific memo. I’ve seen the news reports. But, you know, we would hope that people are not trying to politicize an issue of such importance.

Q Doesn’t the implication of the memo cast a whole new light on the Niger controversy and all of the things that have ensued after the remarks of Joe Wilson?

Go ahead, Jeff.
[March 22, 2004]
Q Does the president have any regrets about his “new tone” policy now that one more Clinton holdover has betrayed his administration?  [this is about Dick Clarke]

MR. MCCLELLAN: I’m sorry, does the president have —

Q Well, does he have any regrets about the new tone that he wanted to set in Washington, now that these people from the previous administration, from another political party, have taken the actions they have done?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, let me just — I mean, without getting into specific areas there; just broadly, the president has always been someone who’s worked to elevate the discourse, and worked to focus on where we can advance on common ground issues of great importance. There are many common challenges that we have, and the president believes it’s important to reach out and work together to address those priorities. Certainly it’s difficult to change the tone in this town. But the president —

Q Don’t you see it as a little one-sided here?

Go ahead, Jeff.
[March 24, 2004]
Q On the issue of the credibility, a staff report of the 9/11 commission was released yesterday, and in it it said that they had not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim that they offered Osama bin Laden to the United States in 1996.

This is despite a speech by President Clinton to the Long Island Association in 2002 where he said, and I’ll quote, “I did not bring him here because we had no basis” to hold him. And he also went on to say, and he “pleaded with the Saudis to take him,” unquote. Do you think something like this undermines the credibility of the conclusions that the commission is going to reach in matters like this?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, one, I haven’t had a chance to look at the commission report. We certainly are working very closely and cooperatively with the commission so that they can get to the bottom of this matter, and —

Q It was in their opening statement, before any witnesses testified yesterday. That’s why I bring it up.

MR. MCCLELLAN: And they made the claim that —

Q Yes, that there was no evidence to support the Sudanese claim that they offered Osama bin Laden to the United States in 1996.

Go ahead, Jeff.
[April 16, 2004]
Q The White House declassified the August 6, 2001, PDB for the 9/11 commission investigation. Will there be others? And have there been other PDBs that have been declassified?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the September 11th commission has talked about some that maybe they would like to see declassified. You might want to direct some questions to them. Those are always issues that certainly we talk with the commission about in direct discussions. And we always talk with them in a spirit of trying to make sure they have all the information they need to do their job.

Q But it’s you that make the decision to declassify it?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, if there are requests that are made of us, we’ll work with the commission and discuss those issues with the commission. I’m not going to get into discussing specific issues that may be going on at this point. But we always work with them to accommodate their needs.

Q One more question on that.

MR. MCCLELLAN: We try to be fully responsive. Well, we have worked to be fully responsive to all their requests, I might point out.

Q Are PDBs from the previous administration, are those under consideration to be declassified?

Go ahead, Jeff.
[April 28, 2004]
Q Is there any agreement between the White House and the 9/11 commission regarding the president’s and the vice president’s remarks tomorrow; that is, not revealing them to the public and only including them in the report; or should we expect to see commissioners on television tomorrow afternoon characterizing those remarks?

MR. MCCLELLAN: I don’t know what the commission’s plans are following the meeting. I know that when they met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore, that they put out a statement afterwards and pretty much let that speak for the meeting. But I don’t know what their plans are for tomorrow.

Q Is Commissioner Gorelick going to participate in this tomorrow or is she going to recuse herself?

MR. MCCLELLAN: We’ve been told that all 10 commission members will be present tomorrow.

Go ahead, Jeff.
[April 29, 2004]
Q Some Republicans on Capitol Hill believe that the work of the 9/11 commission won’t be complete until and unless Jamie Gorelick testifies before the commission on her role in building the wall between intelligence and law enforcement. Is that an opinion shared by the White House?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Look, the president — you know, I think even at the beginning of the meeting he made some brief remarks — he didn’t have a prepared opening statement or anything like that, but certainly made some opening remarks for being — and essentially, I think, he thanked them for the work that they’re doing, talked about how he appreciated what they were doing and that their work is very important to what we are doing to protect the American people. And I think that the president looks at this and doesn’t believe that there ought to be finger-pointing. We ought to all be working together to learn the lessons of September 11th and make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect the homeland and win the war on terrorism. That’s the way he looks at it.

Q Well, the Justice Department keeps releasing documents. They’ve released another — they declassified 30 pages yesterday that reinforce the idea that —

MR. MCCLELLAN: I think the president — yeah —

Q — Ms. Gorelick has more that she could offer to —

MR. MCCLELLAN: No, I understand that’s what the Justice Department did.

We were not involved in it. I think the president was disappointed about that.

Q The president was disappointed in the Justice Department for releasing that document?

Go ahead, Jeff.
[April 30, 2004]
Q Yesterday the White House criticized the Justice Department for releasing the Gorelick memos. You said the president doesn’t believe that there should be finger-pointing. This indicates that you know there is something in those memos that is potentially damaging to Commissioner Gorelick. Why shouldn’t this information be made public?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Jeff, I think that there’s work going on by the 9/11 commission to look at all issues related to the threat from terrorism prior to September 11th. And I said yesterday that it’s important for the commission to look at everything that can help them complete their work.

And, you know, I think what I was referring to on the Justice Department, I addressed yesterday, and I think I will leave it there. I think the president made his views known.

Q Okay, fine. It was Senator Cornyn and also Senator Graham that requested that information be released, in a letter to them a week ago. So it wasn’t the Justice Department that was just acting on its own to do that; it was from a specific request from the Senate. And Senator Cornyn believes that Commissioner Gorelick should testify in front of the 9/11 commission. Why shouldn’t Commissioner Gorelick have her chance to publicly apologize to the 9/11 families?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Go ahead, Jeff. You had one.
[June 15, 2004]
Q Thanks. Why hasn’t the administration made more of the U.N. inspector’s report that says Saddam Hussein was dismantling his missile and WMD sites before and during the war? And doesn’t that, combined with the now-proven al Qaeda link between Iraq — between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization unequivocally make the case for going to war in Iraq?

Go ahead, Jeff.
[July 15, 2004]
Q Thank you.

Q A Calhoun. (Laughter.)

Q Forgive me if my colleagues — forgive me if my colleagues have already touched on this subject, but last Friday the Senate Intelligence —

MR. MCCLELLAN: Three if we don’t shout all over each other and we have a civil discourse.

Q I have a question.

MR. MCCLELLAN: I’m coming to you, Helen.

Q Last Friday the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn’t put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the president’s 16 words were, quote, “well founded,” unquote. Doesn’t Joe Wilson owe the president and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, one, let me point out that I think those reports speak for themselves on that issue. And I think if you have questions about that, you can direct that to Mr. Wilson.

Q Well, we spent so many weeks here dissecting the 16 words that are now absolutely true. Don’t you think —

Q How do you know that?

Q Excuse me, Helen. Don’t you think that America deserves the opportunity to have this information brought forward as well?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, I noticed some media reports on this very issue over the weekend —

Q There are very few of them.

[One notes that he even got to elbow the esteemed Helen Thomas aside.]

(Clarke’s Jan. 25, 2001, memo to Condoleezza Rice, now public, supports his testimony.)

Former security advisor Dick Clarke, from both the Clinton and the Bush administrations, testified before the 9/11 Commission March 24, 2004, also appearing on talk shows and CBS’ 60 Minutes.  He also had a book coming out, critical of the White House approach to terrorism before and after 9/11.  The White House and its “noise machine” were kept hopping that week. Here’s the quick timeline:

March 22, 2004 (1:10 pm:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040322-5.html

Cheney, interviewed on the phone by Rush Limbaugh:

“Q All right, let’s get straight to what the news is all about now, before we branch out to things. Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn’t directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cyber security side of things, that is he was given a new assignment at some point here. I don’t recall the exact time frame.

Q Cyber security, meaning Internet security?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, worried about attacks on the computer systems and the sophisticated information technology systems we have these days that an adversary would use or try to the system against us.

Q Well, now that explains a lot, that answer right there explains — (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he wasn’t — he wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff. And I saw part of his interview last night, and he wasn’t –

Q He was demoted.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on.”

[In other words, Clarke was motivated by sour grapes. But for those thinking that demoting a counterterrorism specialist might indicate lack of concern about terrorism, Condoleezza Rice had a different answer; see below.]

March 23, 2004:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040323-5.html

Bush speaks briefly with reporters, says “I’m worried about terrorist groups targeting America. And we take every threat seriously in this administration. Nearly every morning that I come to work, I talk to George Tenet, FBI Director Mueller and others about the threats to the United States. And there’s still serious threats because of what we stand for. There are still people who want to harm our country. And so — whether it be an Hamas threat, or an al Qaeda threat, we take them very seriously in this administration.”

March 24, 2004 (4:30 pm):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040324-3.html

Condoleezza Rice, interviewed by network reporters , says “The fact is that I have heard that Dick Clarke has apparently said that he thought the attack was coming in the United States. He never communicated that to anyone.”

March 24, 2004 (5:30 pm):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040324-2.html

Condoleezza Rice, interviewed by wire/print reporters, calls Clarke’s testimony “a kind of shifting story.”  Says “The President was being briefed by George Tenet at least 40 some — 40 plus of his briefings dealt, in one way or another al Qaeda, or the al Qaeda threat.

During the threat period it got really urgent. That’s when I was on the phone with Colin and Don, and Don was moving the Fifth Fleet out of port, and when Colin was buttoning down embassies abroad. And when we actually did have Dick Clarke come in and — Andy Card and I did — and on July 5th convene the domestic agencies to say, even though all the threat reporting is about some threat abroad — because it was the Persian Gulf, the G8, possibly something in Israel — bring the domestic agencies together, let’s make sure that they’re buttoning down. The FAA issues alerts. The FBI issues warnings. So it’s pretty urgent and important.”

Rice also says Clarke “wasn’t demoted,” dealing with Limbaugh’s remarks, above.

March 24, 2004 (6:30 pm):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040324-4.html

Condoleezza Rice, interviewed by Tom Brokaw, says “Tom, I just don’t think that the record bears out Dick Clarke’s assertion. In fact, on January 25th, in response to a question from me to my staff to tell me what we should be worrying about, what we should be doing, he sent us a set of ideas that would perhaps help to roll back al Qaeda over a three-to-five-year period. We acted on those ideas very quickly. And what’s very interesting is that, while Dick Clarke now says that we ignored his ideas, or we didn’t follow them up, in August of 2002, in a press interview, he said that we had, in fact, acted on those ideas. So he can’t have it both ways.”

March 25, 2004:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040325-15.html

White House press secretary Scott McClellan says Clarke “has a growing credibility problem.”

March 28, 2004:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040328.html

Rice herself appears on 60 Minutes, says that “shortly after we came into office, I asked the counterterrorism team — which we kept in place from the Clinton administration in order to provide continuity and experience — we asked them what policy initiatives should we take.

We got a list of policy initiatives; we acted on those policy initiatives. We felt that we were not in a position to have a comprehensive strategy that would not just roll back al Qaeda – which had been the policy of the Clinton administration – but we needed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. And we put that work into motion. And, in fact, that produced a comprehensive strategy several weeks before 9/11.”

March 30, 2004:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040330-7.html

GWBush announces that Rice will testify publicly before the 9/11 Commission after all, after Rice insists all week that “constitutional” considerations prevent her doing so (see above).

March 31, 2004:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040331-4.html#5

Scott McClellan says “We’ve made our views very well-known. I think most Americans view Dick Clarke and his contradictions as yesterday’s story.”

            However, one questioner takes a sterner line:

“Q Okay, the second question, on Richard Clarke. A lot has been made about Dr. Rice’s testimony, whether she would testify. But not a lot has been made about the perjury charges that Bill Frist made on Friday, on the Senate floor. He said, basically, that Mr. Clarke had two different stories under oath. Isn’t that perjury, and shouldn’t he be prosecuted for that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those are decisions that others make, obviously. I think that this is a decision that was made by Senate leaders. They made a request of us, and our role is to look at those issues and see what could be declassified.

Q The question is about the declassification —

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that was a decision —

Q — if they should —

MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish? That was a decision by congressional leaders.

Q But if he did have two different, contradictory statements under oath, shouldn’t he be prosecuted for perjury?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to get into speculating about that.”

[For the record, little noises about nailing Clarke for “perjury” went nowhere.]

The narrative below was forwarded to me by a respected expert in aviation security, who says it was sent to him in turn “by one of the very few people in TSA I hold in the highest esteem, for honor, integrity, and true understanding/knowledge of aviation security concepts.”

The message starts by commenting that references to freedom and democracy in the SOTU speech seem not to apply to U.S. Federal Air Marshals.

Here’s the narrative:

“Earlier that same day [day of the speech], several Federal Air Marshals traveled from across the country (on their own time, at their own expense) to observe history in the making: Michael Chertoff, their new DHS boss and a fellow law enforcement official, was involved in a part of the democratic process that all Air Marshals are sworn to protect. When the confirmation hearing was over, many of the Air Marshals were (unknowingly) filmed by the media shaking Judge Chertoff’s hand, and as a direct result U.S. Federal Air Marshal Service Director Thomas D. Quinn opened formal investigations into their activities (the investigations began last Friday afternoon and target several “rank and file” Air Marshals, and at least one senior management official).”

For background/context, “This comes a little over two weeks after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security rescinded a requirement that all employees sign security waivers that would have permitted searches of DHS employees homes (in violation of the 4th Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure) for even the most minor of job infractions. It would seem that Director Quinn not only wants to control what the Air Marshals wear at all times, he also wants
to control what Air Marshals say and do on their own time. Even if it means violating their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech, and their rights as US citizens to witness their government in action.”

”One may wonder why Director Quinn would make such a decision. The answer is simple. Director Quinn probably used the same powers of deduction that have led to dangerous hotel policies, media disclosures of sensitive security information, and the “Men In Black” dress code that places us (as in the U.S. or We The People) in mortal danger (Federal Air Marshals rely upon
the element of surprise, and operate undercover to prevent large groups of terrorists from identifying and overpowering Air Marshals and using their guns to hijack airliners). These are also the reasons why anyone and everyone having anything to do with civil aviation, law enforcement, and the war on terrorism in general, have demanded his resignation. Perhaps Director Quinn decided that Air Marshals should not have access to their duly elected representatives because they might tell someone about his improprieties and failure to protect the flying public. Someone, perhaps Judge Chertoff, maybe even the President of the United States, should let Mr. Quinn know that he does not have the authority to violate anyone’s 1st or 4th Amendment rights.”

“More importantly, they should tell him to pack his bags and leave office because he’s FIRED.”

”The United States has had enough of imperious public officials who decide to do things the proper way only after three or four thousand Americans are dead. The main lesson learned from the 9/11 Commission Report was that institutionalized failures in US law enforcement and intelligence agencies allowed the terrorists to successfully murder thousands of Americans.
Thomas Quinn has created an institution of failure that will do anything and everything to protect the inept, and punish the conscientious. Thomas Quinn needs to be fired. Immediately.”

Some thoughts to add, here. One is that undoubtedly the Air Marshals program has the same problems with incompetence and cover-up from the top that other “security” programs have. The other, however, is that undoubtedly Chertoff will require extraordinary security protection. Aside from the policies he has supported, a New Jersey law client of his was directly connected to questionable entities in the Middle East and may even be related to the late Mohamed Atta. (See Allan Duncan’s questions on these points.)

Some people in the administration may even have recognized that big crimes are often partly inside jobs, which would explain why the guardians are being guarded. Still, I sympathize with the writer’s obvious sincerity. Thousands of individuals in government and elsewhere are working genuinely for safety measures, and they are being continuously insulted by the massive pretenses of the “war on terror.”

Since I’m going to be on Meria Heller’s radio program today, I wanted to clarify my thinking about last night’s State of the Union address beforehand. Two major points, re the speech: (1) few surprises; and (2) heartbreak.

The heartbreak must be fought. So – let’s start with those items in the SOTU that offer a little humor, namely the presidential tweaking. Clearly, with the White House slaughtering innocent people in Fallujah, sending US troops into a combat zone from which they cannot escape without mental harm, and trying to bulldoze domestic opposition and genuine news reporting, this was a time for some . . . First Softening.

Not all the language adjustments are new, but the White House Tweaking Team is obviously on the job:

·        The word “oil” is not used – and I mean, not ever – it’s been replaced entirely with the word “energy.”

·        In a couple of clear references to the Baby Boomer generation, the term “Baby Boomers” was not used – replaced with “our generation.”

·        The word “Christian” was not heard – replaced with “faith.”

·        As predicted, “privatize” or “privatizing,” “privatized” etc were not mentioned in re Social Security; the word of choice was “personal.” (just once)

·        And in some references to health care and lower-income workers among others, the word “insurance” was used only once – replaced with “coverage.”

No mysteries here; you can see why they don’t emphasize the word “insurance,” for example. Mentioning “insurance” might remind people of “insurance companies.” And if the public starts thinking about insurance companies — Someone might ask how much money insurance companies are raking in from their investments, why they’re being allowed to hike up their rates on doctors, and why they’re not being forced to provide genuine coverage.

Can anyone compute the actual wealth of the US insurance industry, give or take a trillion?

Substitutions aside, on to some key omissions: No reference by name to Osama bin Laden, for obvious reasons. Weirdly, only a couple of refs to “the European Union” (as standing with us) – and NO reference by name to Europe, China, Japan, Africa, Latin America (including Mexico), Canada, or Australia (or Antarctica, or the poles, of course). Thus when Bush mentioned other countries that have elections, whom did he name? – Great Britain (also not named in the speech), the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Canada? Not on your bippy. He linked us with Afghanistan, the Ukraine (though the words “exit polls” did not come up), and Iraq.

I checked my observations in the transcript this morning. Sure enough: it’s analogous to the old David Levine cartoon of a New Yorker’s view of America, with Manhattan extending out to about Kansas etc. – This is indeed GWBush’s view of the world, owing to his obsession with oil: a polar conflict between us (with US oil companies breaking their previous records for profits, in 2004) on one side, and barriers to our FREE access to global oil reserves on the other, for the next forty years.

In 2003, the Wall Street Journal ran an article estimating that the world’s oil reserves will run out in 40 years. On second thought, I’m not going to deal with the Orwellian references to “freedom.” As I have written before: one nation has no right to invade and remake another nation, because there is no such right.

One heartbreaking note, and I’ll try to keep this brief, regarding Bush’s statement about no “timetable” for withdrawing from Iraq. (Stop reading here, if you have a weak stomach, or a conscience.) I once read a novel in which the (woman) author narrated a child-abuse tactic: the abusive mother/parent spanked/whipped the child, while telling the child to stop crying. – “Stop that, or I’ll give you something to cry about!” – So the child, by a massive effort of will and hope, forced itself to stop crying. – And the mother kept whipping/spanking the child.

Sad to say, I believe I have also observed some of this in real life. It is such a violation, a self-evident violation of trust and personal faith and decency, that every human being can feel it as such at a gut level. 

This unbalanced aggression is the parallel to Bush’s Iraq occupation. The Iraqis who are trying to fight the occupation know perfectly well that if they stopped fighting, if they demonstrated perfect peacableness for a day, a week, a year – Bush still would not refrain from the ongoing aggression. (He announced that he would proceed with the invasion –

Even if Saddam were to leave Iraq!)

This is no space to psychoanalyze Bush’s brittleness, selfishness and cruelty, though clearly he needs some help. (My own guess is that he is taking infinite revenge against all the “smart people” during Vietnam and afterward who belittled him.) Be it said that as an American, I am ashamed of Bush, and I want the world to know it.

I am ashamed of the big newspapers, too. Bush threw out another sop to the Washington Post last night: he is extending the “No Child” standardized testing to high schools. Among corporations that will benefit is The Post Co., which owns Kaplan and its subsidiaries and has already recouped several hundred million in operating revenues from the Bush brothers’ “education reforms.” For the record, I am an educator, and we have enough testing, test-prepping and tutoring already. All this prepping and tutoring does not “raise standards”; it skews standards.

But it’s not the WashPost’s reporting on the education bill that worries me. It’s the Post’s lack of genuine reporting on Bush, his brother Jeb, his family’s gains from the “war on terrorism,” that so-called war itself, the opposition to the invasion, the handling of 9/11,

and Bush’s ongoing central aims: (1) to invade the Middle East, and (2) to reverse the New Deal. Speaking of that, one of the biggest Orwellianisms in the speech, aside from calling a war of aggression pro-“freedom,” was GWBush’s quoting Franklin Roosevelt.