By William Fisher
Small government is one of the golden tenets of American conservatism. Small government is more efficient. The smaller the government, the more power will be returned to the people. The smaller the government, the freer our people will be of bureaucratic intrusion, regulation and control. The smaller the government, the closer lawmaking will be to the ‘will of the people’.
There is much to commend this Jeffersonian construct – notwithstanding that it often chooses to ignore the many roles small government simply cannot play in modern society and the many benefits we all receive from big government.
But I am struck by the eagerness of at least one faction of American conservatism is to ‘rise above principle’ when they find it convenient.
Nowhere is this hypocrisy more naked than in the cheerleading of the religious right for the Bush Administration’s Faith-Based Initiative.
For those who may have been tuned to another channel for the past five years, the Faith-Based Initiative is a program President George W. Bush set up in 2001 to provide Federal grants to religiously affiliated charities. Since that time, these charities have received millions of dollars in taxpayer funding from Federal departments and agencies.
I have had the opportunity to witness the work of some of these faith-based charities firsthand, and it has been outstanding. Catholic Charities, for example, carries out a multitude of tasks under contract to the U.S. Agency for International Development in some of the most inhospitable venues in the developing world. Other religiously-affiliated groups will be remembered for their splendid performance in providing help to victims of the tsunami.
The work of the overwhelming majority of these and many other similar groups is not about religion or political philosophy. It is about providing food and shelter, or introducing best practices in agriculture, education and public health, or organizing micro-credit programs for the “least of these’.
So what’s the problem?
First, some of these charities have abused their missions by proselytizing. They have used cataclysmic disasters to spread their personal Gospels. For example, more than a few distributed copies of the King James Bible and Jesus T-shirts to tsunami survivors in predominantly Muslim communities. Others have received grants to conduct clearly evangelical programs for prison inmates in the U.S.
Second, some religious charities have been involved in reproductive health programs – and have slavishly toed the Bush ‘abstinence only’ line in providing family planning counseling to women.
But, beyond doubt, the biggest problem with the Faith-Based Initiative is that it allows fund recipients to practice clearly unlawful discrimination in their hiring practices. The Bush plan says if you’re, say, a Baptist organization, it’s OK for you to hire only Baptists, or if your organization is Christian, you can reject employment applications from Jews.
That’s why the Bush Administration has never been able to get the Faith-Based Initiative though Congress, and the President had to launch it by Executive Order.
The question Congress has been unable to answer is: If the aim of a government-funded charity is not proselytizing, what difference should it make if I’m a Muslim working for a Christian organization?
Religiously-affiliated charities ought to stop and reflect on what they’re getting from the government – and what they’re giving up in the process.
Money is what they’re getting. But a conservative tenet every bit as central as small government is community support. Private, individual philanthropy has a long and rich tradition in American culture. Many church-related groups don’t need public funding. And those that are not running mega-churches or multi-million dollar televangelist enterprises should be looking to their own communities for support.
What these groups are giving up by accepting Federal funds is even more important: Their credibility to speak out on issues that may be unpopular, but that cry out for public dialogue. While they may be comfortable with the values of the Bush Administration today, Bush is not our last president.
What reminded me of this issue is Taylor Branch’s splendid book, “At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68”, about Martin Luther King. Branch reminds readers that MLK always had one foot in the Scriptures and the other foot in the Constitution, and never confused the two.
The religious right ought to ask itself if America would ever have had a Civil Rights movement if Dr. King and his allies had been on the government payroll. It was the separation of church and state – not its amalgamation – that empowered that movement to speak truth to power.
Which is exactly what the religious community is uniquely qualified to be doing.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Fight against terror is a latter day edition of Indian wars
John Brown is a former foreign service officer who resigned over the war in Iraq. He compiles the Public Diplomacy Press Review.
By John Brown
Like all historical events, the global war on terror is unique. But I'd like to suggest another way of looking at the war: as a 21st-century continuation of the American Indian wars, on a global scale. This is by no means something that has occurred to me alone, but it has received little attention. Here are a half-dozen reasons why I'm making this suggestion:
-- The essential paradigm of the war on terror -- us (the attacked) against them (the attackers) -- was no less essential to the mind set of white settlers regarding the Indians, starting at least from the 1622 Indian massacre of 347 people at Jamestown, Va. With rare exceptions, newly arrived Europeans and their descendants saw Indians as mortal enemies who started the initial fight against them -- savages with whom they could not co-exist. The Declaration of Independence condemned "the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." When governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson stated: "If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River. The same world would scarcely do for them and us." President Andrew Jackson, whose "unapologetic flexing of military might" has been compared to George W. Bush's modus operandi, noted in his "Case for the Removal [of Indians] Act" (Dec. 8, 1830):
"What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, ... and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?"
Us versus them is, of course, a feature of all wars, but the starkness of this dichotomy -- seen by war-on-terror supporters as a struggle between the civilized world and a global jihad -- is as strikingly apparent in the war on terror as it was in the Indian wars.
-- The war on terror is based on the principle of preventive strike, meant to put off "potential, future and, therefore, speculative attacks" -- just as U.S. Army conflicts against the Indians often were. We have to get them before they get us -- such is the assumption behind both sets of wars. As Professor Jack Forbes wrote in a 2003 piece, "Old Indian Wars Dominate Bush Doctrines," in the Bay Mills News:
"Bush has declared that the U.S. will attack first before an 'enemy' has
the ability to act. This could, of course, be called 'the Pearl Harbor
strategy' since that is precisely what the Japanese Empire did. But it
also has precedents against First American nations. For example, William
Henry Harrison, under pressure from Thomas Jefferson to get the American
Nations out of the Illinois-Indiana region, marched an invading army to
the vicinity of a Native village at Tippecanoe precisely when he knew that
(Shawnee war chief and pan-tribal political leader) Tecumseh was on a tour
of the south and west."
-- U.S. mainstream thinking about war-on-terror enemies is that they are total aliens -- in religion, politics, economics and social organization -- but there are Americans who believe that individuals in these "primitive" societies can eventually become assimilated and thus be rendered harmless through training, education or democratization. This is similar to the view among American settlers that in savage Indian tribes hostile to civilization, there were some that could be evangelized and Christianized and brought over to the morally right, Godly side. Once "Americanized," former hostile groups, with the worst among them exterminated, can no longer pose any threat and indeed can assist in the prolongation of conflicts against remaining evil-doers.
-- The war on terror is fought abroad, but it's also a war at home, as the creation after Sept. 11, 2001, of a Department of Homeland Security illustrates. The Indian wars were domestic as well, carried out by the U.S. military to protect American settlers against hostile non-U.S. citizens living on American soil. (It was not until June 2, 1924, that Congress granted citizenship to all American Indians born in the United States.)
In the Indian wars, the United States fought without the help of foreign governments; such has essentially been the case with the war on terror, despite the support of a few countries like Israel, the creation of a weak international "coalition" in Iraq, and NATO participation in Afghanistan operations.
-- As for the current states that are major battlefields of the war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq, it appears that the model for their future, far from being functional democracies, is that of Indian reservations. It is not unlikely that the fragile political structures of these states will sooner or later collapse, and the resulting tribal/ethnic entities will be controlled -- assuming the United States proves willing to engage in long-term garrisoning -- by American forces in fortified bases, as was the case with the Indian territories in the Far West. Areas under American control will provide U.S. occupiers with natural resources (oil), and American business -- if the security situation becomes manageable -- will doubtless be lured there in search of opportunities. Interestingly, the area outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad (where Americans have fortified themselves) is now referred to as the Red Zone -- terrorist-infested territory as dangerous to non-natives as the lands inhabited by the Redskins were to whites during the Indian wars.
-- As the war on terror increasingly appears to be, the Indian wars were a very long conflict, stretching from the 17th century to the end of the 19th -- the longest war in American history. There were numerous battles of varying intensity with no central point of confrontation -- like the war on terror, despite its emphasis on Iraq. And the war on terror is being fought, like the Indian wars over large geographical areas -- as the Heritage Foundation's Ariel Cohen puts it, almost lyrically, "in the Greater Middle East, including the Mediterranean basin, through the Fertile Crescent, and into the remote valleys and gorges of the Caucasus and Pakistan, the deserts of Central Asia, the plateaus of Afghanistan."
By John Brown
Like all historical events, the global war on terror is unique. But I'd like to suggest another way of looking at the war: as a 21st-century continuation of the American Indian wars, on a global scale. This is by no means something that has occurred to me alone, but it has received little attention. Here are a half-dozen reasons why I'm making this suggestion:
-- The essential paradigm of the war on terror -- us (the attacked) against them (the attackers) -- was no less essential to the mind set of white settlers regarding the Indians, starting at least from the 1622 Indian massacre of 347 people at Jamestown, Va. With rare exceptions, newly arrived Europeans and their descendants saw Indians as mortal enemies who started the initial fight against them -- savages with whom they could not co-exist. The Declaration of Independence condemned "the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." When governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson stated: "If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River. The same world would scarcely do for them and us." President Andrew Jackson, whose "unapologetic flexing of military might" has been compared to George W. Bush's modus operandi, noted in his "Case for the Removal [of Indians] Act" (Dec. 8, 1830):
"What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, ... and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?"
Us versus them is, of course, a feature of all wars, but the starkness of this dichotomy -- seen by war-on-terror supporters as a struggle between the civilized world and a global jihad -- is as strikingly apparent in the war on terror as it was in the Indian wars.
-- The war on terror is based on the principle of preventive strike, meant to put off "potential, future and, therefore, speculative attacks" -- just as U.S. Army conflicts against the Indians often were. We have to get them before they get us -- such is the assumption behind both sets of wars. As Professor Jack Forbes wrote in a 2003 piece, "Old Indian Wars Dominate Bush Doctrines," in the Bay Mills News:
"Bush has declared that the U.S. will attack first before an 'enemy' has
the ability to act. This could, of course, be called 'the Pearl Harbor
strategy' since that is precisely what the Japanese Empire did. But it
also has precedents against First American nations. For example, William
Henry Harrison, under pressure from Thomas Jefferson to get the American
Nations out of the Illinois-Indiana region, marched an invading army to
the vicinity of a Native village at Tippecanoe precisely when he knew that
(Shawnee war chief and pan-tribal political leader) Tecumseh was on a tour
of the south and west."
-- U.S. mainstream thinking about war-on-terror enemies is that they are total aliens -- in religion, politics, economics and social organization -- but there are Americans who believe that individuals in these "primitive" societies can eventually become assimilated and thus be rendered harmless through training, education or democratization. This is similar to the view among American settlers that in savage Indian tribes hostile to civilization, there were some that could be evangelized and Christianized and brought over to the morally right, Godly side. Once "Americanized," former hostile groups, with the worst among them exterminated, can no longer pose any threat and indeed can assist in the prolongation of conflicts against remaining evil-doers.
-- The war on terror is fought abroad, but it's also a war at home, as the creation after Sept. 11, 2001, of a Department of Homeland Security illustrates. The Indian wars were domestic as well, carried out by the U.S. military to protect American settlers against hostile non-U.S. citizens living on American soil. (It was not until June 2, 1924, that Congress granted citizenship to all American Indians born in the United States.)
In the Indian wars, the United States fought without the help of foreign governments; such has essentially been the case with the war on terror, despite the support of a few countries like Israel, the creation of a weak international "coalition" in Iraq, and NATO participation in Afghanistan operations.
-- As for the current states that are major battlefields of the war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq, it appears that the model for their future, far from being functional democracies, is that of Indian reservations. It is not unlikely that the fragile political structures of these states will sooner or later collapse, and the resulting tribal/ethnic entities will be controlled -- assuming the United States proves willing to engage in long-term garrisoning -- by American forces in fortified bases, as was the case with the Indian territories in the Far West. Areas under American control will provide U.S. occupiers with natural resources (oil), and American business -- if the security situation becomes manageable -- will doubtless be lured there in search of opportunities. Interestingly, the area outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad (where Americans have fortified themselves) is now referred to as the Red Zone -- terrorist-infested territory as dangerous to non-natives as the lands inhabited by the Redskins were to whites during the Indian wars.
-- As the war on terror increasingly appears to be, the Indian wars were a very long conflict, stretching from the 17th century to the end of the 19th -- the longest war in American history. There were numerous battles of varying intensity with no central point of confrontation -- like the war on terror, despite its emphasis on Iraq. And the war on terror is being fought, like the Indian wars over large geographical areas -- as the Heritage Foundation's Ariel Cohen puts it, almost lyrically, "in the Greater Middle East, including the Mediterranean basin, through the Fertile Crescent, and into the remote valleys and gorges of the Caucasus and Pakistan, the deserts of Central Asia, the plateaus of Afghanistan."
Need Congress as Qatchdog, not Groundhog
Former Congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. The article below originally appeared in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
By Bob Barr
Groundhog Day took place a few days ago, reminding us that even as a nation priding itself on being the last and only superpower on the face of the planet, we still allow our attention to be captured by events of absolutely no real significance. Yet here we are, less than a week later, watching a spectacle on Capitol Hill, something called an oversight hearing — which, like Punxsutawney Phil, emerges briefly, then slides back, and life goes on as if it never happened.
The event Monday, which drew perhaps as many TV cameras and photographers as Punxsutawney Phil's cameo appearance, was a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning recent revelations that the administration of President Bush has been, for more than four years, engaging in a program of electronic surveillance of reportedly many thousands of persons, including U.S. citizens, without court supervision — all in apparent violation of federal laws prohibiting such conduct.
The hearing got off to an almost comical start, when some Democrats questioned Chairman Arlen Specter (R- Pa.) as to whether he intended to place Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — the sole witness — under oath, as is the committee's custom. Specter rebuffed Democrat efforts to have the witness sworn, on the somewhat novel theory that Gonzales had assured the chairman he would not mind being placed under oath and that his testimony would be the same under oath as it would be not under oath. Thus, Specter apparently reasoned, why bother with the technical and demeaning step of having the attorney general raise his hand and swear to tell the truth. The White House reportedly had requested (demanded?) that the witness not be placed under oath.
The scenario thereafter played itself out along far-too-predictable lines. Gonzales answered those questions he wanted to answer, deferred others, and responded to many others based on what is becoming the administration's own "Fifth Amendment" privilege. The administration refuses to answer questions it doesn't want to answer on the grounds that to do so would endanger national security. This response was invoked time and again, even as to questions relating to what the law is or how it is interpreted by the president, the attorney general, the director of the National Security Agency (the vehicle by which this surveillance program appears to be carried out), or other administration officials.
Essentially, the nation's chief law enforcement officer believes that reciting the law will reveal to al-Qaida operatives top-secret information to which they would not otherwise be privy. Yet, the witness was allowed to invoke such defense to answering legitimate and relevant questions about the scope of the spying program, without penalty.
Another refrain invoked by Gonzales was that the president certainly doesn't have a blank check or unlimited power. Yet, the attorney general's actual responses to numerous questions posed by senators relating to the extent of the president's self-perceived power belied his recitations of limited power. Careful reading of the witness' responses to hypothetical or interpretive questions clearly demonstrated that the attorney general — who actually referred to the president as his "client" — is not willing to concede or admit to any limitations on President Bush's powers as commander in chief. And, of course, to complete the scenario, it is obvious that this president believes he can don the hat of commander in chief whenever he wants, or wear it all the time, at his sole discretion.
Even as the witness was refusing to answer questions, or cavalierly dismissing clear congressional intent in the drafting and passage of legislation such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which limits presidential authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens in this country), he assured the senators that the administration still believed itself bound by the Bill of Rights. Of course, when the Fourth Amendment (which still remains at least nominally a part of the Bill of Rights) is interpreted according to this administration's rules of interpretation, such assurances ring hollow.
Whether Congress finds its oversight backbone, and reasserts its proper role of ensuring the executive branch abides by rather than ignores the clear language and intent of federal law, remains to be seen. Unfortunately, thus far the leadership of the Congress, unlike even Punxsutawney Phil, appears scared of its own shadow.
By Bob Barr
Groundhog Day took place a few days ago, reminding us that even as a nation priding itself on being the last and only superpower on the face of the planet, we still allow our attention to be captured by events of absolutely no real significance. Yet here we are, less than a week later, watching a spectacle on Capitol Hill, something called an oversight hearing — which, like Punxsutawney Phil, emerges briefly, then slides back, and life goes on as if it never happened.
The event Monday, which drew perhaps as many TV cameras and photographers as Punxsutawney Phil's cameo appearance, was a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning recent revelations that the administration of President Bush has been, for more than four years, engaging in a program of electronic surveillance of reportedly many thousands of persons, including U.S. citizens, without court supervision — all in apparent violation of federal laws prohibiting such conduct.
The hearing got off to an almost comical start, when some Democrats questioned Chairman Arlen Specter (R- Pa.) as to whether he intended to place Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — the sole witness — under oath, as is the committee's custom. Specter rebuffed Democrat efforts to have the witness sworn, on the somewhat novel theory that Gonzales had assured the chairman he would not mind being placed under oath and that his testimony would be the same under oath as it would be not under oath. Thus, Specter apparently reasoned, why bother with the technical and demeaning step of having the attorney general raise his hand and swear to tell the truth. The White House reportedly had requested (demanded?) that the witness not be placed under oath.
The scenario thereafter played itself out along far-too-predictable lines. Gonzales answered those questions he wanted to answer, deferred others, and responded to many others based on what is becoming the administration's own "Fifth Amendment" privilege. The administration refuses to answer questions it doesn't want to answer on the grounds that to do so would endanger national security. This response was invoked time and again, even as to questions relating to what the law is or how it is interpreted by the president, the attorney general, the director of the National Security Agency (the vehicle by which this surveillance program appears to be carried out), or other administration officials.
Essentially, the nation's chief law enforcement officer believes that reciting the law will reveal to al-Qaida operatives top-secret information to which they would not otherwise be privy. Yet, the witness was allowed to invoke such defense to answering legitimate and relevant questions about the scope of the spying program, without penalty.
Another refrain invoked by Gonzales was that the president certainly doesn't have a blank check or unlimited power. Yet, the attorney general's actual responses to numerous questions posed by senators relating to the extent of the president's self-perceived power belied his recitations of limited power. Careful reading of the witness' responses to hypothetical or interpretive questions clearly demonstrated that the attorney general — who actually referred to the president as his "client" — is not willing to concede or admit to any limitations on President Bush's powers as commander in chief. And, of course, to complete the scenario, it is obvious that this president believes he can don the hat of commander in chief whenever he wants, or wear it all the time, at his sole discretion.
Even as the witness was refusing to answer questions, or cavalierly dismissing clear congressional intent in the drafting and passage of legislation such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which limits presidential authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens in this country), he assured the senators that the administration still believed itself bound by the Bill of Rights. Of course, when the Fourth Amendment (which still remains at least nominally a part of the Bill of Rights) is interpreted according to this administration's rules of interpretation, such assurances ring hollow.
Whether Congress finds its oversight backbone, and reasserts its proper role of ensuring the executive branch abides by rather than ignores the clear language and intent of federal law, remains to be seen. Unfortunately, thus far the leadership of the Congress, unlike even Punxsutawney Phil, appears scared of its own shadow.
"Evolution is Intelligently Designed: Social Darwinism, Silver Spoons, and Our Emperor’s Call to Arms to Sustain the Rich"
Jason Miller is a 39-year-old activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. When he is not spending time with his wife and three sons, researching, or writing, he is working as a loan counselor. He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner.
By Jason Miller
The State of the Empire Address
The De Facto Tyrant: Thank you all. Mr. Speaker, Uncle Dick, my Congressional collaborators, my five guaranteed votes on the Supreme Court, distinguished plutocrats, and the rest of you wretched plebs we begrudgingly tolerate (because you grease the wheels of our money-making machine): Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the fact that my regime is working vigorously to cause that noble dream to unravel at the seams.
Every time I’m invited to this rostrum, I remind you of the working class that you have been humbled by the privilege of serving under the strong and resolute leadership of my cabal. We have gathered under this Capitol dome in moments of national mourning and national achievement, but my fellow patricians and I have prospered, regardless of the state of the rest of the nation. It has been your honor to give your blood, sweat and tears to further our financial interests.
In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there is difference and debate. However, my corrupt, power-hungry colleagues and I have implemented measures to minimize and even eliminate that debate. To confront the great issues before us, I must be empowered as the ultimate authority, unfettered by the inefficiencies and headaches of answering to an empowered Congress or Supreme Court. Tonight the state of our Empire is strong---and my Regime will bleed you and the rest of the world dry to make it stronger.
In this decisive year, I will continue making choices to erode the character of our country. I will choose to continue pursuing fictitious enemies of freedom---rather than ceasing the perpetual war on terror, which would seriously undermine the profits of many of my corporate supporters. I will choose to build our wealthy elites’ prosperity by continuing to facilitate the exploitation of the workers and resources of other nations---in lieu of putting a leash on avaricious US corporations, which might expose the patrician class to loss of income. In a complex and challenging time, the road to becoming a decent, responsible member of the world community may seem broad and inviting---yet it ends in danger to the staggering affluence of my “base” and decline in the influence of the Empire. The only way to protect our investments, the only way to secure more money and power, the only way to control our destiny is through Neocolonialism and military invasion---so the United States will continue to defy international law, plunder resources, engage in torture, utilize slave labor, and murder millions of innocent civilians.
Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal---we seek the end of tyranny in our world by employing our own. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of our corporatocracy depends on it. On September 11th, 2001, we found that our continued oppression and aggression in the Middle East could bring murder and destruction to our country (albeit some say my regime had a hand in the events of that day, but the world will never know the truth). Dictatorships shelter terrorists, feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. For evidence, look no further than Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, Dominionists, and the largest arsenal of nuclear weaponry in the history of mankind. Every step toward America’s domination in the world makes our financial position stronger—so we will act boldly in rapidly concentrating power in the Executive Branch and in expanding the Empire.
Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of tyranny under the guise of democracy is the great story of our time. We’re writing a new chapter in the story of self-government. Just as we have with you in America, we will beguile the people of other nations into believing they are free, when in reality, once one scratches beneath the surface, their government will be a plutocracy, by the rich, for the rich and of the rich. Those resisting our spread of pseudo-democracy, like Syria, North Korea, and Iran, will find themselves in our cross-hairs.
No one can deny the success of the Empire, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction to our invasion, murder, and Neocolonialism is radical Islam---the stereotypical description we use for all Middle Eastern people who dare to defy our mighty nation. Terrorists like bin Laden are, like my cabal and me, serious about mass murder. They seek to prevent us from imposing a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East as we utilize our own arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Our aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against Syria and Iran. Lacking the military strength to challenge them directly, we will rely upon air strikes, tactical nuclear weapons, and Israel, the architect of our foreign policy. While the Terrorists have killed a few thousand, including 9/11, Spain, and London, we have killed over a hundred thousand in Iraq. Despite the fact that they were civilians, each of them could easily have become the next bin Laden. The world is safer without them.
Ina time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our oil and war for profit. If we were to leave the vicious attackers from the Middle East alone, they would not leave us alone. They have proven that time and again. Like on 9/11, and...Well....like on 9/11. By leaving radical Islam to work its will, we would signal that we no longer believe that our radical Christianity is morally superior, and that the Empire is too weak to continue its expansion. Our enemies (and two remaining friends) can be certain that the United States will never surrender in its bid to impose its own form of evil upon the world. Not on my watch.
We are one of the nations that contributed greatly to the environment which fostered Hitler. While helping remove him from power was indeed a noble cause, we used World War II to forge the military industrial complex and to impose Pax Americana in the aftermath. We forced a Soviet Union with a much weaker economy into a nuclear arms race. The Cold War greatly enriched corporate America while wreaking financial devastation upon many in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In Iraq, we are once again utilizing the illusion of helping the oppressed to move the world toward perpetual war.
We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan and continue to ravage a nation devastated by decades of war. In Iraq, we also remain on the offensive, oblivious to the cost in human lives. We have a muddled plan, but will eventually achieve the victory of having crushed Israel's chief antagonist and controlling Iraq’s vast oil reserves.
Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. On the other hand, we are fighting in a civilized way. Our depleted uranium, missiles, tanks, cannons, air strikes, and multiple other means of killing are politically correct and legal. We wear uniforms and are an organized military, so when we liquidate civilians, it is not an act of murder, terrorism, or brutality. We are in this fight to win and will annihilate every human being in Iraq if that is what it takes. Yet we are noble liberators and the Iraqi resistance fighters are brutal Terrorists.
In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice, as long as you agree with me. If you do not, you will be sharing a cell with Ms. Sheehan, whom they led out of this hallowed rostrum earlier tonight. Hindsight and second-guessing are worthless, particularly when they incriminate me as a war criminal. Therefore, they will not be tolerated.
A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would save Iraqis from death and prison. It would also put men who would reject American and Israeli domination in charge of a strategic country. We must protect our interests in the region, even if it means the murder of innocents and bloody sacrifices by our own military.
Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful of America. We have inculcated a false sense of duty into the minds of our nation's youth, and used a host of financial enticements and propaganda, to manipulate them into risking, sacrificing, and sometimes dying to perpetuate our ugly agenda. We are grateful to the fallen. Without them, men like Dick Cheney would not enjoy the immense wealth and power he has at his disposal.
Ultimately, the only way to defeat the Terrorists' dark vision of hatred and fear is by killing more people than they have and by pounding the people of the Middle East into submission. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. Now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, accept the Apartheid-like conditions imposed by Israel, disarm, reject terrorism as a tool for themselves but accept the fact that Israel will continue to act as a terrorist state, and work for lasting peace by rolling over for Israel and the United States.
The same is true of Iran. They are a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite. I admire how those clerics could accomplish such a feat when we have been unable to do likewise in Iraq, even with 130,000 occupying troops. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, which we have grossly exaggerated to whip Americans into a frenzy against them. Only the mighty United States, the world's biggest hypocrite on the issue of nuclear ambition, gets to determine which nations can be trusted with nuclear capabilities. We will not permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that they are years away from having them, and that their capabilities to harm the United States would be limited once they got them, America will continue use the "nuclear card" to evoke a regime change in Iran. If a nation is not receptive to the plutocratic, capitalistic way of the Empire, their leadership will be extinguished.
Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America wants your oil and sees your nation as a threat to the Empire. We have had you in our sights since you exiled the Shah and will not rest until we have installed a ruler friendly to our interests.
Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy is lurking around every corner. If you are approached by an individual of Middle Eastern dissent, do not hesitate to eye them warily and to report them to the proper authorities. To aid our superb professionals in law enforcement, and to continue the erosion of the civil liberties stymieing my bid to become an outright tyrant, I urge Congress to serve the interests of the wealthy elite in America by reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. Do not interpret my use of the word conspiracy in place of the word attack to mean that I am admitting that there was a conspiracy involving members of my cabal. My point is that we now know that two of the hijackers made telephone calls to fellow conspirators overseas. So to prevent another attack, I have usurped my executive authority by authorizing my operatives to spy on American citizens. I did so without proper authorization from the FISA court under the false premise that the "War on Terror" has given me unlimited authority as Commander in Chief. If there are people inside our country who are dissenting against my Regime, we want to know about it so we can take advantage of the end of habeas corpus. We have cells awaiting them at Guantanamo Bay.
To spread our foul money-worshipping, bellicose Empire, we need friends and allies, beyond Great Britain and Israel. To draw that support, we must intimidate, bribe, coerce, and extort. The only alternative is the collapse of a tenuous Empire, whose foundation is already sinking into a quagmire of $8 trillion worth of debt and the potential Iranian oil bourse. America's plutocracy is always more secure when tyranny is on the march.
Our own generation is now engaged in an indefinitely long, nebulous, and ambiguous "War on Terror"---a war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties of the corrupt duopoly. We need steady support from Congress to keep the funding flowing. We need the support of the working class of America to ensure a steady supply of young men and women to act as cannon fodder. Together, let us perpetuate the wealth and privilege of America's ruling class.
Here at home, America's wealthy elite (my base) have a great opportunity: build the prosperity of our country by expanding the Empire's economic dominance through the exploitation of the people and resources of other nations.
Our economy is healthy and vigorous. Over the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million jobs, many of them low-paying with minimal benefits. This has enabled executives, CEOs, and major shareholders to profit handsomely at the expense of the working class. The American economy is the envy of the wealthy elite throughout the world as we have a working class willingly working harder for less money, fewer benefits, and less governmental regulation to protect their rights.
We cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world, we are seeing a competitor like China, which creates uncertainty because they hold much of our government's debt my Regime has created. Some say the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy by centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. I have a better strategy. We will continue deregulating businesses, which enables them to increase their bottom line as they are decreasingly concerned about petty issues like employee rights, consumer safety, and the environment. We will make the obscenely high tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Corporate welfare will continue while social programs for the poor will wither and die. Yes, life is good in the USA if you are rich.
Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending. While defense and pork spending has spiraled out of control (remember our obscenely over-funded annual military budget of $600 billion and Ted Steven's $1.5 billion "Bridge to Nowhere"?), last year we cut bills that cut spending on superfluous programs like Medicaid, student loan programs and food stamps. My budget will again reduce or eliminate over 140 of these programs which are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. We will continue to increase spending for the military and Homeland Security, both of which have performed so well in Iraq and New Orleans respectively.
We must also find a way to apply Grover Norquist's notion of drowning government in a bathtub by privatizing Social Security. My friends on Wall Street need and deserve the commissions to be had through managing Social Security investing. If we do not act to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as government entitlement programs, by 2030 Congress will face the same choices they face today---regressive tax increases, immense deficits (you thought $8 trillion was a large debt), or deep cuts in every category of spending (except defense). Congress did not put Social Security into the hands of private investors like I wanted last year. The rising cost of entitlements is not going away, and the simple fact is that the poor and infirm are entitled to nothing. Every year we fail to act, the more money we waste on these inconsequential people.
I will give you a little lip service about tightening America's borders, but the reality is I will do little or nothing to stem the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico. These indigents provide my corporate friends with a labor force comprised of people who can be intimidated into working for next to nothing.
Some muddle-headed bleeding hearts believe that our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly. We are doing our best to undermine those programs, as evidenced by cuts in Medicaid spending and the new Medicare prescription drug program.
We will strengthen health savings accounts, which will encourage employers to abandon offering health care coverage to their employees, thereby eliminating an unnecessary hindrance to corporate profit. And because lawsuits are driving too many good doctors out of practice--leaving too many OB-GYNs unable to practice their love with women all across this country---I ask Congress to further impede the consumer's ability to file lawsuits if they are victimized by medical malpractice.
America is addicted to oil. My family and friends arise each day and thank God for this fact. Unfortunately, oil is often imported from parts of the world which have not embraced the ways of the Empire, like the Middle East. The best way to handle that problem is through military intervention. That way corporations like Halliburton (which services both the defense and petroleum sectors) can continue to enjoy unprecedented profits. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop alternative energy sources, but that was merely to appease those idiotic environmentalists, some of whom actually believe Global Warming is occurring. Exxon Mobile logged earnings of $36.13 billion in 2005, the largest profit in US history. You live in a fantasy world if you think we are truly seeking to overcome our petroleum addiction.
Despite the fact that the No Child Left Behind initiative has further reduced public education's emphasis on critical thinking and analysis while heightening its focus on rote memory and test-taking, I am committed to maintaining the illusion that America leads the world in human talent and creativity. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to ensure the preservation of our economy to the extent that the upper .1% can continue to prosper. While leaving a majority of American students with dulled intellects to lessen the possibility that they will challenge the ruling elite (and to provide Wal-Mart with a work-force), we will develop a select few in the areas of math and science. The humanities encourage independent, critical thought and an examination of history, society, and politics which could lead to dissent against our tyranny, so those subjects will be de-emphasized. The math and science are essential skills for those we will use to staff the military industrial complex.
America is a great force for exploitation, immediate gratification, xenophobia, and unbridled greed. Our greatness is measured in power and luxuries, not in how we treat people. We strive to appear compassionate, decent and hopeful as we execute our narcissistic, malevolent, and avaricious agenda.
In recent years, America has become a nation based on the theory of Social Darwinism. The prison industrial complex is thriving, with non-violent drug offenders doing hard time while "white collar" corporate executives who have fleeced shareholders and employees of billions do short stints in country clubs. Welfare cases have dropped thanks to significant cuts to entitlement programs. The gap between the rich and the poor in America has widened to a chasm. There have been fewer abortions, and it is likely to be a short time before abortion will again be relegated to back alley butchers.
These gains represent a quiet transformation--a devolution of conscience. My Regime has played a huge role. Wise programs such as tax cuts for the wealthy and deep cuts to programs benefiting the most vulnerable members of our society have seriously eroded the character of our country. And we are proud of that record!
And many Americans, especially our own religious radicals amongst the Domionists and Religious Right, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture. They are deeply alarmed by threats to their fragile psyches as they desperately cling to their heterosexuality, terrified that they might actually discover they are gay. Activist judges threaten to legitimize the sin of homosexuality by allowing the abomination of gay marriage.
To ensure that the legislating that does occur from the bench is slanted toward archaic moral principals (i.e. rigidly defined sexual roles), property rights over human rights, profit over humanity and the environment, and the concentration of power into the Executive Branch (my hands), the Supreme Court now has two new members. Please welcome Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. They are here to ensure the further erasure of progressive gains made throughout the Twentieth Century.
Today marks the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Good riddance to her. Her vote was far too unpredictable.
A society resting on the premise of Social Darwinism disregards the public trust. The members of my Regime are Machiavellian adherents to the philosophies of Leo Strauss. For people like us, and for our friends in corporate America like Ken Lay, ethics and morals are impediments to our success. It is necessary that we strive to give the appearance of adhering to them. Our society would not function if the working class did not buy into their value, but the reality is that for the elite, they are mere hindrances. Our challenge is to achieve our goals through grossly unethical conduct while creating the appearance of propriety.
A society in which the rich prey upon the poor does not come to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency. That is why we allowed 1500 to die in New Orleans and hundreds of thousands to scatter to the wind in a diaspora unparalleled in American history. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans, and you can bet we won't waste it on poor, non-whites. Corporate America and my rich cronies will be the beneficiaries of this largess.
Social Darwinists leave fights against diseases like HIV to faith-based groups and churches. Due to their irresponsible behavior and drug addictions, the largest segment of American society infected with HIV is African American. We will not pay for their ignorance.
My Regime is calling you to continue waging war against humanity. History is turning a wide arc, toward the shore described in the Project for the New American Century. The destination of history is determined by human action, and you are either with us, or against us, as we strive vigorously to attain global hegemony.
Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery (which, come to think of it, would not have been such a bad thing). Unfortunately, Martin Luther King did not stop at Birmingham or at Selma, which has necessitated the appointment of Roberts and Alito. The United States is complicit in the oppression of others, but it is for a noble cause: the continued prosperity of our plutocracy. Having come this far in enhancing our abundance, we must decide, will we turn back, or finish wealthier?
Before history is written in books, it is written in courage. While my Regime lacks courage, we have an abundance of deceit, cunning, and motivation to expand the Empire. We will lead tyranny's advance. We will dominate the globe. We will renew the defining Social Darwinism which slipped away at the close of the Gilded Age. And so we move forward--optimistic about our increased opportunities to expand our riches and confident of the profits to come.
May God bless America's plutocracy!
(Essayist's Note to Credit the Author of the Actual State of the Union Address: I acknowledge that fragments of Bush's actual speech are interwoven throughout my version presented above).
--
By Jason Miller
The State of the Empire Address
The De Facto Tyrant: Thank you all. Mr. Speaker, Uncle Dick, my Congressional collaborators, my five guaranteed votes on the Supreme Court, distinguished plutocrats, and the rest of you wretched plebs we begrudgingly tolerate (because you grease the wheels of our money-making machine): Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the fact that my regime is working vigorously to cause that noble dream to unravel at the seams.
Every time I’m invited to this rostrum, I remind you of the working class that you have been humbled by the privilege of serving under the strong and resolute leadership of my cabal. We have gathered under this Capitol dome in moments of national mourning and national achievement, but my fellow patricians and I have prospered, regardless of the state of the rest of the nation. It has been your honor to give your blood, sweat and tears to further our financial interests.
In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there is difference and debate. However, my corrupt, power-hungry colleagues and I have implemented measures to minimize and even eliminate that debate. To confront the great issues before us, I must be empowered as the ultimate authority, unfettered by the inefficiencies and headaches of answering to an empowered Congress or Supreme Court. Tonight the state of our Empire is strong---and my Regime will bleed you and the rest of the world dry to make it stronger.
In this decisive year, I will continue making choices to erode the character of our country. I will choose to continue pursuing fictitious enemies of freedom---rather than ceasing the perpetual war on terror, which would seriously undermine the profits of many of my corporate supporters. I will choose to build our wealthy elites’ prosperity by continuing to facilitate the exploitation of the workers and resources of other nations---in lieu of putting a leash on avaricious US corporations, which might expose the patrician class to loss of income. In a complex and challenging time, the road to becoming a decent, responsible member of the world community may seem broad and inviting---yet it ends in danger to the staggering affluence of my “base” and decline in the influence of the Empire. The only way to protect our investments, the only way to secure more money and power, the only way to control our destiny is through Neocolonialism and military invasion---so the United States will continue to defy international law, plunder resources, engage in torture, utilize slave labor, and murder millions of innocent civilians.
Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal---we seek the end of tyranny in our world by employing our own. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of our corporatocracy depends on it. On September 11th, 2001, we found that our continued oppression and aggression in the Middle East could bring murder and destruction to our country (albeit some say my regime had a hand in the events of that day, but the world will never know the truth). Dictatorships shelter terrorists, feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. For evidence, look no further than Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, Dominionists, and the largest arsenal of nuclear weaponry in the history of mankind. Every step toward America’s domination in the world makes our financial position stronger—so we will act boldly in rapidly concentrating power in the Executive Branch and in expanding the Empire.
Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of tyranny under the guise of democracy is the great story of our time. We’re writing a new chapter in the story of self-government. Just as we have with you in America, we will beguile the people of other nations into believing they are free, when in reality, once one scratches beneath the surface, their government will be a plutocracy, by the rich, for the rich and of the rich. Those resisting our spread of pseudo-democracy, like Syria, North Korea, and Iran, will find themselves in our cross-hairs.
No one can deny the success of the Empire, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction to our invasion, murder, and Neocolonialism is radical Islam---the stereotypical description we use for all Middle Eastern people who dare to defy our mighty nation. Terrorists like bin Laden are, like my cabal and me, serious about mass murder. They seek to prevent us from imposing a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East as we utilize our own arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Our aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against Syria and Iran. Lacking the military strength to challenge them directly, we will rely upon air strikes, tactical nuclear weapons, and Israel, the architect of our foreign policy. While the Terrorists have killed a few thousand, including 9/11, Spain, and London, we have killed over a hundred thousand in Iraq. Despite the fact that they were civilians, each of them could easily have become the next bin Laden. The world is safer without them.
Ina time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our oil and war for profit. If we were to leave the vicious attackers from the Middle East alone, they would not leave us alone. They have proven that time and again. Like on 9/11, and...Well....like on 9/11. By leaving radical Islam to work its will, we would signal that we no longer believe that our radical Christianity is morally superior, and that the Empire is too weak to continue its expansion. Our enemies (and two remaining friends) can be certain that the United States will never surrender in its bid to impose its own form of evil upon the world. Not on my watch.
We are one of the nations that contributed greatly to the environment which fostered Hitler. While helping remove him from power was indeed a noble cause, we used World War II to forge the military industrial complex and to impose Pax Americana in the aftermath. We forced a Soviet Union with a much weaker economy into a nuclear arms race. The Cold War greatly enriched corporate America while wreaking financial devastation upon many in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In Iraq, we are once again utilizing the illusion of helping the oppressed to move the world toward perpetual war.
We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan and continue to ravage a nation devastated by decades of war. In Iraq, we also remain on the offensive, oblivious to the cost in human lives. We have a muddled plan, but will eventually achieve the victory of having crushed Israel's chief antagonist and controlling Iraq’s vast oil reserves.
Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. On the other hand, we are fighting in a civilized way. Our depleted uranium, missiles, tanks, cannons, air strikes, and multiple other means of killing are politically correct and legal. We wear uniforms and are an organized military, so when we liquidate civilians, it is not an act of murder, terrorism, or brutality. We are in this fight to win and will annihilate every human being in Iraq if that is what it takes. Yet we are noble liberators and the Iraqi resistance fighters are brutal Terrorists.
In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice, as long as you agree with me. If you do not, you will be sharing a cell with Ms. Sheehan, whom they led out of this hallowed rostrum earlier tonight. Hindsight and second-guessing are worthless, particularly when they incriminate me as a war criminal. Therefore, they will not be tolerated.
A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would save Iraqis from death and prison. It would also put men who would reject American and Israeli domination in charge of a strategic country. We must protect our interests in the region, even if it means the murder of innocents and bloody sacrifices by our own military.
Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful of America. We have inculcated a false sense of duty into the minds of our nation's youth, and used a host of financial enticements and propaganda, to manipulate them into risking, sacrificing, and sometimes dying to perpetuate our ugly agenda. We are grateful to the fallen. Without them, men like Dick Cheney would not enjoy the immense wealth and power he has at his disposal.
Ultimately, the only way to defeat the Terrorists' dark vision of hatred and fear is by killing more people than they have and by pounding the people of the Middle East into submission. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. Now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, accept the Apartheid-like conditions imposed by Israel, disarm, reject terrorism as a tool for themselves but accept the fact that Israel will continue to act as a terrorist state, and work for lasting peace by rolling over for Israel and the United States.
The same is true of Iran. They are a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite. I admire how those clerics could accomplish such a feat when we have been unable to do likewise in Iraq, even with 130,000 occupying troops. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, which we have grossly exaggerated to whip Americans into a frenzy against them. Only the mighty United States, the world's biggest hypocrite on the issue of nuclear ambition, gets to determine which nations can be trusted with nuclear capabilities. We will not permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that they are years away from having them, and that their capabilities to harm the United States would be limited once they got them, America will continue use the "nuclear card" to evoke a regime change in Iran. If a nation is not receptive to the plutocratic, capitalistic way of the Empire, their leadership will be extinguished.
Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America wants your oil and sees your nation as a threat to the Empire. We have had you in our sights since you exiled the Shah and will not rest until we have installed a ruler friendly to our interests.
Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy is lurking around every corner. If you are approached by an individual of Middle Eastern dissent, do not hesitate to eye them warily and to report them to the proper authorities. To aid our superb professionals in law enforcement, and to continue the erosion of the civil liberties stymieing my bid to become an outright tyrant, I urge Congress to serve the interests of the wealthy elite in America by reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. Do not interpret my use of the word conspiracy in place of the word attack to mean that I am admitting that there was a conspiracy involving members of my cabal. My point is that we now know that two of the hijackers made telephone calls to fellow conspirators overseas. So to prevent another attack, I have usurped my executive authority by authorizing my operatives to spy on American citizens. I did so without proper authorization from the FISA court under the false premise that the "War on Terror" has given me unlimited authority as Commander in Chief. If there are people inside our country who are dissenting against my Regime, we want to know about it so we can take advantage of the end of habeas corpus. We have cells awaiting them at Guantanamo Bay.
To spread our foul money-worshipping, bellicose Empire, we need friends and allies, beyond Great Britain and Israel. To draw that support, we must intimidate, bribe, coerce, and extort. The only alternative is the collapse of a tenuous Empire, whose foundation is already sinking into a quagmire of $8 trillion worth of debt and the potential Iranian oil bourse. America's plutocracy is always more secure when tyranny is on the march.
Our own generation is now engaged in an indefinitely long, nebulous, and ambiguous "War on Terror"---a war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties of the corrupt duopoly. We need steady support from Congress to keep the funding flowing. We need the support of the working class of America to ensure a steady supply of young men and women to act as cannon fodder. Together, let us perpetuate the wealth and privilege of America's ruling class.
Here at home, America's wealthy elite (my base) have a great opportunity: build the prosperity of our country by expanding the Empire's economic dominance through the exploitation of the people and resources of other nations.
Our economy is healthy and vigorous. Over the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million jobs, many of them low-paying with minimal benefits. This has enabled executives, CEOs, and major shareholders to profit handsomely at the expense of the working class. The American economy is the envy of the wealthy elite throughout the world as we have a working class willingly working harder for less money, fewer benefits, and less governmental regulation to protect their rights.
We cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world, we are seeing a competitor like China, which creates uncertainty because they hold much of our government's debt my Regime has created. Some say the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy by centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. I have a better strategy. We will continue deregulating businesses, which enables them to increase their bottom line as they are decreasingly concerned about petty issues like employee rights, consumer safety, and the environment. We will make the obscenely high tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Corporate welfare will continue while social programs for the poor will wither and die. Yes, life is good in the USA if you are rich.
Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending. While defense and pork spending has spiraled out of control (remember our obscenely over-funded annual military budget of $600 billion and Ted Steven's $1.5 billion "Bridge to Nowhere"?), last year we cut bills that cut spending on superfluous programs like Medicaid, student loan programs and food stamps. My budget will again reduce or eliminate over 140 of these programs which are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. We will continue to increase spending for the military and Homeland Security, both of which have performed so well in Iraq and New Orleans respectively.
We must also find a way to apply Grover Norquist's notion of drowning government in a bathtub by privatizing Social Security. My friends on Wall Street need and deserve the commissions to be had through managing Social Security investing. If we do not act to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as government entitlement programs, by 2030 Congress will face the same choices they face today---regressive tax increases, immense deficits (you thought $8 trillion was a large debt), or deep cuts in every category of spending (except defense). Congress did not put Social Security into the hands of private investors like I wanted last year. The rising cost of entitlements is not going away, and the simple fact is that the poor and infirm are entitled to nothing. Every year we fail to act, the more money we waste on these inconsequential people.
I will give you a little lip service about tightening America's borders, but the reality is I will do little or nothing to stem the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico. These indigents provide my corporate friends with a labor force comprised of people who can be intimidated into working for next to nothing.
Some muddle-headed bleeding hearts believe that our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly. We are doing our best to undermine those programs, as evidenced by cuts in Medicaid spending and the new Medicare prescription drug program.
We will strengthen health savings accounts, which will encourage employers to abandon offering health care coverage to their employees, thereby eliminating an unnecessary hindrance to corporate profit. And because lawsuits are driving too many good doctors out of practice--leaving too many OB-GYNs unable to practice their love with women all across this country---I ask Congress to further impede the consumer's ability to file lawsuits if they are victimized by medical malpractice.
America is addicted to oil. My family and friends arise each day and thank God for this fact. Unfortunately, oil is often imported from parts of the world which have not embraced the ways of the Empire, like the Middle East. The best way to handle that problem is through military intervention. That way corporations like Halliburton (which services both the defense and petroleum sectors) can continue to enjoy unprecedented profits. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop alternative energy sources, but that was merely to appease those idiotic environmentalists, some of whom actually believe Global Warming is occurring. Exxon Mobile logged earnings of $36.13 billion in 2005, the largest profit in US history. You live in a fantasy world if you think we are truly seeking to overcome our petroleum addiction.
Despite the fact that the No Child Left Behind initiative has further reduced public education's emphasis on critical thinking and analysis while heightening its focus on rote memory and test-taking, I am committed to maintaining the illusion that America leads the world in human talent and creativity. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to ensure the preservation of our economy to the extent that the upper .1% can continue to prosper. While leaving a majority of American students with dulled intellects to lessen the possibility that they will challenge the ruling elite (and to provide Wal-Mart with a work-force), we will develop a select few in the areas of math and science. The humanities encourage independent, critical thought and an examination of history, society, and politics which could lead to dissent against our tyranny, so those subjects will be de-emphasized. The math and science are essential skills for those we will use to staff the military industrial complex.
America is a great force for exploitation, immediate gratification, xenophobia, and unbridled greed. Our greatness is measured in power and luxuries, not in how we treat people. We strive to appear compassionate, decent and hopeful as we execute our narcissistic, malevolent, and avaricious agenda.
In recent years, America has become a nation based on the theory of Social Darwinism. The prison industrial complex is thriving, with non-violent drug offenders doing hard time while "white collar" corporate executives who have fleeced shareholders and employees of billions do short stints in country clubs. Welfare cases have dropped thanks to significant cuts to entitlement programs. The gap between the rich and the poor in America has widened to a chasm. There have been fewer abortions, and it is likely to be a short time before abortion will again be relegated to back alley butchers.
These gains represent a quiet transformation--a devolution of conscience. My Regime has played a huge role. Wise programs such as tax cuts for the wealthy and deep cuts to programs benefiting the most vulnerable members of our society have seriously eroded the character of our country. And we are proud of that record!
And many Americans, especially our own religious radicals amongst the Domionists and Religious Right, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture. They are deeply alarmed by threats to their fragile psyches as they desperately cling to their heterosexuality, terrified that they might actually discover they are gay. Activist judges threaten to legitimize the sin of homosexuality by allowing the abomination of gay marriage.
To ensure that the legislating that does occur from the bench is slanted toward archaic moral principals (i.e. rigidly defined sexual roles), property rights over human rights, profit over humanity and the environment, and the concentration of power into the Executive Branch (my hands), the Supreme Court now has two new members. Please welcome Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. They are here to ensure the further erasure of progressive gains made throughout the Twentieth Century.
Today marks the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Good riddance to her. Her vote was far too unpredictable.
A society resting on the premise of Social Darwinism disregards the public trust. The members of my Regime are Machiavellian adherents to the philosophies of Leo Strauss. For people like us, and for our friends in corporate America like Ken Lay, ethics and morals are impediments to our success. It is necessary that we strive to give the appearance of adhering to them. Our society would not function if the working class did not buy into their value, but the reality is that for the elite, they are mere hindrances. Our challenge is to achieve our goals through grossly unethical conduct while creating the appearance of propriety.
A society in which the rich prey upon the poor does not come to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency. That is why we allowed 1500 to die in New Orleans and hundreds of thousands to scatter to the wind in a diaspora unparalleled in American history. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans, and you can bet we won't waste it on poor, non-whites. Corporate America and my rich cronies will be the beneficiaries of this largess.
Social Darwinists leave fights against diseases like HIV to faith-based groups and churches. Due to their irresponsible behavior and drug addictions, the largest segment of American society infected with HIV is African American. We will not pay for their ignorance.
My Regime is calling you to continue waging war against humanity. History is turning a wide arc, toward the shore described in the Project for the New American Century. The destination of history is determined by human action, and you are either with us, or against us, as we strive vigorously to attain global hegemony.
Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery (which, come to think of it, would not have been such a bad thing). Unfortunately, Martin Luther King did not stop at Birmingham or at Selma, which has necessitated the appointment of Roberts and Alito. The United States is complicit in the oppression of others, but it is for a noble cause: the continued prosperity of our plutocracy. Having come this far in enhancing our abundance, we must decide, will we turn back, or finish wealthier?
Before history is written in books, it is written in courage. While my Regime lacks courage, we have an abundance of deceit, cunning, and motivation to expand the Empire. We will lead tyranny's advance. We will dominate the globe. We will renew the defining Social Darwinism which slipped away at the close of the Gilded Age. And so we move forward--optimistic about our increased opportunities to expand our riches and confident of the profits to come.
May God bless America's plutocracy!
(Essayist's Note to Credit the Author of the Actual State of the Union Address: I acknowledge that fragments of Bush's actual speech are interwoven throughout my version presented above).
--
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
PALESTINE: WHAT’S NEXT?
By William Fisher
That President Bush is a big fan of elections should surprise no one. He’s won a lot of them.
But his simplistic equation -- elections = freedom = democracy = peace -- has been running into a bit of trouble lately.
The president hyped the deeply flawed presidential and parliamentary elections in Egypt as steps toward democracy. But the result was a dramatic rise in votes for the outlawed Islamic brotherhood and Mubarak’s principal contender for the top job sent to jail.
He endlessly spun the purple fingers of the Iraqi elections as victories for democracy. But the result was zero in terms of bringing the Iraqi people together, the coalition of Islamic fundamentalist parties getting most of the votes, and now eagerly cementing their ties to the Iranian theocracy.
He was critical of Iran’s presidential election last June, but attempted to reassure the Iranian people with the declaration, "As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you." The result was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust-denier who proposes deporting all the Israelis back to Europe.
Then came the Katrina of Middle East politics. Beginning In 2002, President Bush began urging the Palestinians to elect new leaders “not compromised by terror" and poured hundreds of millions into keeping Hamas, the militant Islamic movement, from winning. But the result was a landslide for the party dedicated to a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem: The destruction of Israel.
And, even in the face of this electoral disaster, the president simply could not stop spinning. "I like the competition of ideas," Mr. Bush said in a news conference. "I like people who have to go out and say, 'Vote for me, and here's what I'm going to do.' There's something healthy about a system that does that. And so the elections yesterday were very interesting."
Very interesting indeed.
The Bush Administration, along with the even more generous European supporters of “a new, improved” Palestinian Authority, clearly misread the temperature of Palestinian voters. My personal view is that the overwhelming majority of Hamas voters cast their ballots for change, not terror.
But whatever their motivations, the West is now stuck with the facts. The election of Hamas was another stick in the eye of the president’s prescription.
Which leaves the U.S. and its allies without any good options at all. The heads of the American, British and German governments made all the predictable noises: We will not provide funding for a terrorist organization. Hamas must renounce terror, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and negotiate a two-state solution.
So, predictably, did Hamas. Israeli and U.S. policies were responsible for their generations of misery. Unless they changed, Hamas would continue to be Hamas. And it would turn to its oil-rich friends in the Middle East to provide the money the Palestinian people so desperately need.
That development could set the stage for the Arab League to finally agree on something. And, in the process, the U.S. would become even more of a pariah than it is already. No more roadmap. No more ‘honest broker’.
However, let us all remember that these are early days. Both sides are quite likely to gradually back off their incendiary rhetoric over time. Even now, Hamas is toning down its language.
As the Associated Press reports from Jerusalem, “No more screeds against the ‘Zionist enemy’' or threats to ‘plant death in every corner’' of Israel. Since winning Palestinian parliament elections last week, Hamas has moderated its usually bombastic rhetoric in subtle ways that fall well short of Western demands to renounce terror and recognize Israel's right to exist but suggest the group is fumbling for ways to gain international acceptance.”
The problem is that while incrementalism may be the only reasonable expectation, time is on no one’s side in the Israeli-Palestinian debacle. It may take many months to get the parties back to any serious negotiations, but that has to be the goal in getting to the ‘beginning of the end’ of the conflict.
Recall that the negotiators with the infant United Nations in the 1947-48 debate over the establishment of the State of Israel included militant organizations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, whose leaders included such terrorists as Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, and Menachim Begin.
But what to do in the meantime? There is an answer to that question that deserves consideration by the U.S. and its allies: increased support for non-governmental organizations in Gaza and the West Bank.
Despite the ravages that followed the Intifada and almost unbearable restrictions imposed by both the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority, there are dozens of NGOs in these areas. They represent virtually all the fields of interest of NGOs elsewhere – education, health, housing, human rights, women’s rights, community development, small business development, environment, and many more.
These organizations are still embryonic and struggling – often against the state. They are short on specialized skills, personnel, public understanding and, most of all, money. But they have demonstrated remarkable zeal and dedication – and some achievements -- in the face of unimaginably difficult conditions.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Bank, and other donors are already providing modest support for Palestinian NGOs that promote democratic values and moderation.
According to USAID officials, an earlier decline in financial support hurt the NGO sector and created a vacuum in the West Bank and Gaza that was successfully filled by Islamic institutions. Fearing a "Hamas takeover," as one official put it, USAID felt it was time to begin refunding the Palestinian NGO sector and reprioritizing community development initiatives.
While NGOs have obvious limitations – they can’t build roads or bridges or collect taxes or rubbish – they are capable of making real contributions to education, health, social services and citizens’ rights.
Some of these, for example, human rights, are areas typically opposed by public authorities. Others are in areas now dominated by Hamas. To create a healthy competition to both, donor institutions should dramatically expand their support for these homegrown volunteer groups. And they should do it now, while the opposing parties are sorting out their bargaining positions and polishing their rhetoric.
If they fail to seize the opportunity, the losers won’t only be the donors or Hamas. They will be the Palestinian people, and they have already lost enough.
That President Bush is a big fan of elections should surprise no one. He’s won a lot of them.
But his simplistic equation -- elections = freedom = democracy = peace -- has been running into a bit of trouble lately.
The president hyped the deeply flawed presidential and parliamentary elections in Egypt as steps toward democracy. But the result was a dramatic rise in votes for the outlawed Islamic brotherhood and Mubarak’s principal contender for the top job sent to jail.
He endlessly spun the purple fingers of the Iraqi elections as victories for democracy. But the result was zero in terms of bringing the Iraqi people together, the coalition of Islamic fundamentalist parties getting most of the votes, and now eagerly cementing their ties to the Iranian theocracy.
He was critical of Iran’s presidential election last June, but attempted to reassure the Iranian people with the declaration, "As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you." The result was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust-denier who proposes deporting all the Israelis back to Europe.
Then came the Katrina of Middle East politics. Beginning In 2002, President Bush began urging the Palestinians to elect new leaders “not compromised by terror" and poured hundreds of millions into keeping Hamas, the militant Islamic movement, from winning. But the result was a landslide for the party dedicated to a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem: The destruction of Israel.
And, even in the face of this electoral disaster, the president simply could not stop spinning. "I like the competition of ideas," Mr. Bush said in a news conference. "I like people who have to go out and say, 'Vote for me, and here's what I'm going to do.' There's something healthy about a system that does that. And so the elections yesterday were very interesting."
Very interesting indeed.
The Bush Administration, along with the even more generous European supporters of “a new, improved” Palestinian Authority, clearly misread the temperature of Palestinian voters. My personal view is that the overwhelming majority of Hamas voters cast their ballots for change, not terror.
But whatever their motivations, the West is now stuck with the facts. The election of Hamas was another stick in the eye of the president’s prescription.
Which leaves the U.S. and its allies without any good options at all. The heads of the American, British and German governments made all the predictable noises: We will not provide funding for a terrorist organization. Hamas must renounce terror, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and negotiate a two-state solution.
So, predictably, did Hamas. Israeli and U.S. policies were responsible for their generations of misery. Unless they changed, Hamas would continue to be Hamas. And it would turn to its oil-rich friends in the Middle East to provide the money the Palestinian people so desperately need.
That development could set the stage for the Arab League to finally agree on something. And, in the process, the U.S. would become even more of a pariah than it is already. No more roadmap. No more ‘honest broker’.
However, let us all remember that these are early days. Both sides are quite likely to gradually back off their incendiary rhetoric over time. Even now, Hamas is toning down its language.
As the Associated Press reports from Jerusalem, “No more screeds against the ‘Zionist enemy’' or threats to ‘plant death in every corner’' of Israel. Since winning Palestinian parliament elections last week, Hamas has moderated its usually bombastic rhetoric in subtle ways that fall well short of Western demands to renounce terror and recognize Israel's right to exist but suggest the group is fumbling for ways to gain international acceptance.”
The problem is that while incrementalism may be the only reasonable expectation, time is on no one’s side in the Israeli-Palestinian debacle. It may take many months to get the parties back to any serious negotiations, but that has to be the goal in getting to the ‘beginning of the end’ of the conflict.
Recall that the negotiators with the infant United Nations in the 1947-48 debate over the establishment of the State of Israel included militant organizations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, whose leaders included such terrorists as Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, and Menachim Begin.
But what to do in the meantime? There is an answer to that question that deserves consideration by the U.S. and its allies: increased support for non-governmental organizations in Gaza and the West Bank.
Despite the ravages that followed the Intifada and almost unbearable restrictions imposed by both the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority, there are dozens of NGOs in these areas. They represent virtually all the fields of interest of NGOs elsewhere – education, health, housing, human rights, women’s rights, community development, small business development, environment, and many more.
These organizations are still embryonic and struggling – often against the state. They are short on specialized skills, personnel, public understanding and, most of all, money. But they have demonstrated remarkable zeal and dedication – and some achievements -- in the face of unimaginably difficult conditions.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Bank, and other donors are already providing modest support for Palestinian NGOs that promote democratic values and moderation.
According to USAID officials, an earlier decline in financial support hurt the NGO sector and created a vacuum in the West Bank and Gaza that was successfully filled by Islamic institutions. Fearing a "Hamas takeover," as one official put it, USAID felt it was time to begin refunding the Palestinian NGO sector and reprioritizing community development initiatives.
While NGOs have obvious limitations – they can’t build roads or bridges or collect taxes or rubbish – they are capable of making real contributions to education, health, social services and citizens’ rights.
Some of these, for example, human rights, are areas typically opposed by public authorities. Others are in areas now dominated by Hamas. To create a healthy competition to both, donor institutions should dramatically expand their support for these homegrown volunteer groups. And they should do it now, while the opposing parties are sorting out their bargaining positions and polishing their rhetoric.
If they fail to seize the opportunity, the losers won’t only be the donors or Hamas. They will be the Palestinian people, and they have already lost enough.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
THE END OF U.S. AID?
By William Fisher
Foreign affairs experts agree that the Bush Administration is quietly using the Chinese water-torture method to slowly engineer the death of America’s traditional system for delivering foreign aid – and some of them think it’s not such a bad idea.
They point to the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and the U.S. Global AIDS initiative outside the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where such programs would normally be located. And, as further evidence of a shift away from USAID’s traditional international development mandate, they cite the creation of a new democracy promotion apparatus within the State Department and the appointment of the current AIDS coordinator -- who has no development experience – as the new USAID administrator.
The MCA was created in 2004 to provide assistance countries that rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. It has been criticized for the slow pace of its process for approving country applications.
A retired senior USAID official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told us, “This is simply another iteration of the longstanding power struggle between USAID and the State Department, which wants to use development money and leverage to further President Bush’s political agenda, and make democracy promotion and the war on terrorism the centerpiece of America’s foreign aid efforts.”
But the comment of another retired diplomat echoes the sentiments of a number of other foreign aid experts we interviewed. Ludwig Rudel, who spent more than 25 years with USAID, said, “My take on USAID is that it really makes no difference what is being proposed -- except for humanitarian assistance and emergency relief the agency has lost its effectiveness anyway”.
He added, “The bulk of USAID money is used for political purposes, such as in Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan in the Middle East, and Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia for the drug war. During the Marshall Plan days and for about ten years after, the USAID program had a clear development focus. Now, the political types have full control of the funding and development work occasionally is a serendipitous by-product. So what difference does it make if AID gets absorbed into State?”
Efforts to downgrade USAID are not new. Until 1999, the agency reported directly to the president. During the administration of President Bill Clinton, USAID was ordered to report to the Secretary of State. Periodically there have also been efforts in Congress to totally absorb the aid agency into the State Department.
USAID works in more than 100 countries with a 14-billion-dollar annual budget. Its portfolio is massive, ranging from anti-poverty programs to education to health to private sector development and export promotion to policy reform to disaster and humanitarian relief.
The State Department now says that U.S. money should be used to empower developing countries to strengthen security, consolidate democracy and increase trade.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, outlining a plan she called “Transformational Diplomacy” last week, also said that Washington should further link its aid to defeat terrorist threats. She invoked the attacks of 9/11 and noted that the terrorists used the previously failed state of Afghanistan to launch their attacks.
"In the final analysis, we must now use our foreign assistance to help prevent future Afghanistans -- and to make America and the world safer," she said.
She named terrorism, weapons proliferation, diseases, and trafficking in persons and drugs as global threats that require the U.S. to develop new diplomatic strategies. She said that without the new changes, U.S. foreign assistance may be ineffective.
"The current structure of America's foreign assistance risks incoherent policies and ineffective programs and perhaps even wasted resources,” Rice warned.
But some outside the government have warned that Rice’s proposals could result in a greater politicization of foreign assistance. “We’re concerned that the same priority won’t be given to long-term development as resources are siphoned to support shorter-term diplomatic or military objectives,” said Jim Bishop, a senior officer of InterAction, the largest coalition of non-governmental U.S. aid groups.
Veteran foreign policy experts offer various other recipes to improve U.S. development assistance policy and delivery.
Dr. Jack N. Behrman, emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina who served as a senior official in the administration of President John F. Kennedy, told us, “USAID’s 30-plus programs should be separated and put where the primary interest is. For example, all assistance (Israel, Egypt) that is security-based should be put in the Defense Department, economic-private sector aid should be in the Department of Commerce, and should recruit volunteers to do its work, disaster and humanitarian aid should be in the State Department, and all efforts to ‘alleviate poverty’ should be terminated, since there is no evidence that USAID antipoverty funds have been effective anywhere.”
Behrman, a founder of the USA MBA Corps, a private organization of volunteers with advanced business degrees and private sector work experience, adds, “Assistance to democracy and institution building should be in an independent agency, funded directly by Congress, to avoid the ‘smell’ of intervention; programs should be conducted largely with local NGOs assisted by American and European Union volunteers.”
He concludes, “I would eliminate USAID, unless someone can find a serious purpose that is not more effectively put in either independent agencies that fund volunteers or Cabinet departments.”
But Samer Shehata, Assistant Professor of Arab Politics Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, thinks the absorption of USAID into the State Department “certainly sounds problematic, if not simply a bad idea.”
He told us, “Most bilateral aid is certainly somewhat political and our USAID program is not the exception by any means -- in fact, it is much more political than the bilateral aid programs of most European countries. But absorbing USAID into State or making USAID the place of ‘democracy promotion’ – which is not so well thought of when it is the objective of the U.S. government in the Middle East – will only damage other less political USAID efforts and programs.”
Prof. Shehata adds, “It is one thing to declare democracy promotion a foreign policy goal, but it is quite another to come up with actual policies that promote democracy -- effectively.”
But U.S. Foreign Service veteran Dr. Richard T. Arndt, President of Americans for UNESCO and author of “The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the 20th Century", thinks the paramount issue is not government organization but a continuing commitment to education through technical assistance and exchange programs.
He told us, “In the post-Cold War world, educational-cultural issues matter more than ever in history. Nothing could be more useful than a totally coordinated and carefully calibrated program of U.S. educational outreach around the world, carried on by strong government and private-sector leadership and targeting all levels of education, from K through the universities, technical and professional schools, and in continuing education. The idea of the U.S. giant sharing its educational wealth with the world might help the world forget Shock and Awe and begin refilling the reservoirs of goodwill that have been so fatally drained.”
Most educational exchange programs are currently conducted by the State Department and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice says she is committed to expanding them. But Dr. Arndt points out the “historic disconnect” between USAID-run education programs and those of the State Department, which include the Fulbright scholarships.
The U.S. plan to link security to democracy and development overseas has also drawn criticism from development activists, who fear the new overhaul could be ideologically motivated.
They are particularly critical of the appointment of Randall Tobias as the new USAID administrator, who will also carry the title of Deputy Secretary of State for Development. He previously served as chairman, president and chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company.
"Under his direction, HIV prevention programs have shifted from being based in public health science to being dictated by the abstinence-only-until-marriage ideology of the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of the Washington-based Advocates for Youth.
"As head of USAID, Ambassador Tobias will not only be responsible for AIDS funding, but also in charge of population and family planning programs," concluded Wagoner. "How will his anti-science ideology impact programs vital to protecting the health of women and young people around the world?"
Tobias' record in the fight against AIDS has also been marked by accusations he has favored drug companies by displaying a preference for using more expensive, brand-name drugs instead of cheaper, safe generic versions that could have reached many more people in impoverished countries.
.
Foreign affairs experts agree that the Bush Administration is quietly using the Chinese water-torture method to slowly engineer the death of America’s traditional system for delivering foreign aid – and some of them think it’s not such a bad idea.
They point to the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and the U.S. Global AIDS initiative outside the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where such programs would normally be located. And, as further evidence of a shift away from USAID’s traditional international development mandate, they cite the creation of a new democracy promotion apparatus within the State Department and the appointment of the current AIDS coordinator -- who has no development experience – as the new USAID administrator.
The MCA was created in 2004 to provide assistance countries that rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. It has been criticized for the slow pace of its process for approving country applications.
A retired senior USAID official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told us, “This is simply another iteration of the longstanding power struggle between USAID and the State Department, which wants to use development money and leverage to further President Bush’s political agenda, and make democracy promotion and the war on terrorism the centerpiece of America’s foreign aid efforts.”
But the comment of another retired diplomat echoes the sentiments of a number of other foreign aid experts we interviewed. Ludwig Rudel, who spent more than 25 years with USAID, said, “My take on USAID is that it really makes no difference what is being proposed -- except for humanitarian assistance and emergency relief the agency has lost its effectiveness anyway”.
He added, “The bulk of USAID money is used for political purposes, such as in Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan in the Middle East, and Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia for the drug war. During the Marshall Plan days and for about ten years after, the USAID program had a clear development focus. Now, the political types have full control of the funding and development work occasionally is a serendipitous by-product. So what difference does it make if AID gets absorbed into State?”
Efforts to downgrade USAID are not new. Until 1999, the agency reported directly to the president. During the administration of President Bill Clinton, USAID was ordered to report to the Secretary of State. Periodically there have also been efforts in Congress to totally absorb the aid agency into the State Department.
USAID works in more than 100 countries with a 14-billion-dollar annual budget. Its portfolio is massive, ranging from anti-poverty programs to education to health to private sector development and export promotion to policy reform to disaster and humanitarian relief.
The State Department now says that U.S. money should be used to empower developing countries to strengthen security, consolidate democracy and increase trade.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, outlining a plan she called “Transformational Diplomacy” last week, also said that Washington should further link its aid to defeat terrorist threats. She invoked the attacks of 9/11 and noted that the terrorists used the previously failed state of Afghanistan to launch their attacks.
"In the final analysis, we must now use our foreign assistance to help prevent future Afghanistans -- and to make America and the world safer," she said.
She named terrorism, weapons proliferation, diseases, and trafficking in persons and drugs as global threats that require the U.S. to develop new diplomatic strategies. She said that without the new changes, U.S. foreign assistance may be ineffective.
"The current structure of America's foreign assistance risks incoherent policies and ineffective programs and perhaps even wasted resources,” Rice warned.
But some outside the government have warned that Rice’s proposals could result in a greater politicization of foreign assistance. “We’re concerned that the same priority won’t be given to long-term development as resources are siphoned to support shorter-term diplomatic or military objectives,” said Jim Bishop, a senior officer of InterAction, the largest coalition of non-governmental U.S. aid groups.
Veteran foreign policy experts offer various other recipes to improve U.S. development assistance policy and delivery.
Dr. Jack N. Behrman, emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina who served as a senior official in the administration of President John F. Kennedy, told us, “USAID’s 30-plus programs should be separated and put where the primary interest is. For example, all assistance (Israel, Egypt) that is security-based should be put in the Defense Department, economic-private sector aid should be in the Department of Commerce, and should recruit volunteers to do its work, disaster and humanitarian aid should be in the State Department, and all efforts to ‘alleviate poverty’ should be terminated, since there is no evidence that USAID antipoverty funds have been effective anywhere.”
Behrman, a founder of the USA MBA Corps, a private organization of volunteers with advanced business degrees and private sector work experience, adds, “Assistance to democracy and institution building should be in an independent agency, funded directly by Congress, to avoid the ‘smell’ of intervention; programs should be conducted largely with local NGOs assisted by American and European Union volunteers.”
He concludes, “I would eliminate USAID, unless someone can find a serious purpose that is not more effectively put in either independent agencies that fund volunteers or Cabinet departments.”
But Samer Shehata, Assistant Professor of Arab Politics Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, thinks the absorption of USAID into the State Department “certainly sounds problematic, if not simply a bad idea.”
He told us, “Most bilateral aid is certainly somewhat political and our USAID program is not the exception by any means -- in fact, it is much more political than the bilateral aid programs of most European countries. But absorbing USAID into State or making USAID the place of ‘democracy promotion’ – which is not so well thought of when it is the objective of the U.S. government in the Middle East – will only damage other less political USAID efforts and programs.”
Prof. Shehata adds, “It is one thing to declare democracy promotion a foreign policy goal, but it is quite another to come up with actual policies that promote democracy -- effectively.”
But U.S. Foreign Service veteran Dr. Richard T. Arndt, President of Americans for UNESCO and author of “The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the 20th Century", thinks the paramount issue is not government organization but a continuing commitment to education through technical assistance and exchange programs.
He told us, “In the post-Cold War world, educational-cultural issues matter more than ever in history. Nothing could be more useful than a totally coordinated and carefully calibrated program of U.S. educational outreach around the world, carried on by strong government and private-sector leadership and targeting all levels of education, from K through the universities, technical and professional schools, and in continuing education. The idea of the U.S. giant sharing its educational wealth with the world might help the world forget Shock and Awe and begin refilling the reservoirs of goodwill that have been so fatally drained.”
Most educational exchange programs are currently conducted by the State Department and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice says she is committed to expanding them. But Dr. Arndt points out the “historic disconnect” between USAID-run education programs and those of the State Department, which include the Fulbright scholarships.
The U.S. plan to link security to democracy and development overseas has also drawn criticism from development activists, who fear the new overhaul could be ideologically motivated.
They are particularly critical of the appointment of Randall Tobias as the new USAID administrator, who will also carry the title of Deputy Secretary of State for Development. He previously served as chairman, president and chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company.
"Under his direction, HIV prevention programs have shifted from being based in public health science to being dictated by the abstinence-only-until-marriage ideology of the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of the Washington-based Advocates for Youth.
"As head of USAID, Ambassador Tobias will not only be responsible for AIDS funding, but also in charge of population and family planning programs," concluded Wagoner. "How will his anti-science ideology impact programs vital to protecting the health of women and young people around the world?"
Tobias' record in the fight against AIDS has also been marked by accusations he has favored drug companies by displaying a preference for using more expensive, brand-name drugs instead of cheaper, safe generic versions that could have reached many more people in impoverished countries.
.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Destruction Easier Than Reconstruction
By Brian Conley and Isam Rashid
BAGHDAD, Jan 23 (IPS) - While politicians deliberate over Iraq's future, Iraqis are dealing with the reality of the present. They are looking at the debris of a country where reconstruction has come to a standstill.
They are also looking at a situation in which the capital of the oil-rich country has been stricken recently by a dire shortage of gas and kerosene.
Iraqis in Baghdad had been receiving 12 to 13 hours of electricity a day on average over recent months. Over the past few weeks they say supply has fallen to just a few hours a day.
"We have no services at all," Usama Asa'ad, a 31 year-old mechanic told IPS. "Our electricity is on only one or two hours a day."
Many Iraqis thought the United States would improve their situation when the occupation began in April 2003, but those expectations are long over. Iraqis complain that the situation in Baghdad now is worse than it ever was under Saddam.
Electricity supply is inconsistent, and sometimes there is no water for a week or more at a time. After the recent increase in petroleum prices mandated by the International Monetary Fund, the situation has become far more difficult for Iraqis.
"The petrol price became three times more than before, and this makes everything in the market more expensive," said Abdul Sattar, waiting in a queue at one of the petrol stations in Baghdad. "I've been waiting for six hours in this queue and I'm not even sure whether I will get petrol. Yesterday I waited for seven hours but I didn't get anything. The petrol station isn't open at night because there is no security."
Iraqis continue to blame the United States and the occupation for the petrol shortages and the lack of security. President George W. Bush has declared that he would seek no more money for Iraq's reconstruction, further angering Iraqis.
"The water is not clean enough, there is no petrol for our cars, and the occupation forces intend this," said Usama Asa'ad. "They want to make all of Iraq's services for private companies, so that United States companies will take as much money from Iraq as they can."
Zubair, a 33 year-old engineer at the Beiji refinery says production at the refinery is steady. "The refinery is working now the same as before the war. We don't know about it (the petroleum problem), sometimes we hear that terrorists bomb the convoys, and sometimes we hear the petrol is taken by the United States army for their vehicles.. We don't know what is the truth."
Iraqi resentment of the coalition forces is caused by more than the long petrol queues. The failure of the occupation to rebuild Iraq's security and services, combined with recurring night-time raids have left Iraqis angry and cynical.
"Security is the most important thing we need now," Nora, a 25 year-old housewife told IPS. "We need to sleep at night with no one raiding our house. Would you believe, we wear all our clothes at night? You can imagine what it is like for them to bomb the gate of your house, and how you will feel when you have children like me."
Iraq's new government will be formed within the next few months. Most parties appear to be pushing for a government of "national unity."
Iraqis are expecting to see the new government make unequivocal changes over the consequences of the occupation. Usama Asa'ad says they also expect to see the government reconstruct Iraq, since the United States is ending its own aid.
"The United States troops occupied Iraq in twenty days because they wanted to do that, but they didn't rebuild Iraq ever since they came almost three years ago, because they did not care to do that."
BAGHDAD, Jan 23 (IPS) - While politicians deliberate over Iraq's future, Iraqis are dealing with the reality of the present. They are looking at the debris of a country where reconstruction has come to a standstill.
They are also looking at a situation in which the capital of the oil-rich country has been stricken recently by a dire shortage of gas and kerosene.
Iraqis in Baghdad had been receiving 12 to 13 hours of electricity a day on average over recent months. Over the past few weeks they say supply has fallen to just a few hours a day.
"We have no services at all," Usama Asa'ad, a 31 year-old mechanic told IPS. "Our electricity is on only one or two hours a day."
Many Iraqis thought the United States would improve their situation when the occupation began in April 2003, but those expectations are long over. Iraqis complain that the situation in Baghdad now is worse than it ever was under Saddam.
Electricity supply is inconsistent, and sometimes there is no water for a week or more at a time. After the recent increase in petroleum prices mandated by the International Monetary Fund, the situation has become far more difficult for Iraqis.
"The petrol price became three times more than before, and this makes everything in the market more expensive," said Abdul Sattar, waiting in a queue at one of the petrol stations in Baghdad. "I've been waiting for six hours in this queue and I'm not even sure whether I will get petrol. Yesterday I waited for seven hours but I didn't get anything. The petrol station isn't open at night because there is no security."
Iraqis continue to blame the United States and the occupation for the petrol shortages and the lack of security. President George W. Bush has declared that he would seek no more money for Iraq's reconstruction, further angering Iraqis.
"The water is not clean enough, there is no petrol for our cars, and the occupation forces intend this," said Usama Asa'ad. "They want to make all of Iraq's services for private companies, so that United States companies will take as much money from Iraq as they can."
Zubair, a 33 year-old engineer at the Beiji refinery says production at the refinery is steady. "The refinery is working now the same as before the war. We don't know about it (the petroleum problem), sometimes we hear that terrorists bomb the convoys, and sometimes we hear the petrol is taken by the United States army for their vehicles.. We don't know what is the truth."
Iraqi resentment of the coalition forces is caused by more than the long petrol queues. The failure of the occupation to rebuild Iraq's security and services, combined with recurring night-time raids have left Iraqis angry and cynical.
"Security is the most important thing we need now," Nora, a 25 year-old housewife told IPS. "We need to sleep at night with no one raiding our house. Would you believe, we wear all our clothes at night? You can imagine what it is like for them to bomb the gate of your house, and how you will feel when you have children like me."
Iraq's new government will be formed within the next few months. Most parties appear to be pushing for a government of "national unity."
Iraqis are expecting to see the new government make unequivocal changes over the consequences of the occupation. Usama Asa'ad says they also expect to see the government reconstruct Iraq, since the United States is ending its own aid.
"The United States troops occupied Iraq in twenty days because they wanted to do that, but they didn't rebuild Iraq ever since they came almost three years ago, because they did not care to do that."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
