SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (29640)7/22/2005 4:38:51 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362466
 
The Guardian profile: Karl Rove

_____________________________________________________

By Julian Borger
Friday July 22, 2005
Guardian
guardian.co.uk

When Karl Rove is in trouble - and he has been in a lot of it lately - George Bush has a simple way of showing his support. When he walks across the lawn out of the White House he has Rove walk with him, so the next day's photographs will show that familiar pink, bespectacled face at the presidential shoulder.

This is the currency in which President Bush repays loyalty, and no one is as loyal as Karl Rove. Before they met, George junior was just a genial fellow from a famous family with very good connections. Rove, the hard-nosed political geek who can reel off 20-year-old election results from obscure congressional districts, turned the callow pretender into a candidate, then a governor, then a president.

At the same time, he brought the Republican party lasting dominance by bringing protestant evangelicals and hispanic Catholics under the amorphous banner of "moral values" and a shared antipathy to abortion.

Bush acknowledged his debt at the re-election celebrations in November. He introduced Rove to the crowd simply as "The Architect", and put him in charge of White House policy, finally demolishing the crumbling wall between administration policy and politics.

There has never been a partnership like it in US political history - so close and continuing so seamlessly from campaign trail to government. Never has a consultant, a hired mechanic in the political engineroom, risen so high.

The official title, deputy White House chief of staff, does not do him justice. At the age of 54 and without a college degree, Rove is the second or third most powerful man in the US (arguably therefore the world) depending on where you place Dick Cheney.

You need to go abroad and back in time to look for parallels. He is the White House's Richelieu - or, if you ask his enemies, its Rasputin.

Yet now, at the zenith of his career, Rove seems at his most vulnerable. A Washington scandal he tried to brush off two years ago has broken the surface again and threatens to pull him under.

As with many of the White House's current difficulties, this tale starts with the decision to go to war in Iraq. On July 6 2003, a former US ambassador, Joseph Wilson, had an article published in the New York Times that cast doubt on one of the justifications for the invasion. Contrary to the president's claims, Wilson wrote, there was scant evidence that Saddam Hussein had been buying uranium in Africa. He knew because he had gone on a fact-finding trip to Niger the previous year and found the claims hollow. In all the controversy over pre-war intelligence, this seemed like a smoking gun. Eight days later, a veteran conservative columnist, Robert Novak, wrote a piece playing down the importance of the Niger trip, claiming Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA "operative on weapons of mass destruction".

Ms Plame was indeed Wilson's wife, but she was also an undercover agent and the leak of her identity was a potential felony under the intelligence identities protection act, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The White House stonewalled, denying the involvement of senior people, specifically Rove.

For nearly two years, the investigation went nowhere, even after the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, threatened journalists with jail for failing to reveal sources on the story. Novak seems to have struck a deal. Judith Miller, of the New York Times, meanwhile, went to prison rather than talk.

It was Time magazine that cracked. Faced with heavy fines, it handed over the computer notes of its journalist, Matthew Cooper, against his wishes. With the cat out of the bag, Cooper announced his source had waived confidentiality. Cooper's evidence confirmed what many had suspected - that Rove was in the thick of it.

In a telephone conversation on July 11, Rove told Cooper that Wilson had been sent to Niger by his wife, who worked on WMD issues at "the agency". Cooper said: "This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."

Despite this bombshell, Rove has yet to be "frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs", as Wilson once imagined. Intelligence identity law makes life hard for prosecutors, who have to prove the perpetrator knew the agent was undercover and leaked the identity "with intent to injure" the US.

But Fitzgerald is exploring other possible charges, including perjury and obstruction of justice. It is one of the iron laws of White House scandals that the cover-up is always worse than the crime, and this might be the case again. There are rumours of imminent indictments, but also of different targets: Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, also talked to Cooper at the time.

Even if Rove escapes prosecution, the political damage is done. Several times in 2003 and 2004, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, denied Rove was "involved", calling such suggestions "ridiculous", and McClellan and the president pledged to sack anyone involved. The Cooper revelations forced Bush this week to re-phrase that vow, saying he would dismiss anyone who "committed a crime" - a penalty that most Americans would hope was standard White House policy, at least since Richard Nixon's days.

Bush's poll ratings for integrity have subsequently plummeted. Even Americans who hated him often noted that he was the plainspoken sort who said what he meant. Now even some who love him are wondering what to believe. The man who got Bush to the White House and won him four more years, is sullying the second term - the time when all presidents try to find a place in history but mostly spend fighting off scandals.

So far Bush has shown no sign of ditching his mentor. The president believes in loyalty, in receiving and giving it. He is also knows Rove has got them out of scrapes before. Bush's shrugging nonchalance - so attractive to voters - is only possible because Rove has determination and calculation enough for them both. Bush meandered into politics. Rove had much further to come but made a beeline.

According to a Rove biography, cheekily entitled Bush's Brain, Rove was once asked when he started thinking about presidential campaigns. He replied: "December 25 1950." That was the day of his birth, in Denver, Colorado.

There are no easy explanations for where Rove's political drive comes from. He was born into a modest, not very political or religious family. His father, a geologist, was away a lot and eventually left. Rove discovered, aged 20, that the man was not his biological father. A few years later his mother committed suicide.

Out of this turmoil came a determination breathtaking in its single-mindedness, and a bent for hero worship. At the age of nine Rove backed Nixon for the 1960 elections; and endured a beating by a little girl next door, a Kennedy fan. He was able to recall the incident, talking to journalists, four decades on.

Throughout the1960s, Rove was the perfect Republican, going to school each day in jacket, tie, and horn-rimmed glasses, carrying a briefcase. He later described himself as a "big nerd". But he was a nerd who got even.

Alongside his ambition and fixation on politics he appears to have believed that the end always justified the means. At school debates he had a mountain of reference cards. Every debater on the team brought a shoebox of cards, but he would bring up to 10 boxes and dump them down, intimidatingly. A team-mate said "there wasn't a thing on 99% of them". He seems to have been a natural at what he called "pranks". Working on one of his first proper campaigns, aged 19, in Illinois, he infiltrated the Democratic campaign and stole its headed notepaper, which he used on the streets to distribute invitations to their HQ promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing".

Three years later, he was caught on tape boasting about such exploits to student Republicans; the party chairman at the time, Bush's father (George HW Bush) was so impressed he hired him as an assistant.

One of his menial jobs was to hand over the Bush car keys whenever George junior went to Washington. Rove's description sounds like the start of a love affair. "I can literally remember what he was wearing," he said of an occasion in 1973, "an Air National Guard flight jacket, cowboy boots, blue jeans. He was exuding more charisma than any one individual should be allowed to have."

Since that day, nothing has stood in the way of their political marriage: Bush's opponents have been smeared as lesbians (Ann Richards, the ousted Texas governor), crazed veterans with illegitimate Asian children (Senator John McCain) and cowards falsifying their war records (Senator John Kerry).

The dirty tricks out of the bag, Rove has been close at hand but leaving no discernible fingerprints. Until this week. For the first time in 32 years, he has been caught, and his survival now depends on the gratitude of his partner and protege in the White House.

Life in short

Born December 25 1950 in Denver, Colorado. Discovered at age 19 that the man who raised him was not his father.

Family Married twice, with a son from second marriage.

Education University of Utah (left without graduating in 1971).

Career Volunteer on Republican campaign at high school; chair, then president, College Republicans, 1973; worked for former President Bush at Republican national committee, 1973; assisted former President Bush's 1980 presidential campaign; began consultancy in 1981; adviser to President Bush in campaigns for Texas governor (1994, 1998) and president (2000, 2004); senior adviser in current administration, and teaches at University of Texas

On Bush: "... the kind of candidate and officeholder political hacks like me wait a lifetime to be associated with."

Political consultant Mark McKinnon: "The Bobby Fischer of politics. He not only sees the board, he sees about 20 moves ahead."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005



To: American Spirit who wrote (29640)7/22/2005 5:36:09 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362466
 
Environmental Groups Study Roberts's Rulings with Concern

________________________________________________________

By Charlie Savage
The Boston Globe
Thursday 21 July 2005

Washington - The federalist legal philosophy embraced by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. could pose an obstacle to enforcement of environmental laws, limiting the federal government's power to protect endangered species and fragile ecosystems.

Environmental groups yesterday expressed concern about Roberts's dissent in the 2003 case of a rare toad whose habitat in California was threatened by development. As a federal appeals court judge, Roberts contended that the toad was not protected by federal law because it lives only in California, and the federal government can only regulate matters involving more than one state.

Moreover, in 1992, while he was deputy solicitor general in the George H.W. Bush administration, Roberts successfully argued before the Supreme Court that an environmental group, Defenders of Wildlife, had no standing to sue the government when the administration changed a rule in order to narrow the scope of the Endangered Species Act.

As a private-practice appellate lawyer in 2001, Roberts wrote a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the mining industry that helped persuade an appeals court to allow "mountaintop removal" in West Virginia. Roberts argued that a lower judge should not have stopped coal companies from dynamiting the tops of mountains and filling valleys and streambeds with the resulting debris.

And as an appeals court judge in 2004, he rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to force the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt a tougher standard for the emission of hazardous air pollutants from copper smelters.

But it is Roberts's decision in the 2003 toad case, in which he cast doubt on the constitutionality of sweeping federal environmental laws, which has given naturalists the most cause for concern -- even as they cautioned yesterday that they wanted to conduct more research into his past before taking a position on his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Roberts wrote that the Endangered Species Act cannot protect "a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California" because the Constitution only allows the regulation of matters involving more than one state.

Most of the nation's environmental laws -- including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act -- were passed under the Constitution's grant of power to the federal government to regulate "interstate commerce." Any effort to limit the scope of that power could substantially reduce environmental protection.

Before the 1930s, the Supreme Court strictly limited federal regulation to areas that clearly involved more than one state. But after President Franklin D. Roosevelt won a battle to uphold his New Deal programs on the theory that all state matters had impact on other states, the court for several generations imposed virtually no limits to what the federal government could do.

In recent years, however, some conservatives have called for a "new federalism" that would limit federal power in order to restore more policy-making power to state governments.

"The reason Judge Roberts's dissent in that Endangered Species Act case is troubling is that it indicates that he might take a much more narrow view of Congress's ability to pass that legislation under the commerce clause," said Sara Zdeb, legislative director of Friends of the Earth. "We want to see a justice who is going to uphold that right."

Republicans are already preparing to defend Roberts against an attack from environmentalists. Sean Rushton, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, said it was inappropriate to gauge a judge by the political outcome of the case rather than by the legal principle upon which he or she makes a decision.

"It's a results-oriented view and it presumes that there is no actual legal issue at stake, so that it's more of a political judgment -- like 'this guy is anti-environmentalist,' " Rushton said. "We don't like that whole kind of argument."

Conservative groups have also distributed talking points to defend Roberts. One key point: While in private practice, Roberts worked, free of charge, on a case important to environmentalists. He persuaded the Supreme Court to allow Lake Tahoe to impose a ban on further development around its shores without having to compensate landowners.

Indeed, leaders of several environmental groups said yesterday that the Lake Tahoe case, in which Roberts pushed an argument based on their central belief that the needs of the environment can outweigh private property rights, has prevented them from leaping to the judgment that he is their enemy. The Supreme Court's most conservative members -- William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas -- all dissented from the opinion.

"He's got, like every other judge, decisions on both sides," said David Bookbinder, legal director of the Sierra Club. "We're eyeing him cautiously, and we are going to thoroughly read everything and listen to his testimony and then make a decision."

Nevertheless, Roberts's roles in the toad case and the mining case have left the movement wary. Earthjustice executive director Buck Parker yesterday issued a statement expressing concern that Roberts "may fail to uphold our key environmental safeguards as a Supreme Court justice" and calling on the Senate to thoroughly question him about the matter.

truthout.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (29640)7/22/2005 8:26:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362466
 
Behind The Presidency
_________________________________________________________

By Thomas R. Eddlem
The New American
7-22-05

Admire him or despise him, George W. Bush is essentially a figurehead for the tightly knit Establishment oligarchy that actually runs the Executive Branch of our government.

When a tiny, single-engine Cessna 150 aircraft wafted into restricted Washington, D.C., airspace on May 11, the federal government went to a terrorism threat advisory level of red alert, and the nation's capitol was evacuated. As it happened, the airplane had simply been off course during a trip from Pennsylvania to an air show in North Carolina. But the fallout from the incident revealed volumes about how the executive branch of the federal government is run during a crisis.

Perhaps most revealing of all was the exchange between the White House Press Corps and White House Press Spokesman Scott McClellan the next day. "Scott, yesterday the White House was on red alert, was evacuated," noted a reporter. "The First Lady and Nancy Reagan were taken to a secure location. The vice president was evacuated from the grounds. The Capitol building was evacuated. The continuity of government plan was initiated. And yet, the president wasn't told of yesterday's events until after he finished his bike ride, about 36 minutes after the all-clear had been sent. Is he satisfied with the fact that he wasn't notified about this?" "Yes the protocols that we put in place after September 11th were being followed," replied McClellan. "They did not require presidential authority for this situation."

If George Bush is not even informed of a national red alert terrorism emergency when the Capitol is evacuated and his own wife is moved to a bomb shelter, then he is clearly not in charge at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is not the first time that Mr. Bush has proven himself to be peripheral in a crisis situation. As captured on videotape at the time, Mr. Bush's initial reaction to being informed of the 9/11 attacks was to sit immobilized for as much as nine minutes while the children's book My Pet Goat was read to a classroom of second graders. Granted, one predictable human response to such a crisis would be a momentarily paralyzing sense of shock. Yet none of the president's staffers saw fit to jog his elbow or otherwise snap him out of his lengthy reverie, which would be the expected course of action if "presidential authority" were really required to deal with an unfolding terrorist attack.

All of this raises a serious question: if George W. Bush is not running the federal government during times of crisis, who is?

Cheney in Charge

According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, one of the key administration leaders in charge at the Oval Office during the May 11 red alert was Vice President Dick Cheney. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, while a stunned and distracted President Bush was contemplating a pet goat during the 9/11 crisis, Cheney issued a shoot-down order for airplanes in Washington, D.C., airspace and appeared to be in charge. The vice president is clearly the dominant personality in the Bush-Cheney team and is plainly the most important member of an informal committee that runs the executive branch of the U.S. government.

"The inner circles of the U.S. national security community - members of the National Security Council (NSC), a select number of their deputies, and a few close advisors to the president - represent what is probably the most powerful committee in the history of the world, one with more resources, more power, more license to act, and more ability to project force further and swifter than any other convened by king, emperor, or president," wrote David J. Rothkopf of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the March/April issue of Foreign Policy magazine. That committee, as described by Rothkopf, is headed by a triumvirate composed of Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who had been Cheney's superior 30 years prior during the Ford administration), and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The triumvirs, like many of their associates and subordinates, are or have been members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

It is Cheney whom Rothkopf identifies as "the power behind the throne." "Cheney has the largest national security staff of any vice president in U.S. history - one larger than President John F. Kennedy's entire NSC staff at one time," he observes. "He also has a network of close associates that extends throughout the government and who report to him or to Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, his chief of staff." Most of the details of Cheney's realm - including the precise number of staffers who report to him - are unknown, since the vice president's office is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a veteran of both Bush administrations, explains that Cheney has "three bites at the apple. He has his staff at every meeting. He would then come to principals' meetings. And then he'd have his one-on-ones with the president."

Rise of an Insider

Dick Cheney has cultivated that clout during a long history in government, which began with an internship with liberal Wisconsin Republican Congressman William Steiger. About a year later, with Steiger's help, Cheney got a foot in the door with Nixon appointee Donald Rumsfeld, at the time head of the Office of Economic Opportunity - a welfare agency notorious for shoveling out subsidies to subversive groups, including domestic terrorist groups like the so-called American Indian Movement. When Nixon resigned in 1974, Ford tapped Rumsfeld to be chief of staff, and Rumsfeld brought Cheney in tow. Within a year, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Cheney, at age 34, was presidential chief of staff.

In 1978, Cheney won election to the U.S. House of Representatives as Wyoming's sole congressman. During an 11-year tenure in the House, Cheney compiled ratings over 80 percent in this magazine's "Conservative Index." But during that time Cheney also became an active internationalist, joining the Council on Foreign Relations in 1982 and eventually serving as a director of the organization. As Cheney acknowledged in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations on February 15, 2002, he was careful to avoid mentioning that affiliation in dealing with his conservative constituents:

[I]t's good to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations. As Pete mentioned, I have been a member for a long time, and was actually Director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for reelection back home in Wyoming.

Cheney left Congress in 1989 to serve as secretary of defense in the administration of the elder President Bush, overseeing the invasion of Panama and the first Iraq war. When Bush the Elder left the White House in 1993, Cheney moved to the private sector - sort of - becoming CEO of the Halliburton Company. Capitalizing on his political connections, Cheney helped the international conglomerate bury its snout deeply into the corporate welfare trough. As tidily summarized by the left-wing organization CorpWatch:

[Cheney] brought with him a trusty Rolodex and his former chief of staff, David Gribbin, whom he appointed as chief lobbyist. In the last two years the pair of them notched up $1.5 billion dollars in federal loans and insurance subsidies compared to the paltry $100 million that the company received in the five years prior to Cheney's arrival.

Thus, it is hardly a wonder Cheney championed the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), which uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize foreign investments by multinational corporations. During a May 8, 1997 address to an Ex-Im conference in Washington, D.C., Cheney snarled that opponents of the corporate welfare program "obviously don't know that for every dollar appropriated to the Bank in the last five years, Ex-Im has returned approximately 20 dollars worth of exports." While this arrangement is very lucrative for Cheney and his corporatist cronies, it's entirely unconstitutional - and it does nothing to benefit taxpayers forced to subsidize it. In fact, Ex-Im has played a prominent role in offshoring manufacturing jobs and draining the U.S. economy. Cheney doesn't bite the hand that feeds him, that's for sure.

War Hawk Central

Vice president since 2001, Cheney is among the closest confidants of President Bush in the White House. He was among the early and most vocal proponents of the unnecessary war against Iraq, and one of the most persistent and dogged exaggerators of the intelligence on the Iraq "threat." For example, Cheney told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on August 26, 2002, during the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, that Saddam Hussein, "sworn enemy of the United States," was a very credible threat:

The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago. These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq; these are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond.

Cheney's statement today has long been revealed for the complete warmongering falsehood that it was. In fact, although U.S. intelligence agencies had told the administration that they had no proof Hussein had completely destroyed its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles as the Iraqi regime had claimed and had presented estimates suggesting that Hussein likely retained some chemical and biological weapons capability, no U.S. intelligence source at the time of Cheney's remarks suggested Hussein had been "enhancing" his capabilities in those fields.

Moreover, independent sources such as the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq and the 9/11 Commission Report stressed that intelligence agencies had no indications that there was a relationship between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime, though Cheney repeatedly made this claim in public pronouncements before and after the invasion of Iraq. Cheney's method of promoting war against Iraq consisted of publicly making statements about unproven allegations of ties, and then continuing to argue that the ties were credible long after his sources were discredited.

One example of this was Cheney's allegation that Iraqi Intelligence Service officer al-Ani had met al-Qaeda leader Mohamed Atta in Prague in April 2001, just months before the September 11 attacks. Cheney made the allegations in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press on December 9, 2001. "Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" asked host Tim Russert. "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack," Cheney replied.

In actuality, the CIA had always remained skeptical of the alleged meeting and never included it in any of its formal intelligence reports on the relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq. In a June 17, 2004 interview with CNBC's Gloria Borger, long after the allegation was revealed to be a great deal less than "pretty well confirmed," Cheney tried to deny making such an assertion.

"Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well," Borger began. "You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.'" "No, I never said that," Cheney interjected. "I never said that.... Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know."

Note that Cheney said that "we have never been able to confirm [Atta's Prague visit] nor have we been able to knock it down." But the truth is that the CIA had "knocked it down" long before that time. By the time of Cheney's June 2004 interview, the Czech intelligence service had already backed off its initial allegation, and the CIA had credit card charges and bank surveillance video that placed Atta in Florida at the same time he was supposed to have been meeting with Iraqi Intelligence Service officer al-Ani in Prague.

Cheney's Neo-con War Lobby

Cheney visited the deputy director of the CIA five to eight times between September 11, 2001 and February 2003 to get up-to-date intelligence on the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, according to the Senate Select Committee report on prewar intelligence. He also repeatedly visited the CIA, creating subtle pressure for the CIA to produce more alarmist reports. But Cheney wasn't alone in trawling for pro-war intelligence at the skeptical CIA. His colleagues from a powerful neo-conservative organization, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), were utilizing Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith to pressure the CIA further.

Feith established a Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group after September 11 that sought to justify war with Iraq by forging nonexistent ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. That group began briefing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, with the latter urging it to meet with the CIA to "illuminate the differences between us and CIA." Counterterrorism Evaluation Group officials quickly went into high-gear pressure mode. "[O]fficials under the direction of Undersecretary Feith took it upon themselves to push for a change in the intelligence analysis so that it bolstered administration policy statements and goals," leading Senate Select Intelligence Committee Democrats concluded. "The CIA Ombudsman told the Committee that he felt the 'hammering' by the Bush administration on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had previously witnessed in his 32-year career with the agency." According to the Senate Report, Counterterrorism Evaluation Group officials began meeting with and lobbying the CIA to mention Mohamed Atta as being at a confirmed recent meeting between Hussein and al-Qaeda in September 2002, but the CIA didn't budge.

Wolfowitz, who recently became president of the World Bank, served as an early and key administration staff advocate for war against Iraq. In fact, his support for a second Iraq war preceded the Bush administration. Both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld signed the Project for a New American Century letter to President Clinton on January 28, 1998, calling for a war against Iraq: "We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Wolfowitz is a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Rumsfeld is a former member. As deputy secretary of defense, Wolfowitz sat in on presidential briefings on the "threat" from Iraq and was able to neutralize the skepticism of fellow CFR members Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet.

PNAC Neo-con Connection

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz also served as founding members of the Project for a New American Century, although the future vice president did not sign the 1998 letter to President Clinton arguing for a second Iraq war. The Project for a New American Century became the key powerhouse neo-conservative organization with the election of President Bush in 2000.

The movement now called "neo-conservatism" actually gestated within a group of former disciples of Leon Trotsky, one of the founders of the Soviet Union and creator of the Red Army. Irving Kristol, commonly regarded as one of the chief founders of neo-conservatism, wrote an autobiographical essay entitled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist." "I regard myself to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory," wrote Kristol in 1995. Other pioneering Trotskyites included James Burnham, a founder of National Review magazine; and the husband and wife team of Norman Podhoretz (who once wrote poetry in praise of the Soviet Red Army, Trotsky's most notable creation) and Midge Decter.

Unlike genuine conservatives, whose chief preoccupation is the preservation of individual liberty and national independence, neo-conservatives were primarily preoccupied with power. Supporters of a welfare state at home and an interventionist foreign policy abroad, the neo-cons attached themselves to the Republican Party and made an alliance of convenience with social conservatives - despite having little interest in the social conservative agenda.

In a June 11, 2003 essay for National Review, unrepentant Trotskyist Stephen Schwartz, a prominent contributor to several neo-conservative journals, praised neo-conservative "pioneers" Kristol and Burnham for refusing to "apologize grovel crawl and beg forgiveness for having, at one time, been stirred by the figure of Trotsky." "To my last breath I will defend Trotsky," Schwartz defiantly wrote. "To my last breath, and without apology."

In a remarkable June 7, 2003 National Post article, Canadian reporter Jeet Heer quoted Schwartz as saying that "in certain Washington circles the ghost of Trotsky still hovers around." At a February 2003 White House party, Schwartz recalled, he and Paul Wolfowitz had a chat about Trotsky's legacy. Another illustration of Trotsky's influence, wrote Heer, was the fact that Cheney and Wolfowitz turned to Kanan Makiya, an Arab leader of the Trotsky-founded Fourth International, for "advice about Iraqi society."

Trotsky and his followers believed in waging a permanent revolution - a theme that has certainly been embraced by the administration of George W. Bush. Another key influence on the thinking of neo-conservatives was University of Chicago Professor Leo Strauss, who taught that mankind in general - and Americans in particular - need to be ruled by a managerial elite that can manipulate them through the use of lies and myths. Once again, that approach can be seen in the behavior of the Bush administration.

The Project for a New American Century began with a June 3, 1997 "Statement of Principles" stipulating that "we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today." And the "global responsibilities" the military would carry out would be "to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and to "promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad." This is, of course, fully consistent with the 1998 letter to President Clinton to attack Iraq and precisely what the Bush-Cheney administration has done with regard to Iraq.

While the White House has cultivated a public image of George W. Bush as the man in charge at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Vice President Dick Cheney, acting in concert with a shadowy "committee" of neo-conservatives, has quietly led the administration from behind the scenes for the past five years. Far from being the man in charge at the White House, Bush the Younger is merely a useful vessel; after all, Cheney and his neo-conservative comrades were urging that the United States resume a war with Iraq, and target other nations for "regime change," several years before President Bush supposedly made up his mind up about whether or not to invade.

During presidential election campaigns, much attention is lavished on the perceived strengths and failings of the personality at the head of the ticket. How many Americans knew in 2004 that when they pulled the lever for George W. Bush they were actually reelecting Cheney and his shadowy oligarchy - the people who are really running things?

Establishment's Man

Even before George W. Bush became president, the influence the American Establishment exerts over him was strongly evident. The photo below shows Mr. Bush at a May 23, 2000 press conference in Washington, D.C., where he was joined by an entourage of foreign policy gurus, including (from the left) former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former General (later Secretary of State) Colin Powell, and former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger. Also joining him at the conference (though not shown in the photo) were Condoleezza Rice, the head of his campaign's foreign policy team who became his national security adviser and later secretary of state, and Donald Rumsfeld, a former secretary of defense who acquired that same post in the new Bush administration. All six are (or were) members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the most visible manifestation of the Insider Establishment.

© Copyright 2005 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated

rense.com