News of the Month
March 9, 2002
The Pentagon tried to open an office of disinformation, but got such an
outcry from friends of truth that they shut it down again 9 days later – or, at
least they say they shut it down. But
really, when did you ever hear of a government office that was shut down, once
started? It was called the “Office of
Strategic Influence” and was to have been headed by Air Force General Simon
Worden. Anyone who was asked about it
was so vague in their replies that there was obviously something being covered
up, and disinformation (bureaucrat-ese for “lies”) was the top candidate on the
list. Nine days later, Defense
Secretary Rumsfield said, “The office has clearly been so damaged that it is
pretty clear to me that it could not function effectively. So it is being closed down.” My translation? “Well, you bleeding-heart liberty lovers won’t let us do our
disinformation in public, so we’ll just take it behind the iron doors and run
it as a classified operation.”
And speaking of Donald Rumsfield, he admitted last month that 10 to 15
people killed in a January 23 commando raid by U.S. special forces in
Afghanistan were not al-Qaida or Taliban as first suspected. He said that the deaths occurred after U.S.
forces defended themselves when they were fired upon. “Clearly, in retrospect, that's unfortunate,” Rumsfeld said of
the deaths. “On the other hand, one
cannot fault the people who fired back in self-defense.” He even said – of the American forces, “(I)f
you're fired on, to fire back. We
expect people to defend themselves.” Uh
… Mr. Rumsfield … doesn’t that also apply to the people you sicced your armed
attackers on? Don’t they have the right
to defend themselves from your assault force?
Or do you believe that just because they’re Americans, the Afghanis
don’t have the right to defend themselves from them?
This constant barrage of propaganda from the US government is making a
difference. Listen to this, from Ann
Coulter at a January meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference:
“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate
liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright
traitors.” When she appeared on Fox
News a few days later, she acknowledged the statement and bragged that it had
been a “huge hit with the audience” of about 3,500 people attending the
conference, which calls itself the nation’s “premier annual gathering of
conservatives.”
You may remember that last month, we discussed here the fact that
corporate criminal Monsanto has been poisoning the water supply in Anniston,
Alabama, for years, and even though it knew about it the whole time, had been
lying and saying there was no danger.
Well, the jury is back in on that case.
As reported in an AP story late last month, “A jury … determined that
Monsanto polluted an Alabama town with PCBs, a verdict that sets the stage for
more trials on claims that the contamination harmed the residents’ health and
property. Monsanto, its spin-off
Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia Corp. were found liable for the claims, including
negligence.” For what it’s worth, this
is the third case where Monsanto and its affiliates were found liable for
damages in the Anniston area; the first two cases resulted in penalties of 40
million and 44 million dollars.
And then there’s Enron. I’m
fairly sure Enron itself will come up in our main discussion tonight; what I
want to talk about now is King George II’s complicity – and duplicity – in the
Enron fiasco. Reuters last month
reported that “The investigative arm of Congress filed an unprecedented lawsuit
against the White House on Friday to learn what role Enron Corp. and other
energy companies played in developing the Bush administration’s energy policy. The General Accounting Office (GAO) filed
the suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, setting up a legal and
constitutional battle with the Republican administration of President
Bush. ‘We take this step reluctantly. Nevertheless, given GAO's responsibility to
Congress and the American people, we have no other choice,’ a GAO statement
said.”
It seems that meetings of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force were
closed to non-members, and their records are unavailable for examination. Dick and the Bush have refused to release
the documents, claiming that disclosure would “damage the executive branch’s
ability to get candid advice from outside experts.” Continuing from Reuters, “The White House acknowledges Cheney or
members of the task force met six times last year with representatives of
Enron, a major political contributor to Bush and other politicians, that
cratered into bankruptcy in December.”
A bit more information – a Bill Moyers investigation showed that Enron
was the only energy company to have met with that task force; that Dick Cheney
followed Enron’s “suggestions” for who should lead and staff the US energy
office; and that no other energy company was even asked for such
recommendations.
This administration is dedicated to one thing – making sure its investors
reap their ROI – return on investment.
And I guess that’s appropriate; “ROI” is French for king. Our king, George II, has proven over and
over again that he’ll use any excuse to fork over millions of your and my
dollars to his already-superrich investors.
The Congress, of course, follows right along – they get money from the
same corrupt system the king does. How
many hogs lined up at the trough after the September 11 tragedy, looking to use
that tragedy as an excuse to get more money from the government? Here’s a partial list, as reported by Mother
Jones magazine:
·
Republican
congressmen James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Frank Murkowski of Alaska used the
tragedy as an excuse to push for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to oil exploration. So much for
its being wildlife refuge.
·
The major
airlines were in line the next day asking for government millions to replace
the money they believed (rightly so, it turned out) they were going to lose
from a drastic reduction in air travel in this country. They got $5 billion in cash and another $10
billion in loan guarantees from the government. (Major smoke & mirrors here – they’re trying to divert attention
from the fact that a lot of people are saying it was their negligence that allowed
the hijackers onto the airplanes in the first place.)
·
And talk about
an ROI! National security arguments
were used to push a farm-subsidy bill worth $167 billion. The food producers altogether only donated
$58 million to their favorite candidates. That’s an ROI of 288,000 percent.
·
The insurance
industry was especially hard-hit by the 9/11 attacks. They had a meeting with our gracious king at the White House 10
days later, on September 21. Well,
actually, two meetings. In the first
one, the “photo op”, the insurance magnates announced that with their $3
trillion in assets, the industry wouldn’t need federal help. Then the doors closed. At the private meeting, they reminded his
majesty that several of them were Pioneers, a title he gave to persons who had
personally raised over $100,000 for the Shrub’s run at power, and that the
industry as a whole had spent nearly $1.6 million for the cause. The result?
On October 15, a plan was unveiled where the government would pay all
but $12 billion of the first $100 billion of future terrorism-related
claims. That’s $88 billion of your
dollars that you will pay if there’s another September 11. That’s what … $3,000 dollars? … for every
man, woman, and child in the nation, spent to protect from disaster an industry
that’s in business to protect us from disaster.
This bit’s too good to miss, so I’ll quote Mother Jones
directly. “Barely a month after the
terrorist attacks, Rep. Jim Moran, a Democrat whose Virginia congressional
district includes (Hawk; ptui!) Reagan National Airport, bluntly summed
up the attitude of both lawmakers and lobbyists. ‘It’s an open grab bag,’ he said, ‘so let’s grab.’ … In
November, lobbyist Howard Marlowe scored a modest but impressive victory for
the nation’s seaside resorts, persuading Congress that it was vital for
national security to spend a record $135 million to shore up public beaches
with sand. … Marlowe … concedes that the lobbying frenzy has gotten out of
hand. ‘It gets to the point where you
don’t want to be associated with it,’ he says.
‘So many people saw opportunity in the wake of tragedy that it’s
definitely gotten unseemly.’”
Unseemly. Unseemly? Picking your nose in public is unseemly –
robbing the nation blind, using the deaths of thousands as an excuse, is
horrifying!
Even more horrifying is the fact that King George II has apparently
decided that it’s not enough to pay his investors back in money. Now he wants to repay them in American
lives. To quote a recent column by
Arianna Huffington:
“In a shameless handout to a poor-little-me corporate mendicant – that
means ‘beggar’ – the president wants to spend close to $100 million to help
Occidental Petroleum protect an oil pipeline unwisely built in war-torn
Colombia. For years, in a seedy little
deal worthy of a Graham Greene novel, the oil company has been paying the
Colombian army to protect its interests, forking over $1 for every barrel of
oil produced. In fact, one out of every
four Colombian soldiers in the field is assigned to looking after Occidental's
assets. The trouble is, they aren't
doing a very good job. Colombia’s
guerrilla forces, which don't look too kindly on foreign multinationals in
their midst, have made a habit of blowing up the pipeline. Last year alone, it was bombed 170 times and
was out of commission for 266 days, putting a definite downward drag on
Occidental's profits. So here comes
President Bush riding to Oxy's rescue with Super Huey helicopters and U.S.
Special Forces to train a Colombian Army brigade to protect the pipeline. When it comes to Social Security, Bush can’t
wait to privatize, but when it comes to corporate security, he can’t wait to
‘publicatize.’
“Could it be the over $9 million that Occidental has spent on lobbying
since 1996 – much of it used to push for more and more U.S. military aid to
Colombia – and the $1.5 million the company donated to federal campaigns
between 1995-2000? ‘It is something we
have to do,’ said Anne Patterson, America's ambassador to Colombia. ‘It is important for the future of the country,
for our petroleum supplies, and for the confidence of our investors.’ Our investors? Since when is U.S. foreign policy a publicly traded commodity? … The reckless
decision to elevate corporate interests above the public good in Colombia risks
dragging American troops into a military quagmire. Imagine a mother getting the following notice from the Defense
Department: ‘We regret to inform you that your son was killed in the line of
duty while in Colombia. Secretary
Rumsfeld and Occidental Petroleum wish to extend their deepest sympathies. Please accept our condolences and a coupon
for a free tank of gas.’