Articles by James Bovard

The folks at American Liberty Coalition have crafted a powerful antiwar ad promoting Ron Paul for president. This minute long ad conveys Ron Paul’s passion and his concern about the ruinous costs of the current wars and the peril of Bush attacking Iran.

The Liberty Coalition solicited donations to help pay for airing the ad, and this may have contributed to the Paul campaign’s 16% tally in the Pennsylvania primary. Their efforts - and the elbow grease of many other volunteers in Pennsylvania - made a big difference.

The private ad is in sharp contrast to this “Ron Paul - Conservative Choice” radio ad created by the Paul campaign and run on Pennsylvania stations. The ad seems confusing and diffident. It starts out mentioning amnesty for illegal aliens and campaign finance reform’s restrictions on free speech - but doesn’t specify that these are John McCain positions. The ad mentions that Ron Paul has received more contributions from active duty military than all other candidates combined - but fails to mention that this is largely the result of Paul’s staunch opposition to the Iraq debacle.

It is good that Ron Paul got 128,000 votes in Pennsylvania. But how many more votes might the campaign have harvested across the nation if they had used the $35 million Americans donated to them to send a clear antiwar message from start to finish?

I would be curious to know the impressions of Pennsylvanians (and others) on how the campaign there played out.

In late 2006, Congress revised the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act to make it far easier for a president to declare martial law. Those changes were repealed at the end of this January as part of Public Law 110-181 (HR 4986), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (signed into law by President Bush on January 28, 2008).

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), who championed the opposition to the original law, was also the hero of the repeal. It helped that all the nation’s governors opposed the 2006 law.

Boise State Professor Charlotte Twight, the author of the excellent Dependent on DC, alerted me to the change last night. I checked on Nexis and the only news coverage I found regarding the repeal was a 322-word Gannett News wire story from February 1 that focused on how the repeal made governors happy.

I first wrote about the Posse/Insurrection peril for American Conservative a year ago. My most recent piece on the subject was an article for the January issue of the Future of Freedom Foundation’s (FFF) Freedom Daily. The law was changed between the time the piece was published and when FFF posted the January article online on April 9.

A couple hundred Ron Paul supporters gathered in front of the Capitol today to hear speakers organized by the Granny Warriors.

I stopped by mid afternoon. I was told by one attendee that “Ron Paul came by and spoke around 11:15. Unfortunately, the sound system was not yet working at that point.” He said he had heard Congressman Paul might return and speak again later today.

Here are some pics - (Full size versions are available at my Flickr page here)

<img src=’http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2417392868_381a585e15.jpg’ alt=” class=’alignnone’ /

UPDATE 4 17 08: Some commentors have suggested that I grossly undercounted the number of attendees. I note that the front page of the http://www.dailypaul.com website continues to highlight the photo I took of the rally.(The photo is used without permission or clear attribution). This photo and other photos posted at http://www.flickr.com/photos/bovard/ indicate the crowd size.

ABC has a bombshell tonight about how Cheney and other top Bush administration officials would sit around in the White House and decide exactly how Muslim detainees would be tortured.

ABC noted: “The high-level discussions about these ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.”

Sitting around a table and deciding how many times each Muslim detainee can be whacked up side the head sounds like the ultimate NeoCon masturbatory fantasy.

Even prize-Constitution stomper John Ashcroft had qualms about the meetings, reportedly warning, “History will not judge this kindly.”

What does it take to get someone indicted for war crimes in this country any more?

In a memo sent to Congress five years ago today, Bush decreed that he was attacking Iraq “to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

The Bush administration linked Saddam to 9/11 to justify commencing a war that has left hundreds of thousands of people dead.

Launching an unprovked aggressive war was recognized as a war crime at the Nuremberg tribunals in 1946, which declared that to “initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The Bush administration has had five years to offer up evidence to support the Saddam/9/11 tie. They have offered nothing.

It is an outrage that Bush has faced no legal or constitutional peril for his lethal fraud.

John McCain voted to uphold Bush’s veto of the latest anti-torture legislation to pass Congress.

McCain also voted against the initial version of this law that would ban waterboarding by U.S. government agents.

McCain also voted for the final version of the Military Comissions Act in September 2006. By giving Bush boundless discretion to define torture, this law effectively guaranteed that the U.S. government would continue torturing.

Has anybody compiled a list of all the times the media has praised McCain for opposing torture, despite his groveling at Bush’s demands for absolute power to punish detainees however he pleases?

John McCain survived the New Hampshire primary thanks to receiving the support of the bulk of Republicans opposed to the Iraq war. McCain also did much better with the antiwar voters than other GOP candidates in the crucial Florida primary.

Ron Paul, who announced he was dropping out of the race last night, never made his opposition to the Iraq War the key theme of his own campaign. (He did superbly when asked about this issue in debates or interviews, but most voters never saw the debates or interviews).

After McCain had emerged as a near-frontrunner before the Florida primary, a single 30-second ad highlighting his warmongering could have had a huge impact. Even if the Paul campaign only paid to have it broadcst a single time, it would likely have gotten picked up and frequently rebroadcast as a new story (the same tactic other candidates used).

Stressing an antiwar message probably would not have allowed Ron Paul to capture the GOP presidential nomination. But educating voters about McCain’s record could have made all the difference.

Losing the antiwar vote to McCain is like losing the chastity vote to Bill Clinton.

It is perplexing that a candidate who voted so courageously against the war in Congress would siderail this issue in his presidential campaign - and thereby possibly miss a chance to block the biggest GOP Senate warmonger from the nomination.

Amongst all the media teeth-gnashing over the question of whether McCain did special favors for his blondie lobbyist,  his wife’s sweetheart deal for massive narcotics theft in the 1990s has been forgotten.

If a poor black woman from Anacostia had committed the crimes that Cindy McCain committed, the black woman might have been sent to prison for the duration of her life.

John McCain has never shown any courage on the drug war.  As long as people like his wife don’t need to fear jail time for crimes, there is no reason to reform the law to cease the persecution of other Americans.  

Here’s an excerpt on the case from an article I did for Playboy in 1997. (Full text of the piece, which details how many congressmen’s kin escaped hard time for drug offenses, is here).

* Cindy McCain, the wife of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), admitted stealing Percocet and Vicodin from the American Voluntary Medical Team, an organization that aids Third World countries. Percocet and Vicodin are schedule 2 drugs, in the same legal category as opium. Each pill theft carries a penalty of one year in prison and a monetary fine. McCain stole the pills over several years. She became addicted to the drugs after undergoing back surgery. 

    But rather than face prosecution, McCain was allowed to enter a pretrial diversion program and escaped with no blemish on her record. McCain did suffer from the incident, though: Shortly after the scandal broke, a Variety Club of Arizona ceremony at which she was to receive a humanitarian of the year award for her work with the medical team was canceled because of poor ticket sales. 

I was disappointed that Ron Paul only got 3% of the votes in yesterday’s Florida primary.  The trendline for his vote  percentages in most of elections since Iowa has been downward. 

I think Ron Paul is doing great in the debates and in broadcast interviews.  But his campaign seems gun-shy about stressing Paul’s stalwart position on the Iraq war.   Some of the ads the campaign is paying to run  have the punching power of wet noodles.   The Paul campaign has lately made far more effort stressing Paul’s devotion to veterans than his opposition to the Iraq war.

Did the dropout of Dennis Kucinich from the presidential race end any chance for a fervent delivery of the antiwar message to the American people?

Are any of the candidates in tomorrow’s presidential primaries in Florida running advertisements criticizing the Iraq war?  Are any of the candidates making opposition to the Iraq war their premier issue?

Is the antiwar issue being raised in the media or in Q & A with candidates?

Has anybody seen polls on which candidates are favored by voters who opposed the war?

The Washington Post yesterday made the GOP race sound like a contest on who could be most bellicose on Iraq. Is that how the race looks on the ground in FLA?

The intellectual bootlickers surrounding Bush have apparently persuaded him that he is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.   Fox News recently had unprecedented access to Bush to produce a documentary to air on Sunday night: ““George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish.”  Fox reporter Bret Baier commented of his meetings with Bush: ”

We talked a lot about President Lincoln. And there’s going to be a lot of people out there who watch this hour and say, is he trying to equate himself with Lincoln?

I tell you what — he thinks about Lincoln and the tough times that he had during the Civil War. 600,000 dead. The country essentially hated him when he was leaving office.

Perhaps the cartoon history books Bush was given neglected to mention the fact that Lincoln was very popular in the North at the time he “left office” via John Wilkes Booth.   Lincoln was hated in the South, not surprisingly - given the Rules of Engagement that northern armies followed in the final years of the war.

Bush has followed in Lincoln’s footsteps when he gushes over freedom while trampling the Constitution.  That Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, jailed 20,000 people without charges, forcibly shut down hundreds of newspapers that criticized him, and sent in federal troops to shut down state legislatures was irrelevant because he proclaimed “that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth,” as I noted in Attention Deficit Democracy.

Bush struts when he promises to ”bring to justice” people on his target list.

Hopefully Americans will see George Bush brought to  justice for his crimes.  That would be a rebirth of the Rule of Law in this land.

Unfortunately, I don’t live in Michigan [!] - but I’m curious on the big vote on Tuesday -  

How are the presidential candidates playing the Iraq war issue in the Michigan primary?

Are any candidates running radio or TV ads explicitly opposing or supporting the war?

If so, are the ads on the war resonating?

Does the Iraq war seem to be a major issue for voters?

CNN crunched the exit poll data from yesterday’s New Hampshire primary and found that “among the 34 percent [of Republican primary voters] who said they disapproved of the war, McCain had a wide advantage over the GOP field — even over Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the sole advocate of a U.S. withdrawal in the Republican field.” (hat tip to Think Progress).

Perhaps such voters did not realize the temporal difference between exiting Iraq ”now” (in Ron Paul’s case) versus 10,000 years from now (in McCain’s case, according to his comment on CBS’s Face the Nation last week).

McCain has rarely missed a chance to grovel at Bush’s feet to support the Iraq war.

Why were so many voters who claimed to oppose the war so ignorant?

Ron Paul is the only non-Armageddon presidential candidate among the Republicans.  He is the only person who staunchly opposes a massive first strike against Iran because of  its alleged nuclear program.  He has long been ridiculed for his aversion to preemptive genocide in the Middle East.

The National Intelligence Estimate yesterday reported that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  This blows to pieces the Bush-Neoconservative case for war.

Bush knew this for at least the last 5 or 6 months, but he continued rattling his missiles and warning of World War III if Iran did not kowtow to U.S. demands.   Cheney has been even more bloodthirsty, as usual. 

Top Bush supporters like Norman Podhoretz are wailing that the intelligence agencies are cheating them out of another U.S. government-orchestrated slaughter of Muslims.  Not exactly “Presidential Medal” Podhoretz’s words, but that’s the soul of the complaint.

In the Fall of 2002, Ron Paul stood almost alone denouncing the “phantom weapons” claims the Bush team was invoking to attack Iraq.   Once again, he has been proven right.

Australian voters kicked Prime Minister John Howard out of office yesterday.  Howard was even more of a groveler to Bush than Tony Blair. 

One step Bush took to try to help Howard win reelection was to release Australian David Hicks from Guantanamo earlier this year.  As part of the deal for his release, Hicks had to promise to keep his mouth shut about how he was tortured until after the Australian election - and to sign a statement swearing he was not abused while at Gitmo.  The  release deal stunk to high heaven, but it was typical of the candor & ethics of the Global War on Terror.

Here’s the segment on Hicks’s case from a story I wrote in July for the American Conservative:

The torture of David Hicks, an Australian seized in Afghanistan and sent to Gitmo in early 2002, became an international cause célèbre. Hicks, who joined the Kosovo Liberation Army, a terrorist organization supported by the U.S. government, before fighting alongside the Taliban, was sexually assaulted, beaten with a rifle butt, kept in isolation in the dark for 244 days, prohibited from sleeping for long periods, threatened with firearms during interrogations, and psychologically tormented.

He was one of the first people tried by the Gitmo military tribunals. Though former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once called him one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, after Hicks agreed to plead guilty to material support of terrorism, he was sentenced to nine months confinement—a typical sentence for a misdemeanor in most states. As part of his plea agreement, Hicks was obliged to declare that he “had never been illegally treated by any person or persons while in the custody and control of the United States” and to swear that his guilty plea was made voluntarily, despite all the beatings he had received.

Some supporters of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign may not know that congressman Paul was a champion of civil liberties even in the era before the U.S. government legalized torture.

Paul won the Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to Civil Liberties in 2002.  He is the only politician to ever win the award (named after the legendary psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, one of the great heroes of modern liberty).

Here are the comments I made at the award ceremony in November 2002 in Washington: 

It is my honor on behalf of the Szasz award committee to present the award this year to Congressman Ron Paul.

     Ron Paul speaks truth to power.     Congressman Paul  takes the high ground - stands on principle - and he often stands alone.  

     Last year, Paul was one of only three Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act  and the only member of the House to vote against the money laundering provisions of the Patriot Act.   Paul denounced that portion of the bill as “a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs…”  The type of honesty that is   damn near nonexistent in Washington.

     Ron Paul has made it clear from Day One where he stands on the War with Iraq. He stands on the Constitution on this - not on the public opinion polls. He is not finessing the issue.

     One thing I like about Paul is that he is wiling to question people’s motives - something that happens far too rarely in Washington.
    
     Back in mid-September, I was flipping on the TV at the end of the day - after a few beers - trolling on C SPAN.  And I happened to come upon a House hearing on the pending war with Iraq.  I think I missed the first couple hours of the hearing because chairman Henry Hyde announced that it was Congressman Paul’s chance to ask a question.
 
Paul scorned the hearing as “very one sided” and said “This turns out to be more propaganda for war than anything else.   We’re willing to go to war over phantom weapons.”
     And then he asked the two witnesses - Richard Perle and James Woolsey - whether they would personally be wiling to risk their lives for the war they so strongly advocated.
     Woolsey answered first.  He mentioned that he “flew a desk” during his two years in the army - but then stressed that it was not up to private citizens to decide whether to go to war - it was up to Congress.
     Then Perle answered. Perle was in London at the time - and they had a giant video screen up there for him to be seen.   The hearing setting looked like a scene out of Dr. Strangelove.  And there was a giant flag just to Perle’s right  - sort of like the Fox News Network on amphetamines.
 
   Perle opined: “Well, I find the question a particularly troubling question because the suggestion is that somehow it is illegitimate to make recommendation with respect to what one believes is in the best interest of the country and all of our citizens except in some intensely personal context.  And if I were in a position to serve, I would do so. But, that seems to me quite the wrong question, Congressman.  The question is how do we best protect the citizens of this country.”
   Woolsey chimed in: “This so-called chicken hawk argument does seem to me to be an extraordinarily unworthy argument.  And I think Senator John McCain has put it exactly where it belongs.  For one thing it says that if an American women or an openly gay American man supports the war that an opinion is unworthy or an over age, military age, American man, that that is an unworthy and ought to be an unconsidered opinion because none of those people are going to serve in combat. And I join Mr. Perle in saying that I think that it’s an extraordinarily unworthy ad hominem argument.” 

     Now - congressman Paul had not accused the two distinguished witnesses of being chickenhawks - they were the ones that brought this up.   But simply to directly challenge them made both Perle and Woolsey go strutting as if they had suffered some terrible insult.  I mean - since they were advocating killing foreigners - of course they had good intentions, right?
 
     Paul has done great work for freedom as far back as the mid-1970s.  His foundation for  Foundation for Rational Economic Education (FREE) has done cutting-edge work- such as its recent publication of his speech,  “The Case Against the Police State.”   His Liberty Committee has worked mightily to educate fellow congressmen on the danger of Leviathan.

+++++++

Paul’s 2002 comments on “phantom weapons” is a reminder that there was plenty of evidence available to doubt the Bush administration’s WMD pretext for clobbering Iraq.  On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Paul issued a series of “Questions that Won’t be Asked About Iraq.”  Unfortunately, very few other people in Washington had Paul’s courage to doggedly demand key information before the bombing began.

My essay on “The FBI’s Right to Threaten Torture” has been deftly refuted by Bob Weir, the editor of The News Connection down in Texas.   Here is the response he sent The Future of Freedom Foundation:

“Keep your eyes on this case, because it could help determine how far feds can go to destroy innocent people.” [a quote from my article]

The good folks at the Future of Freedom Foundation kindly forwarded some of the lively responses they received  after sending out my op-ed, “Are Presidents Entitled to Kill Foreigners?”

I’m not certain, but I’m pretty sure all these editors decided not to publish the article.

Here’s a response from Bob Weir,  the executive editor of the News Connection (Texas):

Were we right to kill “foreigners” in other wars? Were the Germans, Italians and Japanese not foreigners? Adhering to your definition, the only wars we’d be able to engage in would be civil wars. By the way, do you have anything good to say about the United States? Your support of Iran, a dictatorship that has been proven to be responsible for the deaths of countless American soldiers, tells me all I need to know about your hatred of your own country.

I will never understand people like you who live the American lifestyle with all its bounty, while taking every opportunity to trash it.  If you have so much affection for Iran and its ayatollah-style government, why do you stay here? Could it be because you have freedom here? Could it be because if you lived in that tyrannical state and opened your mouth against the government you’d be stoned to death in the public square? You’re like the spoiled brat who has all the comforts of life, yet hates the parents who provide it for him. Sadly, your parents must have done a lousy job of
raising you because you bear all the signs of a child that was never taught to appreciate his good fortune.    ****

The Guthrie Center Newspapers sent an indignant one line response to the piece:

It’s not Bush — it’ President Bush, just like President Clinton, President
Bush, President Reagan, President Carter, etc.

Well, maybe that’s why Mr. Editor didn’t like the piece.  (That particular email did not include a name). *****

The Addison Eagle News and Reporter in Middlebury, Vermont, replied:

What a stupid, naive premise here. Presidents don’t kill foreigners (unless
they are secret agents although I never heard of one stalking a foreigner
and shooting them.)

The real question you should really care about as an American citizen
is: Should foreigners be entitled to kill Americans? Thankfully we have a
President who doesn’t think so, after 9/11.*****

If George W.  is ever indicted for war crimes, he should certainly try to stack the jury with editors from this paper.

Bill Johnston, the editor of the Collinsville News, also successfully resisted the article’s allure:

Didn’t have to read very far in your “op-ed” to know that you obviously
don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about….

“Seems to be the attitude” . . . what a comment. You don’t have a clue what
the attitude of President Bush and his advisors is or ever will be.
Needless to say, your ridiculous effort at some sort of anti-Bush rhetoric
will never see the light of print in this publication and I am hopeful in
very few other newspapers around this country….

By the way, if you’ve got evidence of President Bush breaking the law, file
the proper motion in court….

My hunch is that Bill Johnston has not spent a lot of time reading about the State Secrets doctrine and how the Bush administration continually invokes it to sway judges to throw out court cases involving brazen and proven government wrongdoing…

Bush today vigorously opposed a congressional resolution to finally recognize as genocide the Turkish slaughter of more than a million Armenian Christians.  Bush declared: “We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror.”

It’s a helluva thing when a war on terror supposedly requires the U.S. Congress to pretend that genocide didn’t occur.  Bush’s assertion that “we all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people” is a lie.   Most people either don’t know or don’t care about the carnage.  And Bush apparently wants to keep it that way.

The Washington Post editorial page was even more contemptible than Bush. They railed this morning that the resolution “endangers present-day U.S. security.”  The Post states, “The subject is a serious one — more than 1 million Armenians may have died at the hands of the Young Turk regime between 1915 and the early 1920s.”

May have?  Oh.  Perhaps it was all a misundertanding.

Ironically, Bush and the Washington Post editorial page are gung-ho on threatening massive bombing of Iran in part because the Iranian president is  seen as denying the Nazi Holocaust.

The U.S. government is supposedly obliged to help the Turkish government cover up its sordid past, and is also entitled to kill thousands or millions of Iranians because of that country’s figurehead’s denials of past atrocities.

A Syrian government-owned newspaper reviewed the Arabic version of Bush Betrayal this week.

Here is the summary of the September 17 review, as reported by the British Broadcasting Corp. Middle East wire:

Al-Thawrah carries a 400-word article by Khalaf al-Jarrad entitled “‘The World President’ Betrayal,” in which the writer reviews “The Bush Betrayal Book” by James Bovard, saying that “since being published four years ago, the book has aroused and continues to arouse a wide-scale, strong controversy among the US political and intellectual quarters, not because of its bold, shocking, and unusual title, but because the writer succeeded in gathering hundreds of pieces of evidence to prove the soundness of his theory, which is based on accusing the president of the superpower of treason.” [Damascus Al-Thawrah (Internet Version-WWW) Arabic. URL: http://thawra.alwehda.gov.sy ]

Not to be petty here, but I don’t recall the Voice of America ever doing a review of Bush Betrayal.

I wonder how the phrase from the book’s final chapter -”Torturer-in-Chief” - translated into Arabic.

If anybody out there can read Arabic and can find & decipher the full review, I would be much obliged. Also, if people have seen other Arabic reviews, I would appreciate hearing about them. Email me at jim@jimbovard.com

ANSWER’s lead marchers:

A bored young protestor:

Beefing up for the march:

Full size versions of these photos are available at my FLICKR page here.

Comments on the march/photos/etc welcome at my blog here.

There will be a big antiwar march in Washington on Saturday. The march is sponsored by scores of organizations; ANSWER is the prime mover. I disagree with them on plenty of economic and social issues, but they are right on the war.   The main event starts around noon at Lafayette Square next to the White House.

The weather forecast is sunny.   Plus, there are several excellent breweries along the march route from the White House to the Capitol.   And there will be lots of entertaining signs and folks at the event.

There will reportedly be pro-war counterdemonstrators along the march route, so that should spice up the day nicely.

Libertarian activist Aaron Biterman is organizing Ron Paul supporters to march with RP and pro-freedom signs.  He emailed me: “Ron Paul supporters are going to gather AT 11:30am at the METRO CENTER Metro Stop (607 13th St. NW). …  Exit the subway at Metro Center on the UPPER LEVEL (red line) via the 13th and G exit (furthest west exit — closest to the white house).  I will be at the corner of 13th and G with a Ron Paul t-shirt and sign.”  His email is AULibertarians@aol.com.

This might be the last chance for awhile to march against Bush & Co.  One never knows what the Absolutists in the White House might do, especially if Bush attacks Iran and Americans finally wake up…

++ Comments welcome on this march etc.  at my blog here.

Here is a photo I took of a Centurion near the White House at an antiwar demo two years ago….  (( A full size version of the photo is available at my Flickr page )

Ron Paul trumped in last night’s Republican Presidential Candidate Debate in New Hampshire.  His views on Iraq and freedom were shining beacons amidst the black smoke the other candidates emitted.

As the rest of the GOP hopefuls tighten their chains to the war wagon heading over a cliff, Paul’s views will propel him forward.

Every month that Paul remains in the race, he becomes more dangerous to the Establishment.

Ron Paul  is the Buster Douglas candidate.  Douglas was a 42 to 1 underdog when he fought undefeated Mike Tyson in 1990.  The experts thought that the only question was whether Tyson would knock him out in the first, second, or third round.

But Douglas fought tough from the first round.  In round ten, he caught Tyson with a flurry of punches that ended Iron Mike’s reign.

I posted higlights from Paul’s comments on my blog here.

Will there actually be some justice rendered to a Bush administration top dog?

Federal judge Reggie Walton ruled today that convicted felon Irving “Scooter” Libby must begin serving his prison sentence within the next several weeks.

This will send the NeoConservatives and other pro-war types into Full Indignation/Rage.  They will redouble the pressure on Bush to pardon Libby before he sets one foot inside of a penitentiary.

Oh, the photo opportunities…..

This summer could be more entertaining than I expected….

Comments & hooting welcome at my blog here.

The Opus cartoon in Sunday’s paper is one of the finest Memorial Day tributes I have seen anywhere. 

Cartoonist Berkeley Breathed ruled the 1980s with Bloom County, and today’s cartoon is one of his best since then.

(Comments et al. welcome at my blog entry on the cartoon here).

Mobs of cops were in Washington, DC last week for National Police Week. Their behavior was so bad that the DC police chief formally notified them that their public drunkenness would not be tolerated.

Many of the cops were bicycling around to draw attention to their campaign for a memorial to cops killed on duty.  I was cycling around downtown on Saturday, May 12.   Not only were they running red lights en masse, but they would surge out into busy streets and hold their hands up as if every driver was obliged to slam on the brakes (despite the green light) - and let royalty proceed.  They could have easily caused an accident - and perhaps they did at times when I was not watching.  (I did not see the cop biker I photographed above on his bike, and have no idea if he violated any laws).

The Washington Post reported early last week:

“D.C. Police Chief Cathy L.  Lanier  put out fliers yesterday warning officers in town for National Police Week that they must obey city laws covering disorderly conduct, public drunkenness and other ” unacceptable behavior.” 
     Lanier  ordered the fliers distributed around downtown in hopes of curbing complaints about officers drinking in public, playing loud music and causing other trouble.

The Washington Post printed a couple letters to the editor on lawless cops on Saturday.  Greg Davis of Reston, Virginia, complained:   

Every year about this time, the District is subjected to bands of revelers who terrorize the local populace. Many of them are arrogant, belligerent and inebriated, and they violate laws at will. And our local police pretty much ignore them.

   Why? Because these are police officers from other jurisdictions around the
country who have come here to “honor fallen officers.”

**

I wonder if federal antiterrorism grants paid for some of the cops’ trips to rampage in DC.

Comments on this topic welcome at my blog here  (where there is a larger photo of the cop).  

Hats off to Ron Paul for another great performance in the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina last night.

For almost six years, politicians have acted as if it is federal crime to speak bluntly about 9/11.    On the day of the attacks, George Bush proclaimed that the hijackers attacked because they hate America for its freedom.  This has been treated as a revealed truth ever since.  (When I saw Bush on TV that day, I was perplexed how the US government could know the motive before it knew the identity of the hijackers).

Ron Paul has never kowtowed to this dogma, and last night he deftly debunked the 9/11 catechism: “They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.”

 As Justin noted, Giuliani sought to huff-and-puff Paul’s truth off the stage.  But the Republican establishment’s hot air isn’t going to succeed this time.

I have a long quote from the debate transcript over at my blog, where comments on Paul, Guiliani, et al. are welcome.

This is from the “Celebrate Public Service Recognition” exhibition on the Smithsonian Mall in Washington this weekend.

If they put a sign saying “Rule of Law” on front of the howitzer, people would figure it was just one more post-9/11 decorative change.

Some people look at the howitzer and think how easily it could be turned at Congress.

Folks don’t recognize that the barrel is already pointing in their direction.

Other photos I took yesterday of the military on the Mall are at my blog here.

Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield gave the esteemed Jefferson lecture for the National Endowment for the Humanities last night in Washington.

According to the NEH website, “The Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities recognizes an individual who has made significant scholarly contributions to the humanities and who has the ability to communicate the knowledge and wisdom of the humanities in a broadly appealing way. Established in 1972, the Jefferson Lecture is the highest honor the federal government bestows for distinguished intellectual and public achievement in the humanities.”

Mansfield would be a more appropriate choice for a Robespierre Lecture than for a Jefferson Lecture.  Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Mansfield proclaimed that the president is above the rule of law  - but reassured readers that “”A free government should show its respect for freedom even when it has to take it away.”

And, since the president is entitled to dictatorial powers, how would we know it is a “free government”?  Presumably because it would be a crime to assert otherwise.

I am struck by how many advocates of dicatorship or foreign aggression have recently received federal laurels.  Bush presented the National Humanities Award to the Hoover Institution last November, whose star columnist Thomas Sowell recently suggested the need for a military coup.  Pro-Iraq war professors Fouad Ajami, Bernard Lewis, and Shelby Steele also garnered the award.  (Mansfield received this award in 2004).  Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Paul Bremer, George Tenet, Tommy Franks, Gen. Richard Myers, and various writers who fervently applauded attacking Iraq.

American intellectual life would be cleaner if politicians were banned from heaping accolades on their bootlickers and tools. (Admittedly, private groups would continue giving such awards - the Bradley Foundation recently feted John Bolton and the Claremont Institute will soon salute Don Rumsfeld).

I’m curious - what other private or government awards or laurels have gone to major-league Bush administration rascals or their apologists?

Add the names of award receipients - or your comments - at my blog here.

Paul Wolfowitz is now almost certain to get booted from the World Bank.  Unfortunately, the World Bank itself will probably survive.  (The Washington Post frets today that the Wolfowitz scandal could “jeopardize” efforts to squeeze more bucks out of foreign governments to bankroll more World Bank boondoggles).

So what will Wolfowitz do with himself now that he is again disgraced?

Obviously, this is why God made think tanks.

There is no better place for someone driven out of office under a cloud of infamy to park his butt and restore his credibility.

Will it be the Hudson Institute, the deep-thinking-abode that is providing a desk for Scooter Libby before Libby is sentenced to prison?

Will it be the American Enterprise Institute, which has a natural affinity to Wolfowitz’s chickenhawk warmongering?

Will it be the Heritage Foundation, which has never permitted itself to be prejudiced by a former high-ranking government official’s scandals?

Stay tuned.   Add your comments or your prediction on which think tank will take Wolfowitz at my blog here.

Bill Moyers Journal  episode on “Buying the War” on PBS is a great expose on how media groveling to Bush administration falsehoods and absurdities helped lead to the Iraq war.

The program focuss on the villains and bootlickers in the press.  It also contained interviews with some of the courageous reporters - such as Warren Stroebel and Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder - who saw through & reported the Bush administration’s frauds months before the war began.   Charles Hanley, an Associated Press reporter who went with the UN inspection teams in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003, talked about how editors would delete his comments about how the Bush administration’s claims on WMDs were being proven wrong.   Norman Solomon, the author of War Made Easy,  made excellent comments on the institutional cowardice and groveling of the mainstream media.   Unfortunately, the program did not include any reference to Antiwar.com’s truth-telling long before “Shock and Awe” hit Baghdad.

Dan Rather told Moyers that in every newsroom in the country, there is fear of getting “the reputation of being a troublemaker” - thus making journalists and editors shy away from challenging the honesty of the White House.

Dan Rather at least had the gumption to be interviewed, despite some disgraceful things he said on the air after 9/11 about kowtowing to Bush.  Almost all  the chickenhawk columnists and pundits chickened out - didn’t even have the gumption to sit down in front of  Moyers and defend themselves.

If you get a chance to see the program (it airs at a different time in various PBS markets), it is definitely worth catching.   The transcript is already online here. 

Comments on this topic are welcome at my blog here.

Congress amended the Insurrection Act last September to make it far easier for the president to declare martial law. I go into the cheery details in a piece in the April 23 issue of the American Conservative:

How many pipe bombs might it take to end American democracy? Far fewer than it would have taken a year ago.

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order,” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations.

The full text of the piece is posted at my blog here, where comments & caterwaulings are welcome.

The District of Columbia is trying to fix its image, so it is spending $150,000 to choose a new motto for the city.  

A Washington Post article on the search for a catchy slogan made the mistake of permitting reader suggestions. Some of the initial proposals:

*Where Some Tourists Come to Die

*Zimbabwe Without the Passport

*Eat here and get shot

*The Most Self-Important City in the World

It would be great to come up with a motto for DC that captured Washington’s role as headquarters of the war machine & contemporary imperialism.   Suggestions are welcome at my blog here.

Former US United Nations Ambassador John Bolton told the BBC today that he was “damned proud” of how the U.S. intentionally blocked efforts to achieve a ceasefire last summer when Israel was bombing Beirut and many other locales in Lebanon.

The BBC summarized Bolton’s comments: “A former top American diplomat says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah’s military capability.”

Bolton said it was “perfectly legitimate and good politics” for Israel to seek to crush Hezbollah.   The fact that the Israelis used U.S. bombs to wreak death and destruction throughout Lebanon is apparently irrelevant.   More than a thousand Lebanese civilians were killed by the Israeli government, with the Bush team cheering on each detonation.

AIPAC, the most powerful lobby in DC, bragged of its role in blocking any ceasefire.  (A good critique of AIPAC’s role in the Lebanon carnage is here).  

Bolton captures the arrogance and total hypocrisy of the Bush war on terrorism.  In a meeting last August, Bolton  “implied that because Lebanon harbored Hezbollah, Lebanese lives were forfeit,” according to a UN official who heard Bolton commenting in meetings at the time.

Neither AIPAC nor the Bush team suffered any backlash from  Christian fundamentalists as a result of Israeli bombing of Christian villages.  Lebanese Christians despise and oppose Hezbollah - but they were Lebanese so they apparently deserved to die.

As I wrote in blogs last summer, both Hezbollah and the Israeli government were guilty of mass murder.  But the Bush administration’s absolute support (and re-arming) of a government that was intentionally slaughtering civilians is a crime that must not be forgot.  

Comments & contrary views welcome at my blog here.

Murray Waas, one of the best investigative journalists in DC, has a new piece on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s role in derailing a Justice Department investigation of his own possible criminality. Waas notes at the National Journal:

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration’s warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

Waas’s superb work greatly advanced the exposure of the White House’s role in smearing an undercover CIA agent. And Waas may now have an even bigger fish - especially if Bush knew that Gonzo was a target of the investigation that Bush derailed.

Comments/condemnations welcome at my blog here.

Attorney General Gonzales is dead meat.  His exit is only a question of time.  (I been wrong before, but….)

I think the Senate Dems will not confirm some obvious hatchet man as the replacement for Gonzales.   Bush has “benefitted” from two Attorney Generals who were profoundly dishonest and demagogic.  No matter what the Bush administration did, they could be counted on to rubberstamp it as legal - or “close enough for government work” legal.

If the next Attorney General is halfway honest and opens the files of what has been done since 2001,  even damn moderates will be shocked.   There are bombshells waiting to detonate on the torture scandal, on Iraq, and on other dishonest and illegal gross abuses.

This year could be more entertaining politically than I expected.

Comments/corrections welcome at my blog here.

It is encouraging that the jury found Scooter Libby guilty on most charges.

It will be amusing to watch the conservative elite howl that the verdict is a violation of their sacred right to rule by deceit.

If Libby turns state’s evidence to reduce his prison sentence, the White House could need roof repair real quick. Libby was nothing more than a tool of Dick Cheney.   Thus far, Cheney appears confident that all his falsehoods since 2001 are legally immune.

The Libby verdict highlights the role of institutional lying in DC.  Ironically, the front page of today’s Washington Post carries a story showing how the Democrats have chosen to protect themselves by gutting their resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq. The Post states, “The idea is to force Bush to abide by his own promises [on Iraq] but to make sure he remains responsible for conducting and ending the war.”

The Democrats have not yet formally announced that people who voted against the war last November can go screw themselves.

The Libby indictment is a reminder that Americans should be far more cynical about Washington.

Comments & counterpoints welcome at my blog here.

Will Grigg has an excellent new E-Zine, Pro Libertate, here.  Will posted a piece of mine in his first issue on the collateral benefits of liberating Iran.  Here’s the lead - full text at his e-zine and at my blog, where comments & carping are always welcome.

LIBERATING IRAN, ENSLAVING AMERICA

by James Bovard

The Bush administration is reportedly considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. Many people have commented on how the U.S. military is already overstretched and cannot afford another major war. But little attention has been focused on how the American political system is also at the breaking point….

…. If Bush does bomb Iran, the chain reaction could wreck American democracy. The Bush administration shows no signs of developing either an allergy to power or an addiction to truth. The American republic cannot afford to permit a president to remain above the law and the Constitution indefinitely. Anything that raises the odds of a terror attack reduces the odds of reining in the government.

The #2 Homeland Security official for Prince George’s County, Maryland recently shot two furniture delivery guys who brought a new bed to his house.  The headboard had a scratch, according to local news reports.  The shooter is also a long -term employee of the Prince George’s County Police Department.  This police department has long had one of the worst records in the nation for gunning down innocent civilians.  In the 1990s, the P.G. Police killed and maimed more unarmed people than the Unabomber and the Aryan Nation combined. 

I have reposted a piece on my blog that I did for Playboy in 2001 on how some government employees acquire a right to shoot others with impunity.    I have never understood why terrorists are demonized while people wearing uniforms who kill innocent civilians almost always receive endless benefits of the doubts.

Comments etc. welcome at my blog here.

This was my favorite photo from the exuberant antiwar demonstration in DC on Saturday. Where is the Secret Service when you need them? (Probably out chasing down other 81 year olds who wrote vague letters to the editor).

I have another 10 photos (including a full size version of the above shot) from the demo here.  Comments & caterwauling welcome at my blog here.

This Saturday should see the biggest antiwar demonstration in Washington since September 2005. Details here.

I will be heading down to the big show. When I go to these events, I tend to saunter more than march, savoring the circus elements of these festivities and spending as much time on the periphery as in the throng.

Stopping Bush from expanding the Iraq war and from attacking Iran are by far the most important short term issues in American politics. War unleashes presidents to do their worst, with scores of millions of Americans guaranteed to cheer any new oppression of their fellow citizens.

Some people might avoid this march because of differences with the sponsoring organizations. Shizam, if I paid close attention to the words from the podium at these events, I might never go to any of them. I have been struck how often the demonstrators seem significantly more serious and reasonable than the speakers. But people are there to oppose the war, not to swear allegiance to every nitwit  who nabs the microphone for 2 minutes.

Likewise, some people might avoid publicly protesting because they want to avoid being in the same square mile as the fringe elements that show up for these events. I’m not talking about the undercover policemen. People who incite violence may be getting paid time and a half for working on Saturday.   There is no collective liability for all the ideas at the protest.  People who show up to oppose the war are not culpable because someone else shows up with a sign advocating bombing whomever.

 On the other hand, some of the people there might look at me and also shake their heads ruefully.   (“Antiwar event attendees are supposed to be clean shaven. Is it really necessary to be chomping on a cigar? And where did he get that hat? No one wears hats like that in Brooklyn.”)

Attending an antiwar march is one of the easiest ways to drive neoconservatives visibly insane. The New York Sun suggested in February 2003 that the New York Police Department “send two witnesses along for each [antiwar march] participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution” since all the demonstrators were guilty of “giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.”

Political entertainment doesn’t get much better than an editorial like that.

The forecast for Saturday is   49 degrees and Sunny.   Fine weather for a tromp around the city.   The last time I checked, all the local breweries are scheduled to be open.

I don’t know how much good it will do but this is one of the most visible legal means of protesting government policy.  Enjoy it while it lasts.

Feel free to post your thoughts on marching - or not marching - at my blog here. 

In the Tuesday interview for PBS Newshour, host Jim Lehrer asked Bush why he has not asked more Americans.. to sacrifice something” for the war in Iraq.

The President replied: “I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.”

Bush did not specify whether he believes people who become afflicted with carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of channel surfing should be eligible for military disability pensions.

I have been amazed at the last few interviews Bush has given.  His doggerel seems to be surpassing all previous bounds, and yet…  many Americans continue to believe, and most of the Washington media continues to grovel.   

Comments & cavils on this topic welcome at my blog here.