The End Of The American Dream, The Fading Great Experiment As Myths and Denial Can No Longer Hide The Truth Of Who And What We Really Are As A People.

The End Of The American Dream, The Fading Great Experiment As Myths and Denial Can No Longer Hide The Truth Of Who And What We Really Are As A People.

An Unending Crisis - America in the 21st Century Friday 9 September 2011 by: Cary Fraser, Truthout | News Analysis For much of the 20th century, the United States of America was perceived as the pre-eminent symbol of the Western vision of modernity and, after 1945, with the exception of the Soviet Union and its ideological kin, that image was largely unchallenged across the globe. However, the election of the Bush-Cheney administration in 2000, on the cusp of the 21st century, laid bare the failure of the United States to maintain its capacity to withstand increasing concern about the quality of American political life and its claim to international leadership. The erosion of American legitimacy had already become evident during the decade of the 1960s with the assassinations of four very prominent Americans - President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy - as America grappled with the domestic and international repercussions of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. However, the disputed 2000 presidential election drew increased global attention to the signs of dysfunction in American politics. The resolution of that election in favor of the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, against the sitting Democratic Vice President, Al Gore, by a deeply divided US Supreme Court provided a bird's eye view of a deeply flawed American electoral system. With the benefit of hindsight, the 2000 presidential election was an early indicator of the dysfunctional democracy that has become institutionalized in American political life and culture since the 1960s. In 1968, the victory of Richard Nixon came in the aftermath of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, who had become vigorous critics of the failed war in Vietnam pursued by the Johnson administration. The election also revealed the depth of popular antipathy to that war and to Johnson, which Nixon skillfully exploited to win the election. It is arguable that, since 1968, every American president has left office under a cloud of popular doubt - Johnson over Vietnam, Nixon over Watergate, Ford over his controversial pardon of Nixon after the latter's resignation under the threat of impeachment, Carter over the Iran Hostage crisis, Reagan over the Iran-Contra scandal, George H.W. Bush over the Savings and Loan scandal, Clinton over the scandal triggered by his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and George W. Bush over the strategic blunder of pursuing two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Wall Street debacle that triggered the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. For more than four decades, the American political system has been defined by a growing gap between the electorate and the presidency as a symbol of good governance and political legitimacy. It would appear that the serial crises affecting presidents since 1968 have served to entrench a "credibility" gap within American politics. That gap is now a bellwether of the American political system and it is an indicator of the political polarization that has overtaken the American political system. The fissures in American politics have been provoked by and contributed to, the escalating conflicts among the three branches of government - the legislature, the judiciary and the executive - and internecine war within the two major political parties. The "credibility" gap has also spread from the presidency to the entire political system. The shifting majorities in the Congress over the last two decades - from Democratic to Republican and back again - serve as a barometer of political discontent within the electorate. The lack of stable governing coalitions has been exacerbated by ideological conflict that accompanied the realignment of American politics after 1968 when the Southern states shifted into the ranks of the Republican Party as the region spurned the progressive civil rights policies adopted by the Democratic Party in the 1960s. Thereafter, the Republican Party became the shelter for a wide range of constituencies and groups, which resented and continue to resent the erosion of white supremacist ideas that were the cornerstones of American life and legal systems until the mid-1960s. In 1968, Richard Nixon showed it was possible for the Republicans to build a majority coalition in which Southern conservatives like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms could be key players. Every Republican victory in presidential elections since 1968 has been built upon winning decisively in the South by advocating conservative and religious themes that invoke the white Christian nationalism that has defined much of the South after the American Civil War. It is noteworthy that before Barack Obama's victory in 2008, the only Democratic candidates who won the presidency between 1968 and 2008, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were both Southern sons of the soil, who were able to compete effectively against the Republicans in the region. However, since the 2008 presidential election campaign when Barack Obama became the first African-American president, following the failures and excesses of the Bush-Cheney administration, the fissures within American political life have become even worse. The backlash against the Obama administration has spawned the Tea Party movement with roots in the deep currents of xenophobia and racism that have periodically shaken American politics. The Tea Party's campaign against Obama, its pursuit of a hysterical campaign challenging tax increases on the wealthy and its opposition to the use of Keynesian responses to the current economic crisis have allowed it to redefine political debates in contemporary America. It has been able to mount a serious effort to prevent or circumvent debates about the most effective strategy for dealing with an economic crisis triggered by a mix of greed and recklessness on Wall Street and the simple-minded economic prescriptions that shaped the Bush-Cheney administration's economic and fiscal policies. American public debates thus reflect an unwillingness to engage in serious reflection about the return to economic policies that have created severe economic disparities across the society and have succeeded in restoring a social order in which populations of color are placed at a serious disadvantage. The Tea Party's campaign to fan the flames of hysteria that emerged from the post-2008 backlash against the election of Barack Obama and its mobilization of the populist rhetoric of anti-government sentiment has brought it electoral success and institutional power in the Republican Party.  That power was vigorously deployed in the recent debates over raising the debt ceiling to push the negotiations within a hair's breadth from a default on the American government's debt. It is striking that the Tea Party has become a symbol of the rising tide of American anti-intellectual tendencies as a frame of reference for shaping American policies. The stunning display of Tea Party influence in the 2011 debate over raising the debt ceiling should give pause to both the American leadership across the major parties and to the international community, which has operated on the assumption that American leadership is a sine qua non in the international system. The former Secretaries of the Treasury in the Clinton administration, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin, and Timothy Geithner as the secretary for the Obama administration, apparently helped to craft a seamless web of influence by advocates of Wall Street in the early years of the Obama administration. The policies that were adopted created a climate where salvaging the financial houses remained a priority and signaled continuity with the Bush-Cheney administration.  It was a message that key players in the financial sector that had lost their sense of accountability to the wider society would be allowed to continue with the illusion that American financial leadership in the global context would not be tarnished. Despite the Obama administration's protestations about the Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the American debt rating from AAA to AA-plus, in the wake of the debt ceiling debates, it is clear that the US government's approach to debt management and, ultimately, the central role of the US dollar in international economic affairs, are under increasing question. The long-term costs of the debt ceiling debates are yet to be determined, but the Obama administration's deference to Wall Street cannot be discounted as a factor in the shift in perceptions of American international leadership. In addition, it has become evident that the American commitment to military intervention around the world as a cornerstone of its foreign policy has also raised serious questions about the thrust of American foreign policy on the global stage. More important, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been an enormous drain on the American Treasury over the past decade. Inevitably, it is becoming clear that cuts in military budgets and deployments will have to be instituted to introduce corrective economic policies that will promote new investments to prepare the American economy to be competitive with its global partners and rivals into the future. The redefinition of America's military goals and its role in the international system will also have to be considered in light of the growing military capability of other states, including China. America's financial weakness provides no sure guarantee that it can sustain the global role that it played after 1945, and American policymakers will have to address the structural problems that arise from its military ambitions and financial burdens. The killing of Osama bin Laden has not provided an easy solution to dealing with Afghanistan, and the "Arab Spring" provokes memories of the consequences of the fall of the shah of Iran for American policy in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf after 1979. The American dependence upon the stability of oil exports from the region will require a redesign of foreign and military policies to deal with the new realities in a region that is pivotal in the global political economy.  In effect, the crisis of credibility in American politics over both domestic politics and military misadventures since the 1960s and the increasing evidence that fringe tendencies have gained enough traction to shift the terrain of American politics in the contemporary context pose fundamental challenges to American leadership aspirations into the future.  Like the perestroika era in Soviet politics when Mikhail Gorbachev sought to promote change in an ossified Soviet system, the Obama administration has been unable to make a decisive break with the past amid signs of political decay, economic crisis and intellectual paralysis. Recent events suggest that America's 20th-century odyssey as a model of Western modernity has been placed at risk. Is America's relative decline now irreversible? Cary Fraser is a historian of international relations, who teaches the history of American foreign policy, American and Caribbean history in the 20th century and the history of the African Diaspora in the Atlantic world at Penn State University. He is the author of "Ambivalent Anti-Colonialism" (Greenwood Press, 1994), and his essays and articles have been published in Canada, the Caribbean, the United Kingdom and the United States. He is currently writing a study of race in American politics and foreign policy in the mid-20th century. Verifiable Media Reports on 9/11 To verify statements, click on links to articles on major media websites  Join in powerfully building a brighter future for all by spreading the word America's top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC News, 5/1/01, Pentagon Documents] 1996-2001: Federal authorities are aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden are receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confesses that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, CBS, 5/30/02, more]  1996-2001: On multiple occasions spies give detailed reports on bin Laden's location. Each time, the CIA director or White House officials prevent bin Laden's elimination. [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04, New York Times, 12/30/01, more]  2000-2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more] 2000-2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they're shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04, Military District of Washington, 11/3/00, New York Times, 10/3/01, more] Jan 2001: After the November 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to "back off" investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01, more] Spring 2001: A series of military and governmental policy documents is released that seek to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. One advocates presidential subterfuge and hiding the reasons for warfare "as a necessity for mobilizing public support." [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more] May 2001: For the third time, US security chiefs reject Sudan's offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it "the worst single intelligence failure in the business." [Guardian, 9/30/01, more] June-Aug 2001:  German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02, Independent, 9/7/02, CNN, 9/12/02, more] July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Dr. Callaway declines to comment. During his stay, bin Laden is allegedly visited by one or two CIA agents. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, Times of London, 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more] July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] In May 2002, Ashcroft walks out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [Fox News/AP, 5/16/02, more] Aug 6, 2001: President Bush receives an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack airliners. Titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the briefing specifically mentions the WTC. Yet Bush later claims it "said nothing about an attack on America." [CNN, 4/12/04, Washington Post, 4/12/04, Briefing, 8/6/01, more] Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor tries to ensure that a hijacker doesn't "take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center." [Senate Report, 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02, more] Sept 10, 2001: A number of top Pentagon brass suddenly cancel travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. Why isn't this news spread widely? [Newsweek, 9/13/01, Newsweek, 9/24/01, more] Sept 11, 2001: Data recovery experts extract data from 32 damaged WTC computer drives. The data reveals a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through WTC computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more] Sept 11, 2001: Described as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency was set for an exercise on Sept 11 at 9 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [USA Today/AP, 8/22/02, more]  Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a "shadow government" is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn't know this government-in-waiting had been established. [CBS, 3/2/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02, more] Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events within hours of the attacks. The tape is never turned over to the FBI. It is later illegally destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it. [Washington Post, 5/6/04, New York Times, 5/6/04] Sept 13-19, 2001: Bin Laden's family is taken under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point. They leave the country by private plane when airports reopen days after the attacks. [New York Times, 9/30/01, Boston Globe, 9/20/01, more] Sept 15-16, 2001: Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations. [Newsweek, 9/15/01, Washington Post, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/15/01, more] Sept 20, 2001: Several 9/11 hijackers later mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report turn up alive. "Five of the alleged hijackers have emerged, alive, innocent and astonished to see their names and photographs appearing on satellite television...The hijackers were using stolen identities." [quote in Times of London, 9/20/01, see also BBC, 9/23/01, more] Dec 2001-Feb 2002: The US engineers the rise to power of two former Unocal Oil employees: Hamid Karzai, the interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the US envoy. The big American bases created in the Afghan war are identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline. [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02, more] May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven't been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform that built up after the attacks. [BBC, 5/16/02, Guardian, 5/17/02, more] May 23, 2002: President Bush says he is opposed to establishing an independent commission to probe 9/11. [CBS, 5/23/02] Vice President Cheney earlier opposed any public hearings on 9/11. [CNN, 1/29/02, Newsweek, 2/4/02, more] May 30, 2002: FBI Agent Wright formally accuses the FBI of deliberately curtailing investigations that might have prevented 9/11. He is threatened with retribution if he talks to Congress about this. [Fox News/Reuters, 5/30/02, more]  July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission Report is published. It fails to mention that a year before the attacks a secret Pentagon project had identified four 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta. The Commission spokesperson initially states members were not informed of this, but later acknowledges they were. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more] 2004 - 2005: A growing number of top government officials and public leaders express disbelief in the official story of 9/11. 100 prominent leaders and 40 9/11 family members sign a statement calling for an unbiased inquiry into evidence suggesting high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the attacks to occur. [Various Publications]  Aug 9, 2006: A book by 9/11 Commission chairmen Kean and Hamilton outlines repeated deceptions by the Pentagon and FAA, including the timelines of Flights 77 and 93. CNN News: "The fact that the government would ... perpetuate the lie suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on." [CNN, 8/9/06 , MSNBC/AP, 8/4/06, more] 2006-2011: Over 50 senior government officials, 100 respected professors, and 1,000 architects and engineers criticize The 9/11 Commission Report as flawed, and call for a new, independent investigation. [Professors, Officials, Architects] For a 10-page version of this 9/11 cover-up timeline: www.WantToKnow.info/9-11cover-up10pg For a powerful, engaging video revealing lots more on 9/11: www.WantToKnow.info/911video For reliable resources on the 9/11 cover-up and what you can do: 9/11 Information Center VR's Brad Friedman Reveals Secret Tape Recording Of Koch Brothers Retreat Koch Calls 2012 Election "Mother of All Wars" VR calls for investigations and files records request On Tuesday, September 7, 2011, VR co-founder Brad Friedman reported in Mother Jones magazine that Charles Koch alluded to President Obama as "Saddam Hussein" and called the 2012 election, the “mother of all wars,” as revealed in the no-longer-secret audio recording secretly made at the Koch brothers 2011 Summer Seminar in Vail, Colorado on June 26, 2011. Mr. Koch used the event to thank and name 32 donors who each gave a million dollars or more to the Koch’s right wing foundation, which uses its funds to influence elections across the nation and sway public opinion on everything from health care and hydro-fracking to labor policy and government spending. The release of the audio tape went viral across the media, and included appearances by Brad on CNN and MSNBC and well as broad media coverage nationwide. Attention is focused once again on the dark agenda of the Koch brothers and their funding of astroturf Tea Party groups such as Americans for Prosperity. In attendance at the event were Texas Governor Rick Perry, Florida Governor Rick Scott and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. But most interesting was the role played by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who gave the keynote address. His participation was kept a total secret even from the voters and media in New Jersey until revealed this week in Brad's exclusives. Christie said that upon taking office he exploited "the most powerful constitutional governorship in America" to declare a fiscal emergency in order to impound billions in planned spending, explained how he'd snookered “stupid” Democratic legislators into cutting pensions and collective bargaining, that similar tactics and policies must be applied nationwide, and that his next plan was to "take on the teachers union once and for all".  VR intends to take additional action, to follow up and demand transparency in explanation of Christie's behavior, as related to the secret trip, and to use discoveries from that investigation to help guide our future actions. In fact, we have already called for investigations in New Jersey to determine whether Governor Christie broke rules or laws, and whether he used state resources for the trip. We have also filed a formal New Jersey Freedom of Information request for all records related to the trip. We would, of course, appreciate your support in our continuing efforts. We do not take money from corporations or political parties. Instead, we rely on you, our members, to support our work. So please take a few minutes to make a donation of at least $10 so we can continue our fight for democracy and accountability. For more info: Read part One of Brad's Mother Jones expose  Read part Two of Brad's Mother Jones expose  Read Gavin Aronsen's breakdown of top Koch donors: "Exclusive: The Koch Brothers' Million-Dollar Donor Club" Check out Audio and Transcripts posted at The BRAD BLOG For more information on the Koch brothers and their attacks on democracy, visit our www.KochWatch.org campaign. The Richest 0.1% Have Launched A War On Us – It’s Time To Fight Back And Hold These 400 Billionaires Personally Responsible For Our Economic Crisis --We have endured financial oppression for long enough. In a time of national crisis and shared sacrifice, the richest one-tenth of one percent of the population cannot continue on their merry way, living in obscene wealth and detached from reality, while the majority of the population desperately struggles to make ends meet. We are under attack, and it’s time to fight back. [Read More] Noam Chomsky | After 9/11, Was War the Only Option? Noam Chomsky, The New York Times Syndicate: "This is the 10th anniversary of the horrendous atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, which, it is commonly held, changed the world. The impact of the attacks is not in doubt. Just keeping to western and central Asia: Afghanistan is barely surviving, Iraq has been devastated and Pakistan is edging closer to a disaster that could be catastrophic ... Even the most obvious and elementary facts about the decade lead to bleak reflections when we consider 9/11 and its consequences, and what they portend for the future." Read the Article New Documents Suggest DoD Watchdog Covered Up Intelligence Unit's Work Tracking 9/11 Terrorists Jeffrey Kaye and Jason Leopold, Truthout: "Senior Pentagon officials scrubbed key details about a top-secret military intelligence unit's efforts in tracking Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from official reports they prepared for a Congressional committee probing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, new documents obtained by Truthout reveal." Read the Article Endless War Isn't the Answer to 9/11 Washington's reaction to 9/11 damaged our country as much as the attacks themselves. By Jim Cason Tens of millions of people will soon observe the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. In New York City, the names of the nearly 3,000 people who died on that day will be read out loud and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama will join the families of the victims to unveil a new memorial. Obama will also visit the Pentagon, and both he and Vice President Joe Biden will visit the Pennsylvania site where a jetliner crashed after passengers overpowered terrorist hijackers. There will be television specials, opportunities to volunteer, speeches by politicians and more. The 9/11 attacks shattered my sense of security. When I lived in New York City, I walked through the basement of the twin towers of the World Trade Center nearly every day on my way to work. I was living in Washington, DC when the attacks happened. I can remember joining hundreds of other people looking toward the skies as if we could somehow see the airplane that we all heard was heading our way. On this anniversary I'll stand with friends in New York City, reading out the names of people who died that day. I'll also be mourning the tens of thousands of others around the world who have died since then in the wars Washington launched in response to the 9/11 attacks. As a country, I hope we can do better than that. On the 10th anniversary of those attacks, we need to ask if the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the kidnappings on foreign soil that violate international law, and the torture allegedly carried out by the CIA and U.S. government contractors in the name of a broad global war on terror have made our country safer. I believe that they have undermined our security instead. A decade after 9/11, I don't know anyone who is confident that the current U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan will produce a stable nation. In Iraq, after agreeing to leave by the end of 2011, the U.S. military is now arguing that maybe they need to stay a little longer. And in the other countries such as Yemen and Somalia where the United States is waging an undeclared war, our military actions are helping extremists recruit new fighters. Finally, as the world knows today, the man behind the 9/11 attacks wasn't found in any of the countries the United States has invaded. Eventually, U.S. forces located and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The Saudi-born terrorist lived his final years in reasonable comfort in a large house near the capital city of one of the closest U.S. allies in the region. Washington's reaction to 9/11 damaged our country as much as the attacks themselves. Today, our nation is waging a permanent war that's taking the lives of our soldiers and draining our treasury. Ten years later, our leaders need the courage to change course. We know that this war without end won't provide comfort to those of us who experienced 9/11. And, it won't make our country safer. So what should we do? One place to begin would be for Congress to repeal the authorizations for the use of military force that were used to launch the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and has served as the justification for torture, kidnappings on foreign soil, and covert wars in Yemen and other countries. Another step would be to insist that the United States complete the withdrawal of U.S. military troops from Iraq and articulate a strategy that will lead to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Congress should pass three bills from Rep. Barbara Lee. The California Democrat has sponsored legislation that would cut off all funding for the war in Afghanistan except that needed to pull out U.S. troops. She has introduced a bill that would require the last U.S. soldier to leave Iraq on schedule by December 31, 2011. Last year, she also introduced a bill to repeal the authorization for the use of military force. September 11 will be a solemn day. It should also be a turning point toward a new U.S. foreign policy.

The Price Of 9/11: Coup Feared In Obama Team: 'Sons of Bitches' vs. 'Mother of all Wars'

The Price Of 9/11: Coup Feared In Obama Team: 'Sons of Bitches' vs. 'Mother of all Wars'

 

Endless War Isn't The Answer To 9/11 Washington's Reaction To 9/11 Damaged Our Country As Much As The Attacks Themselves. By Jim Cason Tens of millions of people will soon observe the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. In New York City, the names of the nearly 3,000 people who died on that day will be read out loud and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama will join the families of the victims to unveil a new memorial. Obama will also visit the Pentagon, and both he and Vice President Joe Biden will visit the Pennsylvania site where a jetliner crashed after passengers overpowered terrorist hijackers. There will be television specials, opportunities to volunteer, speeches by politicians and more. The 9/11 attacks shattered my sense of security. When I lived in New York City, I walked through the basement of the twin towers of the World Trade Center nearly every day on my way to work. I was living in Washington, DC when the attacks happened. I can remember joining hundreds of other people looking toward the skies as if we could somehow see the airplane that we all heard was heading our way. On this anniversary I'll stand with friends in New York City, reading out the names of people who died that day. I'll also be mourning the tens of thousands of others around the world who have died since then in the wars Washington launched in response to the 9/11 attacks. As a country, I hope we can do better than that. On the 10th anniversary of those attacks, we need to ask if the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the kidnappings on foreign soil that violate international law, and the torture allegedly carried out by the CIA and U.S. government contractors in the name of a broad global war on terror have made our country safer. I believe that they have undermined our security instead. A decade after 9/11, I don't know anyone who is confident that the current U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan will produce a stable nation. In Iraq, after agreeing to leave by the end of 2011, the U.S. military is now arguing that maybe they need to stay a little longer. And in the other countries such as Yemen and Somalia where the United States is waging an undeclared war, our military actions are helping extremists recruit new fighters. Finally, as the world knows today, the man behind the 9/11 attacks wasn't found in any of the countries the United States has invaded. Eventually, U.S. forces located and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The Saudi-born terrorist lived his final years in reasonable comfort in a large house near the capital city of one of the closest U.S. allies in the region. Washington's reaction to 9/11 damaged our country as much as the attacks themselves. Today, our nation is waging a permanent war that's taking the lives of our soldiers and draining our treasury. Ten years later, our leaders need the courage to change course. We know that this war without end won't provide comfort to those of us who experienced 9/11. And, it won't make our country safer. So what should we do? One place to begin would be for Congress to repeal the authorizations for the use of military force that were used to launch the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and has served as the justification for torture, kidnappings on foreign soil, and covert wars in Yemen and other countries. Another step would be to insist that the United States complete the withdrawal of U.S. military troops from Iraq and articulate a strategy that will lead to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Congress should pass three bills from Rep. Barbara Lee. The California Democrat has sponsored legislation that would cut off all funding for the war in Afghanistan except that needed to pull out U.S. troops. She has introduced a bill that would require the last U.S. soldier to leave Iraq on schedule by December 31, 2011. Last year, she also introduced a bill to repeal the authorization for the use of military force. September 11 will be a solemn day. It should also be a turning point toward a new U.S. foreign policy. The Price of 9/11 Joseph E. Stiglitz, Project Syndicate: "The September 11, 2001, terror attacks by Al Qaeda were meant to harm the United States, and they did, but in ways that Osama bin Laden probably never imagined. President George W. Bush's response to the attacks compromised America's basic principles, undermined its economy, and weakened its security. The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable, but the subsequent invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to Al Qaeda - as much as Bush tried to establish a link. That war of choice quickly became very expensive - orders of magnitude beyond the $60 billion claimed at the beginning - as colossal incompetence met dishonest misrepresentation."  Read the Article Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crimes President-Elect Obama's advisers feared in 2008 that authorities would oust him in a coup and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a law school dean who served as one of Obama's top transition advisers. University of California at Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr., above, the sixth highest-ranking member of the 2008 post-election transition team preparing Obama's administration, revealed the team's thinking on Sept. 2 in moderating a forum on 9/11 held by his law school (also known as Boalt Hall). Edley was seeking to explain Obama's "look forward" policy on suspected Bush-era law-breaking that the president-elect announced on a TV talk show in January 2009. But Edley's rationale implies that Obama, or at least his team, feared the military/national security forces that the president is supposed be commanding -- and that Republicans have intimidated him right from the start of his presidency even after voters in 2008 rejected Republicans by the largest combined presidential-congressional mandate in recent U.S. history. Edley responded to my request for additional information by providing a description of the transition team's fears. Edley said that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a coup. I'm grateful, of course, that this eminent scholar took time on short notice to describe such important decision-making. But I have two blunt reactions that frame the details below: First, this doesn't look like presidential leadership, no matter what the rationales. Voters "hired" the Obama team to lead the country, not fret about possible retaliation. No one wants to see an assassination or coup. But the kids fighting Mideast wars, like those in wars before them, have no guarantees -- or even Secret Service protection. Our country has a long history that the President is the boss, not the military or the covert agencies. President Eisenhower stood up for this principle time and again, including in his Farewell Address in 1961 warning of the dangers of the "military-industrial complex." So did President Truman when he fired the popular General MacArthur over different strategies for the Korean War. As for Republicans, the Democratic President Johnson knew enough not to treat them any better than his friends -- whom he treated terribly many times. Second, shouldn't such an important matter have been revealed long ago? The mainstream news organizations, courts and Congress are supposed to be ferreting out this kind of information.  Here, it took an anti-war activist asking the right question during Q&A at a law school forum to bring the tale to light. I suppose that's inspirational in a sense: Perhaps it's like a destitute blind person stumbling on a bag of money and finally, with the help of kind strangers, being able to afford an eye operation. But is this really the best procedure? You be the judge. First, we summarize below what happened. Those interested in more historical background and related controversies can find them on the longer version of this column cross-posted today on the website of the Justice Integrity Project, the non-partisan legal reform group I lead. Overview Longtime peace advocate Susan Harman, a Californian, elicited Edley's opinions during Q&A at the Boalt Hall forum, which was organized by the school's Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law. Boalt Hall's faculty includes Professor John C. Yoo, above, a former Justice Department attorney with stellar career credentials but a notorious reputation for his legal justifications for waterboarding terror suspects and similar Executive Branch abuses. Harman shared her observations Friday by email and Google Groups with our Justice Integrity Project and others. David Swanson, the prominent antiwar activist, wrote a blog noting that accountability under the law was a top concern of Obama supporters, as illustrated by the incoming administration's own 2008 poll of supporter suggestions.  Around that time, I published my first blogs in a series of Huffington Post and OpEd News columns. The first chronicled my fond hopes for Obama, with a scoop about "Why the President "Stepped Out' During His Inaugural Parade." Next was a call for the new administration to "Probe the Past to Protect the Future." Finally, and more ominously, came my reports on the huge scandals involving the Bush Justice Department's frame-up of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, his state's most important Democrat. His persecution, like those of many other Bush-Rove political victims, continues under the Obama Justice Department.  Summing Up With this context, last Friday's Boalt Hall forum provides vital new insight on why the White House and Justice Department have been so disappointing in responding to public demands for accountability for injustices, particularly for clear-cut cases during the Bush administration that carry fingerprints of malefactors such as Rove and Yoo. Let's start with Harman's account below of her comments during the audience Q&A segment at Boalt Hall's forum Sept. 2: I said I was overwhelmed by the surreality of Yoo being on the law faculty . . . when he was singlehandedly responsible for the three worst policies of the Bush Administration. They all burbled about academic freedom and the McCarthy era, and said it isn't their job to prosecute him. Duh. Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he'd been party to very high level discussions during Obama's transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they've done anyhow).  Harman says that she approached Edley privately after the forum closed and said she appreciated that Obama might have been in danger but felt that he "bent over backwards" to protect lawbreakers within the Bush administration. According to her account: "He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law." I wrote Edley to confirm Harman's quotations, which he did. Edley, dean of the law school since 2004, also sent me links to his statements on the Yoo appointment here and earlier here. And, he amplified with six bulletin-points, primarily about the Obama transition process and academic freedom for professors. Regarding the transition, he wrote: I never discussed these matters with the President Elect; the summary offered by one of the senior national security folks was, "We don't want to engage in a witch hunt," to which I replied, "Neither do I, but I also care about the Rule of Law and, whether or not there ultimately are prosecutions, the question of whether laws were broken and where the lines should be drawn deserve to be aired"; that discussion as a whole was brief. Also: My point about politics is simple and non-controversial to people trained in law. I was not referring to politics trumping Law in the sense of President Nixon thinking he could do anything he wanted with respect to the Watergate scandal. I was referring to what every first year law student learns about prosecutorial discretion and the political accountability of prosecutors, which the "system" assumes will be a check on prosecutorial abuses more often than a source of them. Regarding Yoo's invitation to return to Boalt Hall as a faculty member after his work in the Bush Justice Department, Edley wrote: A frustrating thing to me about these discussions is that non-academics don't seem particularly to appreciate the fragility and importance of academic freedom. A university isn't equipped or competent to do a factual investigation of what took place at DOJ or in secret White House meetings. Nor should it make judgments about what faculty do outside of their professorial duties when there is no evident impermissible impact on their teaching. (For Professor Yoo, there is none.) The right forum investigating and punishing alleged crimes is in the criminal justice system, not a research university. Our job is already tough enough.  Finally, another frustrating thing is that advocates are often fierce in their belief that they know what the law is, and they know when someone else's view is extreme. Your typical law professor is, I think, far more humble. We tend to see multiple sides to important issues, and lots of gray. Even if we are convinced of something, we work hard to understand the counterarguments, just to be sure. If there aren't any, then MAYBE one could characterize the other position as extreme. My guess is that Professor Yoo's constitutional theories and statutory interpretation would win at least three votes among current justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't like it, but that's my reading of the case law. Does 3 out of 9 make it extreme? If so, then a lot of my heroes are or were "extreme." Much as I appreciate his efforts to provide these expert, behind-the-scenes insights, I'm afraid I'm more comfortable with a few basic rules: First, the U.S. president should be a fearless leader who enforces our laws with a passion for justice, to the best of his ability. Many in the justice system -- both intrepid government agents and taxpayer-protecting whistleblowers alike -- are risking their health, money and even lives on a frequent basis. Why shouldn't those at the top?  Second, as one who works a block from the site on Pennsylvania Avenue where Lincoln's assassins planned their crime (where the Newseum is now located), I'd suggest that any conspirators against today's elected leadership should be prepared to pay a similar and rapid price to the hangman; Third, academic freedom is a fine goal, but so is freedom from torture and freedom from being falsely imprisoned for political reasons. Knowing the law constitutes the basic tool of every lawyer. But working for what the lawshould be is an even higher calling for our lawyers and top office-holders. And in a democracy, I'm not the first to stress that our highest office does not go by the title Senator, Justice or even President. Instead, it's "Citizen." Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Prosecute Official Corruption Bush-Era Lawbreakers Click Here To See The Most Recent Messages Sent To Congressional Reps And Local Newspapers Andrew Kreig is executive director of the Justice Integrity Project, a Washington, DC-based non-profit organization focused on reforming abusive federal investigative procedures. He is an attorney, non-profit executive and investigative (more...) Growing Anger, Despair and Frustration Across America; The Calm Before the Storm? Have you ever experienced that feeling just before a massive storm hits, as the skies darken, and there is this eerie silence; when you know it's going to be a bad one but you don't know exactly when it's going to erupt? The American people, though greatly stressed and frustrated remain passive, submissive and largely silent. But is this, in reality, merely the calm before the storm? 'Sons of Bitches' vs. 'Mother of all Wars'  As Warren Buffett put it way back in 2006, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." But the Right's feigned outrage is rendered even more ridiculous thanks to a new report by Brad Friedman over at Mother Jones magazine who obtained an audio tape of a secret meeting of billionaires back in June in the mountains of Colorado…. As Warren Buffett put it way back in 2006, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." But the Right's feigned outrage is rendered even more ridiculous thanks to a new report by Brad Friedman over at Mother Jones magazine who obtained an audio tape of a secret meeting of billionaires back in June in the mountains of Colorado. What you're about to hear is billionaire oil baron Charles Koch - the same guy who funds right-wing thinktanks and AstroTurf Tea Party groups - rally HIS soldiers - our nation's oligarchs - behind a "mother of all wars" to be waged against President Obama - who Koch refers to as Saddam Hussein. Again - that was billionaire Charles Koch calling President Obama "Saddam Hussein" - and urging his rich buddies to prepare for the "mother of all wars." Later - Koch goes on to tell his troops to shell out a millions bucks toward that war effort - pocket change to most of the oligarchs in the room. What Charles Koch is referring to is the billionaire's war against working people. And it's this very same war - that James Hoffa spoke of yesterday and on my radio show today.....The battle-lines are being drawn - the billionaires are arming up - and Hoffa was urging working people to wake up and realize it. It's a war against the New Deal - against the contract that our government made with all of us after World War 2 - that if we all work hard and live honorable lives - then we can achieve the American Dream of a comfortable life - we get the house - the car - the family - the vacations - the free education - and a comfortable retirement at a reasonable age. This contract held strong for 40 years - from the 1930's to the 1970's - and the middle-class thrived.   But the wealthiest among us felt threatened. As the workplace and the marketplace was opened more and more to minorities and women in the middle of the 20th century - and more and more Americans wanted in on this deal of a good middle class life - the billionaires saw their piece of the wealth pie leveling out.They saw their massive fortunes growing - but not as fast as they'd like - as workers demanded better pay and benefits. If they wanted to see their empires grow, they had to renegotiate FDR's  New Deal with the American people. They needed to realign the American economy away from the middle-class where FDR and Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower positioned it - and give it back to the oligarchs.They started this 30 years ago when Ronald Reagan busted up PATCO - the air traffic controllers union - and triggered generation-long battle against labor unions.   Today - labor unions - of which one in three Americans USED to belong to during the 1950's - have largely disappeared with only one in ten Americans enjoying the protections of organized labor. And as labor unions went into decline over the past few decades - so, too, did the middle class's share of wealth - dropping from close to 30% in the 1960's to about 10% today - as the billionaires gobbled up more and more money - so much so that just 400 families now have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. With Reagan, they were subtle about it. They said they liked Social Security and Medicare, and even unions - they just wanted them protected. But after 30 years of successfully drilling holes in the New Deal, now they are just openly bragging that FDRs New Deal is dead.    The new New Deal - Paul Ryan's New Deal - is pretty easily summed up in four words, that Republicans are constantly pushing in various forms of code using words like "personal responsibility" and "freedom." Those four words are, "You're on your own." Paul Ryan's budget - what he calls the "Roadmap" - is the new contract that billionaires want to impose on the American people - a contract that renders the American dream obsolete and no longer rewards hard work with a good middle class lifestyle. No Social Security - no Medicare - no labor unions - no free education - no healthcare - no vacations - no retirement until you're dead - and no home and no car - nothing - unless you're willing to go in debt up to your eyeballs. Why? Because the billionaires don't want to pay their share to make sure the rest of us have any semblance of economic security.    It's that simple. If Republicans win the election of 2012, get used to the lifestyle of the working poor. Luckily - so far Republicans only control the House of Representatives - and not the Senate or the White House - so Paul Ryan's and the billionaires' vision for American can't be fully realized...at least. Which is exactly why Charles Koch is asking his cabal of billionaires to cough up at least a million dollars each to prepare for "the mother of all wars" - the billionaires' quest to take over Congress and the White House next year. The billionaires are just one election cycle - just one election - away from finishing off once and for all their 30-year-war against working people started by Ronald Reagan. Just one election away from killing off FDR's New Deal - and replacing it with Paul Ryan's New Deal for billionaires. James Hoffa knows what we're up against - he knows that Charles Koch isn't afraid to shell out millions of bucks to win this war.   So with Charles Koch and the oligarchs fully committed to this struggle - it's time for the rest of us to wake up - and decide who's side we're on"the billionaires - or the rest of America.  Hartmann: Destroying the Postal Service - another Manufactured Crisis Why is the post office - which was created by Ben Franklin more than 200 years ago - on the verge of shuttering it's doors today? While the media story line is that the Post Office is dealing with the problem of trying to remain profitable in a world of decreasing paper mail - the real cause is actually something much, much different. Editor's note: also see this article by Chuck Zlatkin Destroying the Postal Service in Order to Save It? A New Beginning | World 5.0 This article describes our emerging operating system, World 5.0. It is intended to restore community and ecology by reconstituting government. America's Sick Economy Global depression After 9/11, 'Boss Hawg' Perry's Texas Wasted Homeland Security Money On Sports Cars, Neckties, And A Hog Catcher In the years since the Sept. 11 attacks, Texas has received at least $1.7 billion from the Department of Homeland Security, with little accountability over how lawmakers spent the money. Instead of using the federal DHS grants to strengthen the state's security, officials often used the funds for personal extravagances like sports cars: [A] Fort Worth Star-Telegram examination of thousands of purchases also found a a $21 fish tank in Seguin, a $24,000 latrine on wheels in Fort Worth, and a real pork project -- a hog catcher in Liberty County. The Secret To The Right Wing Noise Machine's Success Washington Post (blog) The Tea Party group Americans for Prosperity is also citing Hoffa's “take these sons of bitches out” line as proof of “hate” from “left wing labor bosses.” Of course, these folks know that Hoffa didn't call for violence at all. ...See all stories on this topic » The End of Japan's China Optimism Wall Street Journal This, along with his controversial statement that he does not believe Japan's Class A war criminalsof World War II were guilty of war crimes, has raised hackles in China. Strong editorials in Chinese newspapers have warned Mr. Noda not to visit ...See all stories on this topic » The 9/11 Anniversary Reader: Liberals vs. Neocons Edition Foreign Policy An interesting counterpoint to the Nation's coverage is Christopher Hitchens's latest column in Slate. On Sept. 11, 2001, Hitchens was a columnist at the Nation. But over the next few years, disillusioned by what he perceived as the left's inability to ...See all stories on this topic » Dick Cheney And The Agony Of Deceit Huffington Post At a campaign event in 2007, Barack Obama half-jokingly called then Vice President Dick Cheney"the crazy uncle in the attic." Crazy, yes. But now that Uncle Dick is heading downstairs with a vengeance, the joke is on the American people. ...See all stories on this topic » Campaign Finance/Fair Elections  Fulfilling the promise of "Citizens United, by John Coates and Taylor Lincoln http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fulfilling-the-promise-of-citizens-united/2011/09/02/gIQAa4np7J_story.html Op-ed from Harvard Professor Coates and Public Citizen's Taylor Lincoln: "Despite reflexive opposition to the disclosure of political spending from many self-appointed business advocates, research we are publishing Wednesday suggests that disclosure of political activity might benefit corporate valuations and, at the least, mandatory disclosure would pose no threat of a detrimental effect." More on the report over at TPM. John Edwards's Lawyers: Prosecution Is Political http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0911/John_Edwardss_lawyers_prosecution_is_political.html "Lawyers for former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards filed motions with a federal court in North Carolina Tuesday seeking dismissal of the criminal case against him and charging that the prosecution amounts to a political crusade." Congress/2012  Q&A With Sen. Rob Portman On Budget Cuts http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110906/NEWS0108/109070336/Q-Sen-Rob-Portman-budget-cuts An interview with supercommittee member Sen. Portman. He was asked about our call to end fundraising and he said campaign cash doesn't affect his decisions, though, he says, "Personally, I've canceled a bunch of events." Jon Kyl Lowers Supercommittee Expectations http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62763.html And this from supercommittee member Jon Kyl: "If either outside forces or the president or even members of Congress were to force the committee members into situations where you have to compromise our principles, that’s going to be very, very hard to do." Debt Commission Members Rake In Health Money http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5Jh7VmaKckgs3H035JJcYuzQttw?docId=d1b5a7b87097484b9b140838f50a88e7 "Doctors, drugmakers, hospitals and health insurers have spent millions over the years wooing lawmakers who now are on the powerful congressional panel charged with finding a formula to control deficits and debt, a new analysis finds." Donors To Senate GOP Super Committee Members Seek Tax Cuts, Tax Breaks http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/donors-senate-gop-super-committee-members-seek-tax-cuts-tax-brea/ The headline says it all! Dave Camp Will Raise Money With Lobbyists Hours Before Looking At Their Clients In The Supercommittee http://campaignmoney.org/press-room/2011/09/06/dave-camp-will-raise-money-lobbyists Related: Dave Camp is fundraising with lobbyists tonight, many with a stake in the supercommittee debate--including Pfizer PAC. What will they be talking about? Buddy Roemer On The Daily Show http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-6-2011/buddy-roemer Buddy Roemer was on the Daily Show last night. Check it out. "It's the special interests that write the tax code." Rick Perry Will Mine California Donors On Debate Trip http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-perry-california-20110906,0,6967592.story Rick Perry is heading to California for a debate..and fundraising tour. "Perhaps more than any other candidate, the Texas governor will use the upcoming trip to raise money for his presidential campaign." Yesterday, we rounded up the dozens of stories on Rick Perry and his favors for campaign donors. Vote Out The Entire Congress? You Bet. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/vote-out-the-entire-congress-you-bet/2011/09/06/gIQABboq6J_blog.html A full 54 percent of respondents to an NBC/WSJ poll said they would vote out every single member of Congress if they could. Our View: Rise Above Partisan Politics http://www.adn.com/2011/09/06/2052375/our-view-rise-above-partisan-politics.html The Anchorage Daily News takes on our broken political system and the supercommittee, looking at their campaign cash and lobbyist ties. "And the supercommittee members need to rise to the occasion -- no matter how many lobbyists pepper them, no matter who's given them what in the way of campaign contributions." On Some Timely Campaign Contributions By Delta Air Lines http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/09/06/on-some-timely-campaign-contributions-by-delta-air-lines/ Michigan Rep. Candice Miller voted against the House GOP/Delta union busting effort in committee, but then switched her vote on the floor. She then got a big check from Delta, according to PCAF research. Neat. In The Land Of Denial http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/opinion/in-the-land-of-denial-on-climate-change.html THe NYT on GOP 2012 candidates and their global warming denial. Super PAC Plans Major Primary Campaign For Perry http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/politics/07donate.html?ref=politics More on yesterday's news that the Rick Perry-aligned super PAC will spend tens of millions to help him win the primary. "The sheer size of the budget is striking, on par with the total amount of money raised by all the Republican candidates combined in the first six months of the year" Berkley Pushes Back On Report Challenging Her Ethics http://www.lvrj.com/news/berkley-pushes-back-on-report-challenging-her-ethics-129316723.html Rep. Shelley Berkley "on Tuesday was pushing back against a published report that their relationship has created conflicts of interest for the eight-term member of Congress." McCaul, Issa Top List Of Wealthiest Members Of Congress http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/mccaul-issa-top-list-of-wealthiest-members-of-congress/2011/09/06/gIQAFsqp6J_blog.html Lots of rich people in Congress. Other  Embezzlers Welcome http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/prop-zero/Campaigns-Provide-Opportunity-for-Embezzlers-129282053.html A follow up to yesterday's story about the California campaign treasurer arrested by the FBI for embezzlement. "That point is: if campaigns were businesses, they would be the type of businesses that would be easy to rob." Supreme Court Hears Campaign Finance Case http://www.wrn.com/2011/09/supreme-court-hears-campaign-finance-case/ "Justices heard arguments Tuesday in a case brought forward by a number of groups, who argue the rule that requires third party groups running ads that advocate for or against a candidate for elected office to report their funding."