On a different planet by Mahir Ali

Dear Mr Bush, In the light of what happened in Florida back in 2000, it would be inaccurate to address you as "Mr President". And I trust you won't take the "dear" too seriously. It's just a form of address. Doesn't mean a thing. But do read on. Much of what I say could be of some help to you, although Karl Rove will try to convince you otherwise. And one suggestion, if taken, could promote the welfare of all humankind.

I know welfare isn't one of your favourite words. You and your friends don't believe in employing it to mitigate the misery of the poorer sections of society. If truth be told, however, welfare is very much a part of your philosophical package. Remember all the huge tax cuts you have given, possibly at the insistence of Uncle Dick? Well, don't they guarantee that the richest Americans will get even richer? That's welfare, too - corporate welfare.

It was interesting to hear you say nice things, or at least neutral things, about Medicare and public education in your State of the Union speech last week. Don't worry, none of the friends who matter will even for a moment suspect that you have softened. They know it's an election year, and you are forced to say things that your advisers and pollsters think the voters want to hear. They wouldn't want you to repeat Poppy's feat of winning a war and losing re-election.

But then, perhaps to compensate, you've also got to say things that your friends want to hear. Hence all the stuff towards the end about legislating against homosexual marriage and encouraging religious charities. Measures that would warm the heart of John Ashcroft. And, for that matter, Osama bin Laden.

Sometimes I wonder whether you realize how much you have in common with Osama. Apart from certain members of your coterie, who else in today's world shares so passionately your belief that mass slaughter is a perfectly acceptable means of achieving your goals? Or mirrors your unshakeable delusion that you are acting according to the wishes of the Almighty? In a different world, you two would have made a terrific double act. Arguably, you already do.

But, wherever he is, Osama must be somewhat miffed. Two years or so ago, he was the star of your orations. You were going to hunt him down in his hole. However, it was another old friend of the CIA who turned up in a subterranean cavity, and thereby earned a State of the Union mention. Not a word about bin Laden. Unlike Osama, Saddam wasn't planning any atrocities against civilians on American soil. Yet you said your country is much safer with him in the slammer.

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Attacks against US occupation forces actually increased since Saddam's capture. Come to think of it, the 500 or so Americans killed in Iraq also failed to rate an honourable mention in your speech. No one expects you to give a damn about the tens of thousands Iraqis killed in the past year, but would a minute or two of silence for the American dead have gone astray?

Instead you said: "No one can doubt the word of America." It takes a great deal of chutzpah to make that claim in the year after almost every reason advanced in public for the invasion of Iraq has turned out to be a gargantuan whopper.

Weapons of mass destruction primed for use against the West? Not one has turned up. Uranium from Africa? Zilch. This time you referred, instead, to weapons "programmes". And so thrilled was David Kay at being cited in your speech that he promptly resigned as chief weapons inspector, saying it was highly unlikely Iraq had tried to build any illegal weaponry after 1991.

Not long ago your former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill admitted that a plan for invading Iraq was on the table well before September 11, 2001. That caused a bit of a stir in your country, which made me wonder: You must be pretty good at keeping your fellow Americans in the dark.

Links with Al Qaeda? Documents taken into custody alongside Saddam suggest he was instructing his followers to be wary of the fundamentalists who seeped into Iraq in the wake of the aggression. Brutal tyrant? Yes, but that story is incomplete without acknowledging that the US was among his patrons when he committed his vilest deeds.

You sounded a great deal more complacent about the future of Iraq and Afghanistan than anyone who's there, on the ground. You expect both nations to shortly be transformed into exemplary democracies. Your optimism bears about as much relation to reality as your assertion that the US, Britain and a bunch of coerced allies invaded Iraq in order to salvage the honour of the UN Security Council.

As evidence of the good fortune that awaits Iraq, you produced Adnan Pachachi, current chief of the American-nominated Iraqi governing council, who was reportedly greeted by Congress with "sustained applause". Well, I guess everyone loves a puppet show. You were applauded 70 times during a speech that lasted less than an hour. That's more than once a minute. I don't have the relevant statistics, but I somehow doubt whether Stalin or Mao could have managed a comparable feat. Kim Jong Il must be suitably envious.

Seeing how important acclamation was to you, I am astonished that you didn't mention, even in passing, your plan to put a man on the moon once more, and perhaps even on Mars in due course.

Your inspirational oration on that subject a couple of weeks earlier had also caused some surprise. Some critics noted that in all your years as governor of Texas, you never visited the Johnson Space Centre in Houston, which suggests a lack of interest in space-related matters. But I guess it's never too late to expand one's horizons.

Others recalled that Poppy had announced a similar plan back in 1989, on the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing - a proposal that died a natural death when it was estimated to cost at half a trillion dollars. You have offered no estimate of the overall cost of setting up and maintaining a space base on the moon, and from there undertaking missions to Mars and beyond.

It does, admittedly, all sound rather Star Trek-ish. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. True, it could be done much more cheaply with robots, and the hundreds of billions thus saved could be devoted to spreading peace and prosperity on Earth. But they wouldn't, would they? I mean, you don't believe in peace. And prosperity, in your view, must be restricted to the few. So the defenceless targets of future preventive wars would be decidedly happier if the US funnelled its energies and resources into conquering outer space.

But why should take-off take so long? Why wait until 2020? Surely, a nation as great and adventurous as yours could reach for the moon today if it really wanted to. After all, it's been done before. Hasn't it?

But hang on. What good would it do to have a bunch of anonymous faces kicking up moondust? This is too symbolically too important to be left to NASA. For a change, why not lead the charge? You, George Dubya, have every right to go where no Bush has gone before. So, as the folks at Nike like to put it, do it now.

And if it can't be done by November, when you'll most likely be seeing off one of the clowns battling it out in New Hampshire this week, then it must be pursued thereafter with renewed vigour. Wouldn't it be awfully impressive to deliver your next State of the Union on a satellite link from the moon?

Please don't go alone, though. There's strength in numbers, you know. Don't, on any account, leave behind Cheney, Rummy, Rove or Wolfowitz. Where would you be without them? Dick Perle probably deserves a berth. Maybe even Rich Armitage. You couldn't possibly ignore Ashcroft. Colin may have blown his chance by acknowledging at the weekend that Iraq may have had no WMD stockpiles when it was attacked, but I'm sure you can find place for Condi in the back of the spacecraft.

Loyalty must be rewarded, so do reserve a seat for poor Tony, who's been having a rather nervous week, what with a crucial parliamentary vote on university fees and the release of the Hutton report. But don't stop there. Take Saddam as well - and Osama, if he can be found. They'll provide entertainment en route, and should they turn out to be unpleasant fellow travellers, you could always push them out of the window.

Once the moon base has been set up, you could zoom off to Mars. I somehow can't imagine you appreciating the Red Planet, even though it's named after the Roman god of war.

Should it turn out to be duller than Texas, you could always move on - to Uranus, perhaps. I may be mistaken, but isn't that where you came from in the first place?

Whatever you do, don't look back. The rest of us, marvelling at your exploits, will get along just fine without you. One smallish step for the Bushies could prove to be a quantum leap for humankind. Goodbye and good luck, Mr Bush. But above all, good riddance!

e-mail: mahirali2@netscape.net

... Link

John C. Bonifaz is an attorney in Boston and the author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush. (NationBooks-NY, January 2004)

While all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph Lieberman) criticize President George W. Bush for his unilateral recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional.

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.

Those members of Congress-including certain Democratic presidential candidates-who voted for that October resolution cannot now claim that they were deceived, as some of them do. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself.

Imagine this: The United States Congress passes a resolution which states: "The President is authorized to levy an income tax on the people of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to pay for subsidies to U.S. oil companies." No amount of legal wrangling could make such a resolution constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power to levy taxes exclusively to the United States Congress.

Now let us turn to reality. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United States Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.

In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.

The wars of kings and queens of Europe had brought not only havoc and destruction to the lives of those forced into battle and those left to suffer their loss. They had also brought poverty. They were stark symbols that the subjects living under such monarchies lacked any voice or any control over their destiny.

The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear.

Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."

Several years after the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison would write: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

Some might ask how George W. Bush's war against Iraq is different from other U.S wars. Congress has not declared war since World War II. While some of the U.S. military actions since that time have received the equivalent of a congressional declaration, others have not. There have been other violations of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.

But today we face an extraordinary moment in United States history. The president of the United States launched a premeditated, first-strike invasion of another country, the likes of which this nation has never before seen. This massive military operation sought to conquer and occupy Iraq for an indefinite period of time. This was not a random act of raw power. It was the first salvo of a new and dangerous U.S. doctrine, a doctrine which advocates the unprovoked invasion and occupation of sovereign nations. This new doctrine threatens to destabilize the world, creating a new world order of chaos and lawlessness.

Now more than ever, the Constitution and the rule of law must apply. And, now more than ever, the truth must be told. The first lie about the Iraq war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda. The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this war.

In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president."

The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war.

It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to defy it. It is time to demand our country back.

... Link

January 27, 2004

Friends,

I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a "deserter." What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants. In fact, he "shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."

Actually, what I meant to say up in New Hampshire last week was that "We're going to have Bush for dessert come November!" I'm always mixing up "dessert" and "desert" -- I'm sure many of you have that problem.

Well, well, well. As George W. would say, "It's time to smoke 'em out of their hole!" Thanks to my "humorous" introduction of Wesley Clark 10 days ago in New Hampshire -- and the lughead way the no-sense-of-humor media has covered it -- there were 15 million hits this weekend on my website www.michaelmoore.com

Everyone who visited the site got to read the truth about Bush not showing up for National Guard duty.

The weird thing about all this is that during my routine I never went into any details about Bush skipping out while in the Guard (it's not like it's the biggest issue on my mind or facing America these days!) I was just attempting my best impersonation of that announcer guy for the World Wrestling Federation, asking the cheering crowd if they would like to see a smackdown ("debate") which I called "The Generaaal Versus The Deserterrrr!!" (You can watch it here: www.michaelmoore.com -- hardly anyone in the media has shown this clip because viewers would suddenly see the context of my comments.)

When the press heard me use that word "deserter," though, the bells and whistles went off, for this was one of those stories they knew they had ignored -- and now it was rearing its ugly, truthful head on a very public stage. Without a single other word from me other than the d-word, they immediately got so defensive that it looked to many viewers like they-the press-maybe had something to hide. After all, when I called Bush a deserter, how did they know I wasn't referring to how he has deserted the 43 million Americans who have no health coverage? Why didn't they assume I was talking about how Bush is a deserter because he has deserted the working people of this country (who have lost 3 million jobs since he's taken office)? Why wasn't it obvious to them that I was pointing out how Bush had deserted our constitution and Bill of Rights as he tries to limit freedom of speech and privacy rights for law-abiding citizens?

Instead, they have created the brouhaha over Bush's military record, often without telling their audience what the exact charges are. It seems all they want to do is to get Clark or me -- or you -- to shut up. "We have never investigated this and so we want you to apologize for bringing it up!" Ha ha ha.

Well, I'm glad they have gone nuts over it. Because here we have a Commander in Chief --who just took off while in uniform to go work for some Republican friend of his dad's -- now sending our kids over to Iraq to die while billions are promised to Halliburton and the oil companies. Twenty percent of them are National Guard and Reserves (and that number is expected to double during the year). They have been kept in Iraq much longer than promised, and they have not been given the proper protection. They are sitting ducks.

What if any of them chose to do what Bush did back in the early 70s -- just not show up? I've seen Republican defenders of Bush this week say, "Yeah, but he made up the time later." So, can today's National Guardsmen do the same thing -- just say, when called up to go to Iraq, "Um, I'm not going to show up, I'll make up the time later!"? Can you imagine what would happen? Of course, none of them are the son of a Congressman, like young Lt. Bush was back in 1972.

Today, MoveOn.org has put together it's response to this issue, and I would love to reprint it here. It lays out all the facts about Bush and the remaining unanswered questions about where he went for many, many months:

Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, "The Lies of George W. Bush," by David Corn.

1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect.  Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.  

2.  He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant - a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a "weekend warrior" in Houston, where his father's congressional district was centered.  

A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn's book, has Bush saying: "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment.  Nor was I willing to go to Canada.  So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."  

3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard.  Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.

4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate's campaign.  The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service.  In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn't he take this exam from a doctor?)

5.  During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush's staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty.  But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush - son of a congressman - ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush's claim.  Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, "but I was there."

6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again - pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period.  On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment).  He then went to Harvard Business School.

Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers' article on the web at democrats.com.

In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth.  And they're not talking.  

Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War.  The Army defines a "deserter" -- also known as a DFR, for "dropped from rolls" - as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil.

Well, there you have it. Someone got some special treatment. And now that special someone believes he has the right to conduct a war -- using other not-so-special people's lives.

My friends, I always call it like I see it. I don't pussyfoot around. Sometimes the truth is hard to take. The media conglomerates are too afraid to take this on. I understand. But I'm not. That's my job. And I'll continue to do it.

And when I'm wrong, like the thing about Bush pooping his pants, I'll say so.

Yours,

Michael Moore

... Link