"..we believe in an illusion. That illusion is an accepted system of dissent that ensures our resistance doesn’t go beyond boundaries established by the government and the corporate media..."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12454.htm

The Accepted System of Dissent

A Veteran’s Speech on March 18, 2006

By Mike Kress

03/23/06 "ICH" - Why are we here today?

We are here because we oppose the war on Iraq. We are here because gathering together in one place makes a statement, and might have an impact on those who are afraid to question our government’s actions.

Why are we here today?

We are here because standing in solidarity with others who are outraged about the war on Iraq helps us feel better. It helps us feel sane to find others who reject the lies of our government. It helps us feel grounded to know that other people don’t buy the propaganda fed to us by the mainstream media.

We are here because we know that what’s happening in Iraq - and what’s likely to occur in Iran - is morally and criminally wrong. We are here because we hope that our presence, in conjunction with others doing the same thing across the nation and around the world, will make a positive difference.

And yet, these statements don’t really answer the question: Why are we here today?

I would say we are here today because we believe that if we amass enough demonstrators, hold enough rallies, and walk in enough marches, we will turn the tide of war.

We are here today because we believe that if we say the right words and carry the right signs we will get our foot in the door of democratic debate.

In short, we are here because we believe in an illusion. That illusion is an accepted system of dissent that ensures our resistance doesn’t go beyond boundaries established by the government and the corporate media.

Methods that worked 40 years ago have been gradually homogenized into a manageable system of dissent that channels our moral outrage and our demands for peace into predictable, self-censoring, and largely ineffective protest.

Like cattle penned inside corrals and channeled down chutes to the killing floor, we are following a blueprint for dissent that the people in power have basically designed for us. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves doing the same things we did before (and after) every previous war?

If we want to end the occupation of Iraq, or stop the war on Iran – if we want the power to decide our own future – we must stop focusing on a particular war, a particular president, or a particular policy. Instead, we must focus on creating a sane new world by demolishing the illusions in which we live and rewriting the rules under which we are little more than slaves.

Before we can figure out how to build that new world, we must first realize that the wars, presidents, and policies we routinely oppose are part of a system wherein governments, militaries, police, and the courts work for corporations and the wealthy – not We the People. And we must recognize that our predictable, conventional methods of protest are simply figured into their cost of doing business.

Make no mistake: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Snow, the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Supreme Court, the CIA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the fossil fuels industry, the military-industrial complex, and everyone controlling this system, are not incompetent or stupid. They are corporatists, and they know what they are doing. They are deliberately dismantling our freedoms and protections so that corporate capitalism - backed by military and police power - can become a global reality.

“But wait,” you say. Don't Americans have free speech? Can’t we vote the bums out? Well, what is free speech when it falls on deaf ears? What is voting when corporations manufacture hackable electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail? What is an election when the major political parties are two sides of a counterfeit coin?

It’s time to throw away our misplaced faith in this corrupt, undemocratic system and build alternatives to it. “Another world is possible” isn’t possible if we keep supporting a system that’s rigged against us.

Martin Luther King Jr. recognized this reality when he spoke at New York’s Riverside Church in 1967. He said:

…[W]e as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.…A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

Sadly, America has reached spiritual death. But the beautiful thing about the spirit is that it can be revived, reawakened, and renewed! Our spirits can rise from the dead.

Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” If we follow his wisdom, we will see today’s protest not as an end, but as a beginning. Think of this gathering as a town hall meeting – a community meeting where we educate each other and organize. This protest should be the first step in a revolution wherein we transform ourselves, and then our communities, into the world we wish to see.

We can control our future by rejecting the system of death and lies and wasteful corporate capitalism that we’ve been brainwashed to believe is the American Way. By acting in revolutionary ways we can begin building a new and sustainable world that prevents our children from dying in (or protesting) more immoral and unnecessary wars.

We must think creatively and wisely. We must build our own media, newspapers, websites; and our own cooperative networks, to include independent unions, banks, shops, farms, and housing. We must join with the men and women around the world who oppose the undemocratic, unaccountable, inhuman corporate structure that is destroying our planet.

Peak oil, global warming, and dwindling natural resources require that we start now. It won’t be easy. The mainstream media will not inform us; there is no charismatic leader to lead us, and no political party can save us. It falls upon “We the People” to free our minds and claim our own destiny.

The alternative is to accept a fate that others have chosen for us.

Mike Kress served two tours in the Persian Gulf prior to leaving the Air Force as a conscientious objector. He has served as vice-chair of the Spokane Human Rights Commission and is the producer and host of “Take the Power” on KYRS FM in Spokane, WA (www.kyrs.org). Comments welcome at shrcmike@yahoo.com.

"...A society built on deceit cannot heal itself by changing the political party that controls government or the occupant of the White House until it takes a long, hard look inward..."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8334.shtml

Playing liar's poker

By DOUG THOMPSON

Mar 24, 2006, 07:57

Almost any debate about the problems facing the United States and its faltering government centers on truth - or the lack of it.

Truth is an unneeded commodity in the political system that defines the American government.

Even worse, truth may be a lost cause in American society.

Pollsters often ask Americans if they tell the truth. Assuming they are telling the truth in their answers (and that's a big assumption), Americans admit lying as a natural course of life.

More than half admit lying on employment applications as well as cheating on their income taxes. Sixty-four percent of American men admit cheating on their wives while 53 percent of American women say they have slept around on their husbands.

Sports stars lie about their use of performance-enhancing drugs. Celebrities lie about trouble in their marriages and then announce divorces days later. Defense attorneys lie on behalf of their clients while prosecutors lie about whether or not they have the evidence to convict someone.

Journalists, the ones who are supposed to separate truth from fiction, lie in the name of fame and fortune. Jayson Blair conned The New York Times into publishing stories that he made up while sitting in his apartment. Stephan Glass nearly brought down The New Republic with his lies. An author conned Oprah Winfrey and her publisher into a book about a drug problem he didn't have and it became a best-seller.

Our culture is built around spin, hype and make-believe. We too quickly buy into fantasy because it allows us to avoid the harshness of reality.

As a teenager I lied all the time to young girls in an attempt to get them into the back seat of my 1957 Ford and out of their clothes. During service to my country, Uncle Sam taught me to lie about who I was, where I was going and what I did in the name of truth, justice and the American Way. Even my family didn't know the truth.

After my return to private life, I used my well-honed skills at deception to journalistic advantage, twisting the truth to gain access to forbidden data or coax information out of reluctant sources. It also came in handy to, once again, talk women into bed or, if the need arose, out of one.

Such abilities served me well in politics where truth is an unwelcome complication to the goals of power and success. If any morality got in the way, I quickly drowned it in a bottle -- until a night several years ago when I walked into a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous and took the first of 12 steps to regain my life and sanity.

AA teaches you to face the truth about yourself and those around you. I began to see the damage that a culture of deception can inflict on society.

But George W. Bush, an admitted alcoholic, never went to AA, never took the pledge, and, I don't believe, ever faced the demons of deception. His words, actions and deeds showcase a man still in denial, incapable of facing the Beast or admitting his own fallibility.

Bush is a product of a culture built on deception. So were many of his predecessors and, unfortunately, most likely will be those who follow him.

A society built on deceit cannot heal itself by changing the political party that controls government or the occupant of the White House until it takes a long, hard look inward and realizes the problem is more widespread than just our elected leaders.

Until we stop lying to ourselves and those around us we can never expect honesty in those who lead us. At this point, we don't deserve it anyway.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

by H Michael Sweeney

copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000)

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author's Web site: http://www.proparanoid.com/ N/A

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives.

The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain ofevidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. [examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html N/A]

Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H Michael Sweeney

copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12476.htm

Iraq Redux

“When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

By Dom Stasi

03/25/06 "ICH" - As we observe this somber anniversary, the third of senseless slaughter in our name and in the name of our once and future glorious nation, yet another atrocity – a new one - must be endured by thinking, reasoning Americans. We must, it seems, now also endure the nauseatingly predictable platitudes of the very same hypocrites – by that I mean the talking heads of TV and the equally useful idiots of the press - who’ve spent the years since 9/11 growing rich or famous or just saving their jobs as propagandists by exploiting the gullible and bloodthirsty among us with their sensational if irrelevant reportage and bankrupt philosophies of fear and loathing.

We must watch as those who still purport to be journalists and experts, yet are nothing more than accessories to grand theft and murder, climb from the mire of their absolute professional failings and personal cowardice to once again regale us with their dueling quotes disguised as news, their neuroses disguised as toughness, their White House press releases disguised as analysis, their incorrect opinions disguised incredibly as wisdom. Lately however, the fantasy of balanced perception they so proudly hail, can be seen slowly shifting its underlying bias toward a grudging acknowledgement that they might have missed something lo these past three dismally retrogressive years in America. That the something they’ve failed to notice has been roughly as apparent as would be an enormous, stinking, bellowing, rampaging, rabid bull elephant in a phone booth you happened to be using, is of little consequence. They’ve failed to notice precisely what they are paid to notice. That’s news.

I’m speaking of course of the media’s long overdue recognition that this federal administration, this gaggle of knaves upon whom the ladies and gentlemen of the information mass media have spent the last five years doting, is a bunch of crooks, traitors, and just plain knuckleheads. As the circulation and ratings of news media dwindle, its practitioners seem suddenly less willing to blindly kiss up and ask softball questions at White House press briefings in an effort to get – albeit incorrect – information from a vindictive and stonewalling White House communications office. They seem no longer completely blinded – not completely blinded - by the Bush administration’s staged, if non-existent heroics. In fact, we are starting to actually hear and read about this administration’s serial incompetence, and we’re getting it from the press and the pundits of all people! Could it be that the mainstream media have actually noticed in our “leaders” an absence of both ethics and abilities that the “alternative” press and so called “fake news” had somehow recognized and have been reporting on contiguously since the 1999 campaign?

Here’s a question. When, may I ask, will we start to hear and read of the corporate media’s own mistakes and incompetence? After all, much of the blood is on their hands. Failing to notice the precise thing one is paid to notice is in itself news, isn’t it?

Instead of fessing up, the talking heads of electronic and the stenographers of print journalism are visibly struggling to cover those deadly mistakes now, not reporting them.

In the manner of every exposed hypocrite before them since time began, they are squirming in the light and heat of accountability. The disciples of “stay the course” are suddenly squirming like so many maggots to hide their post 9/11, unbroken record of wrongness, and wrongness, and more wrongness yet, and doing it the only way they know how, behind a facade of righteous indignation and feigned outrage. They do so in the fervent hope that their public, their readers and viewers and listeners, those who’ve hung on their every word and gesture while themselves cowering too deeply in fear to find the truth on their own, will be willingly fooled again. They are hoping, perhaps correctly, that when it comes to punditry, angry commentary is enough. Sprinkle it with a smattering of arcane words their fans don’t recognize and it’ll sound downright brilliant. If fact, if the commentary is delivered by a bulimic Barbie doll, or a guy wearing googley eyeglasses and a bowtie some might think it worthy of a Pulitzer!

To validate this, one need only stop for a moment and consider the childlike, credulous, and hopelessly biased fan base the conservative pundits have built. Compare that to the declining circulation of newspapers among informed and critical readers and the ever-more tabloid editorial formats that will drive many of us farther away still but hopefully gain a foothold among the uncritical, the true believers. Consider that and you’ll understand why the pundits think that they can fool their faithful base yet again and get away with it. Do that, and you’ll see why perhaps this time, after all this time, the pundits might actually be right about something. Simply put, those who remain faithful to these so called journalists who’ve gotten it wrong from the start, will believe anything. It need only come from a pulpit of authority. That pulpit might be a genuine pulpit such as that behind which the president stands when he lies to us. Or it might be a newspaper masthead, a radio tower, or a TV satellite in space, or a damned soapbox. It matters but little. It’s an authority icon, and they – the faithful - are childlike. They’ll believe what their told on faith, wholly unaware that when examined in context, faith and knowledge can coexist only in inverse proportion. Sooner or later, when claim after claim goes unproven and unfounded, all but the most completely credulous humans lose their faith in authority. Critical thinkers eventually demand evidence. Since 9/11 the authority peddlers have shown us much of the former and none of the latter.

So, as we the people reflect upon a sad anniversary, a week spent in mass demonstrations, or in quiet and somber contemplation of that which our countrymen have wrought with their fear and ignorance, we must neither forget nor forgive the travesty of truth spewn forth by the vulgar, manipulative swine of the right-wing and mainstream media, the killers of the innocents whose words are their weapons - these creatures whose putrid mouths and poison pens now feign a righteous outrage as if this debacle of blood and death and heartbreak and robbery, this avoidable human tragedy, unfolded sans their complicity. They will endeavor to persuade themselves and their followers, if not us, that it would have happened with or without their encouragement.

Lest we do forget, and as we watch them slowly squirm and change their childish stories, hoping their murderous lies of the recent past will fall into the great American memory hole, as they probably will if the rest of us remain silent, please allow me to remind us all how very obvious was the criminal manipulation of our innocent, frightened, gullible, or just simple-minded American brethren who believed the lies of the corporate press and right wing media and the White House communications office.

To that end I offer the following: I began the article that appears below back in January of the strange - though apparently predictable - year, 2003. Completed and published in its print version weeks before the invasion of Iraq began, I was moved to write it while witnessing what seemed a growing and irrational level of support for an unjustified, but ever-more-probable “war” against a people who - despite their despicable leader - had done us no appreciable harm. Since that time, not a speck of evidence has been found that might indicate that they had they ever intended to. The war against Iraq is an action that was - and remains – a crime against humanity, all of humanity not just the innocents whose lives, families, and bodies it’s ruined so far. It is a crime of maiming and murder, of robbery and deception on the grandest of scales. As Americans of self-proclaimed free will we have borne witness or been party to a horrific atrocity accomplished by an easily manipulated president for his personal ends and the personal ideologies of those who control him. His actions were supported and enabled by an as-easily manipulated populace for their own personal ends. And all of it was instigated upon our countrymen’s now world-famous ignorance, bigotry, and fear. Three years ago, they the people - (I refer to Americans of popular mind) - frustrated by our government's inability to bring the perpetrators of September Eleventh to justice, seemed intent upon killing somebody. In fact, the somebody need not be demonstrably complicit in our violation, merely different, Arab-seeming, Muslim-like, virtually defenseless.

At that time the majority of Americans – by far the majority - were motivated to mass murder, if for no other reason, than to show the world the perils of attacking the United States while satisfying their childlike strike urges. Our self-appointed "leaders" and those who control them knew that many Americans were ready to lash out in their frustration at something tangible, however irrelevant to the acquisition of cold vengeance and real justice that something might be. It allowed our graceless unelected president to unleash both his and our countrymen's scared-rat fury on a convenient, obvious, tangential-at-best - and potentially very profitable - villain: Saddam Hussein.

Hussein is a murderous despotic scumbag to be sure, but a scumbag who has never - not ever! - been a terrorist. Yet in the end, all that factual stuff paled to insignificance. It paled because the former Iraqi president is a character whose self-fabricated image was every bit as palpable, but not one bit more tangible, than the one our own president has fashioned for himself. Hussein is a thug who's fashioned himself a dictator. Bush is a privileged Ivy League, frat-boy boozer, and rear-echelon shirker who's fashioned himself a populist bumpkin and warrior prince. In short, they were both easy targets for exploitation.

The ultimate capture (by PUK clansmen, not by American or coalition troops) of Hussein was something our peevish president long relished for personal reasons. Because then, as now, Bush was intent on the settlement of some weird version of what is essentially a hillbilly family feud gone terribly, terribly wrong. Every failed man wants his victory. Bush is no exception. To settle his personal score, Bush committed what history will declare a war crime, but it was (and is) a war crime that appealed to his irrational, fantasy cowpoke self, and was thus justifiable. Yet each passing day, month, year further verifies that Hussein's capture and the destruction of the world’s first nation-state was an end instigated by our president's own white collared, red-necked White House thugs, and a victory they could virtually guarantee their credulous simpleton of a boss. They are, after all, cut from similar cloth as was their prey. So, in Ox Bow Incident fashion, we allowed our own scumbags, safe in their Washington easy chairs, to invest our expendable military youth, squander our hard-earned monetary treasure, and go out and catch the absolutely wrong villain.

Three years on and Hussein is neutered. No matter. We still kill the other Iraqis upon whose oil and homeland our armies tread uninvited, unwelcome, unreasoned, unwavering.

Three years on and nothing’s changed but the story of why we’re there. Stay the course there, change the story here.

Three years on, and at home we face more danger from terrorists than ever. Abroad, Osama is now a folk hero on the order of a turbaned Davy Crockett. And when the monetary cost of our leaders’ treasonous folly is tallied, our children’s future has been traded for blood and nothing more. Nothing.

We’ve squandered our national security. Economic stability is security. Money is security. Not guns, not armies, money! It’s the reason the paranoids at the top of this dung heap are gathering as much of it as they can. This, while those in the middle have seen theirs thrown away along with their children’s prospects for a better life. Anyone doubting that need only realize that America and Americans are today more indebted to foreigners than at any point in our personal or our nation’s history. Ever.

Everyone who’s rational knows these things. Yet even today, there seems little time amid the bloodlust and neurotic chest-beating that characterizes this idiotic atrocity to remember that the actual - if still alleged - perpetrator of the crimes of 9-11 runs free dragging a dialysis machine behind him! So, to, do the countless bin Laden imitators our moronic actions have spawned. A no-longer tiny alQaida and its newfound legions plot our demise while laughing at our national fear and stupidity. Home of the brave? What a sick and a sickening joke that is.

But at last there are stirrings beneath the popular surface. At long last.

As this congressional election year unfolds, and we continue to suffer the perpetual spectacle of our rudderless republic amok in the world; as we further endure the waffle and babble of most of our elected representatives in their collective careerist attempts to distance themselves from their savage decision to slaughter over 100,000 civilians; as we watch them defend their willingness to do so; as we watch the newspapers close their foreign bureaus; and worst of all as we endure the pundits’ ratings-preserving bullshit, I ask you once more to consider the following short essay. It was first published at the start of 2003 and before the start of what was at that time still quietly called Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) by its plotters. In the interim, the acronyms have changed, but nothing has changed as relates to Iraq's complicity. This war was never justified. Thinking, objective Americans knew that then. Today, a growing number of formerly trusting, nationalistic, credulous, or perhaps just slow to comprehend Americans are coming to know it too.

For today, only slaves to their personal biases cling to the myth of might is right, Go W, These Colors Don’t Run, Power Of Pride, and God Bless America.

Which god might that be? Which America would he deign to bless?

So, come back with me now to the dawn of 2003. Read once more – or perhaps for the first time - what was written before the headlong plunge into a war for oil and personal revenge against a nation we’d spent the previous 12 years disarming. Read what we knew and our government pretended they did not.

Under its original title Dear Fellow Americans, the old article below called upon my experience in military reconnaissance coupled with plain common sense, to draw conclusions that are more relevant today than they were even then, three long and horrific and costly years ago.

The flood of letters at the time of its print publication revealed that many Americans shared these conclusions then. Yourself perhaps among them. Many, many, many others did not. Yourself perhaps among them. For accepting such conclusions at that time would have required that one also accept that the president was at the very least, the very least, a liar. A healthy personal bias might have prevented that three years ago, perhaps even two years ago.

But evidence and conscience demand that it be accepted now. Yet accepting truth now means accepting that the president is a premeditative mass murderer as well – the felony has been compounded in the intervening years. These things cannot be. Yet it seems unequivocally that they are. So, add guilt to the fear and the bias and the egotism that still prevents 34% of our countrymen from coming to their collective senses and mustering the courage to face reality.

As Americans we've lost much in this still-new century - not least our place at the table of humanity. In the year ahead our founders' have bequeathed us a way to take our country back. We need only overcome our fears and biases and return to an ever more distasteful rationality. There is only one truth. To not accept it is understandable for a time. To reject the truth forever is psychotic.

We were lied to by those who’ve pledged us their honesty and trust!

There’s no shame in that for those who believed the lies. There is only shame – much shame – in continuing to reject what is now the all too obvious truth. To willingly acquiesce to that and yet to fondly consider oneself sane, is to reward the murdering liars out of ego and self interest and fear and greed and, yes, stupidity.

So I ask you to read this old piece immediately below. It will remind many of you of just how you felt back then, how your countrymen felt as well. Get mad as hell, again. Get mad with the talking heads, get mad with the politicians, get mad with the yellow “journalists” whose lies you’ve rejected, and stay that way until November. Then throw your radio through the television screen, put the newspaper under your cat where it belongs, and march to the polls with the single-minded will to toss these bums out of our – OUR! – government and start the process that will impeach and/or indict the rest.

March to the polls in such overwhelming numbers that even the crooked voting machines cannot deny your will. It can be done!

In the name of our children’s and our country’s future, it must be done.

******************************
The following was first published in February 2003. It is offered here for your recollection and reference.

Dear Fellow Americans

By Dom Stasi

February 2003: George W. Bush does not appear to be a complicated man. In fact, with the exception of his apparently instant grasp of the complex legal abstractions attendant to Antonin Scalia's appointing him president of the United States, Mr. Bush seems the very paragon of intellectual simplicity itself. "I see things in black and white," he so readily declares. "I'm not about nuancing," he adds, daily swelling America's lexicon if not its coffers. How comforting a worldview his must be.

Well, however comforting it might be to Mr. Bush and his ilk, the rest of us should be troubled as hell by such statements emanating from a president of the United States. In fact, I would submit that his "good versus evil/you're either with us or against us" homilies have a profoundly discomforting, even juvenile, quality to them. Yet we've watched silently these past two years of civil retrogression as he's drawn conclusions supremely unworthy of any world leader, much less one who must reconcile diplomacy to awesome power, less yet again America's president.

We the people seem not the least bit troubled by this apparently simple man's simple words. Neither are we much concerned that the simple man seems so readily accepting of complex advice, advice fomented in minds perhaps not as simple as his own, minds whose motivations most Americans - to their credit - neither know nor understand.

Mr. Bush is also a man of obvious faith. Witness the zeal with which he promotes his constitutionally dubious "faith-based initiative" even as we prepare for mortal war.

Of course, faith can be a wonderful and healing force. It can also be blind, if not tempered with reason. For faith is a state of mind that cannot coexist with knowledge in context. To quote the American genius, Carl Sagan, "I'd rather know than believe." When confronted with this particular black and white simplicity, Mr. Bush will too quickly opt for the latter. It's easier to believe than it is to know - more convenient, less critically complex. Witness his indifference toward that critical basis of knowledge called evidence. Witness how readily he eschews it when it interferes with his decision-making. Such credulity is both troubling and, in the complex global framework of today, patently un-American. Rarely in the practice of American governance has that credulity been more blatantly manifest than it has been these past weeks in Bush's approach to the matter of Iraq. The promotion of his agenda, through the compelling yet wholly circumstantial evidence provided the United Nations by the charismatic Colin Powell, was pure theater. For however compelling the secretary of state's presentation might have been on the visceral level, it was wholly inconclusive on a critically objective basis. Its examples of "evidence" were wholly refutable in their ambiguity, its dramatics better suited to inspiring Hollywood actors to action than lethal armies. Such evidence as that, which Secretary Powell presented, would be dismissed as circumstantial by any honest judge in any American court of law. Neither would such ambiguities hold up against a reasonable jury in whose hands lay the fate of but a single, however suspect, human being in an American trial. But alas, this is international power ball, not an American trial, and however inconclusive the out-of-context sound bytes and meaningless snapshots presented by Colin Powell might appear to a trained and objective analyst (such as myself), they are apparently definitive enough for Mr. Bush and a majority of Americans to willingly, if not eagerly, sacrifice the lives of an as-yet incalculable number of innocents to arbitrary and merciless execution. I submit that had the same standard of evidence been applied to Mr. Bush's insider trading allegations, or to his alleged dereliction of military duty during the Vietnam War, his government service might by now find itself limited to the manufacture of license plates.

But more to the point: Does Saddam have nuclear weapons?

He almost certainly does not.

Does he have chemical and biological weapons? Probably. But these are hardly weapons of mass destruction by modern standards.

I pose this latter assertion not as conjecture, but as a matter of history supported by physical evidence. But the audit trail to that evidence - based upon American government records - might surprise you.

Quoting the president's father, who, near the end of his term, said, "As you may remember from history, there was a lot of support for Iraq at that time [1980s] as a balance against a much more aggressive Iran, under Khomeini."

A lot of support? How about $5 billion in intelligence, weapons and training?

Recorded history, not conjecture.

Quoting again, this time the man considered America's foremost war historian, Gabriel Kolko: "The United States was Iraq's functional ally and encouraged it to build and utilize a huge army with modern armor, aviation, artillery and chemical and biological weapons." Saddam's first recorded use of mustard gas, cyanide and nerve agents against humans began at that time. This begs the question: Was our $5 billion gift of weapons and training a coincidence or the proximate cause of Iraq's use and subsequent knowledge of germs and gas?

Why was this historically recorded transaction never mentioned or referenced among the "evidence" the Bush administration seemed so desperate to produce? Let's be simpler still. Whose spent nerve gas canisters did the weapons inspectors find in the sands of Iraq following the Gulf War and again so recently? Are they ours? Russia's? Or the product of "evil" Iraqi science? These too represent direct evidence, physical evidence. We are told only of their presence, never of their provenance. Well, it takes no leap of imagination to conclude that the act of giving Saddam the wherewithal to use germs and poison gas is less inflammatory than when we gave him these capabilities. If not the material itself, we certainly offered Saddam access or, at the very least, tacit approval and huge sums of money to gain access to these products of World War I era technology that have now - in the nuclear age - become known as "weapons of mass destruction." But that we did so during the Iran-Contra years, the conservative movement's Camelot years … the Ronald Reagan years, well, that makes public consideration of this stuff a Bush administration taboo. Now, I ask you, what sort of an American president, however reluctantly, chooses to suppress direct evidence while allowing his cabinet to compromise national security by revealing confidential sources in a misguided dog and pony show whose probative value will be argued by historians forever. Could the answer be a president who would compromise his citizens' safety before risking the wrath of his faithful right-wing base, a wrath he'd surely incur by blaspheming its beatified former president, Ronald Reagan? Conjecture? My apologies.

President Bush (the current one), while expecting the United Nations to rationally consider its course, recently offered a characteristically simple mandate: "Show some backbone," he admonished the ostensibly spineless world body. Act upon Iraq or be considered irrelevant was the Hobson's choice he offered up, adding that the United States will "act" with or without the UN's assent. By this simple dictate, the president himself rendered the world body irrelevant, nullifying in advance the implications of whatever consensus might derive from disciplined, civilized discourse - discourse born of empirical inspection. Instead, we and the world at large are subjected to Mr. Bush's peevish ultimatums. We witness scene upon scene akin to an American prosecutor advising a global jury, "I'm gonna hang the suspect, no matter what you people decide."

Last week he turned that same reductio-ad-absurdum logic upon the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. When European NATO member states did the very thing treaty organizations are formed to do - enforce the treaty and keep the peace - Mr. Bush declared them irrelevant.

Yesterday, he completed the circle. This president who ascended his high office one-half million votes short of a popular mandate, referred to the millions of anti-war demonstrators whose voices were raised in global unity this weekend, and by inference another 100 million less active but like-minded Americans, as - you guessed it - irrelevant.

But perhaps the most troubling insight into our president's simplicity is simplicity itself. Despite that George W. Bush somehow commands the most terrible and destructive power ever poised upon our fragile planet by mortal man, he has not yet so much as learned its name (the power, that is - I must presume he knows the planet's name). I, for one, cannot persuade myself that George Bush's ignorance of the atom, which begins with the assumption of a "nuke-u-lus" at its center, does not extend to the implications of its misuse. Perhaps that, too, is irrelevant.

Make no mistake, this writer considers Saddam Hussein a festering pustule on the anus of humanity. I care not one wit for his well being or how horribly he might meet his end.

However, I neither earned nor did I contribute a lifetime of tax dollars expecting that, in the end, so much as a penny of my taxes would be used along with yours to incinerate children. But acquiescing to George W. Bush's horrific demands in the absence of genuine, direct, supporting evidence of our enemy du jour's capabilities or intent will mean just that. As one Iraqi diplomat said, upon considering the likely indiscriminate slaughter of his people, "America has smart bombs, but not smart leaders."

Lest we as a nation become as simple as our American president's diatribes, we the people must understand that through such inhumane and undisciplined use of its irresistible power, the United States - not simply the United Nations or the treaties we sign in good faith, but the United States itself, its people and the grand human experiment to which we ascribe and to whose principles our forbears committed their lives -- will be rendered truly, not allegedly, irrelevant.

That would be the truest manifestation of spinelessness imaginable.

-END-

-The Author -

Dom Stasi is a technology executive in the television and motion picture industry in Hollywood. Mr. Stasi also flew aerial reconnaissance during the Cold War and, after an honorable discharge, worked as a flight test engineer whose specialty was the flight test and certification of advanced military aerial reconnaissance systems.

-Footnotes & References-

1. www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26KAY.html?hp
2. Counterpunch, January 19, 2004: Alexander Cockburn
3. www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/17/1543215&mode=thread&tid=47
Copyright: Dom Stasi

"...The real danger confronting any nation, especially the U.S., is the belief that it is strong when it is not, and maintaining a faith in the power of weapons and technology when they are in fact wholly irrelevant or even defective..."

Yahoohttp://www.counterpunch.org/kolko03242006.html

March 24, 2006

Relearning the Lessons of Vietnam, Every Day

The US Empire Versus Reality

By GABRIEL KOLKO

This essay is excerpted from Gabriel Kolko's important new book, The Age of War.

Like all warring nations before it, reality for the United States is totally different than its theories and expectations. Whether there is war or peace is now dependent on what happens in Washington; how America deals with its mounting frustrations and dilemmas will decide the future of much of the entire world.

Sooner or later, reality has always been an antidote for dreamers since time immemorial, but dreamers with illusions have gravely harmed the world repeatedly because realism follows rather than precedes armed conflicts and disastrous failures. But never before was there such destructive weaponry in so many hands. War and peace is more important to mankind's future than ever, and to a very great extent that issue is increasingly dependent on what the U. S. does or does not do.

Doctrinally, there is no constraint on American action; indeed, the Bush Administration only finely honed all the reasons for taking initiatives that were articulated before 2001 and taken them to their logical conclusion: it believes passionately in action. But war in Iraq again confirmed what Korea and certainly Vietnam had revealed much earlier: militarily and politically, the American way of making war is no better than those the Germans or French, English or Russians, had undertaken before them. War simply does not resolve problems between nations, whatever they may be, and those that attempt it invariably end up far worse than when they began, and unforeseen complications create crises it may never resolve. Wars have profoundly and increasingly scarred the human condition for centuries.

The war the United States chose to fight in Iraq after March 2003 only reiterates these truisms, but the war there, like most before it, went badly from the inception. It is also incredibly costly and there are limits to America's budget deficits, including the willingness of foreigners to hold dollars. During 2003, the forthcoming presidential election in November 2004 inhibited further adventures but so too was the fact that the American military was overextended and had few resources to fight with. Iraq was supposed to be a short war but now it was protracted and expensive in both manpower and money. Alliances were crumbling and the most powerful nations, save the United Kingdom, rejected the war from the inception, plans for reforming the American military were in abeyance, and the goals and doctrines the Bush Administration had at its inception, and retained after September 11, were in tatters. Something went wrong for it, as it has for virtually every ambitious warring nation before it: there are countless surprises.

Doctrinally, Bush's notion of preemption still existed, even ignoring that it was more a description of the conduct of American foreign policy since at least the beginning of the 20th century than an original strategy. There were other aspects to his more lofty utterances, such as democratizing most of the Middle East if not all of it, stamping out terrorism, unilateral American action when necessary, and the like, all underpinned by the illusion that its ambitious goals were honorable and U.S. power was unlimited. But the legitimacy of preemption depended at home and abroad on getting facts right and accepting the best evidence possible on the nature of reality. Iraq's utter lack of WMD showed the U.S. in the worst possible light, its credibility was zero, as was the astounding notion-floated in late 2004-that action was justified if a nation merely thought of or intended to get such weapons in the future. The capriciousness of such thinking showed how unpredictable, threatening, and dangerous the U.S. had become, its choice of enemies arbitrary. It is a rogue nation-out of control. The net effect of American bellicosity for members of the "axis of evil," including the those who feared future inclusion in it, was to convince them that safety was to be found in building a nuclear deterrent. Compared to the period before 1990, it is far easier and cheaper to obtain them.

Intelligence has never been the basis of any great nation's foreign policy, and accurate information was ignored if it failed to reinforce what political and military leaders wish to hear. The U.S. is scarcely alone in this regard. There are situations in which information may impose constraints on options, but these are overwhelmingly tactical rather than strategic choices. There are also times when accurate information is utterly ignored even tactically, involving timing or clarity in the minds of decision-makers, and this relatively rare condition probably exists among a great many in Washington at the present moment. Then important people prefer to deceive themselves, and they surround themselves with sycophants who confirm the wisdom of their profound illusions and ignorance. Analytically, we do not often know who is deliberately issuing falsehoods-there are surely some who do this as a matter of routine-- and who is deluding themselves, much less who is doing both. Motives are difficult to fathom. But history is replete with individuals who leave us bewildered as to what they truly believe as opposed to cynically manipulate opinion to achieve and hold power.

Intelligence is, by and large if not wholly, constrained by a larger structural and ideological environment and foreign policies generally foredoom efforts to base actions on informed insights. Even when knowledge is far greater than ignorance there are decisive boundaries to its role. Wars have afflicted the world again and again for centuries precisely because blindness and stupidity is combined with spurious ideas and the irresponsibility which power allows. Americans have never been alone in this myopia, which is nigh on universal, and the Bush Administration was not much different-if at all-than most of those that preceded it. CIA directors are often political appointees with their own agendas. The press reports what it is told and is usually reverential of leaks coming from the White House, but ultimately the problem is far less information than policy. What is different is the world is far more dangerous than it was 50 years ago and destructive weapons more universally distributed than at any time in history. The consequences of doing the wrong thing make truth that much more precious.

Intelligence, in the sense of accurate information about specific topics, can become inaccurate because of policy predilections but also because there is too much of it and one is therefore free to believe what one wishes. The bad and good, or irrelevant, are all mixed together. In fact, American intelligence agencies have some very keen people working for them, and they often know a great deal about their topics. The U.S. spent at least $200 billion on signal intelligence from super-secret satellites after creating the National Reconnaissance Office in 1961. The NRO picked up everything and overstuffed the intelligence systems, allowing senior analysts to support their politically correct evaluations with all kinds of data-which in Iraq's case of WMD, to cite but one of many examples, turned out to be completely inaccurate and at total odds with an immense amount of publicly available information. Allies abandoned the U.S., its credibility has fallen immeasurably, and the doctrine of preemption is simply another reason for aggression rather than what Bush claimed he intended it to be-forestalling real rather than imaginary threats. The real danger confronting any nation, especially the U.S., is the belief that it is strong when it is not, and maintaining a faith in the power of weapons and technology when they are in fact wholly irrelevant-or even defective.

This was surely the moral of the Vietnam War, which the U.S. fought more than a decade, investing tremendous resources and manpower in it, and lost completely. That lesson is now being relearned in Iraq on a daily basis.

Gabriel Kolko is the leading historian of modern warfare. He is the author of the classic Century of War: Politics, Conflicts and Society Since 1914 and Another Century of War?. He has also written the best history of the Vietnam War, Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the US and the Modern Historical Experience. His latest book, The Age of War, was published in March 2006.

He can be reached at: kolko@counterpunch.org