Friday, January 12, 2007

A list of videos that will blow your mind thanks D!! Just Click!

Bush family background
http://www.geocities.com/alanjpakula/triplecrown.html
http://www.shorejournal.com/elkhorn
http://www.prorev.com/bush.htm
http://www.copvcia.com/witness_list.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~Evademic/naznwo/naznwo10.txt
http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/bushboys.html
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush17.html
http://www.gwbush.com
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/commentary.html
http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/midland.html
http://afrocubaweb.com/bushes.htm
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/bush.html
http://www.infomanage.com/secrets/bios/bushes.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3750/bush.htm
http://www.kmf.org/williams/bushbook.html
http://www.hli.org/issues/pp/bcreview/index.html
http://www.joinhugs.org/mainpage/bushrecord.html
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/morgue.html

CIA, Nazis & the Republican Party
http://www.bartcop.com/nazigop.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/OldNazis_NewRight.html
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/ratline.html
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/mblinks.htm
http://www.watch.pair.com/jbs-cnp.html

Philadelphia Enquirer 9/10/98 David Lee Preston, "Fired Bush
backer one of several with possible Nazi links," September 10, 1988.

Project Paperclip: the CIA Nazi recruitment program - many of the
think tanks and organizations behind Bush got their ideas directly
from these former Nazi officials.

http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/paperclip.html

Head of Florida holocaust Museum links Bush family to Nazis
"The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich." -John
Loftus, former US Justice Dept. Nazi War Crimes investigator
and President of the Florida Holocaust Museum quoted in the
Sarasota Herald-Tribune 11/11/2000

http://www.newscoast.com/headlinesstory2.cfm?ID=35115

4/14/1990 New York Times quotes George Bush as stating,
"Lets forgive the Nazi war criminals."

US releases Nazi documents (AP)
http://www.apbnews.com/media/gfiles/1999/11/03/nazis1103_01.html


Josef Goebbels on propaganda - Understand how the Big Lie
techniques used by the Bush campaign work
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

Eugenics sites (the Bush family are among the world's top
advocates for eugenics)
http://www.notdeadyet.org/eughis.html
http://www.techreview.com/articles/as96/allen.html
http://www.hli.org/issues/pp/bcreview/index.html
http://users.erols.com/straymond/EUGENICS2.htm
http://home.att.net/~eugenics
http://www.sightings.com/general3/eugene.htm
http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/SG.html

Fluoride info
(Alcoa, which plays a major role in the Bush administration, is
the world's leading producer of fluoride and was a leading ally
of Nazi Germany)
http://204.181.21.150/trufax/fluoride/flchrono.html

Gulf War Syndrome and how the George Bush administration
supplied Iraq with chemical and biological warfare materials,
allowed US servicemen and women to be exposed to them and
then covered up the entire scandal by Air Force Captain Joyce
Riley
http://www.all-natural.com/riley.html
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/gulf.htm

A very interesting chronology of world events related to the
Bush family and the new administration's goals
http://www.trufax.org/chrono/cre.html

Cheney links
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/cheney1.html
http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/08-28-00/austin_pols_feature2.html
http://www.campaignwatch.org
http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/08-28-00/austin_pols_feature2.html
http://www.l0pht.com/pub/blackcrwl/patriot/north_and_constitution.txt
http://www.findarticles.com/m1295/9_64/65014757/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0008a/cheneydislike.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/cheney.html
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/micr/introduction.html#Figure_1
http://www.l0pht.com/pub/blackcrwl/patriot/north_and_constitution.txt
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/micr/mission.html

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state
to supplant our democratic government and is working closely
with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of
opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of
our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . Certain
American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing
fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They
extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they
are helping to keep it there."-William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador
to Germany, 1937. See: Shadow of the Swastika
http://www.capnasty.org/taf/issue7/elkhorn1.htm and
http://users.actweb.net/~eye/arms_industry_world_war_2.htm

	Right Wing Organizations
	For over 25 years, People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF) has countered the Right Wing’s efforts to roll back, or stop, social justice progress and to reshape government and society to its liking. Our research center monitors the power of right-wing groups, documenting their connections, funding, and reporting on their political influence. Right-wing organizations come in all shapes and sizes, from think tanks to legal groups, local and national lobbying organizations, foundations and media forums. At any given moment, the Right is at work in our public school systems, courthouses, in Congress and state assemblies. At the same time, right-wing groups are reaching huge audiences through media outlets they own or influence—promoting regressive policies that seek to drive wedges between and among Americans. These often single-issue groups have the ability to create multi-issue networks that can respond on a wide range of issues. People For the American Way Foundation’s library has files on over 800 groups and almost 300 individuals documenting their activities and providing information about their efforts to reshape society. This section presents a small portion of that information. Accuracy in Academia African-American Life Alliance All Children Matter Inc. Alliance Defense Fund American Center for Law and Justice American Civil Rights Institute American Conservative Union American Enterprise Institute American Family Association American Legislative Exchange Council American Life League American Society for Tradition, Family and Property Americans for Tax Reform Arlington Group Black America's Political Action Committee Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Campaign for Working Families PAC Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights Cato Institute Center for the Study of Popular Culture Christian Coalition of America Christian Legal Society Club for Growth Collegiate Network Coalition for a Fair Judiciary Committee for Justice Concerned Women for America Eagle Forum Eagle Forum Collegians Family Research Council Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies Focus on the Family FRCAction Free Congress Research and Education Foundation FreedomWorks Heritage Foundation High Impact Leadership Coalition Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace Independent Women's Forum Institute for Justice Intercollegiate Studies Institute Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration Judicial Confirmation Network Landmark Legal Foundation Leadership Institute Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research Madison Project National Association of Scholars National Center for Policy Analysis National Right to Life Committee National Taxpayers Union New Coalition for Economic and Social Change State Policy Network Students for Academic Freedom Toward Tradition Traditional Values Coalition WallBuilders Young America's Foundation

	Accuracy in Academia 4455 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 330 Washington, DC 20008 www.academia.org Founded: by Reed Irvine in 1985 Executive Director: Malcolm “Mal” Kline Finances: $285, 643 (2002 budget) Publications: Campus Report, a monthly newspaper Affiliated with: Accuracy in Media AIA's Principal Issues: AIA’s Activities: AIA's History: Quotes about AIA: AIA's Principal Issues: Main issues: combating Title IX, multicultural education, and abortion, and fighting “liberal” ideas that are offensive to right-wing students. Asserts that many colleges and universities are openly dedicated to “indoctrinating” students with liberal or communist philosophy. AIA seeks to expose “the exploitation of the classroom or university resources to indoctrinate students; discrimination against students, faculty or administrators based on political or academic beliefs; and campus violations of free speech.” Back to Top AIA’s Activities: AIA monitors and documents “[t]he use of classroom and/or university resources to indoctrinate students.” AIA’s monthly publication Campus Report focuses on “three issues: the exploitation of the classroom or university resources to indoctrinate students; discrimination against students, faculty or administrators based on political or academic beliefs; and campus violations of free speech.” Sponsors an annual “Conservative University” conference. Recent speakers include: John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), Lori Waters of Eagle Forum and Conservative Caucus chairman Howard Phillips. Sells books such as Ann Coulter’s Treason,Why the Left Hates America by Daniel Flynn and Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America by Kenneth Timmerman. AIA has characterized the NAACP’s founder, W.E.B. Du Bois, as the “Father of Bad Multiculturalism.” According to AIA, “W.E.B. Du Bois is the father of the multiculturalism that is currently pervasive on American campuses. This is a multiculturalism that is…preoccupied with the negative aspects, both real and imagined, of our own culture.” Back to Top AIA's History: Founded by Reed Irvine to monitor college and university professors for teaching “disinformation” and “liberal” bias. The group clamed that 10,000 known Marxists teach on university campuses nationwide. Accuracy, Fairness and Balance in Higher Education” published in 1985. According to AIA “youth are being indoctrinated” on liberal arts campuses. AIA will investigate reports from students of seriously inaccurate information being imparted by classroom instructors—either through lectures or required reading material. AIA will try to discuss the matter with the teacher to determine whether or not the complaint is valid and to see if the teacher would be willing to make a correction. In cases where the professor declines this opportunity, AIA will employ other means to call the error to the attention of students and others who may be interested, including AIA supporters throughout the country. In the eighties the group’s monitoring campaign caused widespread controversy on higher education campuses, eliciting fear and anger among academics and students. President Reagan’s Secretary of Education, William Bennett, called Irvine’s academic watchdog group “a bad idea.” Malcolm Kline was named AIA’s new executive director in fall 2003. He worked at the National Journalism Center for twenty years. Kline has written for: Newsmax.com, National Catholic Register, Catholic News Service, and Washington Times’s Insight magazine. AIA’s former Executive Director was Daniel Flynn, author of Why the Left Hates America. Back to Top Quotes about AIA: “Accuracy in Academia plays an indispensable role in fighting the political distortions and biases that pass for knowledge on today’s college campuses. I am looking forward to being part of a campaign to challenge students to think more accurately and broad-mindedly about the fundamental issues that affect their lives.” -- Dinesh D’Souza, author and right-wing speaker “Accuracy in Academia is reaching the leaders of tomorrow with the truth about the sexual revolution ignited in the 60s and raging today all about them. This awareness is critical to properly equipping the leaders of tomorrow. Accuracy in Academia is a lone voice carrying the message of truth and hope to a generation that seldom, if ever, is able to access the truth about America's crucial and fragile social constructs that have made us free. I am proud to stand with AIA as they relentlessly seek to provide to America's college student America's measured and true standard for a free society's smallest building block, marriage and family.” -- Judith A. Reisman, a right-wing speaker and author, published Crafting “Gay” Children: An Inquiry into the Abuse of Vulnerable Youth via Government Schooling & Mainstream Media in 2001. “If sanity ever returns to the academic world, part of the credit will go to a small newspaper called Campus Report, which has exposed innumerable incidents of brainwashing replacing education on college campuses, storm trooper tactics being accepted and rewarded by ‘responsible’ college administrators, and academic and behavioral double standards being applied to the group to which one belongs, rather than one’s own behavior or performance.” -- Thomas Sowell, author and syndicated columnist Back to Top

	African-American Life Alliance The African-American Life Alliance (AALA) is a small, religious, anti-choice organization whose mission is to preach against abortion, sexual promiscuity and “illicit moral activities.” Though AALA is predominately a one-person group, its founder and director Paulette Roseboro is frequently quoted in right-wing and anti-choice materials in an effort to reach out to the African American community. The African-American Life Alliance One Staton Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3722, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20791 Website: www.lifedrum.org Founder/Executive Director: Paulette Roseboro [bio] Founded: 1991 Purpose/Mission Statement Activities History Purpose/Mission Statement The stated mission of the African-American Life Alliance (AALA) is “to educate the Black Community about how sexual promiscuity and illicit moral activities have invaded our communities and are eroding our families, organizations, schools, and churches.” The AALA focuses primarily on abolishing abortion, and preaches abstinence; it promotes teaching creationism in schools, and advocates traditional gender roles for men and women. As described by its website, the AALA argues that “The Church must be on constant vigil for Satan lurks in his darkness like a voracious lion awaiting attack. He camouflages himself in worldly reason and logic, giving unsound rationale to sinful acts.” The AALA is a religious organization that strictly interprets the Bible and condemns the practice of abortion. The AALA equates the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (which legalized abortion) to the 1857 Dred Scott Case, which legalized slavery. Both Blacks and the “Unborn” were ruled to be “non-persons,” whose lives were/are in the hands of the slave-owner or the mother, respectively. The African-American Life Alliance accepts nothing less than abstinence until marriage for sexual activity; it claims that “sexual purity is achieved only through chastity and abstinence for teens and singles and marital fidelity for marriedes [sic].” AALA argues that “condoms provide virtually no protection” against sexually-transmitted diseases. Back to Top Activities Anti-abortion articles by Paulette Roseboro have appeared on numerous right-wing sites. Roseboro also testified against human cloning before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission in 1997. Her testimony has also been posted to the anti-cloning site, BlackGenocide.org. Roseboro also assisted with the 1999 Newark, New Jersey to Washington, DC, “Say So March” – organized by the Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest, African-American “pro-life” ministry in the country. Back to Top History The African-American Life Alliance was founded in 1991 by Washington, D.C. native Paulette Roseboro, who quit her job in the federal government to pursue anti-abortion activism full-time. Roseboro is on the staffs of several religious and right-wing political organizations, such as the Greater Washington Christian Education Association, the Maryland Constitution Party – Prince George’s County Chapter and serves on the executive council of the National Clergy Council – “Dedicated to bringing classical Christian moral instruction into discourse on public policy.” Updated: April 2006 Back to Top

	All Children Matter Inc. All Children Matter (ACM) raises money through a network of organizations to help fund campaigns for pro-voucher political candidates. 229 S. Washington Street - Suite 115 Alexandria VA 22314 Website: www.allchildrenmatter.org Executive Director: Greg Brock Founded: 2003 Directors: Betsy DeVos, Richard Sharp, Greg Brock Key Staff: Lisa Lisker, Keith Davis Finances: $7.6 million projected expenditures in 2006 History Purpose Activities Funding Quotes History Dick and Betsy DeVos started All Children Matter (ACM) in the spring of 2003, to recruit, train and fund candidates who will promote vouchers across the country. Today, ACM Inc, a federal “527” organization, is the lead organization of a network of affiliates classified as state or federal Political Action Committee’s (PACs), which can donate money directly to and campaign on behalf of political candidates. With its base of wealthy funders and ability to stealthily intervene in local, state and federal political races, the ACM network is an effective tool for the movement to privatize public education. Back to Top Purpose All Children Matter was started to fund pro-voucher political candidates Aside from donating directly to campaigns, ACM also funds slick ‘issue ads’ that heavily favor pro-voucher candidates. Back to Top Activities In 2004, ACM paid for fliers in support of President Bush’s re-election campaign in Florida. The fliers do not mention vouchers, privatization or even the Right’s favorite euphemism “school choice.” The flier falsely claimed that Senator John Kerry “opposed equal opportunity in education” and stated that President Bush supported increased education funding. Campaign finance laws require political groups to clearly identify themselves on their ads. Though the phrase “no matter what, All Children Matter” appears at the bottom of the flier, ACM inc. does not explicitly claim responsibility for it. Also in 2004, ACM paid for a last minute radio ad blitz in Missouri on behalf of gubernatorial candidate Matt Blunt. After his election, Blunt appointed Ed Martin, ACM-MO’s treasurer to be his Chief of Staff and personally pushed pro-voucher legislation backed by ACM. In the summer of 2004, the estate of Wal-Mart heir John Walton donated more than $2 million to All Children Matter-Virginia, which, according to the Virginia Public Access Project promptly funneled money to an affiliate group in Florida. The Florida group then spent that money to support pro-voucher candidates in the state, without having to disclose the individuals who donated it. Relevant disclosure forms for the Florida groups will show only that money came in from All Children Matter-Virginia, with no disclosure of a connection to the Walton family. All Children Matter-Virginia appears to be the centerpiece of this scheme. ACM-VA is seeing an unprecedented cash flow even though it can only spend money in Virginia on state races and there are none in 2006. ACM-VA acts a conduit to stealthfully distribute money to other states. According to campaign finance records, just before the 2006 primary elections in Missouri, businessman and financial analyst Rex Sinquefield donated $100,000 to an All Children Matter affiliate in that state, which in turn spent the entire sum in the eight days leading up to the election on behalf of only five pro-voucher candidates. All Children Matter enabled Sinquefield to donate much more to each of these candidates than would have been legal had he given money directly to their campaigns. In a 2006 Colorado primary, ACM began pouring thousands of dollars into one race in the form of direct mail and advertisements to support a pro-voucher state incumbent who was far behind his opponent in fundraising. Back to Top Funding The All Children Matter network receives large amounts of funding from a small group of ultra-wealthy donors. These donors include Dick DeVos and other members of his family, the estate of Wall-Mart heir John Walton, JC Huizenga, Ted Forstman, Dino Cortopassi, John D. Bryan, Joseph Robert, Jr., Peter Flannigan, Richard Gilder, Rick Sharp, Roger Hertog, Virginia Manheimer, and Bruce Kovner. Back to Top Quotes "I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party. I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return.” - Betsy DeVos (Roll Call, 1997) Back to Top

	Alliance Defense Fund Founded by a group of high-profile Religious Right leaders such as D. James Kennedy and James Dobson, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) sees itself as a counter to the ACLU. As a legal group, it assists and augments the efforts of other right-wing groups to “keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel.” The ADF has been active on issues including pushing “marriage protection,” exposing the “homosexual agenda” and fighting the supposed “war on Christmas.” Alliance Defense Fund 15333 N. Pima Road - Suite 165 Scottsdale AZ 85260 Website: www.alliancedefensefund.org Founders: Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ; Larry Burkett, founder of Christian Financial Concepts; Rev. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries; Marlin Maddoux, President of International Christian Media; Don Wildmon, founder of American Family Association; and 25+ other ministries. Founded: 1994 President and General Counsel: Alan Sears Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees: Alan Sears, Wayne N. Swindler, Marv McCarthy Other Staff: 38 employees Finances: $15,744,101 (2003 budget) Major Donors: Bill and Berniece Grewcock Foundation, Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, Bradley Foundation. Principal Issues Background Alan Sears’ Background Quotes Principal Issues The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is a Christian legal firm established by more than 30 Christian ministries to help defend “family values” and work against the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). ADF defines itself by its ability to strategize and coordinate with lawyers all over the United States. Lawyers who sign up for their “Blackstone Legal Institute” are expected to donate 450 pro bono hours over a three year period. ADF has coordinated more than 750 lawyers and 125 right-wing organizations, and many conservative ministries on behalf of ADF-defined Christian legal issues. ADF claims 25 “victories” before the Supreme Court, including: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), which allowed the Boy Scouts to fire a Scout Leader due solely to his sexual orientation; United States v. American Library Association (2003), in which the Court voted to allow the federal government to withhold federal funds if libraries did not comply with the filtering called for by the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000; and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), upheld Ohio’s school voucher system, which allows for parents to send their children to private or religious schools with taxpayer-funded vouchers. ADF has linked more than 125 groups to create a combined effort to fight for their issues. They’ve brought together attorneys and allied legal groups to help develop a national strategy on controversial social issues, for example they worked with others to develop a national strategy to “protect marriage” across the United States after Vermont's decision to legalize civil unions for gays and lesbians. In addition to organizing lawyers and ministries, ADF also trains and recruits and provides grants to support legal cases as well as pro-bono assistance. ADF also defends the right of Christians to “share the gospel” in workplaces and public schools, claiming that any efforts to curb proselytizing at work and school are anti-Christian. ADF has had success in anti-gay cases all over the US, from Alaska to Massachusetts. Back to Top Background Unique to the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is their collective of high-power founders, including wealthy right-wing organizations such as Dobson’s Focus on the Family and D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries. The ADF embodies the beliefs of its founders, harnessing the efforts of a cadre of right-wing groups with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. All of these groups are influential members of the Right; they are pro-life and anti-gay, and their ultimate goal is to see the law and U.S. government enshrined with conservative Christian principles. The relationship between ADF and it’s founders is one of mutual self-interest; ADF has access to the resources and networking of large organizations, who in turn are equipped with an endless supply of readily-available lawyers. ADF’s strength goes beyond their budget due to their influence with well-funded religious-right groups. Two issues common to each of ADF’s founders are their work against the right to abortion, and against the civil rights/liberties of gays and lesbians. They are particularly persistent in attacking attempts by homosexuals to have families, establish domestic partnerships or civil unions, or to be protected from discrimination in employment or housing. Back to Top Alan Sears’ Background Alan Sears was the Executive Director of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography under President Ronald Reagan. Sears was a federal prosecutor for former Secretary of Interior Don Hodel (former Christian Coalition President), and has produced several anti-gay works, such as The Homosexual Agenda in paperback, and Exposing the Homosexual Agenda on broadcast cassette. Back to Top Quotes “The Alliance Defense Fund is a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values.” – The Alliance Defense Fund website, February 2006 Updated: August 2006 Back to Top

	American Center for Law and Justice Founded by Pat Robertson, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and its Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow quickly established themselves as key players in the right-wing movement, litigating a variety of cases at all levels, including the Supreme Court. The ACLJ has been particularly active in fighting marriage equality and defending the Pledge of Allegiance, while Sekulow has maintained very close ties to the Bush White House and played a central role in pushing for the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito. American Center for Law and Justice PO Box 64429 1000 Regent University Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23467 Website: www.aclj.org Founder: Pat Robertson, founder of the 700 Club, Christian Coalition, Operation Blessing, Regent University Date established: 1990 Executive Director/Chief Counsel: Jay Sekulow Publications: Newsletter, education pamphlets, reports, and Foundations of Freedom, a free booklet on the "nation's most important documents." Annual Budget: $14,650,162 (2004) Employees: 50 Media: Sekulow has been a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS. He is also frequently quoted in articles published in the mainstream press. Media: “Jay Sekulow Live!” is a daily weekday radio show that is aired on over 550 radio stations in the U.S., heard by 1.5 million listeners; "ACLJ This Week" broadcasts throughout the week on multiple cable TV channels. Principal Issues Activities About Jay Sekulow Quotes Principal Issues The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is a legal advocacy group “dedicated to defending and advancing religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the two-parent, marriage-bound family.” ACLJ is a strong supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage. ACLJ has been involved with more than 30 cases before the United States Supreme Court and has been successful in many of its lawsuits. ACLJ is a strong supporter of school vouchers and filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the 2002 Cleveland voucher case before the Supreme Court. The ACLJ supports the funding of faith-based social services, religious proclamations in the public domain, and often equates religious expression with patriotism. ACLJ strongly opposes the right to legal, safe abortion and provides legal help to pro-life protesters who harass women seeking reproductive services. The ACLJ challenges domestic partnership benefits for city and state employees, anti-discrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation, and generally fights against the right of gays and lesbians to be parents. The ACLJ's legal services are free. Back to Top Activities In 2004-2005, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) played a key role in the effort to eliminate the minority party’s ability to make use of a senatorial filibuster for judicial nominees. ACLJ gives free legal advice and counsel and maintains a national Christian Affiliate Attorney list for referrals. Two of the Supreme Court cases argued by Sekulow have become benchmark cases in the area of religious liberty litigation. In Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (496 US 226), Sekulow argued the right of public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, Sekulow defended the rights of religious groups to use public school property for religious meetings after hours. A few other examples of ACLJ cases: ACLJ defended a group of parents who drove a transsexual teacher out of her job in Minnesota, Supported a Kmart pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills, and Pursued litigation over various claims that children are being told that they cannot pray on school grounds or talk about their religion. Back to Top About Jay Sekulow Jay Sekulow helped draft the Defense of the Marriage Act (DOMA), which passed both houses and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DOMA allows states to reject the legitimacy of same-sex marriage licenses awarded in other states, although, to this day no state offers marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Sekulow helped draft DOMA: “[and] at the request of several pro-family legislators, [I] gave expert testimony to both houses of Congress on this bill.” (Jay Sekulow, 1997) The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers” in the United States. (1994, 1997); he is a leading conservative lawyer, and has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court. In 2005, Sekulow was named one of the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" in America by TIME Magazine. Sekulow has also worked closely with the White House in promoting and defending the Bush administration’s Supreme Court nominees. Back to Top Quotes "This great American institution [Boy Scouts of America] has come under attack from homosexual activists—who may well set their sights on your church next." – Jay Sekulow, direct mail, March 2000 "Can you imagine, that in public schools of America today, students are being taught that homosexual conduct, which in many states is still deemed illegal, is not only a viable alternative lifestyle, but is actually equal to heterosexual relationships?" – Jay Sekulow, January 2, 1997, Danbury News-Times Updated: August 2006 Back to Top

	American Civil Rights Institute Founder Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) oppose affirmative action and any government/education policies that grant priority or preference to certain racial groups over others. ACRI has promoted legislation and “reform” in state policies and individual university or college criteria to end such programs. Continuing his state-by-state attack on affirmative action policies, Connerly co-founded the so-called “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” (MCRI), a 2006 ballot initiative to ban affirmative action in state “hiring, contracting, and admissions to public schools.” On November 7, 2006, Michigan voters approved the affirmative action ban by 58-42 percent. American Civil Rights Institute P.O. Box 188350 Sacramento CA 95818 Website: www.acri.org Founder/Chairman: Ward Connerly Vice Chairman: Thomas L. Rhodes (2003) Founded/Place: 1997, California Director: Edward J. Blum Finances: $2,203,864 (2004) Publications: The Egalitarian (newsletter) Affiliate Groups: American Civil Rights Coalition; Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Purpose History Activities Funding Quotes Purpose The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) opposes affirmative action and any government/education policies that take race into consideration. It has promoted legislation and “reform” in state policies and individual university or college criteria to end such programs. Founder Ward Connerly and ACRI’s attacks on affirmative action policies have proved successful in California, Washington State and Michigan, but their efforts have failed in Florida. Back to Top History In 1996, Ward Connerly led the so-called “California Civil Rights Initiative” – the successful campaign for a ballot referendum (Proposition 209) to end all affirmative action programs in California state government. The American Civil Rights Institute – American Civil Rights Coalition was formed by Connerly in 1997 to take the battle against affirmative action nationwide. Critics charge that Connerly used his 12-year position as a University of California Regent (1993-2005) as a “bully pulpit” to promote his divisive agenda. Back to Top Activities 1998: Washington state voters approve “Initiative 200” which bans the state from using race, gender or sex to give preferential treatment in employment, contracting or public education admissions. 1999: Connerly launches a petition drive in support of a 2000 ballot initiative to overturn affirmative action policies in Florida. While proponents of the “Florida Civil Rights Initiative” gathered enough signatures and waited for the state Supreme Court to approve the ballot language, momentum faltered and organizing stopped. In March 2000, a march on the state capitol in Tallahassee by thousands of civil rights supporters angered over Gov. Jeb Bush’s own anti-affirmative action plan (“One Florida”), along with the concern of many Republicans that a 2000 ballot measure would increase moderate/progressive voter turnout and would hurt GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush, may have doomed the Florida Civil Rights Initiative. 2002: ACRI’s “Racial Privacy Initiative” – a "proposed constitutional amendment that would ban state and local governments from collecting racial data" – is certified for the California ballot. On October 7, 2003 California voters defeated the Racial Privacy Initiative (Prop 54) by a margin of 64% to 36%. Connerly blames “legal challenges filed by the unholy triumvirate of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” against ACRI and the American Civil Rights Coalition along with having the measure moved to the special election to recall Gov. Gray Davis as causes for its failure to pass. January, 2003: The Individual Rights Foundation – the legal arm of David Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture – submits an amicus brief [PDF file] on behalf of Ward Connerly to the U.S. Supreme Court inGrutter v. Bollinger & Gratz v. Bollinger, attacking the affirmative action policies of the University of Michigan. January 2003: The American Civil Rights Institute, along with the Center for Equal Opportunity and the Independent Women's Forum, filed an amicus brief [PDF file] with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the petitioners in Grutter v. Bollinger & Gratz v. Bollinger. October 2003: The American Civil Rights Institute, along with the Center for Equal Opportunity and the Independent Women's Forum, files a friend-of-the-court brief [PDF file] with the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief urges the Court to grant review in Grutter v. Bollinger. Connerly is a co-founder of the “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” – which formed to place an anti-affirmative action ballot measure on the 2006 ballot. According to its website, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) would amend “the Michigan Constitution to prohibit discrimination by state and local governments against anyone based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The ban would apply to hiring, contracting, and admissions to public schools.” The MCRI was endorsed by the Mystic Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. On November 7, 2006, Michigan voters approved the affirmative action ban (Proposal 2) by 58-42 percent. Back to Top Funding The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee gave Connerly $700,000 in 2001 for the anti-affirmative action campaign in California. That same year he got $200,000 from Richard Mellon Scaife, and another $150,000 from the Olin Foundation. In 2005, Connerly was named a “Bradley Prize” honoree by the Bradley Foundation and awarded $250,000 by the right-wing foundation. Back to Top Quotes "Recent events in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina have reaffirmed for me, however, the complete folly of any Republican strategy to increase black representation in the Republican Party by appeals based on race. Whatever the name – 'African American Outreach' or 'Black Republicans for Bush' – any effort to attract blacks or any other ethnic group to the Republican party, based on explicit or implicit appeals to race or ethnic identity, are not only a waste of time and resources, but are also misguided and potentially quite damaging to the nation." – Ward Connerly ["End the Race Party," National Review, September 30, 2005] "Let it be said that when given a chance to complete the liberation of black Americans, on June 23, 2003 five justices consigned them to another generation — or, perhaps, a term of indefinite duration — of virtual enslavement to the past." – Ward Connerly, responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Michigan rulings ["Murder at the Supreme Court," National Review, July 26, 2003] "The Grutter and Gratz decisions, taken together, represent a sad and tragic chapter in American history." – Ward Connerly, responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Michigan rulings [National Review, July 26, 2003] "The court made a very ambiguous ruling - and a sickening one. It left the nation in the position of agony. . . . We will be fighting this battle for another 25 years or more." – Ward Connerly, responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Michigan rulings [Washington Times, July 24, 2003] "Passionate ideological opposition to race preferences does not seem to be part of the Bush DNA, and President Bush has been no exception to this rule . . . It is not the legitimate business of government in America to promote 'diversity.'" – Ward Connerly on the White House briefs in the Supreme Court Michigan cases, Washington Times [January 21, 2003] Updated: November 2006 Back to Top

	American Conservative Union Founded by William F. Buckley in 1964, the American Conservative Union (ACU) is one of the nation’s oldest lobbying groups on the Right. It is best known for its annual ratings of Congress and its sponsorship of the annual Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC), a gathering of Washington insiders, right-wing pundits and grassroots activists from across the country. American Conservative Union 1007 Cameron Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Websites: www.conservative.org or www.cpac.org Founders: William F. Buckley, Jr.: L. Brent Bozell: Frank S. Meyer; John Chamberlain; Jameson Campaigne, Sr.; John Ashbrook; Katherine St. George; and Robert E. Bauman Chairman: David A. Keene Established: December 1964 Finances: American Conservative Union [501(c)4] - $3,810,745 (2004) and American Conservative Union Foundation [501(c)3] - $1,068,592 (2005) Board members include: Senator Jesse Helms; Grover Norquist, Morton Blackwell, also on the Conservative Leadership PAC and Free Congress Foundation boards; and Becky Norton Dunlop, also serves on boards of the Heritage Foundation, the Family Foundation and Century Communications Frequent Donors: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; the Bill and Berniece Grewcock Foundation; and the William E. Simon Foundation Affiliated with: American Conservative Union Foundation, American Conservative Union PAC, Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Publications: Battle Line quarterly newsletter, along with reports and legislative guides for Congress Principle Issues Activities History Quotes about ACU Quotes from ACU Principle Issues The American Conservative Union (ACU) defines itself as the nation's oldest conservative lobbying organization. ACU is a multi-issue, umbrella organization that specializes in grassroots organizing as well as organizing and supporting conservative leadership. The organization’s mission statement describes its commitment to “a market economy, the doctrine of original intent of the framers of the Constitution, traditional moral values, and a strong national defense.” Back to Top Activities Since 1971, the American Conservative Union (ACU) has published Congressional member ratings on a scale of zero to 100, according to their conservative standards. Since 1974, ACU has hosted the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). CPAC is the largest conservative conference in the United States. CPAC speakers have included: Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Dick Armey, Jesse Helms, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Senator Sam Brownback, Bob Barr, Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye, William Bennett, Ralph Reed, columnist George Will, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Grover Norquist, Charlton Heston of the NRA, Condoleezza Rice, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Oliver North, Rev. Lou Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition, and many other conservative pundits, writers, and politicians. ACU claims its “most significant efforts,” include “fighting to keep OSHA off the backs of small businesses; opposing the Panama Canal giveaway; challenging the SALT treaties; supporting aid to freedom fighters in communist countries; promoting the confirmation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court; advocating near-term deployment of strategic defenses; and battling against higher taxes and wasteful government spending.” In 1992, the ACU Board of Directors endorsed Patrick Buchanan's presidential candidacy. During the Clinton presidency, ACU remained a strong, vocal critic on issues such as health care. ACU’s director Donald Devine led a country-wide bus tour, called the “National Health Care Truth Tour.” Hillary Clinton herself stated that ACU’s activities were largely responsible for the defeat of the administration’s health plan proposal in 1993. ACU opposes the Patriot Act and in March 2005, joined the "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances," coalition which includes groups ranging from the Americans for Tax Reform and the American Civil Liberties Union. Back to Top History In 1974, ACU established and sponsored the first Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Reagan was a “long-time friend and ally” of ACU. In 1975, ACU asked Ronald Reagan to run for president, and has since assumed credit for the success of his ultimate election in 1980. ACU and its state affiliates established one of the first independent campaigns on behalf of a presidential candidate. ACU orchestrated the campaign to elect Reagan, running hundreds of radio and newspaper ads comparing candidate Reagan to President Ford, labeling Reagan a conservative visionary and Ford a liberal. ACU launched "Project One Million" in 1981, seeking at least one million backers of a "Petition of Support" for Reagan's economic plan. Back to Top Quotes about ACU “The ACU doesn't rate presidents, but a president can rate you. This is a fine group of decent citizens, principled citizens, and tonight I am proud to stand with the ACU.” – President George W. Bush, 2004 (ACU website) "ACU is the key to my plans to change the direction of government." – President Ronald Reagan (ACU website) "Conservatives all across America can be proud of what ACU has accomplished over the years. Moreover, its future promises a vital role in the struggle to return our nation to the principles upon which it was founded." – Senator Jesse Helms (ACU website) Back to Top Quotes from ACU “A body turned up on Capitol Hill this past week – beaten to a pulp, almost unrecognizable. Its name: Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). That’s the bill that would have granted amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and invited the world to come UNINVITED to our house and bring the kids. The death of CIR is a victory for our side. But sadly, like the Frankenstein monster, CIR will probably rise from the dead after the fall elections.” – ACU Action Alert, September 28, 2006 “We MUST demand -- NOW -- that a united Republican delegation bring ALL conservative nominees to the floor for an up-or-down vote! Some of the best judges in the nation have been left twisting in the wind -- literally for years -- while conservatives bicker among themselves. The time to break the back of liberal judicial obstruction once and for all is NOW!” – ACU Action Alert, August 29, 2006 Updated: December 2006 Back to Top

	American Enterprise Institute The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is one of the oldest and most influential of the pro-business right-wing think tanks. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and has been extremely successful in placing its people in influential governmental positions, particularly in the Bush Administration. AEI has been described as one of the country's main bastions of neoconservatism. American Enterprise Institute 1150 Seventeenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Website: www.aei.org Established: 1943 President/Executive Director: Christopher DeMuth Finances: $24,934,545 (2003 income) Employees: more than 50 resident scholars and fellows Board of Trustees: Chairman Bruce Kovner (Caxton Associations, LLC); Vice Chair Lee R. Raymond (Exxon Mobil Corporation); Treasurer Tully M. Friedman (Friedman, Fleischer, & Lowe LLC); Gordon M. Binder (Coastview Capital, LLC); Harlan Crow (Crow Holdings); Christopher DeMuth (American Enterprise Institute); Morton H. Fleischer (Spirit Finance Corp.); Christopher B. Galvin (Motorola); Raymond V. Gilmartin (Merck & Co.); Harvey Golub (American Express Co.); Robert F. Greenhill (Greenhill & Co., LLC) ; Roger Hertog (Alliance Capital Management Corporation); Martin M. Koffel (URS Corporation); John A. Luke, Jr. (MeadWestvaco Corp.); L. Ben Lytle (Anthem, Inc.); Alex Mandl (Gemplus International); Robert A. Pritzker (Colson Associates, Inc.); J. Joe Ricketts (Ameritrade Holding Corporation); Kevin B. Rollins (Dell, Inc.); John W. Rowe (Exelon Corp.); Edward B. Rust, Jr. (State Farm Insurance Co.); William S. Stavropoulos (Dow Chemical Co.); Wilson H. Taylor (CIGNA Corp.); Marilyn Ware (American Water); James Q. Wilson (Pepperdine University) Publications: Monthly newsletter, dozens of books and hundreds of articles and reports each year, and a glossy policy magazine, The American Enterprise. Principal Issues American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a think tank for conservatives, neoconservatives, and conservative libertarians. Areas of interest include: America’s “culture war,” domestic policy and federal spending, education reform, neoconservatism, affirmative action, and welfare reform. President George W. Bush has appointed over a dozen people from AEI to senior positions in his administration. AEI claims that this is more than any other research institution. Activities AEI sponsors and participates in debates and lectures on many issues. AEI scholars have testified before Congress on a variety of issues. Several AEI scholars have written articles in favor of government censorship of the arts. Scholar Michael Novak has argued that prayer belongs in public schools and that it doesn’t violate the establishment clause. AEI scholars have advocated federally-funded school voucher programs. Background and History Most of AEI’s Board of Directors are CEOs of major companies, including ExxonMobil, Motorola, American Express, State Farm Insurance, and Dow Chemicals. Big donors include the top conservative foundations, including Smith-Richardson Foundation, the Olin Foundation, the Scaife Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Corporate supporters have included: General Electric Foundation, Amoco, Kraft Foundation, Ford Motor Company Fund, General Motors Foundation, Eastman Kodak Foundation, Metropolitan Life Foundation, Proctor & Gamble Fund, Shell Companies Foundation, Chrysler Corporation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, General Mills Foundation, Pillsbury Company Foundation, Prudential Foundation, American Express Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Corning Glass Works Foundation, Morgan Guarantee Trust, Smith-Richardson Foundation, Alcoa Foundation, and PPG Industries. Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron, was until recently on the board of trustees of American Enterprise Institute. Other famous former trustees include Vice President Dick Cheney. AEI Fellows and Scholars [partial list] Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House. David Frum, a presidential speechwriter for President Bush, contributing editor to the right-wing magazine Weekly Standard. Christina Hoff Sommers, anti-feminist crusader, author of Who Stole Feminism? How Women Betrayed Women. Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a book that asserted inherent intelligence differences between the races. Ben J. Wattenberg, host of PBS weekly show “Think Tank.” Updated: August 2006

	American Family Association The American Family Association (AFA) has been a long-time promoter of "traditional moral values" in the media, particularly television. AFA built its reputation on organizing boycotts against sponsors of TV shows with "anti-Christian" messages and ideas, or against companies it claims support the so-called "homosexual agenda" or marriage equality. American Family Association P.O. Box 2440 Tupelo, Mississippi 38803 Website: www.afa.net Chairman/Founder: The Rev. Donald Wildmon Vice President: Tim Wildmon (son of Donald Wildmon) Founded: 1977 Formerly known as: National Federation for Decency (Changed in 1988) Membership: AFA claims over 500,000 members Finances: $14,186,203 (2004) Staff: About 100 employees and five full-time lawyers Board of Directors: Donald Wildmon, Timothy Wildmon, Forrest Daniels, Rev. Curtis Petrey, Rev. Jack Williams, Rev. Burt Harper, Rev. Bobby Hankins, Dr. Gayle Alexander, Forest Sheffield, Rev. Tim Fortner (2004) State chapters: State Directors in 12 states Funding: From 1998 to 2003, the AFA received $90,000 from 6 grants contributed by the Bill and Berniece Grewcock Foundation Publications: AFA Journal, published monthly, with a circulation of 180,000 Radio: AFA has its own 200-station network of radio stations across the United States Media: AFA has produced videos entitled, “Excess Access,” “It’s Not Gay,” and “Suffer the Children” Affiliate groups: AFA Foundation, Center for Law & Policy, American Family Radio, American Family News Network‘s OneNewsNow.com (formerly Agape Press), and AFA Action - the legislative action arm of the American Family Association Affiliated Websites: ValuesVoters.com – a voter registration and education site; Center for Law & Policy Case Note (blog); OneMillionDads.com; OneMillionMoms.com; AFA Internet Filtering; NoGayMarriage.com; and BoycottFord.com among others Principal Issues Activities AFA Center for Law and Policy AFA State Affiliates Quotes Principal Issues The American Family Association (AFA) targets the media and entertainment industry’s "attack" on "traditional family values." Two of the main duties that AFA assigns to itself are "promoting the centrality of God in American life" and "promoting the Christian ethic of decency." "Indecent” influences in American culture include: television, the separation of church and state, pornography, "the homosexual agenda," premarital sex, legal abortion, the National Endowment for the Arts, gambling, unfiltered internet access in libraries, and the removal of school-sponsored religious worship from public schools. Back to Top Activities The American Family Association (AFA) produces a radio show, “AFA Report,” a 30-minute feature available on about 1,200 local radio stations nationwide. AFA launched their broadcast ministry American Family Radio (AFR) in 1987. AFR has approximately 200 radio stations in 27 states across the country. According to American Family Radio, “AFR has built more stations in a shorter time than any other broadcaster in the history of broadcasting.” The AFA built their small radio empire by applying for “noncommercial educational licenses.” When the FCC refused to certain licenses, the AFA sued the FCC in federal court arguing that to deny religious groups noncommercial broadcasting licenses violates their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. AFA Action – the legislative action arm of the American Family Association – co-sponsored the 2006 Values Voter Summit with FRC Action, Focus on the Family Action, and Gary Bauer’s Americans United to Preserve Marriage. For over twenty years, one of AFA’s primary activities has been the organization of boycotts against sponsors of TV shows with “anti-Christian” messages and ideas. A few of the hundreds of boycott targets on AFA’s list have included “Saturday Night Live,” “Roseanne,” “Nightline,” “NYPD Blue,” “Ellen,” and “Desperate Housewives.” A major target of AFA’s had been Disney and its subsidiaries; “Disney’s attack on America’s families has become so blatant, so intentional, so obvious, that American Family Association has called for a boycott of all Disney products until such time as this activity ceases.” AFA ended its boycott of Disney in 2005, citing the departure of Disney CEO Michael Eisner and its divestiture of Miramax films as rationale, but openly stating “AFA had moved on to other important issues, such as an increasingly activist judiciary and the push for same-sex marriage.” AFA has created two websites - OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com to “help parents do something about the trash on TV.” Both websites organize weekly on-line boycotts of offensive advertising or television shows. The American Family Association (AFA) is alerting its members to companies who are supportive of GLBT employees and is asking “Christian consumers…to think twice before they patronize companies that support the homosexual agenda.” AFA lists major corporations that have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation or that offer domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples, including Eastman Kodak, Citigroup, PepsiCo., American Airlines, Allstate Insurance, and the Coca-Cola Company. “One company losing five to ten percent of its sales will send a clear message to every company in America,” offers Don Wildmon. AFA attacked Kraft Foods (owner of brand names Post, Oscar Meyer, and Maxwell House, among others) for the company’s support of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. Wal-Mart and its affiliate Sam’s Club became an AFA boycott target because of the retailer’s support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The American Family Association has called for a national boycott of the Ford Motor Company over the manufacturer’s sponsorship of gay pride events and continued advertising in gay publications. AFA claims its boycott has played a major part in Ford’s drop in sales. Donald Wildmon has called for the shutdown of PBS and as a result of the AFA's campaign, many state legislatures reduced funding for public broadcasting. The AFA spearheaded the attack on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the 1980’s, using direct mail and extensive print advertising to distort the NEA's record of sponsorship of the arts. The AFA participates in Pornography Awareness Week. Back to Top AFA Center for Law and Policy In 1990, the American Family Association established the AFA Center for Law & Policy as a litigation and public policy arm of the organization. The Center for Law & Policy (CLP) is staffed by six full-time attorneys with a network of more than 400 affiliate lawyers. The CLP states that they provide representation to Christians in courts throughout the country, and advise state and federal legislators on constitutional, political, and legal issues. The CLP has been involved in several cases where they push for religious worship and symbols in public schools as well as the removal of curriculum that doesn’t reflect “traditional family values.” AFA has spearheaded a campaign to have their “In God We Trust” posters posted in every classroom, in every school in the United States. In 2001, the Mississippi state legislature passed a law requiring that each public school classroom, auditorium and cafeteria display a “In God We Trust” poster. However, when the Mississippi state legislature did not provide any funding for the bill, AFA/CLP volunteered to be the coordinator for the project. AFA/CLP is responsible for organizing and distributing 32,000 free “In God We Trust” posters in public schools in the state of Mississippi. AFA/CLP has encouraged other states to follow Mississippi’s example, promising that anyone who may be afraid of a lawsuit would be defended by the AFA Center for Law & Policy for free. In 2001, AFA distributed 250,000 “In God We Trust” posters nationwide. CLP represented the anti-gay group “Take Back Maryland” when they were accused of falsifying signatures for a petition to reverse an anti-discrimination bill that protected gays and lesbians from bias discrimination in employment and housing. AFA filed lawsuits attempting to ban the curriculum, “Impressions,” from public school classrooms on the grounds that it “promotes the religion of witchcraft.” AFA sponsored a rally in support of Judge Roy Moore of Alabama who refused to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom. AFA Center for Law & Policy (CLP) won a lawsuit on behalf of pro-life protesters in Elkhorn, Wisconsin, over protest signs confiscated and held by city officials. Back to Top AFA State Affiliates Many of AFA’s state chapters are very active on a state and local level. Gary Glenn of AFA Michigan has become a lightening rod in the state for controversy over civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. Glenn has opposed the anti-discrimination policies of several Michigan cities by asserting that if passed, public bathrooms and showers would become co-ed. After the legislation passed in several towns, Glenn organized petitions to overturn the legislation, asserting that gays and lesbians pose a “public health hazard.” Glenn also has targeted a 4th grade environmental education course, alleging that the program is “anti-human” and promotes paganism. The former California director for AFA was Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries and the Pro-Family Law Center. Lively is a long-time anti-gay activist who has written such books as The Pink Swastika which claims that “homosexuals [are] the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities.” [From the The Pink Swastika preface.] Lively has also written 7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child and The Poisoned Stream: “Gay” Influence in Human History. Under his leadership, AFA California launched the “California Campaign to Take Back the Schools” to stop the “homosexualization of American public schools.” Back to Top Quotes “Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period.” – Don Wildmon, AFA Press Release, April 16, 2001 “We believe the national motto incorporates the foundational belief of our culture, and its words ‘In God we trust’ are a message our children need to see in school.” – Don Wildmon, AFA Journal cover story, July 2001 “But the National PTA continued right along, increasingly becoming a tool to promote a left-wing philosophy instead of helping the children with their educational needs. The latest project for the National PTA is the promotion of the homosexual agenda…Stop the PTA from using your children to promote their left-wing political agenda.” – Don Wildmon, AFA Journal, February 2001 “Over the years, AFA has consistently addressed the homosexual movement's obsession with infiltrating the public school system. Its eye-opening video ‘It's Not Gay’, which presents a heartbreaking look at the physical and emotional consequences of the homosexual lifestyle, has been the most popular video ever produced by AFA.” (“Homosexuals push for control of schools,” May 2001) “Nothing disappointed the [American Family Association] more than Disney's enthusiastic embrace of [the homosexual] movement that rejects everything that is sacred to Christians about human sexuality, marriage and family.” (“Why the Disney Boycott Shouldn't Go Away,” April 2001) On Christians in the public square: “Christians must be equally willing to take the heat, and to shrug off the rabid attacks of the media babblers who see Christians as the enemy.” – News Editor Ed Vitagliano, AFA Journal, July 2005 “The church and this nation cry out for a revival of masculine Christianity, which is to say that we church leaders need to stop being such, for lack of a better word, sissies when it comes to social and political issues. We need to spend as much time confronting perpetrators as we do comforting victims. We need to do less fretting, and more fighting for righteousness. For every motherly, feminine ministry of the church such as a Crisis Pregnancy Center or ex-gay support group, we need a battle-hardened, take-it-to-the-enemy masculine ministry like Operation Rescue (questions of civil disobedience aside). For every God-hating radical in government, academia and media we need a bold, no-nonsense, truth-telling Christian counterpart: trained, equipped and endorsed by the local church.” – Scott Lively, author of The Pink Swastika and former Director of AFA California (source) “Under homosexual activists' political agenda, our children would face a future in which traditional marriage and families have been legally devalued, while state government – despite the severe threat it poses to personal and public health – not only legally endorses but uses our tax dollars to subsidize deadly homosexual behavior.” – Gary Glenn, Director of AFA Michigan (Press Release, February 17, 2001) Updated: November 2006 Back to Top

	American Legislative Exchange Council Founded in the early 1970s to promote right-wing policies at the state level, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s focus has shifted to favor the promotion of state legislation and regulation that benefits its corporate sponsors. A fact that should come as no surprise given its funding by right-wing foundations and corporate membership fees ranging from $5000 to $50,000. The council boasts a large clearinghouse of research, model bills, and legislative strategies to promote its agenda. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) 1129 20th Street NW - Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Website: www.alec.org Founders: Paul Weyrich, Henry Hyde, Lou Barnett, and others Executive Director: Duane Parde Established: 1973 Financials: $5,640,684 (2003 budget) Employees: 29 Board Members: Georgia Representative Earl Ehrhart; Kansas Senator Susan Wagle; Iowa Representative Delores Mertz; Arkansas Senator Steve Faris; Nebraska Senator L. Patrick Engel; Mississippi Senator William G. Hewes III Private Enterprise Board: Kurt L. Malmgren, PhRMA; Jerry Watson, American Bail Coalition; Scott Fisher, Altria Corporate Services; Pete Poynter, BellSouth; Michael K. Morgan, Koch Industries; Allan E. Auger, Coors Brewing Co.; Ronald F. Scheberle, Verizon Communications, Inc. Membership: claims 2,400 state legislators as members Publications: ALEC Policy Forum: A Journal for State and National Policymakers, policy papers, Task Force reports (9), Leadership Briefing (newsletter), Inside ALEC (monthly publication) For more information see "Corporate America’s Trojan Horse in the States" from Defenders of Wildlife and National Resources Defense Council. Principal Issues Activities Funding History ALEC Quotes: Principal Issues The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a right-wing public policy organization with strong ties to major corporations, trade associations and right-wing politicians. ALEC’s agenda includes rolling back civil rights, challenging government restrictions on corporate pollution, limiting government regulations of commerce, privatizing public services, and representing the interests of the corporations that make up its supporters. ALEC’s mission: “To promote the principles of federalism by developing and promoting policies…To enlist state legislators from all parties and members of the private sector who share ALEC’s mission…To conduct a policy-making program that unites members of the public and private sector in a dynamic partnership to support research, policy development, and dissemination activities.” ALEC claims that it is “the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators”—all of ALEC’s officers who are state legislator members are Republican. ALEC is supported by many right-wing foundations and organizations, including, but not limited to: National Rifle Association, Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Milliken Foundation, DeVos Foundation, Bradley Foundation, and the Olin Foundation. ALEC has over three hundred corporate sponsors. Several well-known and closely-tied organizations include: Enron, American Nuclear Energy Council, American Petroleum Institute, Amoco, Chevron, Coors Brewing Company, Shell, Texaco, Union Pacific Railroad, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, Phillip Morris, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. ALEC has proposed that many public services, such as schools, prisons, public transportation, and social and welfare services, be taken over by for-profit private businesses. One of ALEC’s central concerns is government regulations of businesses, especially ones that protect the environment and/or public health. Back to Top Activities ALEC develops and creates “model” legislation and through its national political network lobbies to get it passed in state legislatures. According to ALEC: “During the 1999-2000 legislative cycle, ALEC legislators introduced more than 3100 pieces of legislation based on our models, and more than 450 of these were enacted…In the legislative sessions of 2000, there were more than 2150 introductions promoting ALEC policy.” ALEC has 9 “Task Forces” - Commerce & Economic Development Task Force; Criminal Justice Task Force; Energy, Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture Task Force; Tax & Fiscal Policy Task Force; Trade & Transportation Task Force; Health & Human Services Task Force; Education Task Force; Telecommunications & Information Technology Task Force; and the Federalism Task Force. ALEC works closely with the State Policy Network, a national network of right-wing groups and foundations that push their agenda on the local and state level. ALEC has been a strong supporter of deregulation of various industries. For example, in the 1990’s ALEC championed deregulation of the electricity industry by arguing that states had a monopoly over the “utility markets.” During this time Kenneth Lay of Enron was an active, outspoken member who strongly supported deregulation. ALEC has had some success in attempts to privatize education. It created the first private school voucher legislation that proposed giving public education funds to private schools, and is currently celebrating the 2005 passage of a school choice bill in Utah. ALEC strongly supports Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, and argues that market competition will force public schools to improve or be put out of business. ALEC applauds the decision to not sign the “economy-busting Kyoto Protocol,” which it accurately describes as the “international treaty to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.” Back to Top Funding Between 1985-2002, ALEC received 53 grants totaling $2.836 million from a short list of conservative foundations. These included the Allegheny Foundation, Castle Rock Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, and the Koch, Bradley, and Olin Foundations, among others. Corporate membership fees range between $5,000 and $50,000 with additional annual fees to participate in certain task forces. In 2002, Exxon contributed $193,200 to ALEC, jumping to $290,000 the following year. Back to Top History ALEC’s early years conformed to Paul Weyrich’s vision, focusing on standard right-wing causes such as opposing abortion and women’s rights and supporting school prayer. In the 1980s ALEC’s focus changed due to increased corporate interest and donations. ALEC was one of President Reagan’s strongest supporters throughout the 1980s, for which it gained significant notoriety. Many of ALEC’s key employees were offered jobs in the Reagan administration. In the mid-1980s ALEC began its own political action committee, ALEC-PAC, which targeted key races to influence partisan control of state legislatures. Back to Top ALEC Quotes: “Our members join for the purpose of having a seat at the table. That’s just what we do, that’s the service we offer. The organization is supported by money from the corporate sector, and, by paying to be members, corporations are allowed the opportunity to sit down at the table and discuss the issues that they have an interest in.” -Dennis Bartlett, ALEC, 1997 Updated: April 2006 Back to Top

	American Life League Founded by Judie and Paul Brown with help from right-wing strategist Paul Weyrich, the American Life League (ALL) is a spin-off from the National Right to Life Committee with a more grassroots orientation. ALL is closely aligned with the Catholic Church and opposes birth control, stem cell research and euthanasia. ALL was an enthusiastic backer of the extreme anti-abortion tactics promoted by Operation Rescue. American Life League P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555 Website: www.all.org Established: 1979 President/Founder: Judie Brown Finances:: $7,365,884 (2003) Membership: claims 300,000 members Formerly known as: American Life Lobby Board Members: Judie Brown; Scarlett Clark; Mildred F. Jefferson, M.D.; Robert Sassone, Esq.; and Phillippe Schepens, M.D. Principal Issues Activities Judie Brown is the grandmother of the modern anti-choice movement Friends and Allies in High Places History Principal Issues To end all forms of abortion without any exceptions made for the health and life of the mother, rape or incest. ALL's work includes campaigns against the use of all contraceptives, lobbying for “abstinence-only education” and the elimination of sex education in public schools. ALL also fights against euthanasia, fetal tissue and embryo research, and questions the use of vaccines, such as rubella, that are created from human tissue cells. Brown has strongly criticized President George W. Bush for not supporting the Human Life Amendment and has chastised other conservative groups for giving him any support. According to Judie Brown, “Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life.” Back to Top Activities Organizes grassroots activists. Lobbies on behalf of its issues. Produces educational materials and publishes a weekly newsletter. Participates in legal action. ALL has its own voting mobilization project. Sells anti-abortion clothing, jewelry, stickers, and brochures. In 2004, ALL published a full-page advertisement in USA Today urging Catholic priests and bishops to deny Communion to Catholic legislators who support abortion rights. Back to Top Judie Brown is the grandmother of the modern anti-choice movement ALL’s early networking created the foundation for the outspoken anti-abortion movement in the 1980s and the established movement as it exists now. ALL helped to establish the “rescue” movement, which made the use of aggressive tactics to disrupt reproductive health services commonplace. These tactics, adopted and popularized by ALL, include “sidewalk counseling,” clinic blockades, and the systematic harassing and intimidation of patients, clinics and doctors. According to Brown these activities are “free speech” and in 1994 ALL filed charges over the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act (FACE) in American Life League v. Reno. ALL lost in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Back to Top Friends and Allies in High Places ALL defends anti-choice activists who have been arrested for blocking clinics and has applauded the controversial work of Operation Rescue and Randall Terry. In 1996 when Bill Bennett and Ralph Reed questioned the GOP’s absolutist anti-abortion plank, Judie Brown gathered together 11 pro-life leaders including Family Research Council’s Gary Bauer and Focus on the Family’s James Dobson to express their strong support of the Human Life Amendment and collective rejection of any exceptions for abortion. Judie Brown is allegedly a member of the clandestine right-wing organization Council for National Policy. Back to Top History In 1979, Judie Brown broke from the National Right To Life Committee to form ALL. Within less than a year of its founding, ALL had 68,000 members. ALL received virtually free publicity from religious-right leader Paul Weyrich with the help of right-wing direct mail specialist Richard Viguerie’s massive membership lists. Updated: April 2006 Back to Top

	American Society for Tradition, Family and Property This right-wing Catholic group is one of many Tradition, Family, Property groups (TFPs) worldwide, inspired by the work of the Brazilian Catholic intellectual, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. They are frequent sponsors of protests of books and movies they consider “anti-Catholic” and focus on organizing young people against “leftist bias” on campus. American Society for Tradition, Family, and Property 1358 Jefferson Road Spring Grove, Pennsylvania 17362 Website: www.tfp.org President: Raymond E. Drake Founded: 1973 Secretary-Treasurer: Benjamin A. Hiegert Board of Directors: Luiz A. Fragelli; Raymond E. Drake; Robert E. Ritchie; John W. Horvat II; Charles P. Noell III; and Gary J. Isbell Staff: 60 paid staff members and 75 full-time volunteers Finances: $2,660,546 (2004 net assets) $4,953,327 (2004 total revenue) Publications: Rejecting the Da Vinci Code; Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement; Revolution and Counter-Revolution; anti-abortion papers; Crusade magazine; and LulaWatch, the electronic bi-weekly publication of the TFP Washington Bureau Affiliate Groups: America Needs Fatima (120,000 members); Student Action Purpose Activites Funding History Purpose In words of the American Society for Tradition, Family, and Property they are “a civic organization of Catholic inspiration that seeks to defend in a legal and peaceful way, the basic values of Christian Civilization, namely tradition, family and property.” The American TFP bases its ideas on the principles outlined in the handbook Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. [source] Back to Top Activites The American TFP holds public meetings, lectures, youth and adult seminars, and a youth summer program. They also conducts protests, boycotts, petitions, ad campaigns and letter-writing campaigns, and publishes books and articles. TFP staffs St. Louis be Montefort Academy, an all-boys Catholic boarding school, in Herndon, Pennsylvania. TFP Student Action’s website sponsors seminars bringing college students together from across the nation to analyze, discuss pressing issues of the day. [source] Sponsored the “Reject the DaVinci Code” campaign to promote protests against the 2006 film and offered an organizers’ handbook with downloadable posters, brochures, newspaper ads and more. They claim to have inspired more than 2000 protests in front of movie theaters across the country. [source] Back to Top Funding The TFP is financed by a network of individual donors nationwide. Back to Top History The organization was started in Brazil in 1960 by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, and now claims over twenty TFPs or TFP-inspired groups worldwide. Updated: January 2007 Back to Top

	Americans for Tax Reform As an organization, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is best known for its “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” which asks candidates for federal and state office to commit themselves in writing to oppose all tax increases. The group is led by Grover Norquist, described by the Wall Street Journal as the “the V.I. Lenin of the anti-tax movement.” He is renowned in right-wing and Republican circles for his ability to unite the various right-wing interests into coalitions to achieve a common goal. Americans for Tax Reform 1920 L Street NW - Suite 200 Washington DC 20036 Website: www.atr.org Established: Americans for Tax Reform was founded in the mid-80s inside the Reagan White House. Norquist was tapped to head the group as an in-house operation to build support for the 1986 tax reform bill. President/Executive Director: Grover Norquist Finances: $3,912,958 (2004); ATR is a 501(c)(4) organization. Employees: 14 High-profile staffers include: Peter Ferrara, ATR’s former general counsel and chief economist, is currently founder and President of the Virginia Chapter for the Club for Growth. Membership: 60,000 Affiliations: Americans for Tax Reform Foundation is the education and research arm of ATR. ATR is a member of the State Policy Network and of townhall.com, a right-wing Internet portal founded by the Heritage Foundation. Publication: The Tax Reformer Principal Issues Activities History and Background About Grover Norquist ATR alumni in the Bush administration Quotes by Grover Norquist Quotes about Americans for Tax Reform Principal Issues From Americans for Tax Reform's mission statement: “ATR opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle. We believe in a system in which taxes are simpler, fairer, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today. The government’s power to control one’s life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized… ATR serves as a national clearinghouse for the grassroots taxpayers’ movement by working with approximately 800 state and county level groups.” ATR serves as the operational base for President Grover Norquist’s vast political operation. ATR Foundation has received a number of grants from right wing foundations, including Olin, Scaife, Bradley, etc. ATR is heavily funded by a number of corporate backers, with the tobacco, gambling and alcohol industries figuring most prominently in 1999. Other recent ATR funders have included Microsoft, Pfitzer, AOL Time Warner and UPS. Back to Top Activities Americans for Tax Reform provides support to right-wing policies and candidates. In 1999, it spent $4.2 million on a television ad campaign touting the GOP tax plan. ATR has also taken a lead in other causes dear to the GOP’s right wing, such as opposing campaign finance reform and attacking the 2000 presidential bid of Senator John McCain. During the 1996 elections ATR flooded 150 congressional districts with mail and phone calls which was supported by a $4.6 million donation from the Republican National Committee. In 2001 ATR formed the “State Legislature Advisory Project,” described as a “national effort to involve state legislators and Indian nations in federal policy…[which] provides a backdrop of the state delegation’s opinion when the issue becomes one of national importance.” This Project calls annually for extensions and permanence of conservative, costly tax cuts. In 2001 it encouraged states to pass the Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, and in subsequent years pushed for permanently ending the “Death Tax,” abolishing the Alternative Minimum Tax, privatizing Social Security, and drastically increasing defense spending. This project works closely with the President and Majority Members in the House and Senate. ATR supported John G. Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court, and criticized opponents for “subjecting [Roberts] to litmus tests on a laundry list of the extreme Left’s pet issues.” ATR president Grover Norquist conducts an invitation-only, off-the-record Wednesday meetings that includes representatives of the National Rifle Association, the Christian Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, reporters and editors from conservative media outlets, and a variety of corporate lobbyists. Since the arrival of President Bush, the meetings also include representatives of the White House, the Republican National Committee and the House and Senate leadership. Back to Top History and Background Americans for Tax Reform was originally founded inside the Reagan White House and later became officially independent. Norquist was a key grassroots proponent of the Contract With America and was Gingrich’s top unofficial advisor. ATR, in 1999, received major donations from Phillip Morris, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (a group represented by the controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff), Microsoft, Time Warner, and Pfizer. Phillip Morris contributed $685,000, and the Choctaw Indians, $360,000. Back to Top About Grover Norquist Grover Norquist is also on the boards of the National Rifle Association of America and the American Conservative Union. Norquist forged an early alliance with President Bush, traveling to Austin, Texas to meet with then-Governor Bush and his political advisor Karl Rove right after Bush's 1998 reelection. Norquist threw the full force of his influence behind the Bush campaign, playing a key role in defeating Sen. John McCain in the South Carolina primaries. Norquist was a campaign staffer on the 1988, 1992, 1996 Republican Platform Committees and executive director of both the National Taxpayers' Union and the College Republicans. Norquist writes the monthly politics column for the American Enterprise Institute magazine and used to write a monthly column for the American Spectator. Back to Top ATR alumni in the Bush administration Nina Shokraii Rees, who now leads the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) at the U.S. Department of Education, was formerly a policy analyst for ATR. She then served as a chief education analyst at the Heritage Foundation. She is a proponent of private school vouchers, and helped draft the "No Child Left Behind Act" education blueprint for the Bush-Cheney transition team. Back to Top Quotes by Grover Norquist On Pat Robertson's 700 Club, Norquist said the following about the Bush Administration, “We is them, and they is us. When I walk through the White House, I recognize as many people as when I would walk through the Heritage Foundation.” “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” – The Nation, 10/12/2004 ”In point of fact, it's a myth that the religious right wishes to impose values on others.” – Frontline interview, 10/12/2004 “I want to reduce the size of government in half as a percentage of GNP [gross national product] over the next 25 years. We want to reduce the number of people depending on government so there is more autonomy and more free citizens.” – Washington Post, 03/11/2001 “I've been a 'winger' from way back. I was an anti-Communist first, and then I became an economic conservative. I think I've gotten more radical as I've gotten older." – The Nation, 05/14/2001 Back to Top Quotes about Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist is “the person who I regard as the most innovative, creative, courageous and entrepreneurial leader of the anti-tax efforts and of conservative grassroots activism in America . . . He has truly made a difference and truly changed American history.” – Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) “Americans for Tax Reform is a wonderful-sounding name. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a front organization for Grover Norquist’s lobbying activities.” – Former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH) Norquist is “the V.I. Lenin of the anti-tax movement.” – Columnist Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal, 04/14/1994 “Americans for Tax Reform is a front for the Republican Party. Republicans are hiding money in this group, and that is fundamentally dishonest.” – Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity “You can wear too many hats and [Norquist] does. He’s a whole hat store. And that’s the conflict of interest: He’s head of a non-profit. He’s a corporate lobbyist. He’s a foreign lobbyist. This gives nonprofits, which are supposed to be doing research, a bad name.” – Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity. New York Times, 06/08/1997 Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Arlington Group The Arlington Group (AG) is the newest coalition of the leaders of Religious Right groups brought together by right-wing strategist Paul Weyrich and Don Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, to coordinate activities. The group is widely credited with being the driving force behind the effort to put marriage protection amendments on the ballot in 11 states in the 2004 election. The Arlington Group 801 G Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Website: www.arlingtongroup.org Founded/Place: 2002 in Arlington, Virginia Executive Director: Shannon Royce Membership: Members include the heads of 75 (as of September 2006) Religious Right groups such as Paul Weyrich, Don Wildmon, James Dobson, and Gary Bauer. The complete list of members and their affiliations is located here. Purpose Activities Quotes Purpose The Arlington Group describes itself as a “powerful coalition of leaders from the pro-family community, [that] develops and executes national and grassroots strategies to: protect the traditional institution of marriage, increase respect for every human life, limit judicial activism, and act on other moral issues of concern.” Back to Top Activities The group is credited with much of the effort to put marriage protection amendments on the ballot in 11 states in the 2004 election. According to member Paul Weyrich, the resources to go “full-tilt” in Ohio were raised by group members. Arlington Group members contributed $1,989,545 million in 2004 to pass ballot measures nationwide. In Ohio their contributions totaled $1.18 million, 98% of the total expenditures for the Ohio ballot. AG works to organize support in the African-American community for a federal marriage amendment. In 2004, the Rev. William Owens, head of the Coalition of African-American Pastors in Memphis organized a meeting of his organization with the executive board of the Arlington Group. Owens is now a member of the AG Executive Committee. In 2005, the Group threatened to withhold support for the President's proposed Social Security reforms if Bush did not actively work to pass a federal marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage. A letter sent to White House political adviser Karl Rove said, “We couldn’t help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization, where the public is deeply divided, and the marriage issue, where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side.” When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor first resigned from the Supreme Court, The Arlington Group quickly announced plans to run a multimillion-dollar campaign to pressure the administration to select a right-wing successor. The group planned to target 20,000 pastors and congregations and use Christian talk radio and television, direct mail, and grassroots organizing. The group offers voting recommendations on 2006 ballot initiatives across the country. Back to Top Quotes "People who voted for (Bush) voted for him to put in conservative judges," Tim Wildmon said. "We'll have to see what he does. We've been disappointed before by presidents who said they were going to do that ... and then appointed judges who voted to uphold Roe vs. Wade and have been liberal on other social issues. "I feel this time, with the strength of our groups, hopefully President Bush will do the right thing. If he wavers, we're here to let people know." –Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association describing the Arlington Group’s influence "For the first time, virtually all of the social issues groups are singing off the same sheet of music, this has never happened before. From the beginning of the pro-life movement through the development of the pro-family movement, everybody did their own thing. But working together we have helped to reelect the President and added a number of conservative senators." –Religious Right strategist Paul Weyrich speaking about the Arlington Group Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Black America's Political Action Committee Black America's Political Action Committee (BAMPAC) – founded and chaired by Alan Keyes – is the nation’s largest minority political action committee and among the top 25 well-funded PAC’s in the country. Although self-described as non-partisan, BAMPAC has historically benefited only Republican candidates who strictly adhere to its right-wing policies, such as supporting anti-abortion legislation, public school vouchers, the privatization of Social Security, and tax cuts. Black America's Political Action Committee 2029 P Street NW Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036 Website: www.bampac.org President & CEO: Alvin Williams Founder and Chairman of the Board: Ambassador Alan Keyes Board Members: Jackie Cissell (The Quandt Group), William C. Cleveland (former City Councilmember and Vice Mayor, Alexandria VA), Dr. Mario Lewis (Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute), Amy Moritz Ridenour (President, National Center for Public Policy Research), Alvin Williams (President and CEO; co-founder, BAMPAC) Finances: $1,617,000 (2004 total revenues) Publications: BAMPAC Bulletin Media: President Alvin Williams is often featured as a BAMPAC spokesperson in The New York Times, and The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and has appeared on ABC’s Nightline, MSNBC’s Equal Time, and BET’s News with Ed Gordon. Incorporated: 1994 Purpose Activities Current/Past Members/Staff Issue Advocacy Funding History Quotes Purpose BAMPAC was created to specifically mobilize and garner “support for African-American candidates generally who advocate a common sense approach in resolving the important issues facing America in the 21st century.” BAMPAC is instrumental in garnering financial support for candidates via grants or direct and assisted contributions. It is one of the nation’s largest political action committees, and is the largest minority PAC in the country. Back to Top Activities BAMPAC provides funding and resources to conservative candidates running for political offices at all levels of government. According to SourceWatch.org, [BAMPAC’s] name misleadingly suggests that it represents the point of view of African-Americans, but in fact, opinion polls and voting patterns show that the vast majority of African-Americans disagree with BAMPAC’s political positions. BAMPAC claims to be nonpartisan, but its IRS tax statement explicitly states that its mission is to elect “Republicans.” Black America's PAC - SourceWatch Back to Top Current/Past Members/Staff BAMPAC’s former Political Director, Robert L. Trayham, II, moved on from his position at BAMPAC to work for Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, and is currently the Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Communications for the Senate Republican Conference. In 2004, BAMPAC Chairman Alan Keyes was defeated by Illinois state Senator Barak Obama for the open U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. In 2005, Keyes recommended the nomination of Judge Roy Moore to the United States Supreme Court, on the basis that he is a strong believer in God and a strict constitutionalist. (Judge Moore resigned his position at the Alabama Supreme Court because he refused to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court demand that he take down a replica of the Ten Commandments.) Alan Keyes is also a regular speaker at right-wing anti-gay rallies throughout the country. Back to Top Issue Advocacy Supports school choice in the form of vouchers, charter schools, public-private alliances, and home-schooling. Advocates tax cuts and other financial incentives for entrepreneurs and businesses to increase development in neglected and rural areas. BAMPAC is ‘pro-life’ and condemns government-subsidized abortions; the PAC is in absolute opposition to partial-birth abortions. BAMPAC advocates the privatization of Social Security, a program which it claims has a “disproportionately detrimental affect on African-American families, especially males.” Back to Top Funding BAMPAC’s donor base has grown to over 137,000 donors, generating more than $1,000,000 in direct and assisted contributions to candidates. Back to Top History BAMPAC is the largest minority PAC and ranks among the top 25 PACS among 45,000 PACs in the United States. Back to Top Quotes Alan Keyes on on the Republican Party In 1992, according to the Washington Post, as Republican nominee in Maryland’s U.S. Senate contest that year, Keyes denounced the national leadership of his party as racist, saying senior GOP officials had ignored or disparaged his campaign because he is black. GOP leaders “basically are sending the message that beyond a certain level blacks need not apply,” Keyes said. “If I can work out in the fields, I think I ought to be allowed to come into the house for dinner.” –Washington Post, “GOP Hopeful Says Party Is Racist,” August 14, 1992 Keyes on Moderate Republicans “On all the matters that touch upon the critical moral issues, Arnold Schwarzenegger is on the evil side. This is a fact. A mere list of the positions he supports is enough to make this plain: abortion as a ‘right,’ cloning of human beings, governmental classification of citizens by race, public benefits for sexual partners outside of marriage, disrespect for property rights against environmental extremism, repudiation of the right to bear arms - no more need be said to show that this candidate is wrong where human decency, human rights and human responsibility bear directly on political issues.” –WorldNetDaily, “Arnold’s corruption of Republican Party,” October 6, 2003 Keyes on Black Leaders “ I think part of it is that the Black leadership, the vocal ones that the media concentrates on, are all bought-and-sold, step-and-fetch-its of depravity for the Democratic party.” –People For the American Way Foundation, “Eyewitness Report from the C-PAC Conference,” February 21, 1999 “I think it would be a terrible shame to abandon the fate of America or the black community to the likes of people who are speaking as Julian Bond has spoken, but more importantly, the likes of people who have supported policies that have destroyed the black family, that support abortion, which is committing genocide against black people in this country with devastating demographic results that we have already seen in the course of the last census.” –Hannity and Colmes, “Interview with Alan Keyes,” July 12, 2004 Keyes on Reproductive Choice “The violation on [sic] innocent human life is the same whether you commit terrorism or commit abortion.” –People For the American Way Foundation, “The Vocabulary of Terror: Anti-abortion politics since 9/11,” April 10, 2002 “I will never again cast a vote for an individual I in conscience believe to be pro-choice, pro-abortion, not pro-life. Based on the confession of his heart in New Hampshire, when John McCain told us clearly that he would tell his daughter it was her choice -- and every woman is somebody’s daughter, so if you tell the daughters of America it’s their choice, you’re pro-choice. He is pro- choice, he is not pro-life. I will not support a pro-choice, pro- abortion candidate.” –Republican Presidential Debate, March 2, 2002 Keyes on Homosexuality “Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals. That’s just a true statement.” He added that, “The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions” leads to “‘totalitarianism,’ ‘Nazism,’ and ‘communism.’” –People For the American Way Foundation, “Hostile Climate 1997,” p.26 Keyes on Equal Rights for Gay Americans “It’s about time we all faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical homosexual agenda, be it in the military or in marriage or in other areas of our lives, we are utterly destroying the concept of family. We must oppose it in the military. We must oppose it in marriage. We must oppose it if the fundamental institution of our civilization is to survive. Those unwilling to face that fact and playing games with this issue are doing so irresponsibly at the price of America’s moral foundations.” –Republican Presidential Debate, January 6, 2000 Keyes on Hate Crimes Legislation “The whole push with respect to hate crimes legislation is an effort to create a body of law that allows the government to coerce opinions, and to punish people because of their opinions. In this particular case, the opinion that is going to be punished is the opinion that homosexuality is immoral and against the laws of God. That opinion is now going to become a crime. And this whole push with respect to hate crimes is an effort to establish that agenda.” –WorldNetDaily, “The Trouble with ‘Hate Crimes’,” October 16, 1998 Keyes on the Courts and Prayer in Public Schools “If they tell us that we cannot pray in the classroom, we should pray. If they tell us that we cannot pray in the hallways, we should pray. If they tell us that we cannot pray at graduation ceremonies, we should pray. Because what they are doing fundamentally violates probably the most important of our God-given rights, which is the right to appeal for aid to our Almighty God.” –Renew America, “Alan Keyes on the Issues” Keyes on Taxes “The income tax is a twentieth-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 80 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed. ... Only abolition of the income tax will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business not the government’s.” –Renew America, “Alan Keyes on the Issues” Keyes on the Democratic Party “Democrats are going to have to go on record standing against the marriage-based family, standing for the continued annihilation of new generations of young black babies through the promotion of abortion in the black community. This is devastating, the truth is going to be told.” –Hannity and Colmes, “Interview with Alan Keyes,” July 12, 2004 Keyes on Affirmative Action “Moreover, preferential affirmative action patronizes American blacks, women, and others by presuming that they cannot succeed on their own. Preferential affirmative action does not advance civil rights in this country. It is merely another government patronage program that secures money and jobs for the few people who benefit from it, and breeds resentment in the many who do not. It divides us as a people, and draws attention away from the moral and family breakdown that is the chief cause of the despair and misery in which too many of our fellow citizens struggle to live decently.” –Renew America, “Alan Keyes on the Issues” Keyes on Jews and Anti-Semitism “The tragic and violent clashes between blacks and Jews are unhappily not the product of a unique and isolated set of circumstances. I believe that, unwittingly, Jewish supporters of the government-dominated welfare state approach to the economic and social problems of the black community helped to create the mentality that now produces anger and anti-Semitism in black neighborhoods.” –Alan Keyes, “Our Character, Our Future,” May 2, 1996, p. 48-50 Keyes on the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State “[The Founding Fathers] put an amendment in the Constitution with … wording intended to tell the Congress and thereby the national government that the whole business of religious belief, that whole business of any regime, any attitude to be imparted through law, that it was none of the federal government’s business. “Now, that still gives rise to the possibility. Some folks don’t want to see it. There might be states in which they require a religious test or oath of office. There might be states in which they have established churches, where subventions are given to schools and so forth to teach the Bible. There might be places where you and I might disagree with the religion some folks wanted to put in place over their communities. But guess what the Founders believed? They believed that people in their states and localities had the right to live under institutions they would put together to govern themselves according to their faith.” –Roy Moore Rally, Montgomery, Alabama, August 16, 2003 Updated: July 2006 Back to Top

	Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation One of the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundations, the Bradley Foundation is known for its clearly articulated political and ideological vision. In addition to providing funding for a host of right-wing organizations, Bradley contributes to conservative and often highly controversial scholarship, publications and "academic" research aimed at legitimizing far-right policy positions. Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation PO Box 510860 Milwaukee, WI 53203-0153 Website: www.bradleyfdn.org Established: 1942 President/CEO: Michael W. Grebe Board of Directors: Thomas L. Rhodes (Chairman), Reed Coleman (Vice-Chairman), Michael Grebe, William L. Armstrong, and more. Finances: $665,329,753 (2004) assets Grants awarded, annually: $33,332,537 (2004) grants awarded Employees: 20 Publications: The Lion Letter, annual reports outlining contributions and donations Formerly known as: Allen-Bradley Foundation Prize Recipients 2005: George F. Will (syndicated columnist), Ward Connerly (anti-affirmative action, founder of American Civil Rights Institute), Heather McDonald (Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute), and Robert P. George (professor, former presidential appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights). Principal Issues Activities List of Right-Wing Grantees President Bush on the Bradley Foundation Principal Issues The Bradley Foundation is one of the largest philanthropic foundations responsible for the financial backing of the right-wing agenda for nearly twenty years. Bradley’s philanthropy supports right-wing organizations, privatized educational programs, as well as many non-partisan social programs and civic organizations. Issues Bradley supports include: private school vouchers, faith-based social services, and welfare reform. According to Bradley, the projects sponsored by the foundation “encourage improved government, a more vital sense of citizenship, and a strong belief in personal responsibility.” Bradley has been accused of underreporting the grant amounts that it gives to many of the right-wing organizations that it supports. Back to Top Activities Bradley has made right-wing inroads in academia by establishing chairmanship positions, undergraduate and graduate programs, fellowships, and whole departments at many prestigious universities including: Boston College, Boston University, Bowling Green State University, Carnegie Mellon University, Catholic University, Columbia University, Georgetown University, George Mason University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, Kenyon College, Marquette University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Michigan State University, New York University, Princeton University, Stanford University, University of California- Berkeley, University of California- Los Angeles, University of California- San Diego, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of Notre Dame, University of Pennsylvania, University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin, and Washington University- St. Louis. Bradley has supported and in some cases, had to defend controversial right-wing recipients of their grants, particularly Charles Murray and Dinesh D’Souza. Charles Murray - Murray, author of “The Bell Curve,” which argues that intelligence is predicated on race, and “Losing Ground,” whose thesis is that social programs should be abolished. Murray’s work was so controversial and objectionable that the right-wing Manhattan Institute, supported by Bradley and for which he worked, asked him to leave. However, the Bradley Foundation stood by him because Murray, according to former Bradley President Michael Joyce, “is one of the foremost social thinkers in the country.” Bradley extended Murray’s $100,000 per year grant when he went to the American Enterprise Institute. Dinesh D’Souza - D’Souza, in his book, “The End of Racism,” attempts to absolve Whites from discrimination against Blacks during slavery, claiming that Blacks were too uncivilized to be a part of society anyway. Back to Top List of Right-Wing Grantees Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty Alexis de Tocqueville Institution American Civil Rights Institute American Civil Rights Union American Conservative Union Foundation American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Becket Fund Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) Capital Research Center Center for Individual Rights Center for Education Reform Center for Public Justice Center for the Study of Popular Culture Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation America Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy Collegiate Network Competitive Enterprise Institute Empire Foundation for Policy Research Evergreen Freedom Foundation Equal Opportunity Foundation Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies Fellowship of Christian Athletes Friends of Choice in Urban Schools Free Congress Research and Education Foundation Galen Institute Heartland Institute Heritage Foundation Hudson Institute Hoover Institute Institute for American Values Institute for Justice Leadership Institute Mackinac Center for Public Policy Manhattan Institute for Policy Research National Association of Scholars National Center for Policy Analysis Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy Thomas B. Fordham Institute Back to Top President Bush on the Bradley Foundation “The reason that I am so happy that my friend Mike Grebe is here and Mike Joyce and others from The Bradley Foundation is because "Foundation America" must be a part of the revitalization of our communities as well. And The Bradley Foundation has always been willing to see different solutions. They have been willing to challenge the status quo. They say where we find failure, something else must occur. And the Foundation not only has been kind and generous with its donations, the Foundation also has been willing to help people think anew, and I appreciate you all coming. I am honored you're here and thanks for your good work.” – President George W. Bush,speaking at the Bradley Foundation-supported Holy Redeemer Institutional Church of God in Christ, Milwaukee, July 2002. Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Campaign for Working Families PAC The Campaign for Working Families (CWF) is a political action committee founded by Religious Right activist Gary Bauer to support like-minded candidates. Like the Club for Growth, CWF is known for supporting “pro-family” candidates over more mainstream Republican candidates in GOP primaries. In 1998, it was the fifth largest national PAC. Campaign for Working Families 2800 Shirlington Road - Suite 605 Arlington, VA 22206 Websites: www.cwfpac or www.campaignforfamilies.org Established: 1996 by Gary Bauer, former Family Research Council president and United States presidential candidate President/Chairman: Gary Bauer Finances: Spent $1,060,284 during the 2003-2004 campaign cycle Principal Issues CWF's Activities: Background Principal Issues CWF’s motto: “Unapologetically pro-family, pro-life, and pro-growth.” CWF says that it “takes the guesswork out of identifying the true conservatives from the pretenders.” CWF often supports right-wing Republican candidates over moderate Republicans and CWF has waged many aggressive campaigns against those candidates. CWF supports state ballot measures that reject gay and lesbian civil rights or those that increase restrictions on access to abortion. CWF endorses and financially supports anti-choice, anti-gay candidates for political office, such as Alan Keyes. In 2004, CWF’s most recent endorsements included: CWF Congressional Endorsements U.S. Senate: 13 Jim Holt (AR), Mel Martinez (FL), Alan Keyes (IL), Sam Brownback (KS), Jim Bunning (KY), David Vitter (LA), Richard Burr (NC), Mike Liffrig (ND), Richard Ziser (NV), Tom Coburn (OK), Jim DeMint (SC), John Thune (SD), and George Nethercutt (WA). U.S. House of Representatives: 49 Marvin Parks (AR-2), Rick Renzi (AZ-1), Trent Franks (AZ-2), Roy Ashburn (CA-20), Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Tom Tancredo (CO-6), Bob Beauprez (CO-7), Bev Kilmer (FL-2), Dave Weldon (FL-15), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Calder Clay (GA-3), Cathrine Davis (GA-4), Tom Price (GA-6), Lynn Westmoreland (GA-8), Max Burns (GA-12), Mike Gabbard (HI-2), Phil Crane (IL-8), Chris Chocola (IN-2), Dan Burton (IN-5), Mike Pence (IN-6), Steve King (IA-5), Kris Kobach (KS-3), Geoff Davis (KY-4), Bobby Jindal (LA-1), Ron Crews (MA-3), John Kline (MN-2), Mark Kennedy (MN-6), Todd Akin (MO-2), Bill Federer (MO-3), Virginia Foxx (NC-5), Robin Hayes (NC-8), Patrick McHenry (NC-10), Charles Taylor (NC-11), Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1), Scott Garrett (NJ-5), Steve Pearce (NM-2), Joe Pitts (PA-16), Larry Diedrich (SD), Louie Gohmert (TX-1), Ted Poe (TX-2), Arlene Woflgenmuth (TX-17), Randy Neugebauer (TX-19), Tom DeLay (TX-22), Pete Sessions (TX-32), John Swallow (UT-2), Thelma Drake (VA-2), Frank Wolf (VA-3), and Cathy McMorris (WA-5). Back to Top CWF's Activities: During the 2004 election cycle, the Campaign for Working Families spent $244,000.00 endorsing Republican candidates, such as the candidates listed above. Tom Tancredo in Colorado received $2,500, Mel Martinez of Florida $8,000, Alan Keyes in Illinois $5,000, Tom Coburn in Oklahoma $8,000, and Tom DeLay in Texas, $5,000. [PoliticalMoneyLine] During the 2002 election cycle CWF contributed $200,988 in campaign donations, endorsing Scott Garett for New Jersey with $7,000, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina with $7,000, John Thune of South Dakota with $10,000, and James Talent of Missouri with $10,000. [PoliticalMoneyLine] In 2002 CWF was ranked number 21 out of the Top 50 ‘Nonconnected’ PAC’s by Receipts, having totaled $953,881 in contributions. [source] In 2000 election cycle CWF endorsed 121 candidates and 83% of which were elected. In 2000, over 50% of incoming freshmen Republican members of the 107th Congress were endorsed by CWF. In the 2000 election cycle, CWF spent tens of thousands of dollars on a 12-state “Get-Out-The-Vote” effort on behalf of Republican candidates. In 2000, CWF endorsed such right-wing stalwarts such as: John Ashcroft, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Rick Santorum, Bob Barr, Tom Tancredo, Ernest Istook, and Judge Roy Moore. Of their 113 nominees for the U.S. House and Senate, 3 are Democrats and 1 Independent. In 1998 election cycle, CWF supported over 200 candidates and 64% of CWF’s endorsees were elected. CWF keeps profiles on legislation and politicians and provides information for campaigns. CWF has supported successful “Defense of Marriage” state ballot initiatives in Alaska, California, Nebraska, Nevada, and Hawaii. Back to Top Background In 1996 and 1997 Bauer put CWF on the map by taking big risks and rejecting Republican leadership pressure. In 1998 in California there was a special election due to the death of Rep. Walter Capps (CA-D). The GOP leadership had tapped a moderate Republican candidate, Rep. Brooks Firestone, and CWF supported a more conservative candidate, Tom Bordonaro. CWF led an expensive, controversial advertising attack campaign against Firestone and was credited with helping Bordonaro win the runoff. Bordonaro ultimately lost the seat to Capps’ widow. By 1998 CWF became the 5th largest PAC in the country, raising over $7 million in just two years. Early in CWF’s history right-wing heavyweight James Dobson lent his support to the group, sending out mass mailings to 350,000 members of his organization Focus on the Family. Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights calls itself a defender of “religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened,” but it is known primarily for the abrasive and confrontational style and over-the-top rhetoric of its president, William Donohue. Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights 450 Seventh Avenue - Floor 34 New York NY 10123 Website: www.catholicleague.org President/CEO: William Donohue Founded: 1973 Board of Directors: Rev. Philip Eichner (Chairman); Bernadette Brady (Vice President); Marilyn Lundy (Vice Chair); William Lindner (Secretary); Jerome McDougal (Treasurer); and David Gregory (General Counsel) Board Members: Thomas Blee; Thomas Brennan; Nunzio Cardone; Ann Corkery; Robert Goldschmidt; Robert Lockwood; Kathleen O’Connell Murphy; Frank Salas; Jodie Thompson Jr.; Kathleen McCreary; and Kenneth Whitehead Board of Advisors: Brent Bozell III; Gerard Bradley; Linda Chavez; Robert Destro; Dinesh D’Souza; Laura Garcia; Robert George; Mary Ann Glendon; Dolores Grier; Alan Keyes; Stephen Krason; Lawrence Kudlow; Thomas Monaghan; Michael Novak; Kate O’Beirne; Thomas Reeves; Patrick Riley; Robert Royal; Russell Shaw; William Simon; Jr., Paul Vitz; and George Weigel Membership: 350,000 Revenue: $2,628,533 (2005); Net Assets $7,950,716 (2005) Publications: Catholic League’s Report on Anti-Catholicism (published annually), Catalyst journal (published ten times a year) Affiliates: Chapters located in El Paso, Texas; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Rockford, Illinois Purpose Activities History Quotes Purpose The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (Catholic League) proclaims that it “works to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened” and acts “as a watchdog agency and defender of the civil rights of all Catholics.” Back to Top Activities The Catholic League claims to defends the Church against any “slanderous assaults” that appear in newspapers or on radio and television by issuing press releases and encouraging boycotts of sponsors. The organization was involved in the right-wing campaign to confirm both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court by warning those opposed to these nominees about, and sometimes accusing them of, anti-Catholic bigotry. The Catholic League has also been involved in battling the so-called “War on Christmas,” organizing against stores and corporations who use the term “holiday” instead of “Christmas.” In 2005, Donohue blasted Wal-Mart, saying it was “practicing discrimination” and “insulting Christians by effectively banning Christmas.” Back to Top History The Catholic League was founded in 1973 by Father Virgil C. Blum. According to his bio, William Donohue serves on the board for the Washington Legal Foundation, the Educational Freedom Foundation, the Society of Catholic Social Science, Catholics United for the Faith, the Jewish Action Alliance, Ave Maria Institute, Christian Film & Television Commission, and Project Moses. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Heritage Foundation and serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars. Back to Top Quotes “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it.” – Bill Donohue on opposition to Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” movie, MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country,” 12/08/04 “The fact that Jew baiting did not accompany the nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer shows how this nation has progressed. Unfortunately, within 24 hours of Roberts’ nomination, Catholic baiting has raised its ugly head. And the fact that it is coming from a mainstream liberal source is even more disconcerting. We hope this is not the beginning of an ugly few months.” – On the issue of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ faith, News Release, 07/20/05 “The anti-religious secularists on the Left are more concerned about keeping abortion-on-demand legal and keeping our society free from religious influence than any other issues. It is what defines them. Imbued with hate, they are already targeting the Christian status of Harriet Miers.” – On the short-lived nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, News Release, 10/05/05 “Some are already commenting that if Alito is confirmed he would be the fifth Catholic on the Supreme Court. For example, the Associated Press ran a story at 7:45 a.m.—before Bush formally announced his choice for the high court—with the headline, ‘Alito Would be the Fifth Catholic Justice on Supreme Court.’ So what? Currently, Jews comprise 22 percent of the Justices, even though they are only 1 percent of the population. Is that a problem? “The next time the ‘Catholic’ issue is raised, it would be wise to remember that both Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Santorum are Catholic.” – On the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, News Release, 10/31/05 “First, the cultural fascists banned crèches, and now they want to ban the Christmas tree. All of this is done, perversely, in the name of tolerance and diversity.” – On the supposed “War on Christmas,” News Release, 12/07/05 “Foley’s lawyer says his client never molested anyone, which begs the question: why play the Catholic card? Together with his other maladies, Foley is obviously seeking to exculpate his behavior, despite protestations to the contrary by his attorney … As for the alleged abuse, it’s time to ask some tough questions. First, there is a huge difference between being groped and being raped, so which was it Mr. Foley? Second, why didn’t you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?” – Commenting on the scandal involving former congressman Mark Foley, News Release, 10/04/06 Updated: October 2006 Back to Top

	Cato Institute The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank that often works in coalitions with right-wing groups. Cato’s extensive publications program deals with a host of policy issues including budget issues, Social Security, monetary policy, natural resource policy, military spending, government regulation, international trade, and myriad other issues. While the Cato Institute has increased its ties to right-wing policymakers over the years, it often reveals it's libertarian philosophy in addressing government intrusion into privacy issues, recently calling the proposed federal marriage amendment “unnecessary, anti-Federalist, and anti-democratic.” Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington DC 20001-5403 Website: www.cato.org Established: 1977 Founders: Edward Crane and Charles G. Koch President: Edward Crane Finances: $12,975,701 (2003) Employees: 90 staff members, 60-adjunct scholars, 16 fellows, 14 Board Members Board of Directors: K. Tucker Andersen, Senior Consultant, Cumberland Associates LLC; Frank Bond, Chairman, The Foundation Group; Edward H. Crane, (President); Richard J. Dennis, President, Dennis Trading Group; Ethelmae C. Humphreys, Chairman, Tamko Roofing Products, Inc.; David H. Koch, Executive Vice President, Koch Industries, Inc.; John C. Malone, Chairman, Liberty Media Corporation; William A. Niskanen, Chairman, Cato Institute; David H. Padden, President, Padden & Company; Lewis E. Randall, Board Member, E*Trade Financial; Howard S. Rich, President, U.S. Term Limits; Frederick W. Smith, Chairman & CEO, FedEx Corporation; Jeffrey S. Yass, Managing Director, Susquehanna International Group, LLP; Fred Young, Former Owner, Young Radiator Company (Board of Directors) Publications: Inquiry magazine, Cato Journal, quarterly magazine Regulation, bimonthly Cato Policy Report, as well as books, monographs, briefing papers and shorter studies. Principal Issues Activities History and Background High-profile Staffers Alumni in the Bush administration Corporate sponsors Additional Funding Quotes about Cato Quotes from Cato Principal Issues A libertarian public policy organization that aspires to work outside the traditional conservative v. liberal political framework. Labels itself a “market-liberal” organization with the caveat that liberal “has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.” Cato was named for “Cato’s Letters” - a series of libertarian tracts that the organization credits as a catalyst for the American Revolution. Cato leads the push for privatization of government services; as early as 1983, Cato initiated the first push for the privatization of Social Security, and has heavily backed it ever since. Cato supports the wholesale elimination of eight cabinet agencies – Commerce, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation and Veterans Affairs – and the privatization of many government services. Back to Top Activities In 2001, the Washington Post, noting Cato’s influence, said it “has spent about $3 million in the past six years to run a virtual war room to promote Social Security privatization.” Cato sponsors periodic policy forums and book forums, major policy conferences, Cato has held major conferences in London, Moscow, Shanghai, and Mexico City. Back to Top History and Background Cato Institute was founded by Ed Crane with a $500,000 grant from Charles Koch, a chemical and petroleum heir who was active with Crane in the Libertarian Party. In 2002, the Washington Post called Crane “the man who housebroke libertarianism.” Back to Top High-profile Staffers David Boaz, published in Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate on-line Doug Bandow, writer for Fortune, worked as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan Back to Top Alumni in the Bush administration Former Rep. Tim Penny (D-MN), Commission to Strengthen Social Security Sam Beard, Commission to Strengthen Social Security Carolyn Weaver, Commission to Strengthen Social Security Randy Clerihue, spokesman, Commission to Strengthen Social Security Andrew Biggs, staff member, Commission to Strengthen Social Security Mark Groombridge, Special Assistant, Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, State Department Other non-Bush Administration alumni include former board members: Rupert Murdoch and Theodore J. Forstmann, also founding chairman of Empower America, now FreedomWorks. Back to Top Corporate sponsors Cato's corporate sponsors include: Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Netscape Communications Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Viacom International, American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc. Back to Top Additional Funding 80% of Cato’s income comes from individual donations and subscriptions, 8% from corporations (such as ExxonMobil, which donated $30,000 during 2001), another 8% from foundations, and the remainder from conference and book sales, etc. Cato has received $15,633,540 in 108 separate grants from only nine different foundations: Castle Rock Foundation; Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; Earhart Foundation; JM Foundation; John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.; Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation; Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; and the branches of the Scaife Foundation Back to Top Quotes about Cato "A soup-to-nuts agenda to reduce spending, kill programs, terminate whole agencies and dramatically restrict the power of the federal government." - Washington Post on the Cato Handbook for Congress "My contact with [Cato] was strange. They’re ideologues, like Trotskyites. All questions must be seen and solved within the true faith of libertarianism, the idea of minimal government. And like Trotskyites, the guys from Cato can talk you to death." - Nat Hentoff, columnist Back to Top Quotes from Cato “I think Franklin Roosevelt was a lousy president. What he did – which is to impose this great nanny state on America – was a great mistake.” - Ed Crane Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Center for the Study of Popular Culture 4401 Wilshire Drive, 4th Floor Los Angeles, California 90010 www.cspc.org and www.frontpagemag.org President/Founder: David Horowitz Established in: 1988 by David Horowitz and Peter Collier Finances: $2.9 million (2002 budget) Employees: 5 (listed on website) Membership: claims 40,000 supporters Publications: Front Page Magazine Affiliated with: Front Page Magazine, Individual Rights Foundation About CSPC: Right Wing Donors: Quotes from CSPC publications: About CSPC: CSPC serves as the home for founder David Horowitz’s various anti-Left, anti-Democrat Party enterprises, such as the controversial FrontPage Magazine and the legal group the Individual Rights Foundation. CSPC sells and distributes pamphlets and information on fighting the Left. CSPC also sells right-wing books and heavily promotes David Horowitz’s own books. Horowitz titles include: Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, The Hate America Left and The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future. CSPC also hosts the “Wednesday Morning Club” which is a forum for right-wingers in the entertainment industry. Guest speakers for the club include: Governor George W. Bush (1999), then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Robert Bork, Representatives Tom DeLay and Henry Hyde, Senators Trent Lott, Bill Frist and Joseph Lieberman, editor of the Weekly Standard Fred Barnes, columnist George Will, and many other pundits and politicians. After controversial right-wing columnist Ann Coulter got fired from National Review Online for the radical, anti-Muslim comments she made after the September 11th attacks, David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine picked up her regular column. Back to Top Right Wing Donors: CSPC gets regular, generous grants from top right-wing foundations. CSPC has received nearly $5 million dollars from the Bradley Foundation alone since 1989. CSPC has received donations from all of Richard Scaife’s foundations, the Olin Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation. Back to Top Quotes from CSPC publications: “Paradoxically, at the same time, the destructive Left sees in American democracy and the Constitution that created it, a powerful weapon it can use to destroy the system. Consequently –- and again somewhat paradoxically -- the anti-American Left has directed a significant part of its political energy towards attacks on the American court system and on the Constitution itself.” –David Horowitz, "Out of Many, One" November 24, 2003 "Everybody knows -- but no one wants to say -- that the Democratic Party has become the party of special interest bigots and racial dividers. It runs the one-party state that controls public services in every major inner city, including the corrupt and failing school systems in which half the students -- mainly African American and Hispanic -- are denied a shot at the American dream. It is the party of race preferences which separate American citizens on the basis of skin color providing privileges to a handful of ethnic and racial groups in a nation of nearly a thousand. The Democratic Party has shown that it will go to the wall to preserve the racist laws which enforce these preferences, and to defend the racist school systems that destroy the lives of millions of children every year." –David Horowtiz, "Challenging the Racist Democrats in California," August 5, 2003 “Most of the groups that adamantly oppose the USA PATRIOT Act are oriented toward worrying more about terrorists’ civil liberties than their murderous intentions: The ACLU, People for the American Way, Human Rights Watch.” – from “Anti-Patriot Feminists,” Chris Weinkopf, Front Page Magazine, July 10, 2003 Updated July 2004 Back to Top

	Christian Coalition of America The Christian Coalition, once one of the country’s most influential Religious Right groups, has seen its fortunes decline in recent years since the departure of high profile leaders Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed. At the height of its influence, the Christian Coalition was best known for the distribution of slanted voter guides and political surveys and for its strategy of urging conservative Christian candidates to conduct stealth campaigns to win elections. Christian Coalition of America P.O. Box 37030 Washington, DC 20013-7030 Website: www.cc.org Founder and former President: Rev. Pat Robertson President: Dr. Joel C. Hunter was announced as President in October 2006 to replace Roberta Combs Founded: 1989 Membership: Claimed nearly 2 million members at the height of its influence, but other data suggested 300,000-400,000 members. Directors or Trustees as of 2004: Dr. Billy McCormack; Drew McKissick; Roberta Combs, Chair Finances: In 1999, the Christian Coalition was stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit status for violating various IRS rules that govern non-profits. Contributions to the group have dropped from a record of $26.5 million in 1996 to their 2004 revenue, which was $1,321,774. The CC is now a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization supported through member dues. State chapters: As many as 30 chapters were listed on their website, though those lists have since been removed. Several state chapters have dropped their affiliation in 2006. Publications: The coalition creates and distributes voter guides during primaries and elections in every state. They also have action alerts and newsletters via e-mail on state and federal legislation. Affiliated Groups: Pat Robertson also created the 700 Club, Christian Broadcasting Network, American Center for Law and Justice, and Regent University, which awards graduate and law degrees and offers a bachelor degree completion program. Two CC projects that are no longer associated with the group are the Samaritan Project and the Catholic Alliance. The Christian Coalition launched the Catholic Alliance in an attempt to boost its membership among pro-family, anti-choice Catholics. The Samaritan Project was the Christian Coalition's vehicle for outreach to African Americans. Principal Issues Activities History Recent problems Quotes from Pat Robertson Principal Issues The Christian Coalition (CC) has two central goals: to control the agenda of the Republican party by working from the grassroots up; and to train and elect pro-family, Christian candidates to public office. The group has had considerable success in both areas, and their impact in state and national elections can be detected through their work during primaries and ability to mobilize Christian conservative voters. The CC describes itself as “the largest and most active conservative grassroots political organization in America.” Back to Top Activities In recent years, the Coalition has fallen on hard times. IRS records show that the Christian Coalition's red ink climbing. Its debts exceeded its assets by $983,000 in 2001, $1.3 million in 2002, $2 million in 2003 and $2.28 million at the end of 2004. Some of the most active and influential chapters, such as the Christian Coalition of Iowa, have cut ties with the national organization. [source] In 2000, the Christian Coalition launched what they claim was their biggest election year campaign ever, distributing 70 million voter guides to their members and conservative churches in every state. Robertson is given credit for throwing his support behind Bush very early in his candidacy, and helping Bush gain the support of the Religious Right. The coalition is credited with assisting Bush with winning the South Carolina presidential primary through their strong get-out-the-vote activities. During the 2000 election Pat Robertson taped a telephone message criticizing presidential candidate John McCain on the eve of the February Michigan primary. The coalition is a major lobbying force on Capitol Hill and has many strong ties to Congress. The Christian Coalition’s annual conference, “Road to Victory,” speakers list reads like a veritable who’s who in right-wing and mainstream conservative circles. In 2000 their list of speakers included: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Rev. Jerry Falwell, RNC chairman Jim Nicholson, and then-presidential candidate George W. Bush via videotape. The Christian Coalition's principal "contribution" to electoral politics is the distribution of election-eve voters guides. Nominally nonpartisan but plainly directive, the guides outline the candidates' positions on a variety of issues. The Coalition's descriptions, however, are often manipulative. They describe a supporter of the National Endowment for the Arts, for example, as a proponent of "tax-funded obscene art." Many candidates refuse to respond to the questionnaires for fear of distortion, however the group filled it in for them by reviewing voting records. These “non-partisan” voter guides eventually led to the group losing its tax-exempt status. The Federal Election Commission charged that the Christian Coalition endorsed Republican candidates with its voter guides in the 1990 and 1992 elections, and illegally coordinated its activities with the Bush reelection campaign. Back to Top History The Christian Coalition's initial approach to elections, popularly known as "stealth" tactics, has three essential parts: targeting low-profile elections that normally attract few voters, focusing get-out-the-vote efforts on certain conservative churches, and instructing the candidates to hide their views from the public by avoiding public appearances and refusing to fill out questionnaires. In 1992, Ralph Reed told a Coalition gathering, "The first strategy, and in many ways the most important strategy, for evangelicals is secrecy." The Coalition's strategy first attracted national attention in 1990, when a coalition of right-wing groups led by the Christian Coalition helped candidates in San Diego win 60 of 90 races for a variety of offices, such as school and hospital boards. Reed boasted of their early success with a few choice comments that helped make him famous. "[S]tealth was a big factor in San Diego's success," he said. "But that's just good strategy. It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night." Continuing, "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night." Later, under intense pressure, Reed renounced his covert tactics and now denies the group ever used them. Back to Top Recent problems The Christian Coalition has undergone several changes in leadership since the departure of Executive Director Ralph Reed [see PFAW’s report on Reed] in September of 1997. It has also suffered a severe decline in donations, from $26.5 million in 1996 to an estimated $3 million in 2000. As a result of this steep loss in revenue, the group has reorganized by cutting staff and dropping its minority outreach program, the Samaritan Project. Another recent stumbling block for the Christian Coalition has been a series of racial discrimination lawsuits by their employees. In February of 2001, ten black employees filed a racial discrimination suit against the organization. Alleging that they were treated with Jim Crow-style segregationist rules, the black employees also stated in their lawsuit that the Christian Coalition’s director was “uncomfortable” when the black employees joined company-sponsored prayer sessions and eventually stopped inviting them. In March, two more black employees and a white employee filed discrimination charges against the organization. The white employee claims he was fired by the evangelical organization when he refused the director’s request to spy on the black employees who had filed the lawsuit. In December 2001, Pat Robertson stepped down as the President of the Christian Coalition. Robertson said it was because he wanted to spend more time on his ministry work. In March 2004 a law firm that has worked for the CC since 1989 asked a judge to garnish the assets of the group for $75,000 in unpaid legal fees. Back to Top Quotes from Pat Robertson On women’s Equality: "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period.” – The 700 Club, 01/08/92 Referring to the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, Pat Robertson had this to say; "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." – The 700 Club, 08/22/05 " [The people in the United States] have allowed rampant secularism and occult, etc. to be broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say "why does this happen?" Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us. And once that protection is gone, we all are vulnerable because we're a free society, and we're vulnerable. We lay naked before these terrorists who have infiltrated our country. There's probably tens of thousands of them in America right now. They've been raising money. They've been preaching their hate and overseas they've been spewing out venom against the United States for years. All over the Arab world, there is venom being poured out into people's ears and minds against America. And, the only thing that's going to sustain us is the power of the Almighty God." – 700 Club, 09/13/01 "The worse thing in the world for somebody who is a person of color, black, African American, whatever term is in vogue these days to hold grudges and say well 100 years ago my ancestors were in slavery, and therefore I hate you. That doesn't fly. And to live in the past is the most numbing experience because what it does is sap your energy for the future. And, what everybody's got to do is to say before God I'm going to ask God to bring forgiveness into my life. And, I am just totally against these leaders who stir up the divisions and the hatred. You've seen it - talking about all these offenses and things that happened. And, they're doing it for publicity. They're doing it to raise money. They're doing it to get a following so they'll be elected to some office, and so forth. That's wrong. To play on the hatred of people for your own personal gain is abhorrent, and there are many people who do that." – 700 Club, 02/06/01 "The concept that one God, "Thou shall have no other gods before me", will somehow upset a Hindu, that's tough luck! America was founded as a Christian nation. Our institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, a Being after the Bible. And we as Americans believe in the god of the Bible. And the fact that somebody comes with what amounts to an alien religion to these shores doesn't mean that we're going to give up all of our cherished religious beliefs to accommodate a few people who happen to believe in something else. You just can't do that. And that's been the thing that's been pushed over and over again. Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, said as I read the constitution, it's very clear. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It says nothing of about a school district letting book covers be passed out" – 700 Club, 10/05/00 Pat responds to the question “Certain denominations are beginning to accept homosexual behavior in the church. Do you feel that it is for benefit, political gain or social acceptance?” sent in by a 700 Club viewer. His response was, “"I think that we have a pressure in our society right now called political correctness where it is not appropriate any longer to criticize anybody for their religion, their lifestyle, their race, their creed, their color, national origin, disabilities, or anything. You can't criticize anybody for anything. And so, if somebody has a quote lifestyle, that's their thing, and if somebody said, 'I'll make it with a duck', well, you know, who are you to criticize them. Well that isn't what the Bible says. The Bible has standards, and the standard makes it very clear that the acceptance of homosexuality in a society is the last stage after God has given a people up."… "How can a church open their arms and say 'You keep on with the lifestyle.'" – 700 Club, 10/17/00 "In the Old Testament and the New Testament boys and girls didn't make decisions like this, they were betrothed by their parents. We've got a couple here at Regent University whose parents arranged the marriage and they're very, very happy. I honestly think if we went back to that kind of thing you'd have a whole lot less problems--It'll help. I think it would cut down the divorce rate." – 700 Club, 0214/00 "We want...as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996." – Denver Post, 10/26/92 "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." – Pat Robertson direct mail, Summer 1992 "I believe that during the next couple of years there will be a fierce struggle between the militant leftists, secular humanists, and atheists who have dominated the power centers of American culture for the past 50 years and the Evangelical Christians, pro-family Roman Catholics, and their conservative allies. The radical left will lose its hold, and by the end of this decade control of the major institutions of society will be firmly in the hands of those who share a pro-family, religious, traditional value perspective." – Pat Robertson's Perspective, July-August/1991 Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Christian Legal Society The Christian Legal Society (CLS) is a nationwide network of lawyers and law students who are committed to “serving Jesus Christ through …the practice of law.” Through its Center for Law and Religious Freedom, CLS advocates and litigates issues ranging from religious liberty to reproductive choice. Christian Legal Society 4208 Evergreen Lane Suite 222 Annandale, VA 22003-3264 Website: www.clsnet.org President: James A. Davids Founded/Place: 1961 in Chicago, Illinois, by Paul Bernard, Gerrit P. Groen, Henry Luke Banks, and Elmer Johnson. Executive Director/CEO: Samuel B. Casey Board of Directors: Euguene H. Fahrenkrog, Jr. (Chairman), Peter F. Rathbun (Secretary), and Timothy C. Klenk (Treasurer). Membership: Includes attorneys, judges, law students, and anyone else who pays CLS dues and professes their commitment to the Faith. They are organized in more than 1100 cities into attorney chapters, law student chapters, and fellowships throughout the United States. Source Finances: $1,945,268 (2004); CLS is a 501(c)(3) organization Publications: The Christian Lawyer (quarterly), The Christian Lawyer Digest (an audiotape soon to be available on CD), The Defender (publication of CLS' Center for Law and Religious Freedom). Affiliate Groups: Center for Law and Religious Freedom (litigation arm of CLS) Purpose Activities/Litigation Funding History Chapters Quotes Purpose CLS’ vision is succinct: “Seeking Justice with the Love of God.” Their mission is "To be the national grassroots network of lawyers and law students, associated with others, committed to proclaiming, loving and serving Jesus Christ, through all we do and say in the practice of law, and advocating biblical conflict reconciliation, legal assistance for the poor and the needy, religious freedom and the sanctity of human life.” Source Back to Top Activities/Litigation CLS hosts annual, national conventions in Naples, Florida, which unites all members nationwide and holds prayer and religious ceremonies, while discussing the ministry of law. CLS has been involved in thousands of litigation suits, many dealing with First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; notably, those dealing with in-school recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the separation of church and state. Formed the Center for Law and Religious Freedom in 1975 to address religious liberties and the sanctity of life issues in federal, local, and state governments. Back to Top Funding According to CLS’ 990 form for 2004, the organization reported $1,018,819 in “gifts, grants, and contributions received.” Back to Top History Christian Legal Society was officially founded in 1961 by a group of attorneys and professors who met at the 1959 American Bar Association national convention. Both founders were determined to create a nationwide association of Christian lawyers to create a network for sharing problems and for sharing fellowship. The goal was to integrate their faith with their profession. Today, CLS’s core purpose is to enlist “lawyers and law students everywhere to faithfully serve Jesus Christ in the diligent study and ethical practice of law.” Back to Top Chapters National: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. International: Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Peru, and South Africa. Back to Top Quotes “We are particularly pleased that Judge Roberts, by virtue of his public service and private practice, has an excellent working knowledge of the provisions of our Constitution that protect our first and most vital liberties of free speech, association and religious free exercise…We are also pleased the President nominated someone who, by virtue of his appellate experience, promises upon his confirmation to make an immediate, positive and long-term impact on the respect the Supreme Court needs to preserve our constitutional form of government." –Center for Law & Religious Freedom Director Gregory S. Baylor on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Source “Since its founding in 1961, CLS’ nine organizational objectives, as set forth in its amended not-for-profit articles of incorporation, have been: To proclaim Jesus as Lord through all that we do in the field of law and other disciplines; To provide a means of society, fellowship and nurture among Christian lawyers; To encourage Christian lawyers to view law as ministry; To clarify and promote the concept of the Christian lawyer and to help Christian lawyers integrate their faith with their professional lives; To mobilize, at the national and local levels, the resources needed to promote justice, religious liberty, the inalienable right to human life, and biblical conflict reconciliation To encourage, disciple and aid Christian students in preparing for the legal profession; To provide a forum for the discussion of problems and opportunities relating to Christianity and the law; To cooperate with bar associations and other organizations in asserting and maintaining high standards of legal ethics; and, To encourage lawyers to furnish legal services to the poor and needy, and grant special consideration to the legal needs of churches and other charitable organizations.” Source Updated: August 2006 Back to Top

	Club for Growth Club for Growth (CFG) touts itself as the inheritor of Ronald Reagan’s “vision of limited government and lower taxes” and it advances this anti-government vision through its support of political candidates who hew to its right-wing economic orthodoxy. The Culb for Growth has aggressively opposed several moderate Republicans often to the consternation of GOP political leaders. Club for Growth 1776 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Website: www.clubforgrowth.org Established: Club for Growth (CFG) was founded in 1999. President/CEO: Pat Toomey (former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania’s 15th District) Founder: Stephen "Steve" Moore Executive Director: David Keating Board Members: CFG President Pat Toomey, Vice President Chuck Pike, Richard Gilder, formerly Chairman of the Manhattan Institute, and Thomas Rhodes, President of National Review magazine, associated with a variety of right-wing organizations, including the Heritage Foundation. Finances: CFG raised $9.2 million for its activities during the 2002 election cycle. Affiliations: CFG has spun off at least one local chapter, the Virginia Club for Growth. Virginia CFG’s president and founder is Peter Ferrara, the former general counsel and chief economist for Americans for Tax Reform. Activities Finances About Founder Steve Moore Quotes about Club for Growth Quotes from Club for Growth Activities Main agenda is promoting tax cuts and drastically reducing the size of the federal government. Club for Growth PAC patterns itself after EMILY's List, a progressive group that raises campaign funds for pro-choice women. CFG encourages donors to mail in checks for favored candidates. By “bundling” these checks and sending them off to candidates, CFG can have a large impact on individual races while avoiding the rules that govern more traditional political action committees. CFG has more than 9,000 members, dominated by Wall Street financiers and executives. CFG’s ex-president and founder Steve Moore has called for closing several government departments, including Education, Commerce, Labor and Agriculture. As always, CFG isn't afraid to take on Republicans who disagree with its policy goals. One of CFG’s targets in 2004 was Sen. John McCain, (R-Arizona) an opponent of some of President Bush's latest tax cut proposals. According to Moore, CFG members “loathe” McCain and hoped to find “a true, Reagan conservative” to face him in the 2004 primary. During the 2004 Presidential election, CFG launched a $1 million, 30-second television commercial depicting Democratic candidate John Kerry as a spinning weather vane for his stance on a variety of issues. CFG’s PAC gave $215,634 to GOP candidates in 2004. Following the 2004 election, Club for Growth hired its first lobbyist in an effort to increase their influence on Capitol Hill. Back to Top Finances Club for Growth is comprised of two connected entities: First, CFG is a “527” organization, which is allowed to collect unlimited contributions without disclosing donors’ names, and to run “issue ad” campaigns during elections. These ads do not directly call for the election or defeat of a candidate, and “527” groups do not have to disclose donors’ identity or reveal its activities to the IRS or the FEC. Second, it is a political action committee (PAC), and organization capable of giving limited donations directly to campaigns and is regulated by the FEC. Given the fact that contributions are unlimited, the spending by the “527” is far larger than that of the PAC, though specific finances are hard to trace. However, in total, CFG raised $9.2 million for its activities during the 2002 election cycle. Back to Top About Founder Steve Moore Stephen Moore is currently an editor and contributor to the National Review, and an economics correspondent for Human Events. He is also President of the Free Enterprise Fund Before founding the Club for Growth, Moore was the director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute, and has stayed on as a senior fellow. Moore has also served at the Heritage Foundation and as committee staff to former Rep. Dick Armey, now co-chair of FreedomWorks. In December of 2004 then-CFG President Steve Moore left his position after accusations that he, and/or members of his new organization, the Free Enterprise Fund, had taken CFG’s donor and mailing lists. Though there were threats of legal action, no more came of the accusations. Back to Top Quotes about Club for Growth "It's unfortunate that they keep going after moderate Republicans. We thought it was time to stop them." –Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Republican Main Street Partnership Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA) calls Club for Growth “cannibals” for its attacks on moderate Republicans. –Wall Street Journal, 3/16/2000 “[Moore] is the E.F. Hutton of economic growth. When he talks, conservatives listen.” –U.S. Rep. Rick Keller (R-FL), who CFG supported in his first campaign in 2000 “When you have 100 percent of Republicans voting for the Bush tax cut, you know that they're looking over their shoulder and not wanting to have Steve Moore recruiting candidates in their district.” –U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who CFG supported in 2000 Back to Top Quotes from Club for Growth “We want to be seen as the tax-cut enforcer in the [Republican] party.” – Stephen Moore, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6/20/2001 “I can say this because I'm not an elected official: the most selfish group in America today is senior citizens. Their demands on Washington are: 'Give us more and more and more.' They have become the new welfare state, and given the size and political clout of this constituency, it's very dangerous. One of the biggest myths in politics today is this idea that grandparents care about their grandkids. What they really care about is that that Social Security check and those Medicare payments are made on a timely basis.” –Stephen Moore “We're trying to let candidates know that if they ever voted for a tax increase, we'll never support them and in fact we'll work to defeat them. We're trying to get the word out to even the lowest grass-roots level that if you're a Republican you aren't allowed to vote for taxes.” –Stephen Moore “Reagan's third term has arrived.” –Stephen Moore on President George W. Bush Updated: August 2008 Back to Top

	Collegiate Network The Collegiate Network was established in 1979 to provide financial and technical assistance to right-wing student newspapers on college campuses. It is heavily funded by right-wing foundations and claims its newspapers have a combined distribution of more than two million each year. Collegiate Network 3901 Centerville Road P.O. Box 4431 Wilmington, DE 19807 Website: www.collegiatenetwork.org President: T. Kenneth Cribb Finances: $1,249,161 (2003) Affiliated with: Intercollegiate Studies Institute Publications: Campus magazine, Stop the Presses!, online news; Start the Presses!, handbook; and a network of 80 student-run college newspapers Formally known as: Institute for Educational Affairs (changed in 1980) Principal Issues Activities Famous CN Newspaper Alumni History Funding Quotes about The Collegiate Network Principal Issues The Collegiate Network (CN) calls itself “The Home of Conservative College Journalism,” and provides financial and technical assistance to student editors and writers of conservative publications at colleges and universities. From CN’s mission statement, “to focus public awareness on the politicization of American college and university classrooms, curricula, student life, and the resulting decline of educational standards.” Among the college campuses where 80 CN-connected newspapers can be found: Princeton University, Yale University, American University, Amherst University, SUNY-Binghamton, Boston College, Bowdin College, North Carolina State University, Brown University, University of California- Berkeley, UNC-Chapel Hill, Johns Hopkins University, University of Chicago, University of Iowa, SUNY Albany, Brandeis University, University of Texas at Austin, Cornell University, Boston College, Bucknell University, Catholic University, Dartmouth University, Georgetown University, George Washington University, Harvard University, Kenyon College, Vanderbilt University, and Villanova University. Back to Top Activities CN helps students establish, organize and fund right-wing newspapers. CN hosts bi-annual training seminars on college student journalism and teaches students how to set up their own newspaper. CN awards general operations grants to many of its members. CN hosts an annual Editor’s Conference featuring right-wing media celebrities, such as John Leo; Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes; Wall Street Journal editorial writers John Fund, William McGurn, and Robert Bartley; Thomas Sowell; Robert Bork; and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Campus Outrage Awards, referred to as the "Pollys," are nominations by right-wing students to expose “radical campus activists” who “undermine the traditional curriculum, implement speech codes that persecute politically incorrect students, enforce group-identity politics with sensitivity seminars, and treat students with a double-standard emanating from a multiculturalist perspective.” The Wall Street Journal has called the Pollys "a great public service." Back to Top Famous CN Newspaper Alumni Columnist Ann Coulter wrote for Cornell Review — “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.” Read Rich Lowry wrote for Virginia Advocate Dinesh D’Souza wrote for Dartmouth Review; author of The End of Racism — a book, among other claims, that attributes racial inequality and oppression to African Americans themselves. Back to Top History Founders Tod Lindberg and John Podhoretz are now both professional writers. Lindberg is a columnist often published in the Washington Times and is an editor at the Hoover Institution. Podhoretz is a writer for the New York Post. CN’s President T. Kenneth Cribb worked for the Reagan Administration for eight years. Cribb was Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs in the Reagan Administration, counselor to the Attorney General of the United States, Deputy Chief Counsel of the Reagan-Bush Campaign and supervised thirty of President-elect Reagan's transition teams. Cribb has been published in National Review, The American Spectator, The Intercollegiate Review, Modern Age, and Human Events. Back to Top Funding The Collegiate Network has received, from the years 1995-2003, $4,615,000 in grants from conservative foundations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Kirby Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation, among others. Back to Top Quotes about The Collegiate Network "Editing America’s leading conservative magazine [National Review] is no easy task. But I learned the ins and outs of taking on the far Left as the editor of the Virginia Advocate, the Collegiate Network’s independent publication at the University of Virginia.” — Rich Lowry, National Review "When I was 20 years old and writing for the Michigan Review, I hoped that one day I might work for National Review. Today I do, and the Collegiate Network is a huge part of the reason why.” — John J. Miller, National Review "As an alternative source of information on today's campuses, the papers in the Collegiate Network cannot be beaten for timely and newsbreaking stories." — John Fund, The Wall Street Journal "Affirmative Action, multiculturalism, grade inflation, bureaucratic weaseling - these are all fat targets for the slings and arrows of CN papers, who deflate the most self-important of the educrats. Journalists at certain dailies could learn from these college students. There is journalism for clones . . . and then there is journalism for individuals - the Collegiate Network." — Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Updated: April 2006 Back to Top

	Coalition for a Fair Judiciary Thought it claims to be an “organization comprised of more than 75 grassroots organizations,” the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary (CFJ) appears to be little more than a one-person, part-time operation run by right-wing operative Kay Daly. Coalition for a Fair Judiciary 1155 21st Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Website: www.fairjudiciary.com President/Executive Director: Kay Daly Founded: 2001 by Kay Daly (originally Americans for Ashcroft) "Experts" List: Jay Sekulow (president, American Center for Law and Justice), Jan LaRue (Chief Counsel, Concerned Women for America), Phyllis Schlafly (president, Eagle Forum), and Genevieve Wood, (political consultant, Family Research Center), among others. Membership: Approximately 70-80 smaller grassroots organizations, top officials in some mainstream conservative organizations Finances: CFJ is a 501(c)(4) organization Publications: "Daly Report" with Kay Daly on RighTalk—a daily radio program Purpose Activities About Kay Daly History Quotes Purpose The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary was created as an umbrella organization for roughly 75 smaller center-right grassroots organizations dedicated to confirming the nominations of conservative, “constitutionalist” judges, and to combat “judicial activism.” After the successful support for the confirmation of John Ashcroft for Attorney General following the 2000 Presidential election, President Kay Daly organized the 75 grassroots organizations to create CFJ as a 501(c)4 organization. Back to Top Activities The Coalition focuses primarily on organizing and mobilizing its grassroots bases by encouraging constituents to engage in letter-writing, editorial contributions to local newspapers, calling in to radio talk-shows, and to make direct contact with their Congressmen. Kay Daly is eager enough to physically fly in supporters for Senate judiciary hearings in order to pack the confirmation hearings with friendly faces and maximize visibility of constituents. Back to Top About Kay Daly Kay Daly is the President of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. An experienced political strategist and corporate marketer, Daly received the “Ronald Reagan Award” at the American Conservative Union’s “CPAC” conference in 2003 where ACU’s president, David Keene, called her “the new Phyllis Schlafly.” She is a tireless and determined campaigner, and is especially concerned with promoting Bush’s judicial nominees. She is “not afraid to get her hands dirty on behalf of client or party,” and has been the center of several controversial and suspicious “information gathering” scandals, all of which she has denied (source). Daly received a citation from Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) for “Distinguished Service to the United States Senate.” Back to Top History Originally a coalition of groups organized to support the nomination and confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General following the 2000 Presidential election, Kay Daly founded the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary as an umbrella organization for this coalition of over 75 “grassroots” organizations. Among these groups are the notable Americans for Tax Reform, the Family Research Council, and the Christian Coalition. It is a 501(c)(4) organization, meaning it is political, and donates specifically to political campaigns and efforts. In this case, the Coalition was formed to support “impartial” conservative judicial nominees. Back to Top Quotes “One need not look further than the ill-conceived "V-Day" campaign to demonstrate just how downright bizarre feminism has become. Basically, V-Day is an alternative feminist holiday to that evil celebration of love on St. Valentines Day. So instead of candy, flowers, and romantic dinners on February 14th, feminists are organizing events to celebrate the vagina. That's right, an entire day for females across the nation to focus on their genitalia. Isn't it the entire antithesis of feminism to reduce women (and therefore their value) down to nothing more than their genitalia? How in the world does that prevent the sexual objectification of women?” –Kay R. Daly, "Feminist Follies," GOPUSA, February 28, 2005 “Many conservative parents who can beautifully articulate the most intricate conservative philosophy are almost completely blind to the liberal claptrap that has infected their child-rearing practices.” –Kay R. Daly, “It's a Matter of Parenting: The Twixters,” January 18, 2005 "The Left, apparently unaware of the outcome of the last two elections, will continue to attempt to dictate to the President the terms of the nomination and confirmation process. The Constitution, however, is clear on that matter which is quite inconvenient to those on the Left who have attempted to mask judicial activists as consensus nominees and any other choice as 'outside the mainstream.' It is nonsense to believe that Senators Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, along with their pals at NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and People for the American Way have the slightest notion what 'the mainstream' of America believes.” –Kay R. Daly, “CFJ Praises the Roberts Nomination, Laments the Reaction from the Left,” July 19. 2005 Updated: July 2006 Back to Top

	Committee for Justice Launched at the behest of Senate Republicans and initially led by right-wing stalwart C. Boyden Gray, the Committee for Justice exists primarily for the purpose of providing the appearance of “grassroots” support and activism for President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees. 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Website: www.committeeforjustice.org Chairmen: C. Boyden Gray, Ronald A. Cass (former Dean of Boston University School of Law), Spencer Abraham (former Senator, former Secretary of Energy under George W. Bush, co-founder of the Federalist Society) Place/Date of Founding: Washington, D.C. in 2002 by former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray and Sean Rushton Executive Director: Sean Rushton Board of Directors: C. Boyden Gray, Edward M. Rogers, and Edwin Williamson (all former members of George H.W. Bush’s administration) Board Members: Frank Keating (President and CEO of the American Council of Life Insurers), Connie Mack, Jennifer C. Braceras (Senior Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum), John Engler (former Michigan governor and current President of National Association of Manufacturers), among others. Finances: $26,250 (2003 revenue); $122,611 (2003 expenses) Publications: Online “Daily Blog” and numerous television ads promoting judicial nominees. Affiliate Groups: Committee for Justice Foundation Principal Issues About C. Boyden Gray Activities History Quotes Principal Issues The Committee for Justice (CFJ) is staffed by legal scholars and practitioners, and was created for the purpose of promoting and supporting constitutionalist (as opposed to “activist”) judicial nominees to the federal courts. It strives to educate the public on the importance of judges and the court system to American life. CFJ defines “constitutionalism” as “the belief that a judge’s proper role is as neutral interpreter of the natural law, not as pioneer of new law or social policy through judicial activism.” Back to Top About C. Boyden Gray Partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler & Pickering and lobbyist for corporate clients such as Citigroup, Inc. In 2002, Gray was recruited by Representative Trent Lott to start an organization specifically tailored to oppose the filibuster of judicial nominees in the Senate. With additional support from Bush political strategist Karl Rove, Gray formed the CFJ, and began his mission to raise funds from corporate sources. Gray has strong ties to the Bush family; at the onset of CFJ, George H.W. Bush – for whom Gray had worked as Legal Counsel and Counsel to the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief while Bush was Vice President; and later as Director of the Office of Transition Counsel for the Bush transition team and Counsel to President Bush from 1989-1993 – threw a large fund-raising cocktail party in his Houston home, raising $250,000 for the new organization. Gray served as Counsel to the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, chaired by Vice President Bush, then later as Director of the Office of Transition Counsel for the Bush transition team, and as Counsel to the first President Bush from 1989-1993. In 1993 he returned to William Cutler & Pickering. Gray sits on the Boards of Progress for America (a conservative group that spent millions in opposition to John F. Kerry’s race for the presidency), and FreedomWorks, a nonprofit organization in favor of lower taxes and less government regulation. Named Ambassador to European Union by President Bush in July 2005. Back to Top Activities CFJ bolsters support for ultra-conservative judicial nominees, many of whom are opposed by Democratic senators, by strategically airing and publishing advertisements in favor of the nominee in a senator’s home state. In August of 2005, CFJ President Rushton reported that his group would be targeting Democratic senators in the red states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Colorado, Indiana, and North and South Dakota with radio ad buys later on in the month. The organization has lent its support to nominees such as Charles Pickering, Janice Rogers-Brown, and Miguel Estrada, with ads featuring African-American and Latino politicians. Back to Top History CFJ was created in 2002 by C. Boyden Gray in order to advocate greater constitutionalism in the federal courts. Its primary goal is to see the conservative Bush nominees through the Senate confirmation process, and does so largely by appealing to the public with television and published advertisements. Back to Top Quotes “This is a single-issue litmus test that strikes at the heart of an independent judiciary. It proves that the Democratic Party is increasingly focused solely on the issue of abortion on demand. Their greatest fear is a nonpolitical judge who will read the law as it's written." – Sean Rushton, responding to female U.S. Senators who say that they will vote against Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. unless he vows to uphold abortion rights. Washington Times, July 29, 2005 Updated: May 2006 Back to Top

	Concerned Women for America Founded by Beverly LaHaye, wife of Religious Right activist Tim LaHaye, as a counter to the progressive National Organization of Women, Concerned Women for America (CWA) describes itself as “the nation's largest public policy women's organization.” CWA opposes gay rights, comprehensive sex education, drug and alcohol education, and feminism, while advocating what it calls “pro-life” and “pro-family” values. Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth Street NW - Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Website: www.cwfa.org Founder and Chairman: Beverly LaHaye President: Wendy Wright Founded: 1979, San Diego, CA Finances: Concerned Women for America - $8,484,108 (2004); Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee - $555,477 (2004) Membership: CWA claims over 500,000 members. State chapters: 500 regional groups across the country. Staff: 34 Donations: In 2002, CWA reported earnings in the form of “gifts, grants and contributions received” in the amount of $10,731,558 Publications: Family Voice (published monthly, has 200,000 subscribers) and Issues at a Glance (monthly). Family Watch, a church communication, reaches 500,000 people in churches across the country. CWA also offers many books, cassettes, and video tapes to their supporters on a wide variety of subjects. Radio: CWA's daily radio show, "Concerned Women Today," is broadcast on 75 stations and reaches an estimated weekly audience of over 1 million. Affiliate groups: Concerned Women for America Education and Legal Defense Foundation, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), the Beverly LaHaye Institute, and the Culture and Family Institute. Principal Issues Activities History Former Employees State Activities Quotes from Beverly LaHaye Principal Issues Concerned Women for America is “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization…[CWA seeks] to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.”. CWA is anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism and anti-sex education. Beverly LaHaye started CWA to respond to the advances of feminism after watching NOW founder Betty Friedan on television in 1978. CWA identifies feminism as “anti-god, anti-family.” CWA identifies state-level Equal Rights Amendments (ERAs) as responsible for the breakdown of families, “The ERA proposes the elimination of our God-given roles as men and women, resulting in the redefinition -- and eventual destruction -- of family.” Back to Top Activities CWA has lobbied against the Freedom of Choice Act and gay rights legislation in many states. Grassroots activity in most states is led by a CWA Area Representative and a steering committee. According to its 2003 990 Report, CWA spent a total of $92,560 in lobbying expenditures to influence both public opinion and legislative bodies. This group monitors state legislation, organizes Prayer/Action chapters and coordinates the CWA's “Project 535” grassroots congressional lobbying program. (“Project 535” refers to the total number of Members of Congress in both the House and Senate.) CWA fights against sex education curricula that is not completely abstinence based and opposes anti-drug and alcohol abuse programs that emphasize self-esteem. Many challengers to books and curricula in public schools use CWA-produced materials. CWA has been active in the fight against using Harry Potter books in schools. Publications such as “Harry Potter: Seduction of the Occult” claim that the books promote the practice of witchcraft among children. CWA offers books and videos such as, “Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged: Making Evil Look Innocent.” (Produced by Tim LaHaye, Beverly LaHaye’s husband.) CWA has also been active in supporting the teaching of Creationism and “Intelligent Design theory” in science classrooms. CWA’s anti-gay work covers many issues, from supporting the Boy Scouts of America ban against gay participants, to opposing any openly gay people in President Bush’s administration. CWA has been active in opposing any and all gay and lesbian civil rights measures, including supporting the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians in employment. CWA supports the “Truth in Love” campaign that says that homosexuality is a sin and claims gays and lesbians can become “straight” through “the love of Jesus Christ.” CWA established the Culture and Family Institute (CFI) to combat gay and lesbian civil rights. Robert H. Knight, a long time anti-gay crusader, leads the Culture and Family Institute. During John Ashcroft’s confirmation hearings in the Senate, CWA and many other “pro-family” groups held a press conference of conservative women leaders, which they claim resulted in 13,000 e-mails to senators, phone calls from members, hand-deliver information to senators and appeared on several major news networks. CWA called Ashcroft’s critics “anti-religionists.” As a leader of the religious right, Beverly and her husband Tim LaHaye are strong supporters of other Religious-Right groups and leaders. For instance, in the summer of 2001 the LaHayes gave Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University $4.5 million. (Beverly LaHaye is a trustee of the university.) Beverly LaHaye, alongside many other conservative leaders, has lobbied to de-fund the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). In 1991, she testified before the Committee on Appropriations, Interior Subcommittee, of the House of Representatives to argue for de-funding of the NEA. In 2002, CWA vehemently opposed ratification of CEDAW (the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women), claiming its pro-women empowerment and equality sections comprised a “leftist utopian wish list.” The Convention, which opposes the discrimination or subordination of women across the globe, was criticized by LaHaye Institute Fellow Janice Shaw Crouse, as imposing contemporary colonialist, neo-Marxist agendas. CEDAW was ratified on January 7, 2005, by 71 countries, and endorsed by 76 signatories. The United States was not one of them. Back to Top History In 1994 CWA filed suit on behalf of an anti-abortion protester who was arrested during a protest against the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), which banned protesters from blocking clinic entrances. In 1995 the Court of Appeals upheld FACE and CWA appealed to the Supreme Court, although the Court refused to hear the case. In 1994 the Virginia State Democratic Committee filed an injunction against CWA to stop the distribution of CWA’s “nonpartisan” voter guides. CWA and the Family Foundation (of Virginia) appealed to the courts, which ordered the ban lifted. In 1993 CWA-Iowa claimed victory by helping to defeat the state ERA with a 52 percent majority vote. In 1988, Beverly LaHaye testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the confirmation hearings for Judge Anthony Kennedy to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the 1987 Supreme Court nomination hearings for Robert Bork, CWA led a national petition drive, sponsored a “Women for Bork” rally, and organized 350 people to lobby senators on Bork’s behalf. Back to Top Former Employees Mike Farris: Founder and former President (until 2000) of the Home School Legal Defense Association, Mike Farris worked for CWA as a full-time attorney while still upholding his responsibilities to home-schooling. HSLDA is an organization that defends a parent’s right to home-school their children, and frequently defends parents who have been contacted by Social Services for reasons ranging from educational neglect to physical child abuse. Farris is no longer President, yet he still remains the Chairman of the Board and General Counsel at HSLDA. Farris was the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1993, and is the President of Patrick Henry College. Farris is also the founder and president of The Madison Project, a political action committee supporting “Republicans who clearly demonstrate their conservatism.” Michael Schwartz: Schwartz was the Vice President for Legislative Affairs and the Vice President of Governmental Relations at CWA. During his career with CWA, Schwartz co-authored Gays, AIDS, and You, and was a leading advocate for the sanctity of life, parental rights, and religious freedom. Schwartz is currently the chief of staff in the office of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Back to Top State Activities Many of the CWA state groups are very active on local issues. For instance, in 1998 the CWA-California Bay Area chapter helped gather 60,000 necessary signatures to force the Board of Supervisors to either repeal or place on the ballot a domestic partnership ordinance. The Board repealed the ordinance. Back to Top Quotes from Beverly LaHaye “Christian values should dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.” Read “Most women know the feminist agenda has failed. They see our culture crumbling from its influence. In fact, feminism has harmed women and families worldwide as its proponents have used the United Nations to spread their agenda." (CWA’s Family Voice, July-August, 1999, pg. 5) "Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office." (“Ms.” magazine, 2/87) On censorship: "I am aware that America is and must always be a land of freedom including freedom of speech. But there is a right time and place for everything." (CWA News, 3/91) Mrs. LaHaye warned her members that homosexuals "want their depraved 'values' to become our children's values. Homosexuals expect society to embrace their immoral way of life. Worse yet, they are looking for new recruits!" (CWA direct mail, 5/92) Updated: April 2006 Back to Top

	Eagle Forum 316 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Ste. 203 Washington, DC 20003 www.eagleforum.org President/Founder: Phyllis Schlafly Executive Director: Lori (Cole) Waters Date of founding: 1972 Place of founding: Alton, IL Membership: 80,000 Finances: $2.3 million (2000) Staff: 8 State Chapters: 30 listed on website. Publications: The Phyllis Schlafly Report, published monthly. From the Eagle's Nest, a weekly newsletter just for teens. The Eagle’s Voice, a weekly e-mail newsletter for college students. “Crisis in the Classroom,” a video on “hidden agendas” in public schools. “Radical Feminism,” a video which outlines the destructive force of feminism. Schlafly’s weekly syndicated column appears in 100 newspapers. EF also publishes other reports on their issues. Radio: Schlafly’s radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations, and her radio talk show on education called "Phyllis Schlafly Live" is heard weekly on 40 stations. Cole has appeared on the United Radio Network NewsMaker, USA Radio Network. Television: Cole has been a guest on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes , Beyond the News, CNN Talk Back Live, ABC’s Politically Incorrect , and MSNBC. Affiliate Groups: Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, the Eagle Forum’s foundation. The Eagle Forum Collegians, a network for conservative college students. The Eagle Forum PAC contributes to right-wing political campaigns. Schlafly co-founded the Republican National Coalition for Life in 1990. Eagle Forum’s Principal Issues: Eagle Forum's History: Phyllis Schlafly quotes: Eagle Forum’s Principal Issues: The Eagle Forum has expanded from a group that spent a decade campaigning against a single issue to lobbying congress on a variety of issues, establishing leadership training seminars, and reaching out to college students to help develop future conservative leaders. Phyllis Schlafly is often identified as the mother of the women’s conservative movement, and through EF she has been an outspoken opponent of many issues including: sex education (unless its “abstinence only”), reproductive rights, AIDS education, sexual harassment legislation, federal support for daycare and family leave, United States involvement with the United Nations, the international Chemical Weapons Treaty, affirmative action, bilingual education, multiculturalism and diversity education, gay and lesbian rights, teaching the theory of evolution in schools, environmental protection efforts, the dangers of pornography, and immigration. Schlafly has championed “traditional family values,” such as women staying home to care for their children, and has raised 6 children in addition to writing or editing 20 books, earning a Master’s in Political Science in 1945 from Harvard, and spearheading national campaigns for over thirty years. Mrs. Schlafly is also a lawyer and served as a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, 1985-1991, appointed by President Reagan. Schlafly has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues. The Eagle Forum has organized against curricula and textbooks in public schools that violate “Christian values” and Schlafly’s work is cited frequently by local schoolbook censors. EF also campaigns heavily against the National Education Association and the American Teacher's Federation, claiming that both groups intentionally obstruct the ability of children to learn so that they can make a profit. Back to Top Eagle Forum's History: Phyllis Schlafly established the Eagle Forum (EF) to combat the “Equal Rights Amendment” and the radical feminist agenda. Schlafly takes credit for defeating the Equal Rights Amendment, and her anti-feminism efforts made her a household name in the Equal Rights Amendment battle in the 1970’s; She was responsible for popularizing the misconception that if the ERA was passed, separate bathrooms for the sexes would be illegal. Back to Top Phyllis Schlafly quotes: “The teachers unions are more eager to expand job opportunities for the remedial reading bureaucracy, and for servicing the social problems caused by illiteracy, than they are in teaching the basics.” – website essay, “How to Make America Better” “Abolishing the Department of Education was one of Ronald Reagan's campaign promises when he ran for President in 1980. Fulfilling that promise is long overdue, and the time to do it is now…The goal [in public schools] is clearly to infuse (i.e., cause to penetrate) the gay/lesbian propaganda into every level of school: every grade K through 12, every academic subject, and every school and social activity. “ -The Phyllis Schlafly Report, September 1995 “Nothing about contraception should be taught in schools. There is no question that it will encourage sexual activity.” – New York Times, 10/17/92 “You can’t get into negotiations with the feminists because you will lose. They will slit your throat. They have no sense of fair play or compromise.” –National Affairs Briefing, 8/92 [Updated September 2002] Back to Top

	Eagle Forum Collegians 316 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 203 Washington, DC 20003 www.efcollegians.org Founded: by Phyllis Schlafly in 1993 President: Phyllis Schlafly Assistant Director: Jessica Echard Finances: unknown, see Eagle Forum Affiliated with: Eagle Forum Publications: Eagle’s Voice, a weekly newsletter EFC's Issues: EFC's Activities: EFC's Issues: EFC’s main issues: fighting feminism and women’s studies curricula, opposing “the gay agenda,” opposing affirmative action programs, opposing multicultural approaches to education, and targeting the campus funding of “liberal” student organizations. EFC helps students sponsor right-wing speakers and bring them to their campuses to “counter the multitude of liberal messages in the classrooms, the dorms, the student center, and the special lectures.” The only speaker heavily promoted through the group is Phyllis Schalfy. Back to Top EFC's Activities: ECF has chapters on college and university campuses. These groups focus on electing conservative students to student government. Hosts an annual Leadership Summit in Washington, DC. Guest lecturers have included: Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), CNN host Tucker Carlson, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). The 2003 conference claimed to have had students from 119 schools. The 2004 conference included the following speakers: Phyllis Schlafly, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Tim Goeglein of the White House Office of Public Liaison. The 2004 conference claimed to have had students from over 100 schools. Previous speakers also include Ann Coulter and House Majority Leader Dick Armey. EFC has a“Book Project”whose central purpose is to promote Phyllis Schlafly’s books and get students to pressure college and university libraries to purchase copies of her books. The Book Project also suggests that students pressure their Women’s Studies Departments to make Schlafly’s recent book on “feminism's forty-year war against women,” Feminist Fantasies, required reading. EFC offers students internships in their national Washington DC headquarters. Updated July 2004 Back to Top

	Family Research Council 801 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 www.frc.org President: Tony Perkins Date of founding: 1983 Membership: 455,000 members. Finances: $10 million (2000 revenue) Staff: 120 State groups: 40 Publications: Washington Watch (monthly) and Family Policy (bimonthly). Ed Facts (available via fax, e-mail or internet on a weekly basis). CultureFacts (available by fax or e-mail). I.E. (Ideas & Energy) monthly newsletter provides articles on political, social, and cultural trends for high-school students. Also produces numerous issue papers. Radio: Ken Connor’s “Washington Watch,” a daily radio program hosted by FRC’s president. Affiliate groups: American Renewal, Family Policy Councils FRC’s Principal Issues: FRC's Activities: FRC history: Quotes from the Family Research Council: FRC’s Principal Issues: Since the early 1990’s, FRC has emerged as a leading conservative think-tank championing “traditional family values” by lobbying for state-sponsored prayer in public schools, private school “vouchers,” abstinence-only programs, filtering software on public library computers, the right to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. FRC’s objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America’s domestic and foreign policy. FRC has dedicated itself to working against reproductive freedom, sex education, equal rights for gays and lesbians and their families, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FRC supports a school prayer amendment and would like to ‘disestablish’ the Department of Education. Back to Top FRC's Activities: FRC has testified before congress on many “pro-family” issues, filed amicus briefs, and published a lot of reports that they regularly circulate to politicians. In September 2001, FRC’s president attacked President Bush for his “implicit endorsement of the homosexual political agenda” with the appointment of two openly gay men by the Bush administration. FRC has also defended the Boy Scout’s discriminatory practices against gay men and lesbians and has criticized the Girl Scouts for not having the same practice. FRC has joined many other right-wing conservative groups by attacking and boycotting Disney’s “gay-friendly” policies. FRC has lobbied against many “equal rights” measures that extend civil rights protections to gay and lesbian people, and has promoted the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat civil rights measures for gay men and lesbians. FRC strives to ban all federal or state support for family planning services and overturn the right to an abortion. FRC is a strong supporter of “abstinence-only” education and opposes sex education that addresses contraception. Back to Top FRC history: FRC was originally established by Dr. James Dobson, of the behemoth right-wing group Focus on the Family, to lobby for “traditional family values” in Washington, DC. In 1988 the group was led by Gary Bauer, former head the Reagan Administration’s Office of Policy Development and Reagan’s chief adviser on domestic policy. The ambitious Bauer set out to make FRC the voice of social conservatives in Washington, DC. Under Bauer, FRC became a division of Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family from 1988 until October 1992, when IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an amicable administrative separation. When Ralph Reed stepped down as executive director of the Christian Coalition, Bauer emerged as an emerging star of the religious right. Bauer’s leadership helped establish the group as one most well-known conservative lobbying groups in Washington, DC. In 1999, Bauer left FRC to run for president of the United States. After his failed bid for the presidency, in 2000 Bauer returned to American Values, a group he had formed years ago but had been dormant for several years. In 1999, Attorney Ken Connor was tapped to be FRC’s next president, a seasoned anti-choice activist from Florida. Connor stepped down as FRC's president in August 2003. FRC appointed former Louisiana state Rep. Tony Perkins as their new president in September 2003. Perkin's Louisiana legislative background includes: author of legislation requiring public schools to install filtering software. author of American History Preservation Act, which "prevents censorship of America's Christian heritage in Louisiana public schools." authored legislation providing "a daily time of silent prayer in Louisiana public schools." author of the first Covenant Marriage Law. In 1998, Perkins founded the Louisiana Family Forum due to his concern for "increasing influence of the homosexual community on public policy issues." Back to Top Quotes from the Family Research Council: “We are encouraged that the President is now saying he will support amending the Constitution to protect marriage. However, I am concerned that the President thinks counterfeit institutions such as same-sex unions are OK and do not threaten to devalue the real thing. This administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent the counterfeiting of our currency which threatens the health of our economy. Counterfeit marriages called "civil unions" pose a serious threat to the health of our culture, and while the President may believe this is an issue to be resolved at the state level, he should use his moral leadership to steer states away from such culture-threatening unions - not encourage them by showing indifference or political tolerance." -Tony Perkins, Washington Update, December 17, 2003 "Supporters of V. Gene Robinson, the newly consecrated homosexual Episcopal bishop, claim his elevation sends "a powerful message of love and tolerance." However, it is not "tolerant" to brush off opposition to the consecration of a homosexual bishop. Nor is it "loving" to suppress evidence that homosexual behavior is a "death-style" that is sending young people to an early grave." -Tony Perkins, Washington Update, November 4, 2003 “Do you really think that when our troops from Delta Force crawl into Osama bin Laden’s cave in Afghanistan or into the face of the muzzle of a terrorist machine gun, that they are doing it so that women can kill their children, so that pornographers can peddle their smut, so that people of the same sex can marry? If those features of American life become the fixtures of American life, I fear that our nation may not long endure.” -- President Ken Connor, from “Reflections After the Terror,”October 2, 2001 "This is another attempt by the homosexual lobby to indoctrinate children as young as kindergarten in the homosexual lifestyle. Young people who are sexually confused need the facts about homosexuality. They need to know that research shows they aren't `born gay,' that there is hope for a way out of the lifestyle, and that continuing in homosexuality presents serious health risks. The NEA’s proposal would censor such honesty." --Family Research Council spokeswoman Genevieve Wood on the National Education Association, Washington Times, July 4th, 2001 “With today’s effective [internet] filtering technology, there is no excuse for schools and libraries to become a virtual dirty peep-show open to kids and funded by taxpayers." -- spokeswoman Jan LaRue, March 20, 2001 press release "...one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order." --“Homosexual Behavior & Pedophilia,” a FRC publication, July 1999, http://www.frc.org/misc/bl057.pdf "Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement." --"Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," FRC publication, July 1999, http://www.frc.org/misc/bl057.pdf [Updated December 2003] Back to Top

	Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies Since its inception, the Federalist Society has played a key role in advancing the right-wing agenda. As a ideological proving ground for ultra-conservative activists, lawyers, and scholars, the Federalist Society has long served as a valuable professional network for those on the Right and has proved to be a valuable resource from which the Bush administration has culled not only numerous administration officials, but also judicial nominees. Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 1015 18th Street NW Suite 425 Washington, DC 20036 Website: www.fed-soc.org Established: 1982 by a group of right-wing law students President/Executive Director: Eugene Meyer Board of Directors: National Co-Chairmen Prof. Steven Calabresi and David M. MacIntosh, Directors Prof. Gary Lawson, and Eugene B. Meyer, Hon. T. Kenneth Cribb (President of Collegiate Network), and Mr. Brent O. Hatch, treasurer. Membership: The FS Lawyers Division has 25,000 legal professionals; Student Division has more than 5,000 law students at 145 law schools; 60 metropolitan lawyers’ chapters; 15 nationwide practice groups; and a new Faculty Division with unpublished membership numbers. Finances: $5,450,536 (total revenue for 2004) Grants: Since 1985, The Federalist Society has received over $12 million in grants from conservative foundations, such as the Earhart, Bradley, Simon, and Olin Foundations, as well as the Carthage, Koch, and Scaife Foundations. Publications: Several e-mail newsletters on different topics, a quarterly law journal, a “Conservative and Libertarian Pre-Law Reading List,” and various reports on legal issues. Principal Issues Federalist Society Members in the Bush Administration [partial list] Federal Judicial Nominees Other High-Profile Federalist Society Members [partial list] Principal Issues The Federalist Society hopes to transform the American legal system by developing and promoting far-right positions and influencing who will become judges, top government officials, and decision-makers. FS is “dedicated to reforming the current legal order.” The Federalist Society is a well established network of right-wing lawyers, politicians, pundits, and judges. Many members of the Federalist Society advocate a rollback of civil rights measures, reproductive choice, labor and employment regulations, and environmental protections. In Federalist Society’s guide to forming and running a chapter of the society, FS says it “creates an informal network of people with shared views which can provide assistance in job placement.” The Federalist Society has 15 different “practice groups” that focus on particular legal issues, such as civil rights and labor and employment law. Read PFAW Foundation's detailed report, The Federalist Society: From Obscurity to Power [PDF file]. Back to Top Federalist Society Members in the Bush Administration [partial list] Former Attorney General John Ashcroft Former Secretary of the Department of Energy Spencer Abraham Secretary of the Department of Interior Gale Norton Former Solicitor of Labor Eugene Scalia (Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s son) Former General Counsel of the Department of Education Brian Jones Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson Former Solicitor General Ted Olson Former Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy Viet Dinh Inspector General of Department of Defense Joseph E. Schmitz Former Asst. Attorney General for Environment and Natural Resources Thomas L. Sansonetti Former Principal Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement [Currently Solicitor General] Former Associate Deputy Attorney General and former Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Office of Policy Planning R. Ted Cruz Former Director of National Institute of Justice Sarah V. Hart Former Associate White House Counsel Bradford Berenson Former Associate White House Counsel Noel Francisco Back to Top Federal Judicial Nominees Samuel Alito, confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts, confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court Janice Rogers Brown, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Miguel Estrada, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [withdrawn] Brett Kavanaugh, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit D. Brooks Smith, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Michael Chertoff, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, currently Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security William Haynes, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Edith Brown Clement, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Priscilla R. Owen, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Henry Saad, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [withdrawn] Susan Neilson, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Deborah Cook, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Jeffrey Sutton, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit David W. McKeague, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Diane Sykes, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Steven Collonton, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Raymond Gruender, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Carlos Bea, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Carolyn B. Kuhl, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [withdrawn] Jay Bybee, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Harris L. Hartz, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Michael McConnell, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Timothy M. Tymkovich, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit William Pryor, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Thomas B. Griffith, confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Back to Top Other High-Profile Federalist Society Members [partial list] Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Kenneth Starr, former White House Independent Counsel whose investigation led to President Clinton’s impeachment Judge Robert Bork, failed Supreme Court nominee Linda Chavez, President of the Center for Equal Opportunity Charles Murray, controversial author who asserted that some races are inherently less intelligent than others Don Hodel, former Christian Coalition president Michigan Governor John Engler Justice Maura Corrigan, Michican Supreme Court Chief Justice (4 other justices on the state supreme court are also members of the FS) Former Attorney General Don Stenberg, Nebraska Former Attorney General Alan Lance, Idaho Updated: May 2006 Back to Top

	Focus on the Family Focus on the Family founder and chairman James Dobson is perhaps the most influential right-wing Christian leader in the country, with a huge and loyal following that he can reach easily through an impressive media empire. Focus on the Family 8605 Explorer Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80920 Website: http://www.family.org/ Founder: Dr. James C. Dobson President/Chief Executive Officer: James D. Daly Established: 1977 Finances: $137,848,520 (2004 Focus on the Family revenue); $24,988,036 (2004 Focus on the Family Action revenue) Board of Directors: Ted Engstrom, Bobb Beihl, Lee Eaton, Shirley Dobson, Don Hodel, Stephen W. Reed, Robert Hamby, Anthony Wauterlek, Daniel Villanueva; Lt. Gen. Patrick P Caruana, Elsa Prince Broekhuizen, Steve Largent, Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr., Dr. Kathleen Nielson (2004) Staff: approximately 1,300 employees Publications: 2.3 million subscribers to ten monthly magazines. Magazine titles include: Focus on the Family, Citizen Magazine, Parental Guidance, Clubhouse and Clubhouse Jr. Focus on the Family also publishes a wide variety of books, tapes, films and videos. Media: Dr. Dobson is heard daily on more than 3,400 radio facilities in North America, in 15 languages, on approximately 6,300 facilities in 164 countries. Dobson’s estimated listening audience is over 220 million people every day, including a program translation carried on all state-owned radio stations in the Republic of China. In the United States, Dobson appears on 80 television stations daily. State affiliates: FOF is affiliated with 36 state groups such as the Pennsylvania Family Institute, the North Carolina Policy Council and the Rocky Mountain Family Council. Affiliate groups: Focus on the Family Institute, FOF’s college program, and Focus on the Family Action, which is FOF’s cultural action organization formed under the IRS section 501(c)(4). FOF has 74 different international ministries and has established conservative Christian ministries for attorneys, doctors, teachers, and other groups. Principal Activities Funding About Founder James Dobson About President Jim Daly Quotes from Dr. James Dobson Principal Activities Focus on the Family's mission is to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family. Focus on the Family (FOF) is the largest international religious-right group in the United States, a multi-media empire that includes its own “campus” and zip code in Colorado Springs, Colorado. FOF is a strong supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act; since the decision of Massachusetts to recognize same-sex unions, FOF closely monitors the status of same-sex marriage prevention measures being enacted in each state across the country. Focus on the Family Action launched an ad campaign in 16 states urging calls to U.S. senators in support of an up-or-down vote on President Bush’s judicial nominees. FOF provides “Evangelical Christian” self-help in a variety of forums, via radio and their publications, and by conducting seminars across the country to help evangelical Christians become involved in the political process. Focus on the Family uses its radio show and magazine, Citizen, to urge "pro-family" voters to become active in state and local primaries and caucuses. FOF is anti-choice, anti-gay, and against sex education curricula that are not strictly abstinence-only. Local schoolbook censors frequently use Focus on the Family's material when challenging a book or curriculum in the public schools. FOF also focuses on religion in public schools, encouraging Christian teachers to establish prayer groups in schools. FOF supports student-led prayer in public schools, although it points out that it doesn’t support teacher-led prayer for fear that a teacher would encourage Christian students “to pray to Allah, Buddha or the goddess Sophia against the wishes of the parents and/or students.” (“Religion in Public Schools,” February 1998.) FOF also supports private school vouchers, tax credits for religious schools, rejects education efforts that address multiculturalism or homosexuality, and recommends that Christian parents withdraw from the Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) on the grounds that it has a liberal social agenda. FOF supports faith-based social services and “charitable choice.” FOF works against “special rights” for homosexuals and hate crime legislation, and supports “reparative therapy” for homosexuality, which has been widely discredited and rejected by the vast majority of doctors and physicians. FOF sponsors “Love Won Out,” conferences held around the U.S. that claim to prove that “homosexuality is preventable and treatable,” where many of the speakers are “ex-gays.” “Love Won Out” is from the title of a book by John Paulk, an “ex-gay” who is the host of the conferences and is an employee of Focus on the Family. For those ex-gays who cannot change, FOF considers sexual celibacy another option. FOF regularly asserts the idea that there is a “homosexual agenda” and associates homosexuals with pedophilia and recruitment of children as sex partners. Back to Top Funding According to Ministry Watch, Focus on the Family is the eighth largest ministry in terms of revenues in their database. FOF receives a substantial portion of its revenue from its countless resources, including book, periodical, CD, video, and magazine sales, as well as conference and retreat costs, yet still, in its 2004 990 form, declares $118,263,318 of grants, contributions and gifts received from donors. Focus on the Family’s ownership of its land (it prefers to own rather than rent its space) and buildings add up to $48 million on its books, and in 2004 they cited the cost of upkeep and improvements on their property to be over $101.5 million. James Dobson pays FOF a yearly sum of $5000 for radio show fees. Shirley Dobson, wife of James and head of the National Day of Prayer, works in conjunction with FOF for funding for the events of the National Day of Prayer; in 2004 the total cost of the events came to $164,000, which was apparently in part reimbursed by a $150,000 donation to FOF by the National Prayer Committee (NPC). Back to Top About Founder James Dobson Dobson served as the President and CEO of the group from the time it was founded until he stepped down in Spring of 2003. Dobson still serves as the Chairman of the Board and the host of Focus on the Family radio broadcasts. Dr. James Dobson is the author of 17 books, most of which deal with raising Christian children in a culture that he views as hostile to fundamentalist Christians. Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved with Republican administrations as an expert on the “family.” Dobson was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army's Family Initiative, 1986-88. Dobson served on Attorney General Edwin Meese's Commission on Pornography, 1985-86. Dobson also consulted with former President George H.W. Bush on family related matters. In December 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, and in October, 1996, by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. James Dobson also founded and helped establish another successful conservative group, Washington, DC’s Family Research Council. Established in 1981 by Dobson, the group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of FOF, but in 1992, IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation. James Dobson has a PhD in child development from the University of Southern California. Read PFAW's in-depth report on James Dobson. Back to Top About President Jim Daly Before coming to FOF Jim Daly worked at International Paper, where he gained experiences in banking, insurance, and product sales. He joined FOF in 1989, when he started out as the assistant to the President of Public Affairs. He eventually moved on to manage the International Field Director position which address relations in Asia, Africa, and Australia. His position now as President is the result of his experienced corporate and business skills, coupled with his ability to make cross-cultural ties. Back to Top Quotes from Dr. James Dobson In response to 9/11: “Question: Has God withdrawn His protective hand from the US?” James Dobson responds: “Christians have made arguments on both sides of this question. I certainly believe that God is displeased with America for its pride and arrogance, for killing 40 million unborn babies, for the universality of profanity and for other forms of immorality. However, rather than trying to forge a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the terrorist attacks and America’s abandonment of biblical principles, which I think is wrong, we need to accept the truth that this nation will suffer in many ways for departing from the principles of righteousness. "The wages of sin is death," as it says in Romans 6, both for individuals and for entire cultures. ” – Focus on the Family website “[The homosexual] agenda includes teaching pro-homosexual [sic] concepts in the public schools, redefining the family to represent "any circle of people who love each other," approval of homosexual adoption, legitimizing same-sex marriage, and securing special rights for those who identify themselves as gay. Those ideas must be opposed, even though to do so is to expose oneself to the charge of being "homophobic." – “Complete Marriage and Family Home Reference Guide” by James Dobson "Does the Republican Party want our votes, no strings attached--to court us every two years, and then to say, 'Don't call me; I'll call you'--and to not care about the moral law of the universe?...Is that what they want? Is that the way the system works? Is this the way it's going to be? If it is, I'm gone, and if I go, I will do everything I can to take as many people with me as possible." – Statement from 02/07/98 Council for National Policy meeting, Washington Times, February 17, 1998 Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	FRCAction 801 G Street NW Washington, DC 20001 www.frcaction.org Established: 1992 Finances: 501(c)(4) lobbying organization President: Kenneth Connor Executive Director: Richard Lessner, Ph.D. Formerly known as:American Renewal FRCAction's Principal Issues: "A renewal of ethical monotheism and traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality-- the "Laws of Nature and Nature’s God"-- to which the founding fathers appealed in the Declaration of Independence.” (From FRCAction’s mission statement.) Pledges to fight until Roe v. Wade is repealed or reversed. Judiciary— FRCAction fights for conservative “strict constructionist” appointments. Rejects laws that give civil rights/civil liberties protections to gays and lesbians. Fights against laws that protect or recognize same-sex couples as a family. FRCAction's Activities: In 2001 and 2002 the group has been targeting Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in his home state of South Dakota in newspaper and radio ads. In March 2002, as American Renewal (AR), the group delivered over 5,200 of their “pro-family citizen's petitions” to Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl. AR says that the petitions send the following message, “Millions of Americans who support traditional moral values want to see their elected representatives promote policies that strengthen the family as a special institution created by God.” AR worked against same-sex marriage/civil unions in Vermont. AR continues to be involved in Vermont and pledges to be involved in any other state where same-sex marriage/civil unions are a legislative issue. Op-eds by AR's director appear in major newspapers such as the LA Times. FRCAction's Background: AR sponsored a print media campaign on behalf of John Ashcroft, supporting his confirmation. Full-page ads appeared in USA Today and other major newspapers. Led the fight to reject the Clinton-appointee Joycelyn Elders from the post of U.S. Surgeon General. In 1996 AR successfully pressured the GOP to keep conservative “pro-family” statements and the anti-abortion plank in the Republican Party platform. Executive Director Richard Lessner was the senior campaign advisor for former FRC president Gary Bauer’s failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. [Updated February 2004]

	Free Congress Research and Education Foundation 717 Second St., NE Washington, DC 20002 www.freecongress.org President/Founder: Paul Weyrich Date of founding: 1977 Finances: $11.4 million (1997 revenue) Publications: Free Congress Commentaries, three e-mail newsletters, “Notable News Now,” “Coalition for Constitutional Liberties,” and “Coalition for Judicial Restraint, ” as well as reports and op-eds. Media: Paul Weyrich is a cable tv and radio talk show host, as well as an op-ed contributor for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. Affiliated with: Free Congress, Coalitions for America FCF’s Principal Issues: Paul Weyrich’s Background: FCF’s Centers: Quotes from Paul Weyrich: Quotes from Free Congress Foundation: FCF’s Principal Issues: Free Congress Research and Education Foundation (FCF) describes its mission as fighting the culture war and returning America back to its traditional conservative roots. “[O]ur main focus is on the Culture War. Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture? Or will we continue the long slide into the cultural and moral decay of political correctness? If we do, America, once the greatest nation on earth, will become no less than a third world country.” FCF’s targets include multi-culturalism, “judicial activism,” Democratic politicians, and “moral decay and political correctness.” Weyrich’s vision is for cultural conservatives to eventually dominate all aspects of American culture and politics. Since the tragedy of 9/11, FCF has published many anti-Islamic papers and essays, “This hard-hitting new paper dissects and devastates the notion that Islam is a ‘peaceful, tolerant’ religion. It isn't and it never has been. Learn why and how Islam is making war on Christians everywhere- and what the West needs to do in response.” Back to Top Paul Weyrich’s Background: Paul Weyrich, president of Free Congress, has had an extensive history with the Religious Right and is often referred to as the father of the Religious Right. Weyrich helped draft Rev. Jerry Falwell to head the Moral Majority, and founded the Heritage Foundation. After less than a year at the Heritage Foundation, Weyrich went on to establish the Free Congress Foundation (FCF). During the early 1980s, the foundation had a reputation as being a pacesetter for Religious Right politics, in part because of the coalitions that operated under the group's umbrella project, Coalitions for America. These coalitions cooperated to draft legislation, plan media strategies, and exchange ideas and research. Much of FCF’s clout among the religious right centers around Weyrich’s ability to organize. Weyrich holds weekly a “ Weyrich Strategy Lunch,” sponsored by Coalitions for America,. The lunch is held when Congress is in session and has 75 conservative leaders representing their organizations. These weekly lunches include regular briefings by leading Bush administration officials and key conservative congressional leaders. Weyrich is known for his aggressive involvement in grassroots activism. He pioneered America's Voice (formerly known as National Empowerment Television), a cable network designed to rapidly mobilize Religious Right followers for grassroots lobbying. Weyrich is also one of the founders of American Legislative Exchange Council and is the former treasurer (1981-1992) of the highly secretive Council for National Policy. Weyrich is currently on the Executive Committee of the CNP. Weyrich’s awards from other right wing groups include: 1998 American Patriot Award from Concerned Women for America, September 1998; “One Who Makes A Difference Award” from Eagle Forum, September 1998; President's Award from the National Association of Religious Broadcasters, January 1998. Back to Top FCF’s Centers: As an institution, FCF has several areas of focus outlined by their major “centers.” These centers include: The Center for Technology Policy, The Center for Law and Democracy, The Center for Cultural Conservatism, and the Center for Governance. Under FCF’s Center for Law and Democracy, the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project (JMSP) lobbies for the appointment of judicial conservatives to the federal courts. Launched in August 1992, the project seeks to establish an extensive national network that can be ready to organize support for conservative appointees to the courts and opposition to moderate or liberal appointees. JMSP’s former director Thomas Jipping has testified before congress several times on various issue of concern to FCF. The Center for Cultural Conservatism is chiefly concerned with building conservative constitutions and defunding any institutions that don’t conform to a narrow belief system. “The New Traditonalist Project” has a “manifesto” which aggressively outlines a battle plan to build up cultural conservatives and their institutions and asserts that the “[Cultural Conservative] Movement Must Serve as a Force of Social Intimidation…We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths.” The Center for Technology Policy concentrates on constitutional liberties, publishes a weekly update for its “Coalition for Constitutional Liberties” which reads like a “who’s who” list of right-wing, conservative groups. The Center for Conservative Governance organizes and offers training for conservatives groups to become more active in the political process-- currently it is working to develop interactive, online training in early 2002. Back to Top Quotes from Paul Weyrich: “The politics of hubris will not work. You may think the Democrats in leadership will end up operating in the best interests of the country. They will not. They will slit your throat.” --“Open Letter to President George W. Bush,” 1/15/02 “The culture has continued to deteriorate. Today, the old rules of conduct are not merely broken, they are scorned. The ideology we know as political correctness -- it is really Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms -- proclaims the old virtues to be vices and the old vices to be virtues…So what is to be done? Continuing with a strategy that has failed is folly and guarantees defeat. Instead of attempting to use politics to retake existing institutions, my proposal is that we cultural conservatives build new institutions for ourselves: schools, universities, media, entertainment, everything -- a complete, separate, parallel structure. In every respect but politics, we should, in effect, build a new nation among the ruins of the old.” --“Separate & Free,” Washington Post, 3/7/99 Back to Top Quotes from Free Congress Foundation: “The [Free Congress] Foundation has proposed a new strategy to deal with America’s cultural disintegration: cultural independence. Instead of trying to retake existing cultural institutions from the forces of Political Correctness, we propose that cultural conservatives should build their own separate, parallel institutions. This is already occuring [sic] in primary and secondary education through the home schooling movement. The Foundation seeks to promote similar efforts in respect to every major cultural insitution [sic] , including higher education, the media, entertainment, and high culture including art, architecture and music. While these would begin as institutions for a cultural minority, their success would over time make traditional Western culture once again the majority American culture.” --“A Short History of Cultural Conservatism,” by William Lind, Director of The Center for Cultural Conservatism. “The purpose of the ideology known commonly as "multiculturalism" is to destroy America. In the 21st-century world of fourth-generation warfare, it is likely to succeed. To understand why we first must understand both phenomena… While many average Americans recognize American Muslims as a dangerous fifth column, the multiculturalist elite demands a ‘tolerance of diversity’ that Islam itself does not know. A Republican administration invites mullahs to the White House to celebrate Islamic holidays. That multiculturalism preaches the suicide of the West is no surprise to those who know its historic origins.” --“Multiculturalism Reigns Over the West,” by William Lind, Insight Magazine, 12/31/01 [Updated September 2002] Back to Top

	FreedomWorks FreedomWorks was formed with the 2004 merger of Citizens for a Sound Economy, headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and Empower America, co-founded by supply-side pioneer Jack Kemp, to push for lower taxes – especially on investment and inheritance – smaller safety-net programs, and fewer regulations on business and industry. FreedomWorks 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW - 11th Floor Washington, DC 20006-5805 Website: www.freedomworks.org Chairman: Dick Armey President: Matt Kibbe Formed: 2004, with the merger of Citizens for a Sound Economy (founded 1984) and Empower America (founded 1993) Board of Directors: Dick Armey; Matt Kibbe; James H. Burnley; Thomas Knudson; Richard J. Stephenson; Bill Jaeger; Ted Abram (American Institute for Full Employment); and Frank M. Sands, Sr. Finances: $5,772,520 ($3,082,191, 2004 revenue for FreedomWorks, Inc., a 501(c)4, and $2,690,329, 2004 revenue for FreedomWorks Foundation, a 501(c)3. In addition, FreedomWorks PAC spent just $1,862 on 2006 candidates by September 30. Publications: Congressional scorecard, candidate survey, FreedomTalks (blog), various reports and opinion columns Affiliate Groups: FreedomWorks Foundation, FreedomWorks PAC Purpose Activities History Quotes Purpose FreedomWorks avows that its mission is to advocate for “lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for all Americans,” by “combin[ing] the stature and experience of America’s greatest policy entrepreneurs with the grassroots power of hundreds of thousands of volunteer activists.” Its “freedom agenda” is headed by privatizing Social Security, implementing a flat tax and abolishing the estate tax, limiting tort liability, and expanding school vouchers. Other issues FreedomWorks is involved in include judicial nominations (it favors eliminating the filibuster), industrial and environmental regulation, immigration, and welfare. Back to Top Activities FreedomWorks claims full-time staff in ten states and “over 800,000 grassroots volunteers nationwide.” The group puts together a variety of campaigns both nationally and in individual states. In 2003, FreedomWorks’ predecessor organization Citizens for a Sound Economy orchestrated a major campaign to fight a tax increase in Alabama, proposed by the state’s Republican governor, who cited a Christian duty to aid the poor. “The 7,000 members of Alabama CSE made defeating Gov. Bob Riley’s tax increase their top priority,” Armey wrote after the referendum failed. “In a 100 day campaign CSE members and staff crisscrossed the state, distributed literature, yard signs, bumper stickers and flooded talk radio and local papers with our voice for lower taxes, less government and more freedom.” Shortly after the 2004 elections, abortion opponents lobbied against incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), who is pro-choice. Although not involved in the abortion issue, FreedomWorks, then co-chaired by former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray (who formed the Committee for Justice to push Bush’s judicial nominees) joined the effort with a web site NotArlen.com, calling for a chairman who “will enthusiastically back the president’s judicial nominees and domestic economic agenda.” The group heavily lobbied for carving “personal retirement accounts” out of Social Security. A few months before the merger of their two groups to form FreedomWorks, Dick Armey and Jack Kemp formed a separate 501(c)4 group, the Alliance for Retirement Prosperity, to advocate privatization. During President Bush’s national tour in early 2005 promoting his Social Security reform plan, FreedomWorks bused in members to town hall meetings, and its activists – such as Sandra Jacques, FreedomWorks’ Iowa state director – even appeared on stage with the president as “regular folks.” Although Bush’s legislative effort appears to have collapsed, FreedomWorks continues its campaign, pressing potential 2008 presidential candidates to take a position on the issue. Back to Top History In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) and Empower America merged to form FreedomWorks. CSE was founded by prominent right-wing funder David Koch in 1984. In the 1990s the group “won plaudits from both the business community and GOP leaders” for its role in mobilizing grassroots opposition against Clinton administration proposals on an energy tax and health care, according to National Journal, which noted that “Even some business lobbyists acknowledged that CSE has at times served as a fig leaf for corporate lobbying efforts.” CSE spent $1 million on a 1993 campaign against the proposed energy tax, including advertising and bringing grassroots pressure on Congress; most of the money came from corporations and trade groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers. CSE spent $5 million against Clinton’s health care proposal, dogging the White House’s nationwide bus tour with its own bus and rallies. For a 1997 campaign, CSE spent hundreds of thousands of dollars per week running radio ads in 20 markets against proposed new EPA air standards. An internal CSE document obtained by The Washington Post in 2000 outlined the close correlation between corporate donations and issue advocacy. Empower America was founded in 1993, after Bill Clinton’s election to the presidency, as a kind of “shadow government” of policy advocacy, in the words of co-founder Jack Kemp, a former congressman and Housing secretary and future vice-presidential candidate. Gathering Kemp, Bush “drug czar” William Bennett, former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former Minnesota congressman Vin Weber, The Wall Street Journal said the group “illustrates how such tax-exempt nonprofits have become safe harbors for elite figures in the conservative movement.” Leading up to Kemp’s 1996 bid, the group provided a “base” for him “to make $1 million to $2 million a year” giving speeches, and it played a key role in the Dole-Kemp campaign. Its early activities included operating “candidate schools” for Republicans in the 1994 elections, running attack ads against Clinton’s health plan, and opposing from the right an early Republican plan for welfare reform. Back to Top Quotes President George W. Bush: “Folks, you’ve got to get to know this organization ... They have been doing a great job all over the country educating people.” FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey on the Religious Right: “Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from? There’s not a conservative, Constitution-loving, separation-of-powers guy alive in the world that could have wanted that bill on the floor. … Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid.” FreedomWorks honorary co-chair Jack Kemp on the “golden opportunity“ to implement a right-wing economic “blueprint” after Katrina: “[T]he capital gains tax is not a tax on the rich, it’s a tax on the poor who want to get rich.” Updated: December 2006 Back to Top

	Heritage Foundation The best-known and most influential right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation owes much of its success to savvy marketing and PR and the generous donations of right-wing benefactors, foundations and wealthy corporations. The foundation boasts about its influence on Capitol Hill yet insists that it does not “lobby.” Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE Washington, DC 20002 Website: www.heritage.org President/Executive Director: Dr. Edwin Feulner Established: In 1973 by Joseph Coors (of Coors Beer) and Paul Weyrich. Finances: $52,292,374 revenue (2004); $123 million in assets (2004) (2004 990) Officers: Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., President; Phillip N. Truluck, Executive Vice President; Stuart M. Butler, Vice President; Becky Norton Dunlop, Vice President; Michael G. Franc, Vice President; Rebecca Hagelin, Vice President; Kim R. Holmes, Vice President; John Von Kannon, Vice President & Treasurer; Edwin Meese III, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy; Robert E. Russell, Jr., Counselor and others. Board of Trustees: David R. Brown, M.D., Chairman; Richard M. Scaife, Vice Chairman; J. Frederic Rench; Douglas F. Allison; Holland H. Coors; Midge Decter; Edwin J. Feulner, Jr.; Jerry Hume; Kay Cole James; Hon. J. William Middendorf, II; Barb Van Andel-Gaby; and others. Employees: 173 excluding fellows Membership: 275,000 Publications: annual report, monthly newsletter “Insider,” publishes numerous detailed public policy papers for Congress, average of 10 or more a month. Principal Issues Recent Activities Funding Former Heritage Foundation employees who have served in the Bush Administration Other Employees and Board Members of Note History and Background Quotes about the Heritage Foundation Principal Issues Heritage Foundation’s mission is “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” Heritage is the largest conservative think tank in Washington, DC. It researches, publishes, lectures on, and markets right-wing public policy. It organizes right-wing activists on domestic and foreign policy issues. Heritage’s publications are distributed to many thousands of people, including Members of Congress, congressional aides and staff, journalists, and major donors. It takes credit for much of President Bush’s policy, both domestic and foreign, referring to Bush’s policies as “straight out of the Heritage play book.” Heritage supports faith-based initiatives, school vouchers, ban on abortion, overturning affirmative action programs. Back to Top Recent Activities The Heritage Foundation (HF) suggested that Bush open up an “Office of Marriage Initiatives” to promote marriage, but instead Bush folded HF’s “pro-marriage” proposals into his welfare reform package, setting aside $300 million dollars for states and local communities to “promote marriage.” Heritage’s new office space, renovated in 2002, includes intern and fellow apartments, a 200-seat auditorium, a private fitness center, and two floors dedicated to expanding the research department. Published “Priorities for the President,” written for President Bush. Heritage also wrote “A Budget for America,” a companion volume written for the Bush administration. Internet activities: in 2001, Heritage reported 4.8 million visitors to their homepage, and 14.4 million visitors to their conservative Internet portal, Townhall.com. Back to Top Funding According to Media Transparency, the Heritage Foundation received $61,944,537 in foundation grants from organizations such as: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Castle Rock Foundation, JM Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Heritage has received donations from the East Asian nations of South Korea and Taiwan; SourceWatch reports that in 1988 Korean intelligence discovered that Heritage received $2.2 million from the South Korean National Assembly during the 1980’s. Although Heritage denies this claim, they do admit to receiving a $400,000 grant from the Korean conglomerate Samsung. The Korea Foundation, a conduit of the Korean government, has also donated almost $1 million to Heritage in the past three years. Back to Top Former Heritage Foundation employees who have served in the Bush Administration Elaine Chao: Department of Labor Secretary; formerly a Heritage Distinguished Fellow Kay Coles James: Director of the Office of Personnel Management; formerly Heritage’s Citizenship Project director Angela Antonelli: Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; formerly Heritage’s director for Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies Mark Wilson: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor; formerly Heritage Foundation’s Research Fellow Alvin Felzenberg: a member of Rumsfeld’s “team” at the Department of Defense; formerly Heritage Foundation’s Visiting Fellow Gale Norton: Secretary of the Interior; Founder of the National Chair of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (heavily funded by Heritage Foundation). Back to Top Other Employees and Board Members of Note Famous Heritage staffers include: Ed Meese (President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General), William Bennett (Reagan’s Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Secretary of Education, and President Bush Sr.’s “drug czar”). Virginia Thomas (wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) Heritage President Edward J. Feulner was a consultant for the Reagan administration, serving as chairman of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. High profile right wing Heritage board members have included: Richard Scaife, Joseph Coors, Holland “Holly” Coors, Steve Forbes, Jay Van Andel (co-founder and senior chairman for Amway Corporation), and Barb Van Andel-Gaby (the vice president of corporate affairs for Amway Corporation), among others. Back to Top History and Background Prominent right-wing figure Paul Weyrich was Heritage’s first president. Heritage’s start was financially supported by co-founder Joseph Coors, of Colorado’s Coors Brewing Company. Right-wing financier Richard Scaife became a major funder of the Heritage Foundation after its first year, donating millions of dollars through the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Corporate sponsors of the organization have included: General Motors, Ford Motors, Proctor and Gamble, Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical, the Reader’s Digest Association, Mobil Oil, and Smith Kline Corporation. In 1980, Heritage published a 1,077-page book called Mandate for Leadership, which contained 2000 policy recommendations. It was presented to Attorney General Ed Meese a week after Reagan’s election. Meese was quoted as saying that “the Reagan Administration will rely heavily on the Heritage Foundation.” These recommendations included: rollback of minority programs, dramatic increase in military spending, and cutting taxes. In 1985 Heritage claimed that the Reagan administration’s policy reflected 60 to 65 percent of their policy measures. Heritage publishes a new edition every four years for subsequent administrations. Back to Top Quotes about the Heritage Foundation The Wall Street Journal says, “No policy shop has more clout than the conservative Heritage Foundation.” “Keep up the wonderful work of truth which emanates from Heritage.” – John Ashcroft in praise of Heritage “Some of the finest conservatives in America today do their work in The Heritage Foundation. For those of you new to all this, The Heritage Foundation is America’s leading conservative think tank.” – Rush Limbaugh, November 10, 2000. Read The Democratic Policy Committee Annual Report says, “It is hard to overstate the impact The Heritage Foundation has had on the direction of U.S. policy since the late 1970’s.” Read. “The Heritage Foundation will continue to be a key element in the phalanx of rightist groups with an agenda of austerity for the poor, hostility to minorities and women, upward distribution of wealth for the rich, economic domination of the Third World, with repression and bloodletting for those who rebel.” – Russ Bellant, The Coors Connection, 1991 Updated: December 2006 Back to Top

	High Impact Leadership Coalition Bishop Harry Jackson, a fervent opponent of gay rights and an equally fervent supporter of President George W. Bush, founded the High Impact Leadership Coalition to promote his “Black Contract With America on Moral Values,” a six-point platform calling for a prohibition of same-sex marriage, school vouchers, and private Social Security investment accounts, among other things. During the 2004 election, Jackson played a prominent media role in efforts to encourage African-Americans to vote for President George W. Bush. High Impact Leadership Coalition PO Box 505 College Park, MD 20741-0505 Website: www.himpactus.com Chairman/President: Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. Founded/Place: February 1, 2005 in Los Angeles, CA Publications: “Battle Scars? Wear ‘Em like a Badge!” pamphlet; “Black Contract with America on Moral Values” pamphlet, book, and CD; The In-laws, Outlaws and a Functional Family, a book by Bishop Harry Jackson; Surviving and Thriving in the Midst of Crisis by Pastor Michele; The Warriors Heart, a guide through daily life as a Christian by Bishop Jackson. Co-author with George Barna of “High Impact African American Churches” (Regal Books, 2004). Purpose The stated goal of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) is – according to its website – to “help educate and empower church, community, and political leaders in urban communities in the United States focus on moral value issues.” Issues The High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) is particularly opposed to marriage equality for same-sex couples, and promotes a biblical interpretation of marriage. “The Black Contract with America on Moral Values” – composed by Bishop Harry Jackson – lists the following policies as necessary for politicians and political parties to promote in order to “improve the plight of black America”: Family Reconstruction; protection of marriage, end abortion, black child adoption by “stable Christian families” Wealth Creation; transformation of minority communities to encourage indigenous business, “prison after-care,” Social Security reform, job manufacturing to lower unemployment Education Reform; school choice that doesn’t destabilize existing public schools, increase black education participation, lessen drop-out rates, encourage No Child Left Behind structure Prison Reform; improve “3 strikes you’re out” system, avoid recidivism with legislation like the Second Chance Act Health Care; affordable health care for blacks, long-term health education African Relief; direct funds to build infrastructure and stop the genocide in Sudan, stop U.S. companies from exploiting the Khartoum people by negotiating with it’s government for fossil fuels. Activities The mission of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) is to have, as it indicates on its website, people sign the “Black Contract with America on Moral Values” which is explained in the “Issues” section of this profile. HILC first and foremost focuses its energy on a strictly heterosexual definition of marriage. Members of the High Impact Leadership Coalition joined Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) in a May 19, 2005, press conference in support of the stalled judicial nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown. In August 2005, Bishop Harry Jackson spoke at the "Justice Sunday II: God Save the United States and This Honorable Court.” event sponsored by Focus on the Family and Family Research Council. Apart from the L.A. Conference in February of 2005, other national Contract with Black America conferences will be/have been held in Miami, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, and Washington, DC. History At a conference on February 1, 2005, a large group of black pastors met at the Crenshaw Christian Center in Los Angeles, where the Bishop Harry R. Jackson III unveiled the “Black Contract with America on Moral Values.” The pastors were accompanied by, and the event was co-sponsored by, the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition – a “Christian right network of churches with close ties to the White House, RNC chair Ken Mehlman, and other senior Bush administration officials.” The number one priority of the black pastors at the conference was to endorse a heterosexual, biblical interpretation of marriage on behalf of the black community. Many critics claim that this group was formed and inspired by the GOP in an attempt to reach out to minorities on issues of homosexuality. Jasmyne Cannick, director of public relations at the Black AIDS Institute, says “When a group of black pastors decides that the number one priority for black Americans is the protection of heterosexual marriage, they're doing the GOP's dirty work.” Quotes “I have been praying, preaching and talking about these issues locally for many years…our nation is in a moral crisis and the Church must lead the way to healing our nation. It is time for both righteousness and justice to reign in America and strong biblical principles must lead the way," – Bishop Jackson, senior pastor of the nearly 3,000 member Hope Christian Church just outside Washington, DC. “I believe that what God is doing today is calling for the black church to team with the white evangelical church and the Catholic Church and people of moral conscience. And in this season, we need to be able to tell both [political] parties, 'listen, it's our way or the highway.' We're not just going to sit back. You and I can bring the rule and reign of the Cross to America and we can change America on our watch, together.” –Bishop Jackson, speaking at the Family Research Council’s “Justice Sunday II” event. Updated: April 2006

	Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute The Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute (HAPI) claims to be a grassroots organization but its Board of Advisors and Policy Board are made up of high-level Republican political operatives with deep ties to various Republican administrations. As part of the “National Coalition To End Judicial Filibusters,” HAPI – in conjunction with the Committee for Justice, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and others – supported the use of the so-called “nuclear option” to eliminate Senator's ability to filibuster against President George W. Bush’s right-wing judicial nominees. Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue - Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Website: www.haprogressinstitute.org Chairman: The Honorable Manuel Lujan, Jr. [Former GOP U.S. Representative, New Mexico, and Secretary of the Interior under the Bush I Administration; Founder, Excellence in Education Scholarship Foundation, New Mexico] Board of Advisors: Mr. Adrian Arriaga, Texas; Mr. Andres Bande, New York; Mr. Elias Behar-Ybarra, Florida; Mr. Cesar A. Cabrera, Puerto Rico; Mr. Jose Canchola, Arizona; Mr. Lupe Cruz, California; Mr. Ted Cruz, Texas; Mrs. Patricia Diaz-Dennis, Texas; Mr. Robert A. Estrada, Texas; Hon. Lou Gallegos, New Mexico; Hon. Raul A. Gonzalez, Texas; Mr. Abel Guerra, Florida; Hon. Jimmy Gurule, Indiana; Ms. Margaret Martin, Texas; Mr. Jacob Monty, Texas; Mr. Jose Nino, Maryland; Mrs. Rita Nunez, New Mexico; Hon. Bob Pacheco, California; Mr. Raul Romero, DC; Mr. Louis Sanchez, Florida; and Dr. Josh Valdez, California. Policy Board: Mr. Juan Carlos Benitez, DC; Mr. Rudy Beserra, Georgia; Mr. Troup Coronado, DC; Mrs. Ann Costello, DC; Mr. Henry Gandy, DC; Mr. Mike Hernandez, Texas; Mr. Juan Carlos Iturregui, DC; Mr. Joseph Samora, DC; Mr. Scott Styles, Virginia; and Mrs. Bobbie Kilberg, Virginia. 2005 Corporate Members: Altria Corporate Services, Inc., American International Group (AIG), Bellsouth Corporation, Ford Motor Company, IBC Bank, National Association of Realtors, and R.J. Reynolds. Purpose Activities Purpose The Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute (HAPI) claims to be a grassroots organization but its Board of Advisors and Policy Board are made up of high-level Republican political operatives with deep ties to Republican administrations (Reagan, Bush I and Bush II). HAPI’s boards are composed almost entirely of Republican players, including lobbyists, donors, and political appointees. Lujan and his former boss, President George H.W. Bush, launched the organization at a 2004 gala in New York City. Back to Top Activities Supports the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Supreme Court of the United States. As part of the “National Coalition To End Judicial Filibusters,” HAPI – in conjunction with other conservative organizations such as the Committee for Justice, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the Free Congress Foundation, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the Liberty Legal Institute – supported the use of the so-called “nuclear option” to eliminate the ability to filibuster judicial nominees. Supports CAFTA, claiming it would lower tariffs and promote job growth, allowing more growth in the textile industry, “a huge helping hand at a time when China is sucking up textile manufacturing jobs.” HAPI launched a fundraising and phone-calling campaign to promote legislation that would pass CAFTA in Congress. Corporate Member, CoMPASS – Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America’s Social Security – an organization formed to promote Social Security reforms proposed by President George W. Bush such as personal retirement accounts. The Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute has awarded its “American Dream” award to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) for their efforts on behalf of Hispanic Americans. Updated: July 2006 Back to Top

	Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace mailing address: Hoover Institution Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6010 www-hoover.stanford.edu Established:1919 by Herbert Hoover Director: John Raisian Finances: $25 million annual budget, $250 million endowment Employees: approximately 250 Media: Uncommon Knowledge, a weekly half-hour television program on public policy carried on NPR and PBS. Publications: Policy Review (bimonthly), Hoover Digest (quarterly), Education Next (quarterly), Hoover Institution newsletter (weekly), as well as the Hoover Press, which publishes works by many of Hoover Institution’s fellows. About Hoover: Hoover’s Activities: Hoover's Scholars and the White House: Bush (former and present), Reagan, Nixon, and Ford Hoover Scholars: Right-Wing Leaders, Academics and Writers: Quotes About Hoover: About Hoover: Hoover is well-known for its prominent influence over national Republican policy. Named for founder Herbert Hoover, the Hoover Institution is “a prominent center devoted to interdisciplinary scholarship and advanced research in the social sciences with an emphasis on public policy relevance. The Institution houses one of the world's largest private archives and libraries on political, economic, and social change in the 20th century and has more that 100 researchers consisting of both resident fellows and visiting scholars from throughout the world.” Three Primary Programmatic Themes: American Institutions and Economic Performance, Democracy Free Markets, and International Rivalries and Global Cooperation Hoover’s approach to some of these areas is described as: “Societies based on individualism rather than classes, thus confronting the issues of race, gender, ethnicity, and so forth;” and “The appropriate scope of government's involvement in areas such as education, health care, and the environment as it provides public services and regulates private enterprise.” Some of Hoover’s major issues: education reform that centers around private school vouchers and charter schools, dismantling affirmative action, privatization of social services, “flat tax” and other tax reduction schemes, deregulation of industry, Reagan’s policy legacy, and “character education.” Back to Top Hoover’s Activities: Hoover is well-known for its influential role in developing President Bush’s economic policy, the Hoover Institution is “the…conservative think tank President Bush looks to for ideas.” Forging strong ties between right-wing ideologues, right-wing think tanks and right-wing policy makers; many of its scholars have worked for various Republican Presidential Administrations-- Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the current President W. Bush. Currently there are 8 Hoover fellows on the Defense policy board advising Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. California Gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwartzenegger hired several Hoover Institution members as consultants for his 2003 election campaign. Hoover publishes and funds research and public policy by its own scholars and fellows. Back to Top Hoover's Scholars and the White House: Bush (former and present), Reagan, Nixon, and Ford Organized by Presidential Administration Affiliation President George W. Bush’s Administration: Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to President George W. Bush for National Security Affairs, served as a Hoover senior fellow 1991- 1993, corporate board member for Chevron, the Hewlett Foundation, and Charles Schwab. John F. Cogan, economic advisor to President George W. Bush, appointed by President Bush to serve on a bipartisan commission on Social Security reform in 2001. Williamson M. Evers, education policy advisor to George W. Bush, appointed to White House Commission on Presidential Scholars, appointed by Secretary of Education Paige to National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, research fellow at Independent Institute; formerly served on California State Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards, editor-in-chief of Cato Institute’s Inquiry Magazine. Kiron K. Skinner, member of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board. President George H.W. Bush’s Administration: Peter M. Robinson, edits Hoover Digest and hosts Hoover's television program, “Uncommon Knowledge.” Former Vice President George Bush’s chief speechwriter, special assistant and speechwriter to President Ronald Reagan, worked for Rupurt Murdoch (owner of Fox Television); Robinson authored the “tear down this wall!” Berlin Wall address by President Reagan. John B. Taylor, undersecretary for international affairs at the U.S. Department of the Treasury under President G.W. Bush. Bill Whalen, published in Washington Times, National Review Online, Insight Magazine (Washington Times publication), and RightTurns.com. Former speechwriter for the 1992 Bush-Quayle election campaign. Diane Ravitch, former assistant secretary for educational research and improvement and as a counselor to the U.S. Department of Education under President George H.W. Bush, www.dianeravitch.com, member of the board for the New America Foundation. President Reagan’s Administration: Ronald Reagan is a Hoover Institution Honorary Fellow. Robert Bork, Reagan judicial nominee to Supreme Court. John H. Bunzel, former commissioner of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission during the Reagan Administration, author of “Anti-Politics in America; New Force on the Left.” Milton Friedman, senior research fellow since 1977, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize, member of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, “informal” economic advisor for several presidential campaigns: Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Robert E. Hall, advised several government agencies on national economic policy, Justice Department, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve Board during Reagan Administration. Hall co-authored an early Wall Street Journal article on “The Flat Tax” in 1981. Ed Meese, former attorney general of the United States under President Reagan, distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Paul Craig Roberts, syndicated columnist, former Fellow at the Cato Institute, former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan. Peter M. Robinson, edits Hoover Digest and hosts Hoover's television program, “Uncommon Knowledge.” Former Vice President George Bush’s chief speechwriter, special assistant and speechwriter to President Ronald Reagan, worked for Rupurt Murdoch (owner of Fox Television); Robinson authored the “Tear down this wall!” Berlin Wall address by President Reagan. George P. Schultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan, chairman of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, worked for President Nixon as Secretary of Labor. President Nixon’s Administration: Richard T. Burress, joined Hoover in 1973. Formerly: assistant to President Ford, deputy counsel to President Richard Nixon, member of the Reagan for President Committee, staff director of the Republican Policy Committee, minority counsel of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor, deputy assistant general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assistant to the chairman of the Republican National Convention, assistant to the permanent chairman of the Republican National Convention. Milton Friedman, senior research fellow since 1977, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize, member of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, “informal” economic advisor for several presidential campaigns: Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. George P. Schultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan, chairman of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, worked for President Nixon as Secretary of Labor. President Ford’s Administration: Richard T. Burress, joined Hoover in 1973. Formerly: assistant to President Ford, deputy counsel to President Richard Nixon, member of the Reagan for President Committee, staff director of the Republican Policy Committee, minority counsel of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor, deputy assistant general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assistant to the chairman of the Republican National Convention, assistant to the permanent chairman of the Republican National Convention. Back to Top Hoover Scholars: Right-Wing Leaders, Academics and Writers: Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and “de facto leader of the Republican Party” in the mid-nineties, elected to U.S. House of Representatives in 1978. Pete Wilson, former governor of California (1991-1999), former Senator, former mayor of San Diego, and former California Assemblyman. Clint Bolick, co-founder of Institute for Justice Peter Berkowitz, published in National Review Michael J. Boskin, member of corporate board of directors for: Exxon Mobil, Oracle Corporation Timothy Charles Brown, published in Wall Street Journal, Washington Times Weekly Bruce Bueno De Mesquita, received grants from Scaife Foundation and Carthage Foundation Dinesh D’Souza, senior domestic policy analyst during the Reagan administration, prominent right-wing writer and speaker. Mary Eberstadt, published in Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, and former special assistant to Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick. Author of controversial “’Pedophilia Chic’ Reconsidered” published in Weekly Standard 01/2001. Chester E. Finn, Jr., president and trustee of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, National Association of Scholars boardmember, Center of the American Experiment boardmember; former senior fellow at Hudson Institute, founding partner of Edison Project, assistant secretary for research and improvement and counselor to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. Published in: Weekly Standard, the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, the Public Interest, the Washington Post, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Harvard Business Review, the American Spectator, the Boston Globe, and the New York Times. Co-author of “The Educated Child” with Reagan education secretary William J. Bennett. R. Richard Geddes, former Heritage Foundation fellow, published by Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute. Marci Kanstoroom, research director at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Stanley Kurtz, contributing editor at National Review Online, published in Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal. Tod Lindberg, published in Weekly Standard, Washington Times columnist, Wall Street Journal. Jennifer Roback Morse, founding member of the Academic Advisory Boards of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, the Institute for Justice, and the Women's Freedom Network. Published in American Enterprise, Fortune, Reason, the Wall Street Journal, and Religion and Liberty. Paul Craig Roberts, syndicated columnist, former Fellow at the Cato Institute, former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan. Richard Sousa, senior associate director at Hoover. Thomas Sowell, syndicated columnist published in over 150 newspapers. Shelby Steele, author of controversial books on race relations, member of the National Association of Scholars, published in Wall Street Journal, contributing editor for Harper’s. Charles J. Sykes, senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. Robert Zelnick, Emmy Award-winning journalist, covered political and congressional affairs for ABC Morning News, World News Tonight Saturday/Sunday, and This Week. Recently published “Winning the Florida Election: How the Bush Team Fought the Battle” (Hoover Press, 2001) and "The Myth of a Stolen Election," (Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2001). Back to Top Quotes About Hoover: Vice President Dick Cheney, Feburary 2003 Hoover Overseers Meeting: "I do think we are off to a good start, and it is important that we have the support and enthusiastic involvement of organizations like the Hoover Institution, one of the leading think tanks and sources of ideas. Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, John Taylor, and many others have been key as we developed our campaign and policy. We want to thank you for what you have done for us and ask you to be a part of the debate during the next few years." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, February 2003, Hoover Overseers Meeting: “I'm delighted to be able to be here. I just came out of a meeting with the president with Mitch Daniels, who I understand is going to be here soon. And I saw Karl Rove over there, who I guess is going to be one of your panelists or something later today. They're all friends of Hoover and recognize that this institution is surely one of the -- America's great centers of learning.” Back to Top

	Independent Women's Forum The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) is an anti-feminist organization housing various "experts" who weigh in on a wide array of issues ranging from feminism and family issues to economics, environmental policy, and international affairs. IWF bills itself as the "home to the next wave of the nation’s most influential scholars – women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom." Independent Women’s Forum 1726 M Street NW - Tenth Floor Washington, DC 20036 Website: www.iwf.org / www.shethinks.org Established: 1992 President & CEO: Michelle D. Bernard National Advisory Board Chairman: Christina Hoff Sommers Board of Directors: Heather R. Higgins, Chairman; Mary Arnold; Carol T. Crawford; Randy Parris Kendrick; Larry Kudlow; Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer; and R. Gaull Silberman Directors Emeritae: Lynne V. Cheney; Midge Decter; Kimberly O. Dennis; Wendy Lee Gramm; Elizabeth Lurie; Kate O’Beirne; and Louise V. Oliver Finances: $1,317,157 (2004) Publications: The Women’s Quarterly, Ex Femina newsletter, Shethinks magazine, Inkwell (blog), and issue reports Affiliate Organization: Independent Women’s Voice Principal Issues Activities Connections to Bush Administration Funding About IWF’s Right-Wing Members and Supporters Quotes Principal Issues The International Women's Forum (IWF) is an anti-feminist women’s organization founded to counter the influence of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and "radical feminists" on society. Frequent targets: Title IX funding, affirmative action, the Violence Against Women Act, full integration of women in the military, and those who oppose President Bush’s controversial judicial nominees. Opposes the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). IWF’s credo/mission: "The Independent Women's Forum provides a voice for American women who believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility. We have made that voice heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, among decision makers [sic] in Washington, and across America's airwaves. It is the voice of reasonable women with important ideas who embrace common sense over divisive ideology." IWF was organized in defense of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas during his controversial nomination hearings. In the words of Media Transparency, “The Independent Women’s Forum is neither Independent, nor a Forum. Not independent because it is largely funded by the conservative movement. Not a forum because it merely serves up women who mouth the conservative movement party line." Back to Top Activities To raise awareness about their ideas in the media and through its speakers bureau, made up of their high profile, often controversial members and supporters. "Taking Back the Campus" project which focuses on helping "students inundated with rigid political correctness," offering articles, research and student activist guides, including SheThinks Web-based magazine. IWF frequently makes the case that it is men and boys, not women and girls, who suffer due to gender-based discrimination in American society. Rejects the idea of pay inequities between men and women and that there are "glass ceilings" in the workplace. IWF claims it will be launching a 501(c)(4) sister organization called the Independent Women’s Voice for greater advocacy purposes. Back to Top Connections to Bush Administration Former Board Member Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor, Bush Administration Former Board Member Linda Chavez, Secretary of Labor nominee, President of Center for Equal Opportunity IWF Director Emeritae Lynne Cheney IWF’s CEO Nancy Pfotenhauer, appointed by Bush to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women Board Member Pat Ware, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS Back to Top Funding From the years 1994-2003, IWF received a total of $6,971,000 in 90 grants from foundations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation, among others. From 1994 to 2001, the top five foundation supporters were: Sarah Scaife Foundation, $1.2 million; Olin Foundation, $700,000; Bradley Foundation, $420,000; Carthage Foundation, $300,000; and Castle Rock Foundation, $100,000. Back to Top About IWF’s Right-Wing Members and Supporters Christina Hoff Sommers, IWF’s National Advisory Board Chairman, is currently a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of two controversial books The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men and Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. Sommers has been published in Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, USA Today, National Review, New Republic, Weekly Standard and the Chicago Tribune. According to SourceWatch, "IWF members include women who are paid to write papers that denigrate the idea of equity for girls and women in education." Who the IWF "Loves" – Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Miss Manners, Nora Vincent, Michelle Malkin, among others. Who the IWF, in their own language, "Hates" – Maureen Dowd, Susan Estrich, Ellen Goodman, and Kathy Pollitt. [source] Back to Top Quotes "In my book, Who Stole Feminism, I question the basic premise of the contemporary American feminist movement: that American women are oppressed. I do not believe that women in contemporary American society are oppressed; they do not constitute a subordinate class. I believe American women are among the freest and most liberated in the world. It is no longer reasonable to say that as a group women are worse off than men." – Christina Hoff Sommers, “Sex, Lies, and Feminism” speech, University of Chicago, January 2003 "Our nation’s Founders would be proud of the work and ideals of the Independent Women’s Forum. This is a group of dedicated and caring women committed to the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility for everyone…I am optimistic about the opportunities younger generations of women will have because of the path that was cleared by women like those in the Independent Women’s Forum. Together, we can make changes that are in the best interests of all working women." – Secretary Elaine Chao, April 2001 statement "One of the most important of the institutions captured by the Left is the Supreme Court. For the last half century, the Court has been a revolutionary force in American culture and politics, taking the lead in remaking America. For example, in past terms, there have been decisions defining the family, protecting pornography, adopting rules rendering it virtually impossible to prosecute obscenity, refusing states the authority to support all-male military academies, creating special rights for homosexuals, limiting school disciplinary procedures, and banishing religion from public life. And, of course, inventing a right to abortion." – Robert Bork, writing for Ex Feminia newsletter, October 2000 "Without a doubt, the definition of feminism is controversial. What started with the gutsy Susan B. Anthony morphed itself into the The Feminine Mystique and eventually degenerated into a movement of hypocritical, male-bashing libertines." – from SheThinks.org "Women went to college, the old joke went, to get their 'Mrs.' Now they can attend conferences in kinky sex and S&M, or take courses in lesbian and gay studies--and that is not a joke." – Candice deRussy, "Sex and Bondage 101" "[T]o the extent there is any hope at all of arresting America's moral decay, conservative elites must take the lead not only in lamenting the consequences of the sexual revolution, but in actually enforcing a sense of shame. Enforcement, moreover, may mean more than judgmental gossip. It also may mean sanctions ranging from chilly social greetings to total social ostracism and even loss of a job." – Melinda Ledden Sidak, "Not at My Table" Updated: December 2006 Back to Top

	Institute for Justice The Institute for Justice (IJ) sees itself as the Right Wing’s preeminent public interest law firm, committed to “challenging government's control over our lives.” Unlike other such groups on the Right, IJ says it does not engage in “compromise” but rather advances “a tactically and philosophically consistent, long-term strategy” that allows it to “succeed on principle” rather than “fail on politics.” Institute for Justice 901 N. Glebe Road - Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Website: www.ij.org Founded: 1991 by Clint Bolick and Chip Mellor President/General Counsel: William “Chip” Mellor III Board of Directors: David Kennedy (chairman) - President Emeritus, Earhart Foundation; Mark Babunovic - Vice President, Bank of New York; Arthur Dantchik, Partner, Susquehanna Investment Group; Robert A. Levy - Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Jim Lintott - Principal, Freedom Management Group LLC; Chip Mellor - President and General Counsel, Institute for Justice; Stephen Modzelewski - Managing Member, Maple Engine L.L.C.; Abigail Thernstrom - Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Gerrit Wormhoudt - Attorney-at-Law, Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson and Kitch. Finances: $7,507,175 (2005 revenue) Publications: Liberty & Law, a bimonthly newsletter, Carry the Torch, a report on IJ, law review articles, also publishes reports on a variety of issues. Affiliate Groups: The Institute for Justice has affiliate offices located in Arizona, Minnesota, and Washington; The IJ also created the Castle Coalition, a “nationwide grassroots property rights activism project” that “teaches home and small business owners how to protect themselves and stand up to the greedy governments and developers who seek to use eminent domain to take private property for their own gain.” Principal Issues Activities History Principal Issues Self-described as “America’s premier libertarian public interest law firm.” IJ provides pro bono legal advice and representation on conservative legal cases. Strong supporter of “school choice” and vouchers. Includes high profile litigation in Cleveland and Milwaukee. Opposes affirmative action policies, refers to them as “racial preferences” and “reverse discrimination”—in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Clint Bolick criticized President Clinton’s nominee of Lani Guinier, a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, calling her “Clinton’s Quota Queen” because of her idea to draw more racially-conscious districts with the hope of having greater racially-proportionate representation in the legislature and the courts. Supports government-subsidized, faith-based social service programs. IJ has an extensive training program for young lawyers and law students and sponsors an annual Policy Activists Conference on their issues. Back to Top Activities The Institute for Justice's School Choice Research Center provides pro-voucher research. IJ is active in defending private property and opposing what it considers abuse of the government’s power of eminent domain. IJ has an annual Policy Activist Conference on Public Interest Litigation that trains conservative activists to use litigation as an advocacy tool. IJ holds conservative lawyer conferences to train them to identify potential cases and create highly visible lawsuits, as well as other litigation tactics. IJ’s grassroots work is performed by their Human Action Network (HAN), which is made up of lawyers who have attended their conferences. The HAN is a network of hundreds of lawyers that IJ organizes to match with pro bono cases, give legal advice, and work together on their issues. These lawyers also serve to inform IJ on grassroots activities. Back to Top History Clint Bolick, formerly of right-wing Landmark Legal Foundation, and Chip Mellor, former president of right-wing Pacific Research Institute, founded the organization. Bolick has since gone on to become the president of the Alliance for School Choice. Grants and contributions from major right-wing foundations include: Olin Foundation, Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Kirby Foundation, Donner Foundation, and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation. Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Intercollegiate Studies Institute The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) is helping to identify, educate and promote the next generation of right-wing leaders, primarily through its funding of college newspapers, its speakers programs and its promotion of conservative professors and journalists. Intercollegiate Studies Institute 3901 Centerville Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Websites: www.isi.org and www.isibooks.org President: T. Kenneth Cribb Chairman: Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation Vice-President: John F. Lulves, Jr. Board of Trustees: E. Victor Milione (President Emeritus); Jay Bayard Boyle, Jr. (Vice President); Alfred Regnery; Edwin Meese (former Atty. General for President Ronald Reagan); T. William Boxx; James Burnley; Richard Allen; Holland Coors (of Coors Brewing Company); M. Stanton Evans; Robert Miller; Marion Wells; George Carey; Arthur Rasmussen; Thomas Pauken; William Campbell; Merrill Moyer; and Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. [Board of Trustees] Date Established: 1953 Finances: $10,669,218 (2004) Publications: Campus America Student Newspaper, education pamphlets; Modern Age, quarterly review; The Intercollegiate Review, scholarship and opinion; Modern Age journal; The Political Science Reviewer; Continuity, semi-annual journal, Intercollegiate Review and its own publishing company, ISI Books. Affiliated Groups: The Collegiate Network, Young America’s Foundation and the Fund for American Studies. Principle Issues Activities Funding Quotes about the Intercollegiate Studies Institute Principle Issues The declared mission of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) is to combat the supposed left-wing indoctrination on college campuses by organizing lectures, conferences, publications, and fellowships for students and faculty, “ISI seeks to enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, market economy, and moral norms.” Back to Top Activities Sponsors the Collegiate Network, which supports over seventy different right-wing publications on college and university campuses. Publications include the Harvard Salient, Princeton Tory, Stanford Review, Yale Free Press, Duke Review, theRed and Blue at the University of Pennsylvania and the Virginia Advocate at the University of Virginia. ISI sponsors its own fellowship programs for graduate students whose work fits within its agenda. ISI hosts regional conferences for college students all over the United States. Promotes the hiring of conservative educators and journalists. ISI event speakers have included President Ronald Reagan, President George W. Bush (videotaped message), ISI alumnus Antonin Scalia, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, Doug Bandow, Dinesh D’Souza, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William F. Buckley and Marvin Olasky. ISI Books publishes the work of: Doug Bandow, Michael Barone, William Bennett, L. Brent Bozell, William F. Buckley and more than eighty right-wing authors. Back to Top Funding Right-wing donors include: Sarah Scaife Foundation; Allegheny Foundation; The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; Earhart Foundation; JM Foundation; John M. Olin Foundation; Philip M. McKenna Foundation; Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation; Castle Rock Foundation; and the Carthage Foundation. Back to Top Quotes about the Intercollegiate Studies Institute “By the time the Reagan Revolution marched into Washington, I had the troops I needed---thanks in no small measure to the work with American youth ISI has been doing since 1953. I am proud to count many ISI products among the workhorses of my two terms as President.” – Ronald Reagan “It’s my pleasure…to support ISI, which is an organization that I was affiliated with long before I was who I am in Washington. I was a professor…when I first began to take part in the ISI program of trying to stimulate the intellectual debate in the nation’s capital.” – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “Were it not for the ISI chapter during my undergraduate days, I would not have gained the philosophical underpinnings that are necessary for one to develop political knowledge and understanding.” – Edwin J. Feulner Jr., president of The Heritage Foundation and former chairman of ISI’s Board of Trustees. Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration An offshoot of Rick Scarborough’s Vision America, the primary purpose of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration (JCCCR) appears to be leveling allegations of anti-Christian bigotry against any member of the federal judiciary who issues rulings that do not advance to the right-wing agenda. The organization first came to prominence in 2005 when it held a conference entitled “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith.” PO Box 10 Lufkin, TX 75902 Website: www.stopactivistjudges.org Chairman: Dr. Rick Scarborough (President and Co-Chairman of Vision America) Executive Committee: Jerry Falwell (The Moral Majority), Rick Scarborough, Alveda King (The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, Priests for Life), Mike Valerio, Ray Flynn (Catholics for the Common Good), Mike Farris (Home School Legal Defense Fund), Frank Pavone (Priests for Life), Dave Meyers, Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), and Tom Smith Membership: Major ministries, churches, pro-family groups, conservative non-profit organizations Purpose History Activities Quotes Purpose The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration is a coalition of ministries and organization united for the purpose of confronting a “growing assault on the faith by an ever-overreaching judiciary,” and combating “judicial activism.” Back to Top History The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration (JCCR) was founded in early 2004, and formalized in January of 2005 as a result of what its founders felt had been a culmination of assaults against religion and faith in the form of court decisions. The main thrust for the formation of the JCCCR came after former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore was removed from his position for refusing to take down a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judiciary building. In addition, the case of Terri Schiavo, the incapacitated woman whose husband was allowed by a federal judge to remove here from life support after she was diagnosed as being in an incurable persistent vegetative state, served as an impetus for forming the JCCCR. Back to Top Activities The JCCCR rejects certain Supreme Court civil liberty decisions, such as those allowing freedom of reproductive rights, prohibiting coercive sectarian prayer in public schools, overturning sodomy laws, and removing religious symbols like the Ten Commandments from public spaces. In 2005 the JCCCR campaigned to impeach Judge Joseph Bataillon of Nebraska because of his view that banning the marriage of same-sex couples is in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. JCCCR claims that Bataillon’s action will effectively subvert the intention of the Constitution. JCCCR's conference Confronting the Judicial War on Faith, held April 7-8, 2005, addressed “judicial tyranny…from a faith perspective.” Key speakers included House Majority Leader Tom DeLay Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas, David C. Gibbs, Esq. (lead attorney for the parents of Terri Schiavo), former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Phyllis Schlafly, Tony Perkins (of the Family Research Council), Tom Jipping (aide to Sen. Orin Hatch), Mike Farris (of Patrick Henry University and the Home School Legal Defense Association), Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), Patrick Reilly (of the Cardinal Newman Society), and Rabbi Aryeh Spero. About the JCCCR Conference Back to Top Quotes “The President must be true to his word. He must keep his faith with the folks who elected him twice. In other words, he must replace Sandra Day O’Connor with a strict constructionist. The president has a God-given opportunity to change the balance on the Supreme Court. On issue after issue—abortion, sodomy, public display of the Ten Commandments—O’Connor has sided with the court’s liberal bloc. Time and again, Justice O’Connor and her colleagues have used the Constitution as an excuse to force weird social experiments on the nation.” —Rick Scarborough on the 2005 Supreme Court vacancy, July 1, 2005. “Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering [JCCR’s 2005 conference] that Kennedy [Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy] should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, ‘upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.’ Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his ‘bottom line’ for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. ‘He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: “no man, no problem,”’ Vieira said. The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is ‘Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.’” —Dana Milbank, “And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty,” Washington Post, April 9, 2005 “As the battle over the Roberts nomination moves to the floor of the Senate, there's intense speculation about President Bush's second Supreme Court nominee. Increasingly, pro-faith conservatives are telling the White House to think Brown. Recently confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (called the second most powerful court in the land), Janice Rogers Brown is a dream nominee for folks like you and me.” —Rick Scarborough on the vacancy to the Supreme Court, September 22, 2005 “In every event in the life of a nation -- as in our personal lives -- God is always speaking to us. It is imperative that we hear Him and heed His voice. These thoughts I offer with deep humility. Scriptures teach us that God will not be mocked. The scenes of devastation in New Orleans we're witnessing on the nightly news show us a catastrophe of Biblical proportions. If that weren't enough, the chaos that's sweeping the ravaged city is a sad reminder that when God brings the deluge, the floodgates will open and unimaginable evil will wash over us.” —Rick Scarborough on Hurricane Katrina, September 2, 2005 Updated: April 2006 Back to Top

	Judicial Confirmation Network The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) was created just as the debate in the Senate over Republican leaders’ plans to eliminate the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations was reaching its apex. JCN was also active in the right-wing campaign to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Judicial Confirmation Network PO Box 791 Alexandria, VA 22313-0791 Website: www.judicialnetwork.com Executive Director: Gary Marx (Bush-Cheney ’04, The Family Foundation of Virginia) Counsel: Wendy Long (former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas) Founded: 2004 Purpose Activities History Funding About Gary Marx Quotes Purpose The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) was created to ensure that “highly qualified individuals” are confirmed to United States’ highest courts. It calls for a “fair, impartial confirmation process” and strongly advocates the up-or-down vote. JCN believes in judges who “strictly interpret the Constitution” and that do not “impose his or her personal or political agenda on the people.” It firmly supported Judge John Roberts for confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. Back to Top Activities JCN was very active in the battle over the “nuclear option” which would have eliminated the use of the filibuster to block the confirmation of judicial nominees. In fact, JCN came into existence mainly to help fight that battle. JCN quickly launched a national advertising campaign in support of the "nuclear option," targeting mainly Democratic senators from “red states” as well as moderate Republicans. JCN was also very active during the confirmation process for John Roberts, defending his record, praising him in the press and on television, and attacking Democrats. JCN partnered with “dozens of other grassroots and civic organizations including Focus on the Family, Americans for Tax Reform, the Committee for Justice, Americans for Limited Government and the American Center for Law and Justice” to distribute its e-mails and alerts. Back to Top History Gary Marx was invited by Jay Sekulow, a close friend and president of the ultra-conservative American Center for Law and Justice, in 2004 to create the JCN. The organization also has very close ties to Progress for America. Back to Top Funding In preparation for Supreme Court nomination battles, the JCN was expected to be the main repository of money raised from business groups and other Republican allies. It promised to spend about $18 million for radio and TV ads, phone banks, and other grassroots tools. Back to Top About Gary Marx Before his position at JCN, Marx served on the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign as the national conservative coalition director who helped organize church-sponsored voter drives in Ohio. Marx was also involved in Bush’s campaign while working at the firm Century Strategies, where his task was outreach to pro-family conservative voters during the primary and general election races. Century Strategies was founded and is led by former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed, who advises Fortune 500 companies while heavily endorsing political candidates. Reed has worked on seven presidential campaigns and has advised on 88 campaigns for U.S. Senate, Governor and Congress in 24 states. He was the Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party in 2002, and ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia in 2006. Back to Top Quotes "The Republican base, which worked hard to elect President Bush twice, does not think the Supreme Court should be stuck in the mentality of the 1960s, which has proven so destructive to the rule of law and respect for our American institutions. Liberal groups now arguing for 'balance' on the Court and the appointment of a 'moderate' Justice just want to keep the Supreme Court on a leftward march, away from the Constitution. When the people speak through their elected representatives on political and policy matters, as they are entitled to do in our representative democracy, the liberal Left runs to the courts to implement opposite policies through judicial tyranny.” —Wendy Long, “JCN: Americans Deserve Better From U.S. Supreme Court,” July 7, 2005 "Seeking a 'consensus' candidate is not the right thing to do. It is not what the Constitution contemplates, in our system built on the consent of the governed... By definition, those will never be 'consensus' nominees. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were not 'consensus' nominees, nor should any Republican nominees be—particularly when Republicans control the Senate, for heaven's sake." —Wendy Long, June 22, 2005 Updated: April 2006 Back to Top

	Landmark Legal Foundation The Landmark Legal Foundation specializes in battling opponents of school vouchers, unions, and environmental regulations in the name of opposing “big government.” Landmark’s president, Mark Levin, is a high-profile right-wing media figure who hosts his own radio program, contributes to the National Review, and is the author of Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America. Landmark Legal Foundation 19415 Deerfield Avenue Suite 312 Leesburg, VA 20176 Website: www.landmarklegal.org President: Mark R. Levin Founded/Place: 1976 Advisory Council Member: Becky Norton Dunlop Board of Directors: Roy Innis (Congress of Racial Equality), Walter Williams (CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation), Edwin Meese III, (Former Attorney General), WM. Bradford Reynolds (Federalist Society), Steve A. Matthews, Gary L. McDowell, Lawrence F. Davenport, John Richardson Former President: Jerald Hill Finances: $1,728,056 (2003 revenue) Media: The Mark Levin Show, aired on the radio weekly on WABC AM station. Publications: Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, a book by President Mark Levin Purpose Activities Judicial Nominees Activity Funding History About President Mark R. Levin Quotes Purpose Landmark Legal Foundation (LFF) is a legal advocacy group that litigates based on the principles of individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited government. Among others, LLF has targeted the National Education Association, the Democratic National Committee, the AFL-CIO, Emily’s List, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. Back to Top Activities Landmark Legal Foundation (LLF) initiates litigation against major non-profit, governmental, and social institutions. LLF focuses primarily on education and environmental litigation, in an attempt to dismantle institutions that preserve universal public schooling and that promote and fight for a clean environment. It assists state legislators in their pursuit to enact educational reforms such as providing school vouchers, private management of public schools, and other voucher initiatives. Mark Levin is a contributing editor of National Review, as well as a frequent contributor to the Washington Times and Human Events. Works for welfare reform. Played a role in supporting Paula Jones during the Clinton sexual scandal by receiving funds from the Scaife Foundation and finding lawyers for Jones. Salon, "Newsreal: The men who kept Paula Jones lawsuit going" Back to Top Judicial Nominees Activity Landmark Legal Foundation is a member of Kay Daly’s Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, along with Free Congress Foundation, American Conservative Union, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and the Christian Coalition. Source Landmark Legal adamantly opposed the Senate Democrats’ use of the filibuster against judicial nominees. In an op-ed in January of 2005, Levin explained that, “Whatever the politics of ending the Senate’s judicial filibusters, and one can only speculate, defending the Constitution is paramount…By denying the president numerous key appointments to vacancies on the federal bench, the judiciary grows increasingly activist due to the remaining numerous Clinton appointees.” Landmark Legal Foundation op-ed Back to Top Funding According to MediaTransparency, Landmark received $8,935,200 between 1986 and 2003 in a total of 118 grants. Landmark has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation since 1998 According to its 990 report, Landmark Legal Foundation received $1,567,258 in gifts, grants, and contributions in 2002. Other funders include the Allegheny Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley, Foundation, Inc., Carthage Foundation, Castle Rock Foundation, JM Foundation, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc., John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Scaife Family Foundation. Back to Top History Landmark Legal Foundation, one of the earlier conservative legal organizations, was founded in 1976, and initially called the Great Plains Legal Foundation. It was created to address the special interest groups and unions “dedicated to tearing down [individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited government] and advancing Big Government.” Back to Top About President Mark R. Levin Mark Levin is a former employee of the Reagan Administration, and represented former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Iran-Contra investigation. He was a leading advocate of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and Rush Limbaugh named him head of his (Limbaugh’s) “legal division.” In 2001 Levin received the Ronald Reagan Award from the American Conservative Union. Finally, Levin strongly disapproves of the United Nations, which he claims is anti-Semitic and disorganized (see quote below). Back to Top Quotes “How can [John Kerry] support an organization that anti-Semitic? I would like to know how the U.N., given the make-up of the august body, is any different than the KKK or all the rest of it. They've got people in that U.N. that are torturers, mass-murderers, anti-Semites, anti-Americans, anti-freedom, and we're supposed to keep conferring our decisions to them. Why?”—Mark R. Levin audio “Landmark Legal Foundation is presently engaged in a two front battle – the most ambitious and arguably the most important we’ve ever faced. It is quite literally a battle for America's future. “We’re confronting the nation’s chief obstacle to substantive education reform - the NEA - not only at the national level, but in the states where the union spends millions in tax exempt funds on unreported and hence illegal political activities. In the coming months we will launch the first wave of complaints against key NEA state affiliates. In addition, the Foundation will undertake a major outreach initiative to regional, national and specialty media and key opinion leaders to garner attention and caste the spectrum of public debate where it belongs – on the actions of a union that has no respect for the law. Landmark’s complaints and public outreach efforts will bring to the state unions the same unremitting and unwelcome scrutiny from governmental agencies and the media that has resulted in a full IRS field audit and Labor Department investigation of the national union. “We are also challenging what may be the most insidious legacy of modern liberalism – judicial activism and the radical judges who use it to advance an extremist social agenda. America’s courts have become the final bulwark for the advocates of big government who have been defeated time after time at the ballot box at the local, state and federal level. Through an aggressive and multifaceted public education campaign, Landmark’s Judicial Reform Initiative is helping to reshape the public debate and crystallize public sentiment about the mission of America’s courts and the proper limits on their authority. With the Roberts Nomination to the Supreme Court currently before the Senate – as well as the ongoing controversy about filibusters in the Senate over nominees to federal district and appeals courts, this has become one of Landmark’s highest priorities.” Source Updated: August 2006 Back to Top

	Leadership Institute 1101 North Highland Street Arlington, VA 22201 www.leadershipinstitute.org President: Morton C. Blackwell Established: In 1979 by Morton C. Blackwell Finances: $8,230,655 budget (2000) Employees: 54 Graduates of LI programs: Over 30,000 people (according to LI) Leadership Institute’s Principal Issues and Activities: The Institute’s mission is “to increase the number and effectiveness of conservative public policy leaders. We not only want to identify, recruit and place conservatives, but we want to properly equip our future leaders as well.” The Institute recruits, trains and finds jobs for right-wing activists in the public policy field. In 22 years, the Institute has trained over 30,000 activists. The Institute’s F.M. Kirby National Training Center has 18 educational programs: Campaign Leadership, Candidate Development, Capitol Hill staff, Capitol Hill writing, Grassroots organizing, Internet leadership, Public Relations, Public Speaking, Student Publications, Youth Leadership, and Broadcast Journalism. LI has space to hold trainings to accommodate nearly 500 people at a time and free dormitory space is available. LI has an intern program, an Employment Placement Service and a Broadcast Journalism Placement Service. LI has placed program graduates in positions at: National Rifle Association, Christian Coalition, American Conservative Union, and working for Florida Governor Jeb Bush. LI alumni include: Ralph Reed, Former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, Congressman David McIntosh (R-Indiana), Congressman Mark Souder (R-Indiana). The Institute also has a “Bi-Partisan Congressional Advisory Board” of 117 members, 4 are Democrats and the rest are Republicans. LI has organized over 200 conservative student groups on college campuses nationwide. LI specializes in countering “political correctness” on college campuses. LI receives funding from many large conservative foundations such as the F.M. Kirby Foundation and the DeVos Foundation. President Ronald Reagan said that the Leadership Institute is "paving the way for a new generation of conservative leadership." Morton Blackwell’s Background: Since 1991, Blackwell has served as Executive Director of the secretive Council for National Policy, a foundation composed of leaders of right wing public policy organizations, major donors and other noted conservative leaders. From 1981-1984, Morton worked as the Special Assistant to President Reagan. Blackwell was a liaison to conservative groups, veteran's groups, most religious organizations, and civic and fraternal groups. Blackwell co-authored President Reagan's Voluntary Prayer Amendment. [Updated September 2002]

	Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research 85 Devonshire Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 www.pioneerinstitute.org Established: 1988 by Lovett C. Peters Founding Chairman: Lovett C. Peters Chairman: Colby Hewitt, Jr. President/Executive Director: Stephen Adams Finances: $2.5 million budget (2000) Employees: 18 Affiliated with: Massachusetts Charter School Resource Center, Pioneer Institute, Inc. Publications: Books, policy papers, “Pioneering Spirit” magazine, newsletters, and op-eds. Pioneer Institute’s Principal Issues: PI “seeks to change the intellectual climate in Massachusetts” by challenging the progressive bias of the state. PI describes itself as “Massachusetts’s leading think tank.” PI has three “centers”—the Charter School Resource Center, the Shamie Center for Restructuring Government and the Center for Urban Entrepreneurship. PI’s issues are broken down into its “E4 strategy-- educational excellence, effective public management, economic opportunity, and emerging issues.” PI is a proponent of school vouchers and deregulation of workman’s compensation insurance. PI opposes bilingual education. PI’s approach to education reform is defined by its support of school vouchers and charter schools. PI’s founding chairman, Lovett C. Peters, is also a trustee for the Foundation for Economic Education and for Hillsdale College PI’s work has been acknowledged by other right wing groups. Peters was awarded the “Roe Award” from the State Policy Network. Both Peters and his wife Ruth Stott Peters received the “Champions of Freedom Award” from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. PI is a member of the State Policy Network, “the professional service organization for America's state-based, free market think tank movement.” [Updated September 2002]

	Madison Project The Madison Project (MP) PO Box 100 Centreville, VA 20122 www.madisonproject.org Established: 1994 by Michael Farris Chairman: Michael Farris President: Michael Bowman Publications: We the People, a bimonthly newsletter Madison Project's Principal Issues: Madison Project's Recent Activities: MP's Election History: About MP’s Founder Michael Farris: Madison Project quotes: Madison Project's Principal Issues: The Madison Project is a PAC was established to help and support new conservative “family values” anti-choice candidates, to build a “true pro-life, conservative majority.” Madison Project calls itself “A Political Network for Pro-Life Conservatives.” [letterhead 1999] The Madison Project organizes and "bundles" small contributions by individuals to amass large contributions. It is modeled after Emily's List. [We the people, nov/dec 1994] Madison Project’s Board of Directors include famous conservatives Paul Weyrich and Tim LaHaye. Madison Project’s “Advisory Committee” is a group of congresspeople that the group helped to elect. MP does not support incumbents and it often focuses on elections in its home state of Virginia. Back to Top Madison Project's Recent Activities: Candidates MP supported in 2002 election: MP Wins: Senate Races: Missouri US Senate: Jim Talent (v. Jean Carnahan) House Races: Colorado: 4th CD Marilyn Musgrave (v. Stan Matsanka) Florida: 13th CD Katherine Harris (v. Jan Schneider) New Mexico: 2nd CD Steve Pearce (v. John Arthur Smith) New Jersey: 5th CD Scott Garrett (v. Anne Summers) Texas: 5th CD Jeb Hensarling (v. Ron Chapman) Losses: Senate Races: Delaware: US Senate: Clatworthy (v. Biden) Louisiana US Senate: Perkins (v. Landrieu) House Races: California: 39th CD: Tim Escobar (v. Linda Sanchez) Kentucky: 4th CD: Geoff Davis (v. Ken Lucas) Louisiana 5th CD: Clyde Holloway (v. Rodney Alexander) Back to Top MP's Election History: In 2000, MP claims they elected 10 new pro-life Republicans to Congress. They also launched their “Vote Your Values!” get-out-the-vote project, targeting conservative religious voters in Michigan and Florida. [11-17-00] In Summer 1999, MP headed a campaign to “bundle” contributions for the GOP House Managers who prosecuted the impeachment of President Clinton. MP claims it gave more money to the House Managers than their own official House Managers PAC. [11-17-00 direct mail] During the 1999 primary, MP ranked #1 among pro-life organizations and #3 among 117 conservative organizations in funneling money to candidates. [ibid] In 1996 MP gave $340,000 to 14 candidates, helping to elect Sam Brownback (R-KS). [MP 2/98 direct mail] In 1994 MP gave $179,000 to 9 candidates. Of those nine, 4 were elected. (Steve Largent (R-OK), Mark Neumann(R-WS), Andrea Seastrand(R-CA), and Doc Hastings(R-WS).) [ibid] Back to Top About MP’s Founder Michael Farris: In 2001 Farris was hired by the Bush campaign as a consultant. Farris stepped down as Executive Director and named Michael Bowman, former Vice President of Government Relations at the Family Research Council. [9-24-01, direct mail] Farris was responsible for arranging the instrumental Fall 1999 meeting between top conservatives and candidate George W. Bush. The meeting was an opportunity for Bush to privately reassure the far-right that they share the same values. [WT 10-8-1999] Michael Farris ran a failed campaign for lieutenant governor of Virginia. Farris is known for his role in the Christian conservative home schooling movement, president of the Home School Defense Association. Farris has also established a college for Christian conservative home schooled kids, Patrick Henry College. Farris also served as general counsel to Concerned Women for America. Back to Top Madison Project quotes: "Madison Project not only has a unique mission and strategy, but we have a proven record of accomplishment with over a million dollars delivered directly to candidates and many solid victories for conservatives." -Michael Farris [1-03 website] “The Madison Project has been responsible for electing ten of the most constitutionally conservative Congressmen in history. These are men and women who are solid on the issues you and I care about the most.”- Madison Project, direct mail 1-97? “You know I have to say sincerely that I stand before you because of the Madison Project.” –Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth, R-ID [1-97 direct mail] “Madison Project put us over the hump, and for that I am eternally grateful.”- Congressman Steve Largent, R-OK [direct mail 1-97] “Together we’ve helped elect eight principled leaders to the U.S. House of Representatives and one to the U.S. Senate. That is nine Congressmen who, day in and day out vote for the principles you and I hold dear.” –July 4, 1997 direct mail from Michael Farris on behalf of the Madison Project ""Madison Project provided me with critical funding when I needed it the most: in the primary!" -Rep. Joe Pitts (R, Penn.) [1-03 website] Back to Top

	National Association of Scholars 221 Witherspoon Street, Second Floor Princeton, New Jersey 08542-3215 www.nas.org Founded: 1985 President: Stephen H. Balch Publications: NAS Update quarterly newsletter, Academic Questions quarterly journal, and Science Insights; and occasional reports Finances: Has an income of less than $25,000 per year. NAS Principle Issues: NAS Principle Activities: Major Right Wing Donors: NAS’s Board of Advisors: NAS Principle Issues: NAS was founded to bring together conservatives in academia to fight the “liberal bias” on college and university campuses and to target multiculturalism and affirmative-action policies. NAS organizes professors, graduate students, college administrators and trustees, and scholars who believe that there is a “[d]ogmatic hostility to Western civilization, and turning the study of non-Western cultures into an instrument for denouncing American society” on college campuses. Fights against the “[d]ecline in civility on college and university campuses.” Back to Top NAS Principle Activities: NAS builds scholar networks, organizes panels, conferences, and lectures and creates NAS campus communities. NAS organizes outreach programs to recruit new members. Back to Top Major Right Wing Donors: Sarah Scaife Foundation The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc Castle Rock Foundation John M. Olin Foundation Back to Top NAS’s Board of Advisors: John H. Bunzel, Hoover Institution Edwin J. Delattre, American Enterprise Institute Chester E. Finn, Fordham Foundation Gertrude Himmelfarb, Independent Women’s Forum Paul Hollander, National Review, Front Page Magazine Harry V. Jaffa, Claremont Institute Donald Kagan, Project for the New American Century Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, UN Ambassador under President Reagan, American Enterprise Institute Irving Kristol, American Enterprise Institute Richard D. Lamm, American Reform Party Leslie Lenkowsky, National Review Seymour Martin Lipset, Hoover Institution Christina Hoff Sommers, Independent Women’s Forum Shelby Steele, Hoover Institution, Manhattan Institute Stephan Thernstrom, Manhattan Institute James Q. Wilson, Manhattan Institute Updated July 2004 Back to Top

	National Center for Policy Analysis 12655 North Central Expressway, Suite 720 Dallas, TX 75243-1739 www.ncpa.org Established: 1983 President/Executive Director: John C. Goodman Finances: $5,237,217 (total expenditures in 2001) Employees: 22 Affiliations: NCPA is a member of the State Policy Network, a network of national and local right-wing think tanks, and of townhall.com, a right-wing internet portal created by the Heritage Foundation. Publications: NCPA sponsors two of its own syndicated columnists: Pete du Pont (Scripps Howard) and Bruce Bartlett (Creators Syndicate). Bartlett's column appears under contract twice a week in the Washington Times and in the Detroit News. NCPA’s Principal Issues: NCPA's Activities and History: NCPA alumni in the Bush administration: High-profile Staffers and Board Members: NCPA’s Principal Issues: A right wing think tank with programs devoted to privatization in the following issue areas: taxes, Social Security and Medicare, health care, criminal justice, environment, education, and welfare. NCPA describes its close working relationship with Congress, saying it “has managed to have more than a dozen studies released by members of Congress – a rare event for a think tank – and frequently members of Congress appear at the NCPA's Capitol Hill briefings for congressional aides.” Right-wing foundations funding includes: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM Foundations In the early 90s, NCPA created the Center for Tax Studies. NCPA’s website describes the inspiration for the Center: “Very few think tank studies are released by members of Congress.” Back to Top NCPA's Activities and History: In the early 90s, NCPA established the Center for Tax Studies. NCPA's website describes the inspiration for the Center: "Very few think tank studies are released by members of Congress. One of the first NCPA exceptions was a 1990 study on how Social Security rules penalize senior citizens and discourage them from working. The study was released on Capitol Hill by more than 50 members of the House of Representatives. This was the first of many such events for the NCPA and led to the creation of the Center for Tax Studies, which makes policy recommendations that help to guide the decisions of lawmakers." In the mid-90s, NCPA saw more opportunities with the new Republican Congress. NCPA describes its accomplishments: "A package of pro-growth tax cuts, designed by the NCPA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1991, became the core of the Contract With America in 1994. Three of the five proposals (capital gains tax cut, Roth IRA and eliminating the Social Security earnings penalty) became law. A fourth proposal - rolling back the tax on Social Security benefits - passed the House of Representatives in 2000." "NCPA Senior Fellow Bruce Bartlett's proposal for an across-the-board tax cut became the centerpiece of Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign and the focal point of the recent pro-growth approach to tax cuts. Bartlett's proposal also became the centerpiece of President Bush's tax cut proposal." "At the request of congressional leadership, we produced a major study on the tax relief bill passed in Congress but vetoed by President Clinton." "The repeal by Congress of the estate tax last year (vetoed by President Clinton) and again by the House of Representatives this year reflects the continued work of the NCPA. At the request of congressional leadership, the NCPA produced a policy backgrounder on the case for abolishing death taxes. A later NCPA study on this issue was released on Capitol Hill, timed to coincide with the Senate debate on the issue. This year, the issue is again before the Congress, with a president who strongly favors repeal." Back to Top NCPA alumni in the Bush administration: Senior Fellow Thomas R. Saving was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Dr. Saving was also named to the President’s Social Security Commission. Back to Top High-profile Staffers and Board Members: High-profile board members: Former Delaware governor Pete du Pont Virginia Manheimer, funder of right-wing and pro-voucher organizations in New York High-profile staffers include: Senior Fellow Bruce Bartlett Back to Top

	National Right to Life Committee 512 10th St. NW Washington, DC 20004 www.nrlc.org President: Wanda Franz Date of founding: 1973 Finances: $12.4 million (1998 revenue) State chapters: Over 3,000 “Right to Life” chapters in all 50 states and District of Columbia. Publications: National Right to Life News, monthly newsletter with “nearly” 400,000 subscribers, and a "Hot List" e-mail news listserv. Affiliated with: National Right to Life Committee Educational Trust Fund, National Right to Life Conventions, National Right to Life PAC, and the Horatio R. Storer Foundation. NRLC’s Principal Issues: NRLC is the nation's largest anti-abortion grassroots organization. NRLC specializes in lobbying congress and organizing grassroots activists on anti-abortion issues. NRLC also has a political action committee and educational trust fund. One of the central goals of the organization is the passage of a constitutional amendment banning all abortion. While NRLC defines itself as a “single-issue” organization, they are also active in other issues such as partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and cloning. NRCL opposes RU-486 and some forms of contraceptives, including "the pill." In 1999, Fortune magazine placed NRLC number 8 on its “Power 25” list, which ranks the most influential lobbying groups in Washington, D.C.. NRLC Activities: NRLC organizes letters-to-congress campaigns on behalf of legislation that relates to their issues. NRLC encourages its members to approach local schools so they can give talks in the classroom, they call it “Captivating the Captive Audience.” In materials that explain how to convert students to their cause, they emphasize the effectiveness of using NRCL’s educational resources, such as videos, pamphlets, cd-roms, and “fetal models.” In Fall 2001 the NRL Educational Trust Fund purchased a building halfway between the White House and Capitol Hill. The value of the building is assessed at $2 million dollars. [Updated September 2002]

	National Taxpayers Union 108 North Alfred St. Alexandria, Virginia 22314 www.ntu.org Established: Founded in 1969. President: John Berthoud Finances: $1,222,825 (2000 NTUF budget) Employees: 20 Membership: 335,000 Organization Affiliates: National Taxpayers Union Foundation, National Taxpayers Union Campaign Fund, Iowans for Tax Relief, Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom, Arlington County Taxpayers Association NTU’s Principal Activities: History and Background: High-profile Staffers: High Profile Board Members: Quotes NTU’s Principal Activities: NTU’s main focus is lobbying Congress. NTU bills its congressional scorecards as “the only scorecard that grades representatives on every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy, including taxes and regulation.” NTU also gives “Taxpayers’ Friend Awards” to the highest scoring legislators. Like most lobbying groups, NTU sends alerts about pending legislation to be used by activists, testifies before Congress, and provides policy papers for its legislative allies. NTUF was founded in 1977 and “is the charitable, research, and educational affiliate of NTU.” National Taxpayers Union Campaign Fund (NTUCF) was created by NTU in 1994 and “makes endorsements of candidates, distributes information to voters on the tax records -- good and bad -- of officeseekers, and which conducts its own self-directed “independent expenditure” campaigns in certain political contests.” Back to Top History and Background: NTU lists the following among its accomplishments: “Dozens of successful state and local tax limitation movements -- activists have defeated 90% of the 50 major tax increases that appeared on state ballots over the past five years;” “Bringing the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution within one vote of passing the Congress;” and “Landmark "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" laws that help to safeguard against IRS abuses.” Right-wing foundations that help fund NTUF include: Scaife, John M. Olin and JM Foundations. Back to Top High-profile Staffers: Grover Norquist was NTU’s Executive Director before being tapped by the Reagan White House to head Americans for Tax Reform. Back to Top High Profile Board Members: David M. Stanley, Chairman of the Board Steve Forbes, two-time candidate for GOP presidential nomination J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State J. Patrick Rooney, a right-wing funder Back to Top Quotes Quotes about NTU: “My Administration came to Washington to achieve many of the goals shared by the National Taxpayers Union – Reduction of income tax rates, control of government spending…NTU’s support for the across-the-board tax rate reduction and income tax indexing helped pave the way for Congressional adoption during the first years of this Administration.”- Former President Ronald Reagan “The National Taxpayers Union…is the Grand-daddy of the tax revolt organizations.” -San Francisco Chronicle “After Howard Jarvis’ victory on California’s landmark Proposition 13 tax-limitation referendum in 1978, the NTU helped to convert the victory into national momentum for the Reagan agenda.” -Human Events magazine Quotes from NTU: “If we don’t seize on this revolutionary moment to rein in taxes and rein in entitlements, we could be looking at a government headed for financial oblivion…and a populace that is so over-taxed and so desperate that we could be talking about real revolutions.” - David Keating in 1995 Back to Top

	New Coalition for Economic and Social Change The New Coalition for Economic and Social Change is a coalition of black conservatives affiliated with free-market advocacy group The Heartland Institute – itself member a of the right-wing State Policy Network, a national network of state-based think tanks. The New Coalition for Economic and Social Change 19 South LaSalle Street #903 Chicago, IL 60603 Website: www.newcoalition.org Founder & President: Lee H. Walker in 1980 Board of Directors (Heartland Institute): Herbert J. Walberg, Chairman, Joseph L. Bast (President and CEO The Heartland Institute), James L. Johnston (Amoco Corporation, retired), Thomas Walton (General Motors Corporation), Walter F. Buchholtz (ExxonMobil Corporation), Roy E. Marden (Philip Morris), David H. Padden (Padden & Co.), Robert Buford (Planned Realty Group), Frank Resnik (Medline Inc., retired), Paul Fisher Piper (Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe), Leslie Rose (Fidelity Bank), James Fitzgerald (BankNote Capital LLC), Lee Tooman (Golden Rule Insurance Company), Dan Hales (Peterson & Ross), Lee H. Walker (New Coalition for Economic & Social Change), William Higginson (Chicago Equity Fund Inc.). Finances: The New Coalition estimates its finances for 2005 at $175,000 Publications: New Coalition “News and Views” Newsletter, sent to a mailing list of approximately 1,100 allies and opinion leaders, as well as occasional articles, studies, and research papers on issues of particular interest to people of color. Affiliate Groups: The Heartland Institute Purpose Activities Funding History Purpose The new Coalition lists its goals and strategies as the following: To make black Americans more economically independent; To formulate a coherent black strategy to deal with “black pathologies” such as crime, poor health, unemployment, and “miseducation;” To publicize the fact that there is great diversity within the black community; To create new leaders and new alliances; To foster black experts able to comment on a wide variety of issues, not just those commonly associated with black concerns. The New Coalition is “committed to conservative multiculturalism,” which views social order from historical and personal experiences not shared by whites, that result in conservative or libertarian conclusions. Back to Top Activities The New Coalition engages in public speaking, media interviews, writing letters to editors and elected officials, op-eds for newspapers, and feature articles for magazines and newsletters, as well as holding seminars and providing easy-access literature for the multicultural community. On its website it lists the following activities: Presenting the Booker T. Washington "New Citizenship" Award annually to Americans who have succeeded against the odds; Hosting an annual leadership conference on the New Black Agenda; Producing a series of small-scale seminars for the purpose of exploring specific public policy issues; Publishing a newsletter and studies and research papers on urgent issues; and Networking with other organizations. New Coalition Cultural Information Exchange Project (NCCIEP), an educational development program for Chicago Public Schools Technology Initiatives Back to Top Funding The New Coalition lists the Stuart Family Foundation, ExxonMobil Corporation, the Ceres Foundation, and the Milbank Foundation for Rehabilitation as several of its 97 donors. The New Coalition is a partner with the Heartland Institute, which receives funding from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, JM Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and from the Phillip Morris tobacco company. It claims to have annual revenues of over $2 million. Back to Top History The New Coalition was founded in 1980 following a major conference in San Francisco at the Fairmont Hotel. Speakers featured that day included former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese III, economist Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Walter Williams. According to the New Coalition’s website, “The Heartland Institute, a national research organization (or ‘think tank’) founded in 1984 in Chicago, has an annual budget of $2 million and a full-time staff of 13. Prior to joining forces with Mr. Walker, however, it was not having much success reaching nonwhite audiences. As a result, a partnership formed between The New Coalition and The Heartland Institute, a project under Mr. Walker's direction that combined The New Coalition's extensive contacts with nonwhite opinion leaders with access to The Heartland Institute's staff, publications, and national network of donors and opinion leaders. Mr. Walker–a long-time member of Heartland's Board of Directors–has taken the title of Senior Fellow at Heartland and President of The New Coalition.” According to Sourcewatch.org, the Heartland Institute has ties to the tobacco industry… “Roy E. Marden, a member of Heartland's board of directors, is the manager of industry affairs for the Philip Morris tobacco company…[and] In a May 1991 document prepared for Philip Morris, Marden listed Heartland's ‘rapid response network’ as a ‘potential spokesperson’ among the ‘portfolio of organizations’ that the company had cultivated to support its interests. The Heartland Institute is also a member of the State Policy Network, a national network of state-based right-wing organizations, predominately think tanks. Updated: April 2006 Back to Top

	State Policy Network 6255 Arlington Boulevard Richmond, CA 94805 www.spn.org Founding Chairman: Thomas Roe Established: 1992 Formerly Known As: The Madison Group President: Tracie Sharp Financials: $391,496 (2001 budget) Membership: 40 state membership groups in 37 states Publications: SPN News (quarterly newsletter), SPN group directory. SPN's Principal Issues: SPN's Activities: SPN's Members and Associates: [partial list] SPN Quotes: SPN's Principal Issues: SPN is a national network of state-based right-wing organizations in 37 states as well as prominent nationwide right-wing organizations. Through its network SPN advances the public policy ideas of the expansive right-wing political movement on the state and local level. Due to SPN's state think tank network, smaller organizations have met with success by following the Heritage Foundation model of extensive public relations to court the media and politicians in an effort to have more impact on public policy. The agenda of Heritage and most of SNP's network members are nearly identical: privatization of most public services and hostility to public education. SPN's Purpose: “The Era of Big Government is not over. Federal control has merely been reinforced by state mandates. This is the reality of the 'New Federalism.' Independent think tanks that promote market-oriented public policy ideas at the state and local levels are confronting that reality head-on, working in the trenches at the forefront of the movement for free market policy solutions, and State Policy Network is boosting its capacity to support them.” SPN's leadership work includes "program planning, delivery, evaluation" and establishing "outreach programs" to help smaller organizations to market and promote themselves to lawmakers and business leaders. SPN is a network of “state-based think tanks,” organizations, corporations, and foundations in the “conservative/free market movement.” Back to Top SPN's Activities: SPN provides seminars and workshops on areas such as market analysis and fundraising strategies for non-profits to market themselves in the for-profit world. The State Policy Network has received funding from the Olin Foundation, the Richard & Helen DeVos Foundation, the Bradley Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation (Coors affiliated). The Network meets regularly to share strategies and coordinate activities. Through SPN’s network the different state membership groups lobby and organize on a local and state level for privatization of many public services including schools and mass transportation, deregulation of business, and opposition to organized labor. Back to Top SPN's Members and Associates: [partial list] Acton Institute Alabama Policy Institute American Legislative Exchange Council Allegheny Institute for Public Policy Americans for Tax Reform Arkansas Policy Foundation Atlas Economic Research Foundation Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Cascade Policy Institute Commonwealth Foundation Competitive Enterprise Institute Foundation for Economic Education Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Georgia Public Policy Foundation Heartland Institute Heritage Foundation Institute for Justice Landmark Legal Foundation Mackinac Center for Public Policy National Center for Policy Analysis Pacific Legal Foundation Pacific Research Institute Pioneer Institute Reason Foundation Southeastern Legal Foundation Back to Top SPN Quotes: “The number of state think tanks has tripled during the past decade. In 1989, there were 12 independent, market-oriented, state-based public policy research organizations. Now there are 40 groups in 37 states, complementing the many national groups promoting free market policy solutions.” - From“About SPN: State Policy Network Background” Back to Top

	Students for Academic Freedom 1015 15th Street, NW, #900 Washington, DC 20005 www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org Founded: by David Horowitz in June 2003 National Campus Director: Sara Dogan (formerly Sara Russo) Affiliated with: David Horowitz, Center for the Study of Popular Culture, and Frontpagemag.com. SAF's Issues: SAF's Activities: SAF's Issues: SAF was created as part of a campaign by David Horowitz to pass the “Academic Bill of Rights” and combat liberalism and Democrats on college and university campuses. SAF’s founder David Horowitz claims that American colleges and universities are “indoctrination centers for the political left” and that many higher education professors “hate America.” SAF suggests that students investigate the professors at their schools for “bias” by searching voter registration records, create a spreadsheet of the data and send it to SAF. SAF claims that conservative students and professors are “blacklisted” at their colleges and universities. Back to Top SAF's Activities: SAF is promoting the “Academic Bill of Rights” nationwide to pressure schools that receive state funding to implement affirmative action-like programs to hire conservative professors. SAF claims that Georgia, Colorado and Mississippi are “on the verge” of getting legislators and university boards to ratify the bill. According to SAF, “Our goal is to get more than 500,000 signatures -- 10,000 per state -- to present to lawmakers, alumni, regents and administrations across the nation!” SAF organizes campus chapters. As of June 2004 they list chapters at 135 schools nationwide, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Duke, Brown, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, U. Wisconsin-Madison, Missouri, Emory, Georgia Tech, Michigan and American University. SAF distributes and promotes the booklet “Unpatriotic University” which Horowitz describes as “a wealth of information about the bias in hiring, the anti-American rhetoric, and the shutting out of conservative points of view both in classrooms and on speakers' platforms.” (Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture publishes the booklet.) Promotes Front Page Magazine’s book store which includes titles such as David Horowitz’s “Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes,” books by Charles Murray, Sean Hannity, Daniel Pipes, as well as many anti-Islam and anti-Clinton books. Front Page Magazine publishes controversial columnist Ann Coulter. Updated July 2004 Back to Top

	Toward Tradition Since founding Toward Tradition, Rabbi Daniel Lapin has gone on to become one of the Religious Right’s favorite Rabbis for his efforts to broker an alliance between Jews and evangelical Christians over social issues. Lapin ran into a stumbling block over his connections to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Toward Tradition PO Box 58 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Website: www.towardtradition.org President: Rabbi Daniel Lapin Chairman: Samuel H. Silver Founded: 1991 Board of Directors: Jim Aitkins, Dr. Brian Beckman, Ray Dally, Stanley Ellberger, Peter Huizenga, Cary H. Humphries, Lewis J. Kaufman, Michael Medved, Dr. Maria Ohm, Carl Pearlston, Jim Polack, Dr. Ed Pritzker, Dr. Martin Rabin, Dr. Daniel Schneeweiss, Abe Shamash, Carrie Simms, Leo Strauss, Kenneth VonKohorn, Don Wallis, Fred Weiss Membership: Range of membership levels from $18 to $1000 Finances: $561,427 (2003) Publications: America’s Real War, Buried Treasure, and Thou Shall Prosper, all by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, radio and television show Affiliate Groups: Cascadia Business Institute Purpose Activities About Rabbi Daniel Lapin Former Staff/Board Members Funding History Quotes Purpose Toward Tradition aims to promote “traditional values” within the context of Jewish and Judeo-Christian teachings. Some of these issues include faith-based principles of government, a strong military, a moral public culture, and free markets. Back to Top Activities Toward Tradition television show addresses issues involving “Faith, Family, Friends, and Fortune” with solutions from the Bible. Lapin lectures at synagogues across the country to present his ideas. He also has a weekly radio show. There are four segments of the organization. The Macabee Project aimed toward “combating anti-Jewish/anti-Christian bigotry; defending Christians unjustly accused of anti-Semitism.” The Biblical Blueprint Institute has a goal of “sharing ancient Jewish wisdom with all Americans through Rabbi Daniel Lapin’s Torah teaching.” The American Alliance of Jews and Christians is a “partnering of Jews and Christians to strengthen America and our allies.” The Ethical Capitalism Project focuses on “restoring American respect for the dignity and morality of business.” Lapin is a frequent speaker at Religious Right events and conferences including the Christian Coalition’s Road to Victory Conference, Massachusetts Family Institute, Mayday for Marriage rallies in Seattle, WA and Washington DC, the Judeo-Christian Alliance (CA) and the Family Research Council’s Pastor Briefing. Following the terrorist attack of September 11, Toward Tradition ran an ad in the November 13, 2001 edition of the New York Times calling for an “Urgent Alliance” of American Jews and Christians based on the observation that “a religious America is a safe America.” The press release describing the ad said they hoped it would “spark renewed commitment to the goal of saving America by reviving the place of religion in public life.” Back to Top About Rabbi Daniel Lapin Rabbi Daniel Lapin immigrated to the United States from South Africa in 1973. He founded the Pacific Jewish Center, a well-known Orthodox synagogue in Venice, California, along with conservative film critic Michael Medved. He and his family relocated to Washington State in 1991 to develop Toward Tradition. Lapin has taught at the Christian Coalition, U.S. Army, Harvard Law School, and the Family Research Council. He serves on the board of the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, DC, and was appointed by President Bush to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad on October 24, 2001. Back to Top Former Staff/Board Members Rabbi Lapin has close ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff who served on Toward Tradition’s Board of Governors. Lapin introduced Abramoff to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas). The connection between Abramoff and DeLay has been the subject of investigations by the Senate, the House, the Justice Department, and a federal grand jury. Abramoff has admitted that he funneled money through Toward Tradition in an effort to influence aides of Rep. Tom DeLay. Lapin says neither he nor his board knew the money was part of a scheme to influence Congress. Back to Top Funding Toward Tradition has received money from right-wing foundations including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Family Foundation, and the Roe Foundation. Back to Top History Rabbi Daniel Lapin along with film critic and conservative author Michael Medved and lobbyist Jack Abramoff [source] founded Towards Tradition in 1991 in Washington State, where he also began his weekly radio talk show. In October of 1994, Toward Tradition, along with the Jewish Policy Center and the Claremont Institute sponsored a conference titled, Toward a New Alliance; American Jews and Political Conservatism. Featured panelists included Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform) Ralph Reed (Christian Coalition) William Kristol (editor of the Weekly Standard) and David Horowitz (Center for the Study of Popular Culture), among others. Some 300 attendees strongly endorsed a right-wing social agenda and announced a call for a new alliance with the Religious Right. [Human Events, 10/28/94] Back to Top Quotes “We have a tough choice, I will concede. We can continue on with our secular society entirely stripped of faith or move toward a benign society that has returned to its Christian faith… We can only thrive under the conditions of law and order and we are here to affirm that our allies in returning America to these conditions are [Christian conservatives].” – Rabbi Daniel Lapin, quoted in Human Events, October 28, 1994 Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Traditional Values Coalition The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) is a small but influential organization that appears to consist mostly of the Rev. Lou Sheldon and his daughter Andrea Sheldon Lafferty. Both are mainstays on the conservative circuit, though their reputation has been damaged by revelations that Lou Sheldon took money from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to help kill an anti-gambling bill that would have hurt one of Abramoff’s clients. Traditional Values Coalition 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard - Suite 320 Anaheim, CA 92805 Traditional Values Coalition 139 C Street SE Washington, DC 20003 Website: www.traditionalvalues.org Chairman/Founder: Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Executive Director: Andrea Sheldon Lafferty Date of founding: 1980 Membership: Claims over 43,000 churches nationwide representing 12 denominations Publications: Monthly letters are sent to pastors of member churches, along with action alerts and special letters from Founder “Lou” Sheldon. Occasionally publishes reports. Revenue: Traditional Values Coalition, its 501(c)4 organization - $6,389,448 (2004) [According to tax forms, TVC carried nearly $4 million in debt at the end of the year]; and Traditional Values Education & Legal Institute, its 501(c)3 arm - $716,032 [nearly $80,000 in debt] Media: Lou Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty have appeared on many mainstream news programs to discuss the TVC perspective on social issues. TVC also runs television ads during political campaigns. Affiliate organizations: Traditional Values Education & Legal Institute, the foundation arm of TVC, and the Task Force for the Preservation of the Heterosexual Ethic in America (defunct) Principal Issues Activities Quotes from Andrea Sheldon Lafferty Quotes from Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Principal Issues Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) describes itself as the largest church-lobby in the United States. TVC’s mission is “to restore America’s cultural heritage” by opposing gay and lesbian civil rights, reproductive freedom, the teaching of evolution in public schools, and sex education curricula that does not stress abstinence to the exclusion of information on birth control and disease prevention, and promotes prayer in schools. TVC is active both as a group that lobbies Congress and as a grassroots organization that gives marching orders to churches to oppose local, state, and federal legislation. TVC distributes information about gays and lesbians, often referring to gays and lesbians as “sexual predators” and “pedophiles.” TVC has also worked on issues relating to the dangers of pornography, including supporting the use of internet filters at public libraries. Under their “Judicial Nominee Monitoring Project” the group has lobbied for a conservative judicial system and right wing judicial nominees/appointments. Back to Top Activities TVC’s website includes an interactive guide to the presence or absence of Marriage Protection laws in each of the 50 states. Rev. Louis Sheldon was outraged by the 2005 decision of the San Francisco Superior Court to rule California’s gay marriage ban as unconstitutional, and along with TVC and other CA state legislators, has proposed two amendments that would protect marriage from being redefined by activist judges. TVC created a "Judge John Roberts Action Center" on a separate website, “Our Battle Plan,” where it provided talking points for proponents of Roberts, and admonished the “anti-God Left [that] has been using America’s courts to impose an anti-religion, anti-family agenda on America…” Before President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court, TVC promoted its “$4.5 Million Supreme Court Battle Plan” for a “massive national grassroots mobilization and media campaign to fight the radical left and pressure the Senate to confirm President Bush’s nominee.” Following Roberts’ nomination, TVC activated a “Supreme Court Nominee Action Center” urging its members to pray for Judge Roberts because “character assassins are already out in full force trying to destroy his chances of confirmation.” Members were asked to send pre-written “thank-you” letters to President Bush, praising his Supreme Court nominee choice. TVC actively lobbies against hate crime legislation because according to its executive director, hate crime legislation will be “used by homosexual activists to punish any person who has the courage to speak out against the recruitment of children by homosexuals." Most of TVC’s work is concerned with homosexuality, which it opposes by working against civil unions, supporting Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) statutes, and accusing gays and lesbians of “recruiting” children into homosexuality. TVC and many other Religious Right groups oppose the rules that prohibit churches from directly supporting political candidates, either through endorsement or campaign contributions. TVC was active in state battles over constitutional amendments outlawing civil rights protections for gays and lesbians in Colorado and Oregon. TVC has also helped organized anti-gay initiatives in California, Arizona, Missouri, and Washington. The group was instrumental in convincing the California State Board of Education to reject a health education curriculum that touched on such subjects as homosexuality and AIDS. TVC has also worked to preserve sodomy laws in California. TVC occasionally runs ads on televisions in elections in certain congressional districts. TVC offers a weekly e-mail service alerting constituents how their congressional representative voted on TVC issues. TVC operates an extensive “non-partisan” voter education program. During elections, TVC distributes district specific voter guides which featured side by side profiles of the candidate's positions and/or their voting records. Andrea Sheldon Lafferty, founder Louis Sheldon’s daughter, is a former Reagan administration official who works out of the TVC DC office as a Capitol Hill lobbyist. Back to Top Quotes from Andrea Sheldon Lafferty Andrea Sheldon Lafferty says supporters of hate crimes laws that include sexual orientation as a protected category "are trying to take a handful of hideous, horrible crimes and use that to force acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle." In reference to fetal tissue research, Lafferty says "I think we're going to have to apologize to the Nazis for this." Back to Top Quotes from Rev. Louis P. Sheldon “As Homosexuals continue to make inroads into public schools, more children will be molested and indoctrinated into the world of homosexuality. Many of them will die in that world.” (“Homosexuals Recruit Public School Children,” by Louis Sheldon, special report, Vol. 18, No. 11) “Americans should understand that their attitudes about homosexuality have been deliberately and deceitfully changed by a masterful propaganda/marketing campaign that rivals that of Adolph Hitler. In fact, many of the strategies used by homosexuals to bring about cultural change in America are taken from Hitler’s writings and propaganda welfare manuals.” (“Homosexual Propaganda Campaign Based on Hitler’s ‘Big Lie’ Technique,” by Louis Sheldon, special report, Vol. 18, No. 10) “Give us a few more years under the belt and we will learn how to replace many of the school board members. Give us more time to understand how the system works, and we’ll work the system even better than one could ever imagine.” (CNN News, September 9, 1990) “There is a war waging in America. The battle is over values, beliefs and the cultural basis of western civilization.... the elitist avant-garde arts community uses the NEA to advertise and disseminate their political beliefs. The NEA then uses our scarce tax dollars to fund works which are intended to shock Americans into an acceptance of dysfunctional behavioral lifestyles and to destroy the family.” (Hearing on the National Endowment for the Arts, April 1991) Updated: December 2006 Back to Top

	WallBuilders WallBuilders is an organization founded by Republican Party activist and self-proclaimed historian David Barton for the purpose of “educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country.” Barton and his work are routinely cited by those on the Right who claim that the United States was founded by Christian men on explicitly Christian principles. WallBuilders PO Box 397 426 Circle Drive Aledo, TX 76008-0397 Website: www.wallbuilders.com Founder/President: David Barton Founded: 1989 Board of Directors: Rose Barton, Jeff Fisher, Richard Watson, Stephen McDowell (Providence Foundation) Finances: $1,450,327 (2004 revenue) Publications: Dozens of books, pamphlets, CDs, tapes, videos, and DVDs as well as articles and a quarterly newsletter. Purpose Activities History Quotes Purpose WallBuilders bills itself as an “organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built—a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined.” WallBuilders’ mission consists of “(1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.” In this capacity, David Barton has established himself as the Right’s pre-eminent “historian” on the religious views of the Founding Fathers and their desire to establish a nation founded on Christian principles. Back to Top Activities WallBuilders produces and distributes dozens of books, DVDs, and other products that seek to apply “the lessons of our history to contemporary issues.” Among them are “Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion,” which claims that the Supreme Court has diluted “the Biblical foundations upon which [the Constitution] was based,” “Restraining Judicial Activism” which advocated the impeachment of federal judges, and “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White” which bills itself as an examination of African American political history, but merely attempts to tie the Democratic Party of today to the evils of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, and lynching. WallBuilders also annually hosts “Pastors’ Briefings” bringing ministers to Washington D.C. “for exclusive briefing sessions with some of the top Christian Senators and Representatives…serving in Congress. The Members brief pastors on a variety of issues related to Biblical values and share their hearts regarding their personal faith and its application in public office. Additionally, the Members impart practical information for pastors to carry home and implement in their communities and congregations.” As an added bonus, Barton personally leads a “Spiritual Heritage Tour of the U. S. Capitol” which is “hosted by a Member of Congress.” In addition, WallBuilders hosts annual “Pro-Family Legislators” conferences where right-wing legislators can meet to gain “a fresh perspective on the historical application of Scripture to public policy-making with a deeper look into what the Bible says about current issues” and meet other legislators to learn about right-wing legislation introduced elsewhere and “give and receive ideas for modeling legislation to avoid pitfalls and mistakes already made by others.” Barton also travels the country, giving hundreds of presentations a year to various groups. In 2003, he was hired by the Republican National Committee to share his brand of pseudo-history at some 100 RNC-sponsored events. Barton is also personally active in the Republican Party, having served as vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party from 1998 until 2006. Back to Top History WallBuilders emerged out of Barton’s own research into a supposed correlation between the banning of prayer in public schools and a rise in alcohol consumption and crime rates. Despite the fact that Barton is not a historian and that his educational background is limited to a “Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College,” his work has been embraced by Right and hailed by the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. The name “Wallbuilders” was taken from the book of Nehemiah in the Old Testament: “the nation of Israel rallied together in a grassroots movement to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and thus restore stability, safety, and a promising future to that great city. We have chosen this historical concept of ‘rebuilding the walls’ to represent allegorically the call for citizen involvement in rebuilding our nation’s foundations.” Back to Top Quotes Sen. Bill Frist once praised Barton for his “detailed research into the religious heritage of our nation.” Sen. Sam Brownback stated that Barton’s “research provides the philosophical underpinning for a lot of the Republican effort in the country today -- bringing God back into the public square.” In 1995, Republican Senator Arlen Specter wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that many of Barton’s arguments “range from the technical to the absurd” and that they “proceed from flawed and highly selective readings of both text and history.” Specter went on to state that Barton’s “pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people.” Updated: September 2006 Back to Top

	Young America's Foundation F. M. Kirby Freedom Center 110 Elden Street, Suite A Herndon, VA 20170-4809 www.yaf.org www.reaganranch.org www.nationaljournalismcenter.org Founded: 1969 Finances: $11.1 million (2002 annual budget) President: Ron Robinson Staff: 36 Publications: Libertas, annual publication of Comedy and Tragedy, Trailblazers, Campus Impact Affiliated with: National Journalism Center, Reagan Ranch Center YAF’s Principal Issues: YAF’s Activities: YAF’s History: Quotes about YAF: YAF’s Principal Issues: From mission statement: “Young America’s Foundation is committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values.” Major issues include: combating affirmative action, feminism, communism and Marxism. YAF was established to “counter-balance ‘New Left’ and Communist influence on campuses.” Reagan. In 1998 YAF purchased the “Western White House,” the California vacation ranch Reagan used as president. The foundation has raised millions of dollars to preserve Reagan’s southern California home. YAF also runs the Reagan Ranch Project at the historic site, which includes leadership training and lectures dedicated to continuing the legacy of President Reagan. Back to Top YAF’s Activities: YAF calls itself “The Voice of Freedom on Campus: America’s Largest Campus Outreach Program.” Provides assistance to college students and independent student groups in the form of guest lecturers, organizing and training seminars, networking opportunities, promotional merchandise, and other resources. The National Journalism Center maintains a job bank for college graduates and program alumni. YAF’s “Conservative Speakers Program” helps students bring controversial right-wing speakers to college campuses. Some of these speakers include: Ann Coulter, Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore, Ward Connerly, Phyllis Schlafly, Ralph Reed, Christina Hoff Sommers, Dinesh D’Souza, David Horowitz, Oliver North, Edwin Meese III, Dan Quayle, Robert Novak, Patrick Buchanan, Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Steve Largent, Walter Williams, Bay Buchanan, Bob Barr, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Michael Medved, Ben Stein and Kenneth Starr. YAF sponsors the National Journalism Center (NJC). Established in 1977, the NJC sponsors trainings for aspiring student journalists and helps coordinate internships and permanent jobs for its alumni at many mainstream news outlets. YAF holds a national student conference each year, bringing in speakers, educational materials, and providing seminars to help educate America’s conservative youth. In 2003 their national conference guest speaker was Vice President Dick Cheney. YAF also hosts regional conferences and workshops. YAF’s “Club 100” awards the most active on their campuses by giving them points for holding events and hosting speakers. “Club 100” qualifiers get invitations to special networking events, free books, and free merchandise. YAF is a co-sponsor of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference held annually in Washington, DC. YAF compiles “Comedy and Tragedy,” a list of college courses being taught throughout the nation to allow parents and taxpayers to be aware of what their students are learning. Back to Top YAF’s History: Promoted Ronald Reagan for president in 1974. YAF’s early support and exposure is credited in some right-wing circles as helping Reagan get elected president in 1980. In 1979, YAF organized its first major conference to promote right-wing speakers and ideas. Early publications include: “Corporate Profits: Too Much or Not Enough?” and “Pacifism, An Anti-Christian Philosophy.” Back to Top Quotes about YAF: “The Young America’s Foundation programs offer invaluable assistance to the young men and women searching for the encouragement and understanding necessary to reinforce the values of a free society and individual responsibility. As young conservatives, you have a very special task before you – that of developing the political awareness of your fellow students.” -Ronald Reagan Updated July 2004 Back to Top

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3147

Video Links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcZig9Fkr1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pUogbYkoHc ~ Watch Bush and Kerry Admit They Are Skull Fuckers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXqJ4sC6EGs

http://www.freedomdomain.com

60 Minutes Report on Skull & Bones

http://www.puritans.net/news/bush022403.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/printable576332.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

http://www.bilderberg.org/skulbone.htm#07

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/09/bush-and-kerry-both-admit-to-being.html

http://www.zippyvideos.com/3446323063040976/skull-bones-part-one-hc/*wingover

http://freepressinternational.com/FPI/nfblog/category/skull-and-bones/

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/msnbc-on-skull-and-bones-society.html

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/inside-edition-yales-skull-and-bones.html

http://www.zippyvideos.com/6298532273041546/bones-skull-part-2-hc/*wingover

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/ralph-nader-speaks-from-yales-tomb.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=ym6rKp7_U4c

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/10/yales-skull-and-bones-secret-society.html

http://www.secretsofthetomb.com/

http://www.fleshingoutskullandbones.com/

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=15602

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-and-kerry-both-related-to-queen.html

http://www.freepressinternational.com/yale.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591414/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591414/

http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/2005/12/call-911.html

http://freepressinternational.com/FPI/nfblog/911-press-for-truth

http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/

http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/2006/02/hunting-dick-cheney.html

http://freepressinternational.com/FPI/nfblog/

http://www.freepressinternational.com/wc.html

http://www.freepressinternational.com/illuminati-secrets-video.html

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Skull_Bones.htm

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8425/BONES.HTM

http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/skull-and-bones

http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/skullandbones/index.asp

http://www.plim.org/SkullBones.htm

Bush Nazi Hitler Connection

Bush Cabinet - A following of losers

skull history

skull history 2

Bones Society

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Reports_indicate_Bush_appointing_friend_to_lead_Plame_inquiry

History of Bush or History of a Loser

Bones in Politics

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/3/skullandbones.htm

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/3/commiebones.htm

New World Order

Cartoon Network Promotes NWO To Kids

News Footage Dan Quayle's New World Order Speech

George W Bush & John Kerry Admit Skull & Bones Membership

NWO George Bush Senior Announces The New World Order

New World Order On CNN

New World Order Top Secret part 1

New World Order Top Secret part 2

Total Onslaught New World Order

United Nations Global Governance

The Creation of the Global Union

The UN - A Look Into the Future

Total Onslaught The UN Behind The Scenes

Shadows in motion - Exposing the New World Order

Alex Jones Police State 3 Total Enslavement Part 1

Alex Jones Police State 3 Total Enslavement Part 2

Alex Jones Police State 3 Total Enslavement Part 3

Alex Jones Matrix of Evil

Total Onslaught The UN And The Occult Agenda

Ex President's Quotes Confirming The Conspiracy

Final Warning Grant Jeffrey (video version of his book)

Countdown To The New World Order

Bilderberg On CNN

G W Bush - Order Of The Ages - Ancient Hope speech

Orwell Rolls In His Grave

Big Brother - Big Business CNBC

http://skullandcrossbones.org/articles/skullandbones.htm

• "Babylon: Secret Rituals of Illuminati" Leilah Publications, LLC (March 23, 2007) ISBN 141965456X
• U.S. President George H.W. Bush's NEW WORLD ORDER speech!
• Illuminati Archives Occult Conspiracy Enlightenment Site
• Loose Change Official Website Official site of the Loose Change video
• New World Order Quotes
• Revere Radio Network
• Illuminati Conspiracy Archive
• NWOWatcher
• NWO News Page
• VoxNews
• nw0.info - Archives of various radio shows and videos.
• New World Order
• Bilderberg: The secret Committee
• The High Cabal
• Information Clearing House
• 17 Techniques for Truth Suppression
• Bewareofthis.info
• New World Order Chat
• Trading in Death: Senators Criticize DARPA Futures Market Program - Corporations wanted to Bet on Future Terrorist Attacks assassinations and coups
• Free Press International
• Policing - United States - Corruption

Topics:

• About the Hegelian dialect, UN and Marxism in the NWO
• The Inevitable Dossier - A different interpretation of world governance
• The NWO's Final Plan of Conquest?
• Speech by President John F. Kennedy

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29"

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0404architecture.php

The Right's Architecture of Power

By Tom Barry | April 22, 2004

This is the third article in the Chronicle of the New American Century series written by Tom Barry for the Right Web project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center.)

Over the past three decades, the strategists and ideologues of the right wing have designed a new architecture of power. This architecture currently frames most of the country’s policy debate and has attracted the allegiance of most sectors of Corporate America. At the same time, it has mobilized a reactionary populist movement to support its anti-popular economic and undemocratic agenda. Following Bush’s 2000 election, this architecture of power also incorporated into its structure the Republican Party and the executive branch of our federal government.

The architecture of power is a work in progress. Its designers and planners, while loosely committed as a team to the same ideologies and political goals, work independently to bolster the structure of the right’s power and influence. Rather than operating from a single blueprint, these architects of power are constantly renovating and expanding their web of power in the form of new institutes, front groups, media outlets, and political projects.

The architecture of power is a post-modern structure that has no central office or main lobby, no fixed foundation, no elevator that takes you to different levels. Instead, it is an expansive complex that closely resembles a web whose principal skeins and cross-woven filaments constitute both its foundation and frame.

Within the United States, liberals and progressives have similar networks but none so immense, so closely knit, or so ideologically driven and so closely tied to the agendas of the most aggressive, reactionary sectors of Corporate America. When compared with the web of multidimensional movements and institutions of the right’s web of power, the other networks competing for public, corporate, and policymaker support seem more like aging cobwebs—which unless similarly invigorated by integrated ideologies and visions of the future may eventually be swept away.

The architects of power are not conspirators or members of a secret cabal. Rather they come from a long tradition of all leading political actors that have operated in all variegations of the broad political spectrum. They are a collection of ideologues, intellectuals, scholars, strategists, visionaries, demagogues, and political officials and political operatives that share common critiques of liberal and progressive policy paradigms and uphold the principles of a new radical conservatism. Over the last three decades, this architecture of power has, according to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, “yanked politics to the right.”

Dimensions of the Right’s Power Complex

The most potent force in this architecture of power is the package of cultural, economic, political, and military ideologies propagated by the right’s think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, and Hoover Institution. Less prominent think tanks that advance neoconservative views on foreign policy include the Jamestown Foundation, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Manhattan Institute. Also important on the right but situated outside the neoconservative family is the prominent Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Other less prominent foreign policy think tanks on the right are the Lexington Institute and the Nixon Center.

Closely connected to these think tanks are scores of policy institutes that address the core issues of the right’s agenda in international affairs. These include a set of militarist institutes such as the Center for Security Policy, National Institute for Public Policy, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Second-tier institutes focused on military policy include High Frontier, U.S. Space Foundation, and National Strategy Information Center.

One of the major achievements of the neoconservatives has been the integration of social conservatives, the religious right, and foreign policy hawks. Key to this success have been a small circle of interlinked neocon institutes including Empower America, Institute for Religion and Democracy, and the Institute for Religion and Public Life. Among the prominent neoconservatives associated with these institutes that promote the superiority of Judeo-Christian values and culture are Michael Novak, William Bennett, Hillel Fradkin, George Weigel, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Neuhaus.

Running in tandem with the right’s think tanks and policy institutes are its regionally focused advocacy groups and front groups. Some of these are permanent institutions such as the Middle East Forum and Washington Institute for Near East Affairs. One of the newest and fastest growing policy institutes is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which like all neocon institutes and think tanks backs a right-wing Zionist agenda in the Middle East.

A more transient component of this architecture of power includes ad hoc citizen committees created to give the impression of broad public support for particular legislation and objectives. The latter sector includes such groups as the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, Americans for Peace in Chechnya, Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon, and the Coalition for Democracy in Iran. Neocon operatives such as Bruce Jackson, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, and Michael Ledeen are the central figures in most of these ad hoc groups.

While some of them are strictly neocon affairs, others function as front groups that aim to build bipartisan support for their objectives. Conservative Democratic Party figures such as Senator Joseph Lieberman and Progressive Policy Institute president Will Marshall are found in such neocon front groups as the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

The right’s architecture of power extends into the infrastructure of the U.S. government. In the late 1990s, the two congressionally organized commissions on missile defense and space weapons chaired by Donald Rumsfeld were organized by legislators associated with such neoconservative institutes as the Center for Security Policy. Neoconservatives and their supporters have also been key to the establishment of several permanent government or quasi-government agencies, including U.S.-China Commission, U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, and the National Endowment for Democracy.

Getting the Message Right

Neoconservatives have a long tradition in publishing, dating back to the involvement of neocon forerunners in such anticommunist magazines as Encounter and right-wing Zionist magazines like Commentary. Today, the Weekly Standard, closely associated with the ideological agendas of the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute, has established itself as the leading political voice of the neoconservatives. Commentary served until the late 1980s as the flagship publication of neoconservatism, but its influence among both neoconservatives and the Washington policy community has now been far surpassed by the Weekly Standard.

Owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, the Weekly Standard regularly features Project for the New American Century analysts such as Reuel Marc Gerecht, Ellen Bork (daughter of AEI scholar and prominent Federalist Society member Robert Bork), Gary Schmitt, and Thomas Donnelly in addition to founders Kristol and Kagan. According to the Nation magazine’s media critic Eric Alterman: “The magazine speaks directly to and for power. Anybody who wants to know what this administration is thinking and what they plan to do has to read this magazine.”1

From the perspective of Old Guard conservative Paul Gottfried, neoconservatives beginning in the late 1980s took control of the “New York-Washington” media corridor. Old Guard conservatives and paleoconservatives could no longer find an outlet for their analysis, even in the letters section of National Review, which had veered toward neoconservatism as has the Wall Street Journal. As Gottfried observed in 1993, neocons not only dominated the right’s main journals and magazines, they also raised prominent voices on the editorial pages of traditionally liberal media such as the Washington Post, New Republic, and Atlantic.2 In syndicated columns and national radio and television programs, such neoconservative analysts as Charles Krauthammer, Ben Wattenberg, Linda Chavez, William Bennett, and Morton Kronracke have injected neoconservative thinking into the mainstream of the American body politic.

Other right-wing publications with a marked neoconservative perspective include Public Interest, with founder and senior editorial associate Irving Kristol, American Spectator, with chief editor R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr. and board members Richard V. Allen and Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Washington Times, owned by Reverend Moon and featuring Frank Gaffney, a prominent PNAC associate and head of the Center for Security Policy.3 Also key to the neoconservative information network are publishers that cater to neoconservative authors. Encounter Books, a San Francisco publishing house run by Peter Collier, produces a steady stream of books by neoconservative authors in collaboration with such entities as the Project for the New American Century and Commentary.4

Center of the Neocon Matrix

At the center of the architectureof power are two closely associated institutions: American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

PNAC’s offices are located in what seems to be the core of the neoconservative matrix. Entering the 12-story building in downtown Washington, you see the office directory, which includes the stellar lineup of American Enterprise Institute scholars including Irving Kristol and Robert Bork. Like many neoconservative institutes, the AEI lost many of its best and brightest hawks and ideologues to the Bush II administration.

One has only to examine the American Enterprise Institute to appreciate the degree to which Corporate America has aligned itself with the right’s think tanks. Its board of directors includes the CEOs of such corporations as ExxonMobil, Motorola, American Express, State Farm Insurance, and Dow Chemical. Its board of trustees is also littered with corporate representatives, although a couple of the most prominent or infamous of them have left the board, such as Halliburton’s Richard Cheney and Enron’s Kenneth Lay. Expanding upon the existing stream of donations from the nation’s leading right-wing foundations, the AEI has achieved a diversified funding base among corporations from just about every sector of the economy—ranging from General Electric and AT&T to Ford and General Motors to Amoco and Shell to Morgan Guarantee Trust and American Express.5

Many former AEI minds now at work implementing the peace-through-war/Pax Americana strategy of the Bush administration previously worked with the PNAC coalition, including Vice President Cheney, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton, and Director of International Broadcasting Seth Cropsey. Other PNAC-AEI members have retained their ties with these neoconservative organizations while serving on administration advisory boards, including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eliot Cohen, and the omnipresent Richard Perle. A quick scan of the list of AEI scholars and officers in the lobby’s office directory reveals at least a dozen PNAC associates, including such luminaries as Joshua Muravchik and Michael Novak. PNAC’s Middle East director Reuel Marc Gerecht and PNAC’s military analyst Thomas Donnelly number among the AEI associates who have signed PNAC’s public statements.6

Conveniently located in this neoconservative warren is the Philanthropy Roundtable, a right-wing association of foundations that split from the Council of Foundations in the early 1980s. Just as the Business Roundtable was created to unite Corporate America around conservative policy agendas, the Philanthropy Roundtable joined the counter-establishment matrix in the tradition of “shadow liberalism”—creating institutions and campaigns that parallel those of liberals and progressives.

Michael Joyce, longtime president (1986-2000) of the Bradley Foundation, served until 2003 as chair of the Roundtable’s board of directors.7 Bill Kristol, like his father, has cultivated close ties with Bradley and other right-wing foundations that now exhibit a decidedly neoconservative cast.8 Joyce feels it was inevitable that Bush would embrace the neoconservative agenda. “I’m not sure September 11 did more than push the timetable up,” Joyce noted.9

Commenting on the special role of right-wing foundations, Michael Grebe, current president of the Bradley Foundation and one of the five directors of the Philanthropy Roundtable, said: “We have a role in sustaining a conservative intellectual infrastructure.” To that end, Bradley granted AEI $14 million between 1985 and 2002, and during the same period AEI received $6.5 million from the Olin Foundation.10 A handful of archconservative foundations not only sustain the right-wing power complex but form part of the architecture of power through revolving door relationships. Michael Joyce, for example, beyond just providing start-up funding for Kristol’s Project for the Republican Future and PNAC, is a signatory of PNAC statements, a trustee of Freedom House, and a member or past member of various presidential and national commissions. Richard Mellon Scaife, who heads the Scaife family foundations and is a major PNAC supporter, was a member of the second Committee on the Present Danger and has been a trustee of the Hoover Institution and the Heritage Foundation.

Right-wing foundations have provided the start-up funding to get PNAC, AEI, and most other idea brokers of the right-wing’s power complex into high gear. Although early right-wing donors such as Coors and Amway have dropped off, the top tier of the right’s think tank all continue to drink from the same collective trough of right-wing foundations. The Bradley, Sarah Scaife, Olin, and Castle Rock foundations all funded the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, Hoover Institution, and Manhattan Institute in the 1997-2001 period.

PNAC “Set the Table” for Bush Administration’s Foreign Policy
With funding from the Bradley Foundation, William Kristol established the Project for the Republican Future in 1993 in anticipation of the 1994 congressional elections. Following the resounding victory of right-wing Republicans, he founded Weekly Standard in 1995 in the vacated offices of the Project for the Republican Future. The next year Kristol and Robert Kagan established the Project for the New American Century, which describes itself as a “nonprofit educational organization supporting American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership.”

A wide range of neoconservatives, representatives from the social conservative right, and leading national security hawks coalesced around PNAC. Its founding statement of principles, signed by several individuals who would later become high officials in Bush II’s foreign policy team (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams, Dobriansky, Libby, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, Rodman, and Friedberg) was a document aimed at reinvigorating and uniting U.S. citizens around a new vision of America that brimmed with confidence and moral conviction.11

As Kristol and Kagan apparently recognized early on, the Project for the New American Century—with its focus on American supremacy and moral clarity—had all the right ingredients of a unifying ideology for a powerful new front group that could spearhead an elite social movement for radical political change. Although intent on establishing the vision and building blocks for a bold new foreign and military policy, the PNAC 1997 statement of principles avoided the type of provocative language that was common stock in neoconservative publications and in-house think tank policy briefs. There was no mention of a proposed security strategy driven by U.S. supremacy, no allusion to empire, and no explicit suggestion that the post-World War II framework of multilateralism should be tossed in the waste bin of history. Although Wolfowitz, Cheney, Khalilzad, and Libby—the team that fashioned the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance—signed PNAC’s statement of principles, the unifying document remained within the traditional “peace through strength” framework and omitted any language that would have explicitly foreshadowed PNAC’s agenda of preemptive strikes, regime change, and other measures to block any challenges to U.S. supremacy in the next century.

PNAC succeeded in integrating the various tendencies and diverse expertise found within neoconservatism, uniting political intellectuals associated with neocon publications (Norman Podhoretz and William Kristol), scholars (Eliot Cohen and Francis Fukuyama), military strategists (Paul Wolfowitz and Zalmay Khalilzad), and cultural/religious warriors (William Bennett and George Weigel). Among its 27 founding members, including cochairs Kristol and Kagan, only a handful of individuals didn’t match the neoconservative prototype although all shared in the agendas and new ideological vision of American supremacisim as articulated by the neocon political and military strategists.

The two most prominent in the small number of exceptions—Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld—came to their right-wing internationalism more by way of their ties with multinational corporations and the globalizing military-industrial complex, high-tech industries, and energy businesses. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld were corporate CEOs when they signed the PNAC charter.

Albeit sparsely represented, right-wing social conservatives closely associated with the Christian Right constituted another important sector in the PNAC coalition. Among those representing the social conservative faction were Gary Bauer, former director of the Family Research Council, and former Vice President Dan Quayle, as well as two other prominent cultural warriors: cofounder of Empower America and former Representative Vin Weber and Steve Forbes. Forbes, the quintessential corporate conservative, was also a former Empower America director and is associated with other right-wing social conservative and economic libertarian institutes. In 2002 Forbes, with his neocon colleagues, was a founding director of the pro-Likud Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As PNAC continues to issue new public declarations, it has maintained its strong neoconservative backbone while integrating top figures from other sectors of the right-wing’s power complex.

PNAC’s Executive Director Gary Schmitt once boasted that PNAC “helped set the table” for new policy decisions “by setting the agenda up.” Other factors that the none-too-modest Schmitt cites for PNAC’s success include: “We are articulate; we are very smart about when to say things and how to say it; and do have the advantage of an echo effect—if I write something, it may be picked up by the Weekly Standard or repeated by Bill or Bob in various media forums.”

Ideology of Power

Contrary to prevailing academic notions that hold that extreme political movements always revert to moderation, the right wing has maintained an evolving set of radical ideologies and strategies. Despite its extremist ideologies and policy agendas, the right-wing’s architecture of power does not operate on the edges of mainstream society and politics but stands at the very center of our society. Like all social/political movements, the right wing’s institutional web and its populist constituencies seek political and social power. Over the past three decades the right-wing institutions and associated populist backlash movements have succeeded in undermining liberal policy frameworks and establishing its radicalism as accepted political discourse.

Lately, the right-wing’s architecture of power has reformulated its concept of power—no longer merely as holding political power but now as a core ideological concept. In other words, the right-wing’s architecture of power since the late 1990s not only seeks increased political power and influence but is propagating an ideology of power that holds that U.S. supremacy—cultural, moral, military, economic, and diplomatic—is a self-evident truth and right.

(Tom Barry is Policy Director of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), online at www.irc-online.org . He is the founder of Foreign Policy In Focus and directs the IRC’s Right Web project.)

Also See:

Tom Barry, “Iraq War Product of Neocon Philosophy of Intelligence,” online at:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0402pi.php

Tom Barry, “One Year After the Invasion: Baghdad and Beyond,” online at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0403anniv.php

References:

1 David Carr, “White House Listens When Weekly Speaks,” New York Times, March 11, 2003 .

2 Paul Gottfried, The Conservative Movement, Revised Edition (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993), p. 151.

3 Publication committee members of Public Interest include Nicholas Eberstadt, Roger Hertog, Leon Kass, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and other neoconservatives.

4 Encounter authors include Norman Podhoretz, William Kristol, Ronald Radosh, Joshua Muravchik, Leon Kass, Peter Collier, David Horowitz, Steven Mosher, and Robert Kagan. Encounter published The Mideast Peace Process (2003) in collaboration with Commentary, and Present Dangers (2000) in collaboration with the Project for the New American Century. Another PNAC collaboration was a “just-in-time” book arguing for a U.S. invasion of Iraq : Lawrence F. Kaplan and William Kristol, The War Over Iraq:Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission (2003).

5 “American Enterprise Institute,” Right Web Profile ( Interhemispheric Resource Center , November 2003); Also see: www.democracyunbound.com/aei.html.

6 Other AEI associates who are also associated with PNAC through their sign-on statements include Nicholas Eberstadt, Danielle Pletka, and William Schneider.

7 For more on the influence of Michael S. Joyce, see: Elizabeth Greene, “Reinventing Philanthropy on the Right,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, August 23, 2001; Also see “The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation,” at www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm; Sally Covington, Moving A Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations (New York: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, July 1997); and Bruce Murphy, “Neoconservative Clout Seen In U.S. Iraq Policy,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 5, 2003, at: www.jsonline.org.com/news/gen/apr03/.

8 Right Web Profiles (Interhemispheric Resource Center , November 2003); Mediatransparency.org. The other major right-wing foundations— Carthage , Earhart, Smith Richardson, JM Foundation—have also funded most of these same think tanks.

9 Bruce Murphy, “Neoconservative Clout Seen In U.S. Iraq Policy,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 5, 2003 , at: www.jsonline.org.com/news/gen/apr03/.

10 Shawn Zeller, “Conservative Crusaders: Unlike some of their more liberal counterparts, conservative foundations aren’t bashful about trying to promote their causes in Washington—from school vouchers to Social Security privatization,” National Journal, April 26, 2003.

11 Other signatories of PNAC’s “Statement of Principles” also joined the Bush administration as members of important advisory committees and quasi-governmental agencies, including Eliot Cohen, Dan Quayle, Henry Rowen, and Fred Iklé as members of Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board; Vin Weber and Francis Fukuyama as NED chair and board member, respectively; and Fukuyama on the Commission on Bioethics. Stephen Rosen continued serving as a member of the U.S.-China Commission.

Published by the Right Web Program at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC). ©2004. All rights reserved.

Recommended citation:
Tom Barry, "The Right's Architecture of Power ," IRC Right Web (Silver City, NM: Interhemispheric Resource Center, April 22, 2004).

Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0404architecture.php

Production information:
Author: Tom Barry, IRC
Layout: Tonya Cannariato, IRC

----------------------------------

Freemason And Illuminati

Freemasonry From Darkness To Light

The Emissaries of Jahbulon

The Light Behind Masonry

Invisibly Visible Identifying Masonic Symbols

Americas Secret Destiny

Masonry-Behind Closed Doors

The Light Behind Masonry

The Emissaries of Jahbulon

Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings

The Illuminati Our Secret Masters

Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines

Exposing The Illuminati From Within Part 1

Exposing The Illuminati From Within Part 2

The Illuminati 2005 openyoureyes part 1

The Illuminati 2005 openyoureyes part 2

The Illuminati 2005 openyoureyes part 3

The Illuminati 2005 openyoureyes part 4

Secrets of the Illuminati Revealed

Hidden Agenda Illuminati Contol of Society

Illuminati Hidden Elite

The Da VInci Deception

Fahrenheit 322

Angels and Demons Revealed

JFK's Speech on Secret Societies


911 Terrorism

Alex Jones Masters of Terror

911 The News Special You Never Saw

911 Painful Questions

911 The Great Illusion Part 1

911 The Great Illusion Part 2

TerrorStorm Alex Jones

911 in plane sight Part 1

911 in plane sight Part 2

911 Loose Change Truth about 911

The Truth About The London Bombings

Building 7

End Times


The Final Events Of Bible Prophecy

The march to Armageddon

The Doomsday Code

Hate Laws Making Criminals of Christians

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE - Apocalypse 1 - Caught In The Eye of The Storm

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE - Apocalypse 2 - Revelation

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE - Apocalypse 3 - Tribulation

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE - Apocalypse 4 - Judgement

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE The Omega Code

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE Vanished

Signs Of The Last Days

Rush To Armageddon 10 Prophetic Signs

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE Left Behind

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE Left Behind II Tribulation Force

END TIMES PROPHECY MOVIE Left Behind III World At War

Mark Of The Beast And Verichip

666 Is this implantable chip the mark of the Beast News Clips Promote Human Implantable Microchips

End Times Prophecy Movie Six - The Mark Unleashed

Technology And The Mark of The Beast

Alex Jones Cashless Society

Welcome To The Machine

Artificial Intelligence And The Beasts System

Verichip - Irate Cinema Underground

Verichip - More Promotional News Clips

Verichip On Google Current

Verichipped At Baja Beach Club

Why You Should Refuse To Be Microchipped

End Times Classic - A Thief In The Night Series - 1 - A Thief In The Night(1972)

End Times Classic - A Thief In The Night Series - 2 - A Distant Thunder(1977)

End Times Classic - A Thief In The Night Series - 3 - Image Of The Beast(1981)

End Times Classic - A Thief In The Night Series - 4 - Prodigal Planet(1983)

UFO



Stewart Best - Gateway Four

Chuck Missler Return Of The Nephilim

Other

Genesis 6 Sons of God Daughters of Men & the Nephilim (FULL)

Kevin Trudeau - Talks about his book Natural Cures They Dont Want You To Know About

Inside The Homosexual Agenda - Gay Rights

Derren Brown Demonstrates How you are subliminally controlled 1

Derren Brown Demonstrates How you are subliminally controlled 2

Fluoride Deception



AIDS - Fact Or Fiction

The Origins of AIDS

The Trouble With Sugar

Sweet Misery - The Aspartame Conspiracy

Schools Dumb Down Kids

Conspiracy Of Silence

Angels Don't Play This Haarp

Indoctrinating Our Youth In Earth Worship

The Trials Of Henry Kissinger

Truth About New Age Bible Versions

Truth Behind Hip Hop

The Subversive Use of Symbolism in the Media Part 1

The Subversive Use of Symbolism in the Media Part 2

The Subversive Use of Symbolism in the Media Part 3

The Subversive Use of Symbolism in the Media Part 4

The Subversive Use of Symbolism in the Media Part 5

The Subversive Use of Symbolism in the Media Part 6

How Can We Raise Godly Children

Satan's Kingdom

Christmas Unwrapped - The truth About Christmas

The Truth About Vaccines Part 1

The Truth About Vaccines Part 2

Dick Cheney The Unauthorised Biography (Fixed)

Cell Phones What They Didnt Tell You Dr. Nick Begich

The Nephilim Walk Among Us Again

US Media Spin - How The Media Lies To You

Astronauts Gone Wild (2004) Investigation Into The Authenticity Of The Moon Landing

The Genetic Takeover Or Mutant Food

The Corporation

The Reality Of War

The Coming Financial collapse Of America

Harry Potter - A Spirit Conspiracy

Suspect Nation

Bush Skull & Bones Appointments

William H. Donaldson became the 27th Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2003

The Skulls - Small Powerful and Sick

Founders

• William Huntington Russell (1833), Connecticut State Legislator; cousin of Samuel Russell who allegedly established Russell and Company for the "purpose of acquiring opium in Turkey and smuggling it to China"
• Alphonso Taft (1832), U.S. Attorney General (1876-1877); Secretary of War (1876); Ambassador to Austria-Hungary (1882) and Russia (1884-1885); father of William Howard Taft

List of Notable Members

Athletics

• Walter Camp (1880), Founder of the first national collegiate football All-American squad
• Clint Frank (1938), 1937 Heisman Trophy winner
• Larry Kelley (1937), 1936 Heisman Trophy winner
• Amos Alonzo Stagg (1888), One of the all-time winningest college football coaches
• George W. Woodruff (1889), College Hall of Fame football coach, Acting Secretary of the Interior and Pennsylvania state attorney-general

Business

• Frederick Baldwin Adams (1900), Chairman of the West Indies Sugar Corp.
• Thomas Cochran (1904), JP Morgan partner
• Alfred Cowles (1913), Founder of the Cowles Commission
• Henry P. Davison Jr. (1920), Senior partner at JP Morgan Guaranty Trust Company
• Artemus Gates (1918), President of New York Trust Company, Union Pacific Railroad, TIME-Life, and Boeing Company
• Robert Gow (1955), Business associate of George H. W. Bush; president of Bush's Zapata Oil
• E. Roland Harriman (1917), Businessman; railroad executive; president of American Red Cross
• Pierre Jay (1892), First chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
• Franc Kahn, Heir to Kahn Brothers Securities & Investments Group
• H. Neil Mallon (1917), CEO of Dresser Industries where Prescott Bush served on the Board for 22 years along with E. Roland Harriman; gave George H.W. Bush his first job in 1948; namesake for Bush's son Neil Mallon Bush; "tried to be helpful to Allen Dulles in the CIA, especially in the procurement of individuals to serve in that important agency"
• Percy Rockefeller (1900), Director of Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, and Remington Arms
• Frederick W. Smith (1966), Founder of FedEx
• Harold Stanley (1908), Founder of investment house Morgan Stanley
• Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt (1898), Son of Cornelius Vanderbilt II; brother of Gertude Vanderbilt Whitney
• George Herbert Walker, Jr. (1927), Financier and co-founder of the New York Mets; uncle to President George Herbert Walker Bush
• Frederick E. Weyerhaeuser (1896), Heir to the Weyerhaeuser Paper Co.
• Harry Payne Whitney (1894), Husband of Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney; investment banker
• Dean Witter, Jr. (1944), Son of the founder of investment house Dean Witter Reynolds

Education

• R. Inslee Clark, Jr. (1957), Director of Undergraduate Admissions who helped Yale become coeducational; former Headmaster of Horace Mann School
• Timothy Dwight V (1849), Yale acting Treasurer 1887-1889, Yale President 1886-1899
• John E. Ecklund (1938), Yale Treasurer 1966-1978; Partner in Bones-dominated New Haven law firm Dana & Wiggin
• Charles Stafford Gage (1925), Yale Treasurer 1954-1966; member of Bones family firm Mathiesson Chemical
• Daniel Coit Gilman (1852), Studied at the University of Berlin (1854-1855) under Karl Von Ritter and Friedrich Trendelenderg; attache to the American legation at St. Petersburg; 2nd President of the University of California; 1st President of Johns Hopkins University; President of the Carnegie Institution
• Arthur T. Hadley (1876), Yale acting Treasurer 1909-1910,; Yale President 1899-1921
• Henry Coit Kingsley (1834), Yale Treasurer 1862-1887; Daniel Coit Gilman's uncle
• Charles Seymour (1908), President of Yale 1937-1951
• Lawrence G. Tithe (1916), Yale Treasurer 1942-1954; Director/Partner Brown Brothers Harriman
• Andrew Dickson White (1853), Co-founder and first President of Cornell University

Government and Politics

• Victor Ashe (1967), Tenn. State House (1968-1975); Tenn. State Senate (1976-1984); Mayor of Knoxville, Tenn. (1988-2003); appointed Ambassador to Poland (2004-Present) by George W. Bush
• Roy Leslie Austin (1968), Appointed ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago by George W. Bush
• Howard M. Baldridge (1918) - U.S. Representative (R-Nebraska 1931-1933)
• Simeon Eben Baldwin (1861), Governor and Chief Justice, State of Connecticut; son of Roger Sherman Baldwin
• Jonathan Brewster Bingham (1936), U.S. Representative (D-New York 1965-1983); Council on Foreign Relations
• William Bissell, Governor of Illinois (1857-1860); brother of Richard M. Bissell, Jr.)
• David Boren (1963), Governor of Oklahoma, U.S. Senator, President of the University of Oklahoma
• Augustus Brandegee (1849), Speaker of the Connecticut State Legislature in 1861
• Frank Bosworth Brandegee (1885), U.S. Representative (R-Connecticut 1902-1905); U.S. Senator (R-Connecticut 1905-1924)
• James L. Buckley (1944), U.S. Senator (R-New York 1971-1977)
• McGeorge Bundy (1940), Special Assistant for National Security Affairs; National Security Advisor; Professor of History
• William P. Bundy (1939), State Department liaison for the Bay of Pigs invasion
• George H. W. Bush (1948), 41st President of the United States; 43rd Vice-President of the United States; son of Prescott Bush; father of George W. Bush
• George W. Bush (1968), 43rd President of the United States; Governor of Texas
• Prescott Bush (1916), Father of George H.W. Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush
• John Chafee (1947), U.S. Senator; Secretary of the Navy and Governor of Rhode Island; father of Lincoln Chafee
• John Sherman Cooper (1923), U.S. Senator (R-Kentucky 1946-1949, 1952-73); member of the Warren Commission
• Hugh Cunningham (1934), Rhodes Scholar; CIA
• F. Trubee Davison (1918), Director of Personnel at the CIA
• Endicott Peabody Davison (1948), George H.W. Bush lawyer
• Chauncey Depew (1855), U.S. Senator (R-New York 1899-1911)
• Richard Dale Drain (1943), CIA; co-authored early paper proposing the Bay of Pigs invasion, "A Program of Covert Action against the Castro Regime"
• William Henry Draper III (1950), Chair of United Nations Development Programme and Import-Export Bank of the United States
• William Maxwell Evarts (1837), U.S. Secretary of State; Attorney General; Senator; grandson of Roger Sherman
• Evan G. Galbraith (1950), Ambassador to France; managing director of Morgan Stanley
• William Henry Gleason (1853), Lt. Governor of Florida; founder of Eau Gallie, Florida; lawyer and land speculator
• Averell Harriman (1913), U.S. Ambassador and Secretary of Commerce; Governor of New York; Chairman and CEO of the Union Pacific Railroad, Brown Brothers & Harriman, and the Southern Pacific Railroad; wife Pamela Churchill Harriman helped fund Bill Clinton's presidential campaign
• H. J. Heinz II (1931), Heir to H. J. Heinz Company; father of H. John Heinz III
• William Jorden (1925), U.S. Ambassador to Panama; National Security Council
• John Kerry (1966), U.S. Senator (D-Massachusetts 1985-present); Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts 1983-1985; 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee
• Charles Edwin Lord (1949), U.S. Comptroller of the Currency
• Winston Lord (1959), Chairman of Council on Foreign Relations; Ambassador to China; Assistant U.S. Secretary of State
• Robert A. Lovett (1918), Partner of Prescott Bush at Brown Brothers Harriman; Secretary of Defense; "Father of the CIA"
• Robert McCallum, Jr (1968), Ambassador to Australia
• Lee McClung (1892), Yale Treasurer 1904-1909; U.S. Treasurer 1909-1912
• Gifford Pinchot (1889), First Chief of U.S. Forest Service
• Dino Pionzio (1950), CIA Deputy Chief of Station during Allende overthrow
• Potter Stewart (1936), U.S. Supreme Court Justice
• William Howard Taft (1878), 27th President of the United States; Chief Justice of the United States; Secretary of War; son of Alphonso Taft
• Robert A. Taft (1910), U.S. Senator (R-Ohio 1939-1953)
• Morrison R. Waite (1837), U.S. Supreme Court Justice
• Howard Weaver (1945), CIA
• Edward Baldwin Whitney (1878), New York Supreme Court Justice
• William Collins Whitney (1863), U.S. Secretary of the Navy; New York City financier

Publications and Writing

• Amory Howe Bradford (1934), General manager for the New York Times; CIA
• William F. Buckley, Jr. (1950), Founder of National Review; author; CIA
• Russell Davenport (1923), Editor of Fortune magazine; created Fortune 500 list
• Briton Hadden (1920), Co-founder of Time-Life Enterprises
• Henry Luce (1920), Co-founder of Time-Life Enterprises
• Archibald MacLeish (1915), Poet and author
• F. O. Matthiessen, Historian; literary critic
• David McCullough (1955), U.S. historian; two-time Pulitzer Prize winner
• Donald Ogden Stewart (1916), Author; screenwriter; Academy Award winner for The Philadelphia Story

Science and Engineering

• John Rockefeller Prentice (1928), Grandson of John D. Rockefeller; pioneer of artificial insemination in farm animals as a means of improving their genetic pool

YALE'S SKULL & BONES SOCIETY MEMBERS

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bones.htm

By Eric Samuelson, J.D.

I am presently researching a biography on David Rockefeller. An overview of the book will soon be sent to a New York City agent for circulation among all the major publishing houses. Among the topics that will be covered is the role of British USA Round Table member Rep. Wayne Hays (Demo-Ohio) in "killing" the Reece Committee investigation of tax-exempt foundations, the disappearance of the research on the Rockefeller-funded Kinsey studies and the "disposal" threats made to Reece Investigator Norman Dodd by a lobbyist for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

In 1986, Hoover scholar Antony C. Sutton published his "magnum opus" - AMERICA'S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ORDER OF SKULL AND BONES. In his preface Sutton said he had been given an eight-inch batch of documents which was "nothing less than the membership lists of an American secret society. Glancing through the sheets it was more than obvious -- this was no ordinary group. The names spelled Power with a capital P." Throughout the book Sutton hinted at even deeper revelations he would make in books to come. However, the full list never was published by Sutton. In making inquiries of those who knew Sutton, I was told that he had become exiled in his own country. For months I searched the Web looking for a list of the members of Skull and Bones. At long last, a notebook was given to me which required the use of a magnifying glass to make out the names. So, the following semi-final list is about 97% accurate. It opens the door to the Bones realm at a time that one of their own is now hitting the campaign trail for the Republican presidential nomination.

For about the past ten years I have been studying secret elite groups. The average person has almost no knowledge of them and there are very few sources of information. These secret groups include the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Knights of the Garter, The Knights of Malta, The 33rd Degree Masons, the Rhodes Scholars, The Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission. What is needed is a historical roster of the membership of each of these groups.

The list that follows is only the first of an upcoming series of historic exposes of these secret societies. If you have any biographical information on any of these individuals, your sharing will be appreciated and reciprocated. Any suggestions or corrections appreciated.

---

        SURNAME                    GIVEN NAME                              S&B YEAR

 Abbe Frederick Randolph 1848
 Abbott John S.C.
 Aberg, Jr. Donlan Vincent 1952
 Abrams Peter Mark 1983
 Acheson  David Campion 1943
 Ackerman Stephen H. 1957
 Acosta John Sidney 1921
 Adams Charles Edward 1904
 Adams Charles Hemmenway 1866
 Adams Frederick Baldwin 1862
 Adams Frederick Baldwin 1900
 Adams  George Webster 1904
 Adams Lewis G. 1920
 Adams Mason Tyler 1899
 Adams Stephen 1959
 Adams, Jr. Frederick Baldwin 1932
 Afeiju Bernard I. 1967
 Ahlbrandt, Jr. Roger S. 1963
 Aiken  Edwin Edgerton 1881
 Aitchison William 1848
 Albritton Paul Berem 1978
 Aldis Owen Franklin 1874
 Aldrich Malcolm Pratt 1922
 Alexander Eben 1873
 Alexander William DeWitt 1855
 Alexander William Felix 1851
 Ali Mehdi Raza 1965
 Allen Arthur Dwight 1901
 Allen Arthur Huntington 1873
 Allen Calvin Durand 1913
 Allen Charles E. 1958
 Allen Daniel 1926
 Allen Frederick Winthrop 1900
 Allen Henry Elisha 1924
 Allen John DeWitt Hamilton 1876
 Allen Parker Breese 1919
 Allen Walter 1863
 Allen William Palmer 1880
 Allen, Jr. Archibald J. 1945
 Allen, Jr. Clarence Emir 1913
 Alling, Jr. Charles Booth 1947
 Allison Samuel Perkins 1847
 Allison, Jr. Robert Seaman 1930
 Ames Allan Wallace 1918
 Ames Sullivan Dobb 1899
 Amundson John Arnold 1880
 Anderson Edwin Alexander 1835
 Anderson Thomas Hill 1951
 Andrews John Wolcott 1876
 Andrews, Jr. Edward W. 1945W
 Andrews, Jr. John Wallingford 1870
 Andrie Paul James 1984
 Anthony Benjamin Harris 1886
 Appel George Frederick Baer 1924
 Ardrey Rushton L. 1925
 Arms Charles Jesup 1863
 Arnot John Hulett 1885
 Arnot Matthias Hollenback 1856
 Arras, Jr. Robert E. 1969
 Asburn Frank Davis 1925
 Ashe Victor Henderson 1967
 Ashenfelter Alan Thompson 1975
 Ashforth Albert Blackhurst 1929
 Ashley Thomas William Ludlow 1948
 Austen David E. 1931
 Austin Roy Leslie 1968
 Austin Samuel Monroe 1980
 Avery Benjamin F. 1914
 Avery Charles Hammond 1875
 Aycrigg II William Anderson 1942
 Ayeroff Frederick Charles 1974
 Babcock Henry Harper 1853
 Babst James Anthony 1971
 Back Samuel H. 1962
 Backus Joseph Willes 1846
 Bacon Leonard
 Badger Paul Bradford 1911
 Badger Walter Irving 1882
 Bailey  Philip Horton 1897
 Baker Richard Wheeler 1913
 Baldridge Howard Malcolm 1918
 Baldwin George William 1853
 Baldwin Henry DeForest 1885
 Baldwin Roger Sherman 1847
 Baldwin Sherman 1919
 Baldwin  Simeon Eren 1861
 Ball David George 1960
 Banks Howard D. 1956
 Bannard Henry Clay 1869
 Bannard Otto Tremont 1876
 Baran Mark R. 1978
 Barasch Alan Sidney 1973
 Baratte  Julius Adolphus 1843
 Barge Richard Mason 1974
 Baribault Richard P. 1949
 Barker George Payson 1856
 Barlett John Knowlton 1838
 Barlett Philip Golden 1881
 Barnes Pearce 1874
 Barnes William Deluce 1907
 Barnes William Henry Lienow 1855
 Barney Danford Newton 1881
 Barnum William Milo 1877
 Barr, Jr. Richard J. 1936
 Barres Herster B.D. 1932
 Barry William Taylor Sullivan 1841
 Bartholemy Alan Edmund 1942
 Bartholomew Dana Treat 1928
 Bass James Edward 1982
 Basset II Barton Bradley 1949
 Bassi Keith Alan 1978
 Bates Emmert Warren 1932
 Bates Samuel Henshaw 1833
 Bayard Thomas Francis 1890
 Bayne Hugh Aiken 1892
 Bayne Thomas Levingston 1847
 Bayne-Jones Stanhope 1910
 Beach John Campell 1833
 Beach John Sheldon 1839
 Beane, Jr. Frank Eastman 1960
 Beard Anson McCook 1895
 Beard William Mossgrove 1896
 Beaumont George Anson Oliver 1834
 Becket G. Campbell 1923
 Becket Peter Logan 1963
 Beckley John Werle 1860
 Beebe William 1873
 Beers Henry Augustin 1869
 Begg William Reynolds 1893
 Beirne Christopher James 1840
 Belin Gaspard d'Andelot 1939
 Bell Richard Dobbs Spaight 1844
 Bell William Tompkins 1942
 Bellinger Alfred Rammond 1917
 Bellis Jon Michael 1974
 Bellis Tedric Lawrence 1973
 Beman Henry DeWitt 1851
 Bench Edward C. 1925
  Bender Kenneth Arthur 1975
 Benedict Theodore Hudson 1840
 Bennetto John 1887
 Benninghoff Harry Bryner 1954
 Benoit, Jr. Charles Edward 1965
 Bent Joseph Appleton 1865
 Bentley Edward Manross 1880
 Bentley Edward Warren 1850
 Benton Joseph Augustine 1842
 Berger, Jr. George Bart 1928
 Berry Coburn Dewees 1868
 Bertron Samuel Reading 1885
 Best Geoffry D.C. 1964
 Biddle Thomas Bradish 1839
 Bigelow Albert 1852
 Bigelow Walter Irving 1877
 Biglow Lucius Horatio 1908
 Biglow, Jr. Lucius Horatio 1948
 Bingham Charles Tiffany 1928
 Bingham Egert Byron 1863
 Bingham Jonathan Brewster 1936
 Birge Robert Richards 1968
 Bisaro Larry R. 1974
 Bishop Noah 1833
 Bissel Arthur Douglas 1867
 Bissel Wilson Shannon 1869
 Bissell George Thomas 1961
 Bissell William Truesdale 1925
  Blackman Charles Seymour 1857
 Blackman Samuel Curtis 1854
 Blaine Walker 1876
 Blair Edwin Foster 1924
 Blair James Grant 1925
 Blair William McCormick 1907
 Blake Dexter B. 1937
 Blake Edward Foster 1858
 Blake Eli Whitney 1857
 Blake Henry T. 1848
 Blake Henry Taylor 1848
 Blake, Jr. Gilman Dorr 1945
 Blakely Marvin 1977
 Blakeslee Henry Clay 1852
 Blanchard Jerred Gurley 1939
 Blattner Robert William 1976
 Bliss Charles Miller 1852
 Bliss Robert 1850
 Bliss William Root 1850
 Blodgett George Reddington 1884
 Blue Linden S. 1958
 Boasberg III Emanuel 1956
 Bockrath, Jr. Richard C. 1961
 Bockstoce John R. 1966
 Bodman William Camp 1959
 Boies Charles Alred 1860
 Boltwood Edward 1860
 Boltwood Edward 1892
  Boltwood Thomas Kast 1864
 Booth Samuel Albert 1884
 Booth Wilbur Franklin 1884
 Borden Matthew Chaloner Durfee 1864
 Boren David Lyle 1963
 Bottum Elisha Slocum 1876
 Boulos (Bouliaratis) William M. 1947
 Bouscaren Michael Frederic 1969
 Bowers Lloyd Wheaton 1879
 Bowle, Jr. William Carter 1961
 Bowles Henry Thornton 1899
 Bowles John Eliot 1935
 Bowman Ralph David 1957
 Boyd Francis T. 1912
 Boyden Henry Paine 1864
 Bradford Amory Howe 1934
 Bradford Arthur Howe 1905
 Bradford Timothy McFall 1967
 Bradley Charles Harvey 1921
 Brand James 1866
 Brandegee Augustus 1849
 Brandegee Frank Bosworth 1885
 Brandt John Henry 1962
 Breed Edward Andrews 1844
 Breen J. Gerald 1950
 Bremmer Samuel Kimball 1886
 Breslau Jonathan 1982
 Brewster Benjamin 1882
  Brewster Chauncey Bunce 1868
 Brewster Walter Rice 1921
 Brewster IV James Henry 1962
 Brickell James Noaille 1845
 Bridgman John Cloyse 1885
 Brinsmade Horatio Walsh 1851
 Brisrin John Ball 1846
  Bristol Louis Henry 1859
 Brodhead Henry 1859
 Bronson David Bennet 1947
 Bronson James Davis 1926
 Brooke Frederick Hiester 1899
 Brooke George Clymer 1897
 Brooke, Jr. Frederick H. 1937
  Brooks Henry Stanford 1885
 Brooks James Wilton 1875
 Brooks John Edward 1865
 Brooks Peter Moody 1983
 Brooks Tristam Anthony 1982
 Brooks Walter 1877
 Brown Alexander 1896
  Brown Alexander Lardner 1869
 Brown Christopher Walworth 1968
 Brown George Clifford 1966
 Brown Henry Armitt 1865
 Brown Hubert Sanford 1861
 Brown Jamot 1899
 Brown John Mason 1856
  Brown Joseph Venen 1842
 Brown Robert Nelson 1979
 Brown Samuel Taylor Glover 1944
 Brown Walter Henderson 1945W
 Brown William Scott 1970
 Brubaker James Robert 1977
 Brubaker John Kim 1976
  Bruce Donald 1906
 Bryan James Taylor 1971
 Bryan, Jr. L. Thomas 1955
 Buchanan Thomas Walter 1889
 Buck III Charles Henry 1969
 Buckland Joseph Payson 1857
 Buckley Fercus Reid 1952
  Buckley James Lane 1944
 Buckley, Jr. William Frank 1950
 Buckner Mortimer Norton 1895
 Bulkey Jonathan Ogden 1923
 Bulkey Tuzar 1865
 Bull Cornelius Wade 1863
 Bullock Stanton B. 1981
  Bumstead Nathaniel Willis 1855
 Bundy Frederick McGeorge 1921
 Bundy Harvey Hollister 1909
 Bundy Hollister  1909
 Bundy McGeorge 1940
 Bundy William Putman 1939
 Bunnell Phil W. 1927
  Burch Robert Boyd 1909
 Burke III James Eugene 1975
 Burke, Jr. Charles Clinton 1937
 Burkus Gregory James 1982
 Burnham Curtis Field 1840
 Burpee Charles Winslow 1883
 Burpee Lucien Francis 1879
 Burr William Shedden 1834
 Burr II Charles B. 1962
 Burrell Joseph Dunn 1881
 Burtt Edwin Authur 1915
 Bush Derek C. 1967
 Bush George Herbert Walker 1948
 Bush George Walker 1968
 Bush James S. 1922
 Bush Jonathan 1953
 Bush Prescott Sheldon 1917
 Bushnell Samuel Clarke 1874
 Bushnell William Benedick 1865
 Butler Francis Eugene 1857
 Butler John Haskell 1863
 Butterworth Frank Seiler 1895
 Buttles Albert Barnes 1842
 Cable Benjamin Stickney 1895
 Caldwell Samuel Smith  1933
 Calhoun Governeur 1891
 Callahan Hugh Andrew 1899
 Came Charles Green 1849
 Camp Arthur Goodwin 1907
 Camp Clinton 1850
 Camp Stuart Brown 1900
 Camp Walter  1880
 Campbell Alan Barnette 1919
 Campbell Charles Soutter 1909
 Campbell Gavin Elliott 1982
 Campbell James 1849
 Campbell James Alexander 1882
 Campbell Kimberly C. 1981
 Campbell Treat  1878
 Campbell William Harvey Wilson 1856
 Cangelosi Russell Joseph 1972
 Capozzalo Douglas Daniel 1976
 Capron Paul 1960
 Capron Samuel Mills 1853
 Carey John 1945W
 Carlisle James Mandeville 1901
 Carlsen Ray Allen 1957
 Carlsson Mats Erik 1981
 Carpenter George Boone 1902
 Carpenter Robert John 1859
 Carter Charles Francis 1878
 Carter Edwin Osgood 1837
 Carter Frederic Dewhurst 1919
 Carter Lyon 1915
 Carter Walter Frederick 1895
 Case George Bowen 1894
 Case, Jr. Philip Benham 1970
 Caskey Taliaferro Franklin 1865
 Casscells Christopher Dyson 1976
 Cassel John A.  1958
 Caukins, Jr. George Peck 1943
 Caulkins John Erwin 1948
 Cerveris Michael Ernest 1983
 Chadwick George Brewster 1903
 Chafee John Hubbard 1947
 Chamberlain Daniel Henry 1862
 Chamberlain Leander Trowbridge 1863
 Chamberlain Robert Linton 1861
 Chambers William Lyon 1843
 Chandler William Henry 1839
 Chapin Charles Frederick 1877
 Charney Charles Meigs 1865
 Chase Henry 1850
 Chauvenet William 1840
 Cheney Clifford Dudley 1898
 Cheney Frank Dexter 1900
 Cheney Howell 1892
 Cheney Philip 1901
 Cheney Ronald Lawton 1958
 Cheney Russell 1904
 Cheney Thomas Langdon 1901
 Cheney Ward 1896
 Cheney, Jr. Knight Dexter 1892
 Chester Carl Thurston 1875
 Chibundu Maxwell O. 1980
 Child Linus Mason 1855
 Childs Starling Winston 1976
 Chimenti Norman Victor 1962
 Chittenden George Hastings 1939
 Choa Christopher James 1981
 Chouteau Rene Auguste 1942
  Christian Henry Hall 1901
 Cirie John A. 1964
 Clark Albert Barnes 1864
 Clark Alexander Ray 1895
 Clark Avery Artison 1909
 Clark Charles Hopkins 1871
 Clark Douglas Wells 1972
 Clark Gerald Holland 1965
 Clark Harold Terry 1903
 Clark J. Bruce 1978
 Clark Stephen Edward 1965
 Clark Thomas W. 1961
 Clark William Judkins 1948
 Clark, Jr. R. Inslee 1957
 Clarke Thomas Slidell 1875
 Clarke William Barker 1849
 Claude, Jr. Abram 1952
 Clay Alexander Stephens 1964
 Clay Cassius Marcellus 1918
 Clay Green 1859
 Clay Jesse Loring 1963
 Clay Lowell Melcher 1939
 Clay Timothy J. 1965
 Clucas Lowell Melcher 1939
 Cobb Henry Nitche 1855
 Cochran Thomas 1904
 Cochran Thomas 1894
 Coe Edward Benton 1862
  Coe Robert Elmer 1872
 Coffin Edmund 1866
 Coffin Henry Sloan 1897
 Coffin James 1868
 Coffin William Sloane 1949
 Coffin, Jr. William Sloan 1949
 Coffing Churchill 1834
 Coggins Daniel Seton 1964
 Cogswell John M. 1961
 Cohen Kenneth Saul 1968
 Cohen Robert Lewis 1974
 Coit Joshua 1853
 Coit William 1837
 Coke, Jr. Henry C. 1926
 Cole Hamilton 1866
 Coleman John Caldwell 1881
 Colgate Henry Auchincloss 1913
 Collier Samuel (Sam) Carnes 1935
 Collin Frederick 1871
 Collin William Welch 1877
 Colt LeBaron Bradford 1868
 Colton Henry Martin 1848
 Colton Willis Strong 1850
 Condit Albert Pierson 1850
 Condit Charles 1848
 Condit Stephen 1856
 Connelly, Jr. William James 1948
 Connick Andrew Jackson 1952
  Connick Louis 1945
 Connor Lemuel Parker 1845
 Connor William Gustine 1845
 Connors David Michael 1974
 Connors James Joseph 1959
 Converse George Sherman 1850
 Conway, Jr. Joseph Leo 1981
  Cook Robert Johnston 1876
 Cook II George 1945
 Cook III George 1948
 Cooke Eldridge Clinton 1877
 Cooke Francis Judd 1933
 Cooke James Barclay 1893
 Cooke John Parick 1959
  Cooke Robert Barbour 1936
 Cooke Walter Evans 1895
 Cooley Harlan Ward 1888
 Coombs Orde Musgrave 1965
 Coon John 1847
 Cooper Carnell 1977
 Cooper Henry Sage Fenimore 1917
  Cooper Jacob 1852
 Cooper John Sherman 1923
 Cooper William Frierson 1838
 Corbin William Herbert 1889
 Corey Alan Lyle 1911
 Corey III Alan Lyle 1965
 Cornell Thomas Hilary 1915
  Corning Erastus 1903
 Cornish, Jr. Percy Gillette 1914
 Cortelyou, Jr. George Bruce 1913
 Corwin Robert Nelson 1887
 Corwith John White 1890
 Cosgrove Thomas Francis 1969
 Costikyan Granger 1929
  Cowdry Rex William 1968
 Cowles Alfred 1913
 Cowles Alfred 1886
 Cowles William Hutchinson 1887
 Cowles William Sheffield 1921
 Cowles III Alfred 1913
 Cox John Joughin 1891
  Coxe Alexander Brown 1887
 Coy Edward Harris 1910
 Coy Sherman Lockwood 1901
 Crampton Rufus Cowles 1851
 Crane, Jr. Winthrop Murray 1904
 Crapo Stanford Tappan 1886
 Crapo William Wallace 1852
  Crawley Brian Scott 1964
 Cressler Alfred Miller 1902
 Crile, Jr. George 1929
 Crosby Albert Hastings 1922
 Crosby Henry Stetson 1926
 Crosby John 1890
 Crosby, Jr. Benjamin Lewis 1892
 Cross Alan W. 1966
 Cross John Walter 1900
 Cross Richard James 1937
 Cross Walter Snell 1904
 Cross William R. 1941
 Cross William Redmond 1896
 Croxton John Thomas 1857
 Cruikshank, Jr. Paul Fessenden 1952
 Crump John 1833
 Csar Michael F. 1972
 Cunningham Hugh Terry  1934
 Cunningham Oliver Baty 1917
 Curtin Francis Clare 1935
 Curtis George Louis 1878
 Cushing Charles Cyprian Strong 1902
 Cushing William Lee 1872
 Cushman Charles W. 1957
 Cushman Isaac LaFayette 1845
 Cushman, Jr. Lt. Gen. Robert E. 1958
 Cutler Benjamin Crawford 1926
 Cutler Carroll 1854
 D'Avanzo Louis A. 1956
 Daggett Oliver Ellsworth
 Dahl George 1908
 Dalby Michael Thomas 1966
 Dale, Jr. Edwin Lyon 1945
 Daly Frederick Joseph 1911
 Dana William Buck 1851
 Dana James Dwight
 Daniels Forest Leonard 1907
 Daniels John H. 1943
 Daniels Joseph Leonard 1860
 Daniels  Rensselaer Wilkinson 1873
 Daniels Thomas Leonard 1914
 Danielson Richard Ely 1907
 Darling Arthur Burr  1916
 Darling Thomas 1836
 Davenport Bradfute Warwick 1938
 Davenport George Leovy 1980
 Davenport  John A. 1926
 Davenport Russell Wheeler 1923
 Davenport Stephen Rintoul 1915
 Davies Philip Turner  1976
 Davies Thomas Frederick 1853
 Davies Thomas Frederick 1894
 Davis Benjamin 1895
 Davis  Benjamin Franklin 1833
 Davis Clinton Wildes 1911
 Davis John 1835
 Davis Lowndes Henry  1860
 Davis Richard Marden 1933
 Davis Robert Stewart 1860
 Davis Walter Goodwin 1908
 Davis II  Horace Webber 1936
 Davison Daniel Pomeroy 1949
 Davison Endicott Peabody 1945
 Davison Frederick Trubee  1918
 Davison Harry Pomeroy 1920
 Davison Henry Pomeroy 1920
 Dawes Chester Mitchell 1876
 Day  Arthur Pomeroy 1890
 Day Clive 1892
 Day Dwight Huntington 1899
 Day Huntington T.  1923
 Day John Calvin 1857
 Day Melville Cox 1862
 Day Robert Webster 1875
 Day  Sherwood Sunderland 1911
 Day Thomas Mills 1837
 Day Thomas Mills 1886
 Day William Edwards  1902
 Day Henry N
 Deans Robert Barr 1918
 Dechert Henry Martyn 1850
 Decker, Jr. Edmund Lockwood  1929
 DeForest Stephen Elliott 1955
 Demaree II Frank Edward 1969
 Deming Charles Clerc 1872
 Deming  Henry Champion 1872
 Deming Henry Champion 1836
 Deming Lawrence Clerc 1883
 Dempsey Andrew Squire  1956
 Dempsey John Bourne 1911
 Dempsey, Jr. James Howard 1938
 Denegre Thomas Bayne 1915
 DeNeufville  John Phillip 1961
 Denison Lindsay 1895
 Dennis Frederic Shepard 1872
 Denny Thomas  1854
 Denslow Herbert McKenzie 1873
 Dent Henry Hatch 1836
 Depew Canson Goodyear 1919
 Depew  Chauncey Mitchell 1856
 DeSa Pompeo Ascenco 1841
 DeSibour Jules Henri 1896
 DeSilver Albert  1910
 Desjardins Peter Earl 1965
 Devlin Michael William 1982
 Devor, Jr Donald S. 1941
 DeVore  Mark Samuel 1980
 Dexter Franklin Bowditch 1861
 Dexter Morton 1867
 Diamond Peter C.  1974
 Dickinson Arthur 1856
 Diller John Cabot 1924
 Dilworth George Toby 1980
 Dilworth  Joseph Richardson 1938
 Dimock Henry Farnam 1863
 Dines Tyson 1908
 Dixon Theodore Polehemus  1907
 Dixon William Palmer 1868
 Doane John Wesley 1891
 Dodd Albert 1838
 Dodge  Francis Talmage 1904
 Dodge Philip Lyndon 1907
 Dodge Washington 1929
 Dominick David DeWitt  1960
 Dominick Gayer Gardner 1909
 Donaldson William Henry 1953
 Donnelley Gaylord 1931
 Donnelley  Reuben H. 1889
 Donnelley Richard Robert 1889
 Donnelley Thomas Elliott 1889
 Doolittle Duncan Hunter 1943
 Douglas Malcolm 1900
 Douglass Willard Robinson 1887
 Dousman Louis deVierville 1906
 Dowling  Brian J. 1969
 Downing III Earl S. 1970
 Doyle, Jr. Thomas James 1974
 Drain Richard Dale 1943
 Draper Arthur Joy 1937
 Draper III William H. 1950
 Dreisbach John Martin 1903
 DuBois  John Jay 1867
 Dunham George Elliott 1859
 Dunham, Jr. Lawrence Boardman 1938
 Dunn George J. 1957
 Dunning Rev. Albert Elijah 1867
 Dunwody James Bulloch 1836
 Durfee, Jr. C. Gibson 1956
 Durham II Edwin A. 1953
 Duryee Samuel Sloan 1917
 Dutton Samuel W.S.
 Dwight Timothy 1849
 Dwight  Winthrop Edwards 1893
 Dyess Arthur Delma 1939
 Eakin Emmet Alexander 1856
 Eakin William Spencer  1846
 Eames Benjamin Tucker 1843
 Early Hobart Evans 1945
 Eaton Samuel Lewis 1877
 Eaton  Sherburne Blake 1862
 Ecklund John E. 1938
 Eddy Maxon Hunter 1929
 Eden John W.  1951
 Edozien Anthony O. 1979
 Edwards Alfred Lewis 1857
 Edwards George Benjamin 1878
 Edwards  Newton 1842
 Edwards Richard Henry 1901
 Eels John Shepard 1901
 Eichelberger Martin Smyser  1858
 Eisenberg Bruce Alan 1974
 Eisler Colin Tobias 1952
 Ekfelt Richard (Dick) Henry 1971
 Elder  Samuel James 1873
 Eldridge Charles St. John 1839
 Elebash Shehand Daniel 1944
 Elliot Henry Rutherford  1871
 Elliot William Horace 1844
 Ellis Garrison McClintock Noel 1951
 Ellis Harland Montgomery 1930
 Ellis  Raymond Walleser 1930
 Ellis, Jr. Alexander 1944
 Ellis, Jr. F. Henry 1941
 Ellis, Jr. G. Corson  1951
 Ellsworth John Stoughton 1905
 Elwell, Jr. Francis Bolton 1945
 Ely Grosvenor 1906
 Embersits  John Frank 1958
 Emerson Alfred 1834
 Emerson Christy Payne 1953
 Emerson Joseph  1841
 Emerson Samuel 1848
 English, Jr. William Deshay 1975
 Eno John Chester 1869
 Eno  Wiliam Phelps 1882
 Ercklentz Alexander Tonio 1959
 Erickson Thomas Franklin 1940
 Ernst Frederick Vincent 1960
 Erskine, Jr. Albert DeW. 1930
 Esselstyn Erik Canfield 1959
 Esselstyn, Jr. Caldwell Blakesman 1956
 Estill  Joe Garner 1891
 Esty Constantine Canaris 1845
 Etra Donald 1968
 Eustis William Tappan 1841
 Evans Evan Wilhelm 1851
 Evans Peter Seelye 1972
 Evans T. Boyd 1954
 Evarts  Maxwell 1884
 Evarts Sherman 1881
 Evarts William Maxwell 1837
 Ewell John Lewis 1865
 Ewing Sherman 1924
 Eyre Lawrence L. 1970
 Farnam Charles Henry 1868
 Farnam Henry Walcott 1874
 Farnam John Dorrance 1890
 Farnam William Whitman 1866
 Farrar John Chipman 1918
 Faulkner Endress 1839
 Fearey Morton Lazell 1898
 Fehr Gerald F. 1955
 Feinerman  James Vincent 1971
 Felder John Henry 1844
 Fenn William Henry 1854
 Ferguson Alfred Ludlow 1902
 Ferguson James Lord 1944
 Ferguson, Jr. Alfred L. 1926
 Ferry Orris Sanford 1844
 Fetner  Philip Jay 1965
 FewSmith William 1844
 Field David Irvine 1841
 Field John Warner 1937
 Finch Francis Miles 1849
 Fincke Clarence Mann 1897
 Finley John George Gilpin 1947
 Finney C. Roger 1973
 Finney Graham Stanley 1952
 Finney John Warren 1945W
 Fischer Louis Christopher 1856
 Fish Stuyvesant 1905
 Fisher Irving 1888
 Fisher Samuel Herbert 1889
 Fisher Scott B. 1972
 Fisher George Park
 Fishwick Dwight Brown 1928
 Fisk Samuel Augustus 1844
 Fisk  Stuart Wilkins 1840
 Fitch George Hopper 1932
 Fitch James 1847
 Flagg Wilbur Wells  1873
 Flanders Henry Richmond 1885
 Fleming Andrew T. 1980
 Fleming William Stuart 1838
 Fletcher  Alexander Charles 1933
 Flynn Alexander Rex 1906
 Folsom Charles Seward 1883
 Foote Charles Seward  1883
 Foote Harry Ward 1866
 Foote Joseph Forward 1850
 Foote Thaddeus 1844
 Ford  George Tod 1865
 Ford William 1942
 Fore John Arthur 1979
 Fort Donald Kenneth  1976
 Fortgang Jeffrey 1971
 Fortunato S. Joseph 1954
 Foster David John 1967
 Foster  Dwight 1848
 Foster Eleazar Kingsbury 1834
 Foster George Forris 1879
 Foster John Pierrepont  1869
 Foster Joseph Taylor 1908
 Foster Maxwell E. 1923
 Foster Reginald 1884
 Foster  Roger 1878
 Fowler Charles Newell 1876
 Fowler Horace Webster 1863
 Fowler William  1860
 Fox Joseph Carrere 1938
 Franchot Charles Pascal 1910
 Francis Samuel Hopkins 1964
 Frank  Clinton E. 1938
 Frank III Charles Augustus 1963
 Frank, Jr. Victor H. 1950
 Franklin Richard David  1983
 Fredericks Joel Richard 1977
 Freeman Henry Varnum 1869
 French Asa Palmer 1882
 French  Robert Dudley 1910
 Friedland Johnathan David 1970
 Fritzche Peter B. 1957
 Frost Elihu Brintnal 1883
 Frost, Jr. Albert Carl 1922
 Fuller Henry W. 1969
 Fuller Philo Carroll 1881
 Fuller  Stanley Evert 1935
 Fuller William Henry 1861
 Fulton Robert Brank 1932
 Furbish Edward Brown 1860
 Gachel Charles Nicholas 1843
 Gage Charles Stafford 1925
 Gaillard Edward McCrady 1919
 Gaillard, Jr.  Samuel Gourdin 1916
 Gaines Edwin Frank 1975
 Gaines Milton J. 1956
 Galbraith Evan Griffith 1950
 Gale Frederick Scott 1983
 Gallaudet Edson Fessenden 1893
 Gallaudet Herbert Draper 1898
 Gallico III G. Gregory 1968
 Galvin Michael Gerard 1971
 Gammell Arthur Amory 1911
 Gardner Robert Abbe 1912
 Garfield Newell 1918
 Garnsey Walter Wood 1930
 Garnsey William Herrick 1960
 Garnsey William Smith 1933
 Garnsey, Jr. Walter W. 1967
 Garrison Elisha Ely 1897
 Garvey John Joseph 1929
 Gates Artemis L. 1918
 Gates Edward Raymond 1976
 Gerard Sumner 1897
 Gibbs Josiah Willard
 Gibson, Jr. Richard Channing 1976
 Giegengack, Jr. Robert F. 1960
 Gifford Richard C. 1954
 Gile  Clement D. 1939
 Gile Clement Moses 1914
 Gile Lawrence Maclester 1978
 Gill B.  1936
 Gill Brendan 1963
 Gill Charles Otis 1889
 Gill George Metcalf 1888
 Gill  Michael Gates 1963
 Gillespie Kenrick S. 1929
 Gillespie, Jr. S. Hazard 1932
 Gillette Augustus Canfield  1841
 Gillette Curtenius 1897
 Gillette, Jr. Howard Frank 1964
 Gilman Daniel Coit 1852
 Gisen, Jr.  Arthur R. 1954
 Glaenzer Georges Brette 1907
 Gleason William Henry 1853
 Glover III Charles Carroll  1940
 Goedecke William Skinner 1947
 Goldberg Richard Julius 1977
 Gonzalez Timoteo F. 1974
 Goodenough  John Bannister 1944
 Goodyear Robert M. 1949
 Gordon Alexander Blucher 1834
 Gordon Edward McGuire  1938
 Gordon George Arthur 1934
 Gould Anthony 1877
 Gould James 1918
 Gould  James Gardner 1845
 Gow Robert Haigh 1955
 Grammar Christopher 1843
 Grandine Thomas Allan  1981
 Granger Gideon 1843
 Granger John Albert 1855
 Grant Edward Dromgoole 1858
 Graves  Henry Solon 1892
 Graves William Phillips 1891
 Graves, Jr. Earl Gilbert 1984
 Grayson James Gordon  1940
 Grayson William Cabell 1944
 Grayson, Jr. Cary Travers 1942
 Grayson, Jr. William Cabell 1977
 Gready  William Postell 1842
 Green Benjamin P. 1973
 Green Charles Grady 1955
 Green Edmund Frank  1880
 Green Henry Sherwood 1879
 Green James Payne 1857
 Green Rudolph 1975
 Greenberg  Stephen David 1970
 Greene Waldo Wittenmyer 1930
 Greenway James Cowan 1900
 Gregory Daniel Seelye
 Griggs  John Cornelius 1889
 Griggs Maitland Fuller 1896
 Griggs, Jr. Herbert Stanton 1928
 Grimes David Charles  1948
 Griswold Dwight Torrey 1908
 Griswold William Edward Schenck 1899
 Grove Manasses Jacob 1929
 Grover  Thomas Williams 1874
 Growel Alfred 1853
 Grubb Charles Ross 1873
 Gruener Gustav  1884
 Guernsey Raymond Gano 1902
 Guidotti Hugh G. 1955
 Guinzburg Thomas Henry 1950
 Gulliver  Henry Strong 1875
 Gulliver William Curtis 1870
 Guthrie Robert K. 1968
 Gwin Samuel Lawrence  1930
 Gwin, Jr. Samuel Lawrence 1963
 Haas Frederick Peter 1935
 Hadden Briton 1920
 Hadley  Arthur Twining 1876
 Hadley Hamilton 1919
 Hadley Morris 1916
 Hadley James
 Haffner, Jr. Charles C. 1919
 Haight Ducald Cameron 1847
 Haight George Winthrop 1928
 Haight, Jr. Charles S.  1952
 Haines Thomas Frederick David 1924
 Haldeman Richard Jacobs 1851
 Hale, Jr. Eugene 1898
 Hall  Daniel Emerson 1834
 Hall Edward Tuck 1941
 Hall Jesse Angell 1936
 Hall John Loomer  1894
 Hall John Manning 1866
 Hall Robert A. 1930
 Hall William Kittredge 1859
 Hall, Jr.  Frederick Bagry 1933
 Hallett John Folsom 1934
 Halpin Thomas M. 1971
 Halsey Jacob  1842
 Halsey, Jr. Ralph Wetmore 1942
 Hambleton Thomas Edward 1934
 Hamilton William 1962
 Hamlin  Charles B. 1961
 Hamlin Chauncey Jerome 1903
 Hannahs Diodate Cushman 1859
 Hansen Roger Allen  1955
 Harding John Wheeler 1845
 Harding Wilder Bennett 1867
 Hare Clinton Larue 1887
 Hare  Meredith 1894
 Harman Archer 1913
 Harman, Jr. Archer 1945
 Harper, Jr. Harry Halsted  1934
 Harriman Edward Roland ("Bunny") Noel 1917
 Harriman William Averell 1913
 Harris Henry Reeder 1836
 Harrison  Burton Norvel 1859
 Harrison Fairfax 1890
 Harrison Francis Burton 1895
 Harrison Fred Harold  1942
 Harrison George Leslie 1910
 Harrison Henry Baldwin 1846
 Hart Dennis Charles 1976
 Hart  Roswell 1843
 Hart Rufus Erastus 1833
 Hartley Cavour 1912
 Hartshorn Joseph William  1867
 Haskell Robert Chandler 1858
 Haslam Lewis Scofield 1890
 Hatch Walter Tilden 1837
 Hatem  John J. 1980
 Haven George Griswold 1887
 Havens Daniel William 1843
 Hawley David  1846
 Hay Logan 1893
 Hayden William Hallock 1847
 Healy, Jr. Harold Harris 1943
 Heard  Albert Farley 1853
 Heaton Edward 1869
 Hebard Albert 1851
 Hebard Daniel  1860
 Hedge Thomas 1867
 Heermance Edgar Laing 1858
 Heffelfinger Frank Peavey 1920
 Heffelfinger  George Wright Peavy 1924
 Heinz II Henry John 1931
 Helfenstein Charles Philip 1841
 Helmer Charles Downs  1852
 Heminway Bartow Lewis 1921
 Hemphill James Tierney 1959
 Henen William Davison 1842
 Henningsen, Jr.  Victor William 1950
 Henston Douglas Robert 1984
 Hernandez Carols Arturo 1971
 Heron John  1910
 Hersey John Richard 1936
 Herskovits David Nathaniel 1984
 Hessberg II Albert 1938
 Hewitt  Brower 1903
 Hewitt Henry H. 1963
 Hewitt Thomas Browning 1864
 Hidden Edward 1885
 Hiers Richard Hyde 1954
 Higgins Anthony 1861
 Highfill III Philip Henry 1973
 Hill  George Canning 1845
 Hillard Lord Butler 1883
 Hilles Frederick Whiley 1922
 Hilles, Jr. Charles Dewey 1924
 Hincks Edward Young 1866
 Hincks John Howard 1872
 Hincks John Morris 1920
 Hincks  John Winslow 1952
 Hine Charles Daniel 1871
 Hinkey Frank Augustus 1895
 Hinsdale Frank Gilbert 1898
 Hitchcock Henry 1879
 Hitchcock Henry 1848
 Hixon Robert 1901
 Hoagland Donald Wright 1943
 Hobbs Charles Buxton 1885
 Hobson Francis Thayer 1920
 Hobson Henry Wise 1914
 Hodes Douglas Michael 1970
 Hodges, Jr. William VanDerveer 1932
 Hogan James Joseph 1905
 Holbrook  David Doubleday 1960
 Holbrook, Jr. John 1959
 Holden John Morgan 1944
 Holden Rebuen A. 1940
 Holland Henry Thompson 1962
 Hollister Arthur Nelson 1858
 Hollister Buell 1905
 Hollister, Jr.  John B. 1949
 Holmbee Jeffrey Arthur 1979
 Holmes George Burgwin 1945W
 Holmes John Grier 1934
 Holmes John Milton 1857
 Holmes Peter Samuel 1978
 Holster Edwin Olaf 1894
 Holt  George Chandler 1866
 Holt Henry Chandler 1903
 Hook Noble 1978
 Hooker John Worthington 1854
 Hooker Thomas 1869
 Hoopes Townsend Walter 1944
 Hopkins John Morgan 1900
 Hoppin Benjamin 1872
 Hoppin James Mason 1840
 Hord Stephen Young 1921
 Hoston, Jr. Archibald Robinson 1939
 Hothhkiss William Henry 1875
 Hough Edward Clement 1849
 Houghton Edward 1852
 Houghton  Walter Edwards 1924
 Houston John Wallace 1834
 Howard James Ernest 1966
 Howard James Merriam 1909
 Howard Oran Reed 1835
 Howe Arthur 1912
 Howe Elmer Parker 1876
 Howe  Gary Woodson 1958
 Howe Henry Almy 1909
 Howe II Harold 1940
 Howland John 1894
 Hoyl Joseph Gibson 1840
 Hoyl Lydic 1906
 Hoysradt Albert 1877
 Hoysradt John McA. 1926
 Hoysradt Warren J. 1901
 Hubbard Richard Dudley 1839
 Hubbard Oliver P.
 Hudson  Franklin Donald 1955
 Hudson Ward Woodridge 1840
 Huey Mark Christopher 1973
 Huggins William Sidney  1842
 Hughes Berrien 1905
 Hull Louis Kossuth 1883
 Hurd John Odman 1836
 Hurd  Richard Melanemon 1888
 Hurlbut Joseph 1849
 Hurlbut, Jr. Gordon Buckland 1945W
 Husted James William  1892
 Hyatt Robert Underwood 1837
 Hyde Alvan Pinney 1845
 Hyde Donald R. 1912
 Hyde  Frank Eldridge 1879
 Hyde Frederick Walton 1911
 Hyde William Waldo 1876
 Hyde, Jr. Louis Kepler  1923
 Ingalls David Sinton 1920
 Ingalls, Jr. David Sinton 1956
 Ingersoll James Wernham Dunsford 1892
 Inman  Robert D. 1971
 Isbell Orland Sidney 1888
 Isham Edward Swift 1891
 Isham Henry Peter  1917
 Isham John Beach 1869
 Ives Chauncey Bradley 1928
 Ives Gerard M. 1925
 Ives  Sherwood Bissell 1893
 Ives Charles
 Jack Thomas Mckinney 1853
 Jackson Henry Rootes 1839
 Jackson  John Herrick 1934
 Jackson Joseph Cooke 1857
 Jackson Terrence John 1970
 Jackson William E.  1941
 James Ellery Sedgewick 1917
 James Henry Ammon 1874
 James Norman 1890
 James  Robert Campbell 1894
 James Walter Belknap 1879
 James William Knowles 1878
 Jamieson, Jr. Thomas Crawford  1956
 Janeway Charles Anderson 1930
 Jay Pierre 1892
 Jefferson Edward Francis 1909
 Jenckes  Marcien 1921
 Jenkins Richard Elwood 1948
 Jenks Almet Francis 1875
 Jenks Paul Emmott  1884
 Jenks Tudor 1878
 Jennings Oliver Goud 1887
 Jennings Percy Hall 1904
 Jennings  Walter 1880
 Jessup J.B. 1942
 Jesup James Riley 1840
 Johnes Edward Rudolph  1873
 Johnson Barclay 1882
 Johnson Charles Frederick 1855
 Johnson George Asbury 1853
 Johnson  J.H. 1935
 Johnston Frank 1835
 Johnston Henry Phelps 1862
 Johnston Ross  1870
 Johnston William Curtis 1860
 Johnston William Preston 1852
 Johnstone Henry Webb 1916
 Jones  Alfred Henry 1893
 Jones Dwight Arven 1875
 Jones Frank Hatch 1875
 Jones Frederick Scheetz  1884
 Jones George Gill 1914
 Jones Luther Maynard 1860
 Jones Seaborn Augustus 1838
 Jones  T.S. 1933
 Jones Walter Clyde 1925
 Jordan Ralph Edward 1923
 Judson Frederick Newton 1866
 Judson Isaac Nichols 1873
 Jung Michael 1984
 Kelley L.M. 1937
 Kellogg  Charles Poole 1890
 Kellogg Fred William 1883
 Kellogg Stephen Wright 1846
 Kellogg W.W. 1939
 Kelly II W.C. 1944
 Kelsey Clarence 1878
 Kemp J.B. 1942
 Kemp  Philip Sperry 1950
 Kendall John Newton 1834
 Kendall, Jr. William Burrage 1887
 Kenerson Vertner 1891
 Kennedy Thomas 1845
 Kent Albert Emmett 1853
 Kent William 1887
 Keppelman John Arthur 1901
 Kernochan Francis Edward 1861
 Kernochan Frederic 1898
 Kernochan Joseph Frederic 1863
 Kerr Albert Boardman 1897
 Kerry John Forbes 1966
 Ketcham Henry Holman 1914
 Key Thomas Marshall 1838
 Kilborne William Skinner 1935
 Kilcullen John M. 1934
 Killredge George Alvar 1855
 Kilrea Walter C. 1954
 Kimball Arthur Reed 1877
 Kimball John Edwin 1858
 Kimball Walter S. 1934
 King Lyndon Marrs 1910
 King Stoddard 1914
 Kingsbury Howard Thayer 1926
 Kingsley Charles C. 1959
 Kingsley Henry Coit 1834
 Kingsley William L.
 Kinne William  1848
 Kinney Herbert Evelyn 1871
 Kiphuth Delaney 1941
 Kirby Jacob Brown 1849
 Kirchwey  George W. 1942
 Kitchel Cornelius Ladd 1862
 Kitchel Cornelius Porter 1897
 Kitchel William Lloyd  1892
 Kittle John Caspar 1904
 Kittredge Frank Dutton 1952
 Klots Allen Trafford 1943
 Klots  Allen Trafford 1909
 Knapp Farwell 1916
 Knapp Howard Hoyt 1882
 Knapp John Merrill  1936
 Knapp Wallace Percy 1886
 Kneeland Y. 1890
 Knight Augustus 1910
 Knight  Samuel 1887
 Knoll George Tapscott 1878
 Knox Hugh Smith 1907
 Kolar Button Ward 1968
 Kosturko William Theodore 1971
 Ladd, Jr. Louis Williams 1930
 Lagercrantz Bengt M. 1965
 Laidley  Forrest David 1966
 Lalley Patrick William 1977
 Lamb Albert Eugene 1867
 Lamb Albert Richard 1903
 Lambert Adrian VanSinderen 1893
 Lambert Alexander 1884
 Lambert Alfred 1843
 Lambert  Edward Scott 1984
 Lambert Edward Wilberforce 1854
 Lambert Paul Christopher 1950
 Lampman Lewis 1866
 Lampson George 1855
 Lampson William 1862
 Lane William Griswold 1843
 Lanier Alexander Chalmers 1844
 Lapham Lewis Abbot 1931
 Lapham Raymond White 1928
 Larned William Augustua
 Larner  Robert Johnson 1922
 Lathe Herbert William 1873
 Lathrop John Hiram 1905
 Laudon, Jr. Mortimer Hamlin  1932
 Lavelli, Jr. Anthony 1949
 Law William Fabian 1837
 Law William Lyon 1838
 Lawler  Quentin John 1977
 Lawrance Thomas Garner 1884
 Lawrence Gary Martin 1980
 Lea James Neilsen  1834
 Lea Robert Brinkley 1871
 Leaf Edmund 1841
 Lear Henry 1869
 Learned  Dwight Whitney 1870
 Learned William Law 1841
 Leavatt Ashley 1900
 Leavenworth Donald Loyal  1947
 Lee Samuel Henry 1858
 LeFevre Ronald Eaton 1962
 Legore Harry William 1917
 Leighton  James 1881
 Leiper Joseph McCarrell 1949
 Lent John Abram 1843
 Leone Frederick Anthony  1982
 Leverett Miles Watson 1976
 Levering Walter B. 1933
 Levin Charles Herbert 1971
 Lewis  A. Hook 1833
 Lewis Charlton Miner 1886
 Lewis George Emanuel 1974
 Lewis Henry  1842
 Lewis John 1868
 Lewis Mark Sanders 1972
 Libbey Frank 1867
 Lightfoot  Richard Bissett 1959
 Ligon Thomas B. 1962
 Liles Coit Redfearn 1973
 Lilley Robert McGregor  1967
 Lilley, Jr. Frank Walder 1943
 Lindenberg John Townsend 1932
 Lindgren Richard Hugo 1960
 Lindley  Frances Vinton 1933
 Lindsay David A. 1944
 Lindsay, Jr. Dale Alton 1961
 Linton Stephen Duncan  1846
 Lippincott David McCord 1949
 Lippincott William Jackson 1914
 Lippitt Henry 1909
 Litt  David Geoffrey 1984
 Litt Willard David 1921
 Little Mitchell Stuart 1907
 Little Robbins  1851
 Little Stuart W. 1944
 Livingston Herman 1879
 Livingston II Richard 1969
 Loeser  Frederic William 1931
 Logan Walter Seth 1910
 Lohmann Carl Albert 1910
 Lombard James Kittredge  1854
 Lombardi Cornelius Ennis 1911
 Longstreth George B. 1930
 Lonsdorf David B. 1973
 Look  Allen M. 1927
 Look Frank Byron 1930
 Lord Charles Edwin 1949
 Lord Franklin Atkins  1898
 Lord George Deforest 1854
 Lord Oswald B. 1926
 Lord William Galey 1922
 Lord  Winston 1959
 Lorenson David Harold 1979
 Loucks, Jr. Vernon R. 1957
 Loughran Anthony Hookey  1957
 Love Ralph Frank 1951
 Lovejoy Winslow Meston 1925
 Lovell Joseph 1844
 Lovett  August Sidney 1913
 Lovett Robert Abercrombie 1918
 Lovett Sidney 1950
 Luce Henry Robinson 1920
 Luckey Charles Pinckney 1923
 Luckey Charles Pinckney 1950
 Ludden William 1850
 Lufkin  Chauncey F. 1951
 Lufkin Dan Wende 1953
 Lufkin Elgood Moulton 1925
 Lufkin, Sr. Peter Wende 1949
 Luman Richard John 1925
 Lumpkin Richard Anthony 1957
 Lunt Storer Boardman 1921
 Lusk  Peter A. 1960
 Lusk William Thompson 1924
 Lutz Karl Evan 1972
 Lydgate William A. 1931
 Lyman Chester Smith 1837
 Lyman Chester Wolcott 1882
 Lynch Dennis Patrick 1964
 Lynch R. Vincent 1945
 Lynde Charles James 1838
 Lyon George Armstrong 1900
 MacDonald II Ranald 1915
 MacDonald II Richard J. 1972
 MacDonald II Stephen Joseph 1973
 Mack Richard Gesrtle 1948
 MacKenzie Kenneth Malcolm 1975
 MacLean, Jr. Kenneth 1961
 MacLeish Archibald 1915
 MacLeish William H. 1950
 MacLellan George Boardman 1858
 MacLellan William 1835
 MacVeagh Franklin 1862
 MacWhorter Alexander 1842
 Madden B. Patrick 1969
 Madden John Beckwith 1941
 Maffitt Thomas Skinner 1899
 Magee James McDevitt 1899
 Magee John Gillespie 1906
 Magruder Benjamin Drake 1856
 Mallon Guy Ward 1885
 Mallon Henry Neil 1917
 Mallon John Howard 1919
 Mallon Thomas Ridgway 1945W
 Mallory William Neely 1924
 Mallory, Jr. Barton Lee 1928
 Malloy Terrence R. 1956
 Manice William DeForest 1851
 Manross Newton Spaulding 1850
 Mansfield Howard 1871
 Manville, Jr. Hiram Edward 1929
 March Daniel 1840
 Marinelli David Leonard 1978
 Marmaduke Vincent 1852
 Marsh William Lee 1963
 Marshall John Birnie 1953
 Marshall Samuel Davies 1833
 Martin George Greene 1893
 Martin George Lockwood 1836
 Martin William A.P.
 Marvin Joseph Howard 1836
 Marvin Joseph Howard  1876
 Mason Alfred Bishop 1871
 Mason Henry Burratt 1870
 Mather Frederick Ellsworth 1833
 Mathews  Craig 1951
 Mathias II Philip 1955
 Matthessen Francis Otto 1923
 Matthews Albert  1842
 Mattlin Fred W. 1973
 Mayer Charles Theodore 1951
 Mayor Michael B. 1959
 McAfee  William Andrew 1982
 McAndrew Alexander 1913
 McBride Jonathan Evans 1964
 McBride Wilber  1882
 McCall Henry 1840
 McCallum Revell 1924
 McCallum, Jr. Robert Davis 1968
 McCarthy  Charles Edward 1960
 McClintock Norman 1891
 McClung Lee 1892
 McClure Archibald  1912
 McClure James Gore King 1870
 McClure, Jr. James Gore King 1906
 McCormick Henry 1852
 McCormick, Jr.  Alexander Agnew 1919
 McCrary, Jr. John Reagan 1932
 McCullough David G. 1955
 McCutchen Samuel St. John  1870
 McDonnell John Vincent 1911
 McElroy Benjamin Thomas 1945
 McGaughey, Jr. Guy Ennis 1945
 McGauley  John Michael 1933
 McGee Donald Ashbrook 1906
 McGregor Jack F. 1956
 McHenry James 1920
 McHenry John 1885
 McIntosh Harris 1927
 McKee Elmore Mcneill 1919
 McKee  Lanier 1895
 McKee M. Dunn 1896
 McKinney William Allison 1868
 McLallen P. Fredinand 1847
 McLane James Price 1953
 McLaren Michael G. 1972
 McLaughlin Edward Tompkins 1883
 Mclean  Charles Fraser 1864
 Mclean John Helm 1943
 McLean III Robert 1950
 McLemore, Jr. John Briggs 1937
 McMillan James Howard 1888
 McMillan Philip Hamilton 1894
 McMillan William Charles 1884
 McNally Edward E. 1979
 McNamara Thomas Philip 1951
 McPhee Stephen Joseph 1973
 McQuaid William Adolph 1889
 Mead Frederick 1871
 Mead Winter 1919
 Meek John Burgess 1960
 Mehta  Arjay Singh 1976
 Melton, Jr. William Davis 1924
 Menton James Paul 1956
 Menton John Dennis 1953
 Merriam Alexander Ross 1872
 Merriam George Spring 1864
 Merrill Henry Riddle 1929
 Merrill  Payson 1865
 Merritt Henry Newton 1912
 Mesick Richard Smith 1848
 Messimer, Jr. Robert L. 1931
 Metcalf Harold Grant 1904
 Metcalfe Henry Laurens 1849
 Metcalfe Orrick 1845
 Meyer, Jr. Russell William 1954
 Meyers Bryan Fitch 1982
 Michel Anthony Lee 1926
 Middlebrook Louis Shelton 1915
 Miles James Browning 1849
 Miles Richard Curtis 1937
 Miller Allanson Douglas 1864
 Miller Andrew Otterson 1939
 Miller Dudley Livingston 1943
 Miller Francis William 1842
 Miller George Douglas 1870
 Miller James Ely 1904
 Miller James Whipple 1967
 Miller Phineas Timothy 1833
 Miller Thomas Clairborne 1970
 Miller Wentworth Earl 1969
 Miller, Jr. Charles Lewis 1939
 Mills Alfred 1847
 Mills Edward Ensign 1934
 Mills Ethelbert Smith 1835
 Mills James Paul 1932
 Mitchell Donald Grant 1841
 Mitchell Harry H. 1939
 Mitchell John Hanson 1861
 Mitchell, Jr. H. Coleman 1967
 Mitinger Joseph Berry 1953
 Montesano III Michael John 1983
 Montgomery Grenville Dodge 1898
 Moody Thomas Hudson 1843
 Moore David Clement 1973
 Moore E. Hastings 1883
 Moore Frank Wood 1903
 Moore Georg Foot 1872
 Moore James I. 1947
 Moore Richard Anthony 1936
 Moore William Eves 1847
 Moorhead William S. 1906
 Morehead William S. 1945
 Morey, Jr. Robert Willis 1958
  Morgan James W. 1971
 Morgan Robert McNair 1970
 Morgenstern Marc Jaime 1976
 Morison David Whipple 1888
 Morison Samuel Benjamin 1891
 Morison Stanford Newel 1892
 Morris Edward Dafydd 1849
 Morris Luzon 1854
 Morris Ray 1901
 Morse John Bolt 1934
 Morse Samuel Finley Brown 1907
 Morse Sidney Nelson 1890
 Morton, Jr. Thruston Ballard 1954
 Moseley Thomas Wilder 1948
 Mosely Spencer Dumaresq 1943
 Moser Richard Eugene 1963
 Moses Jack Thomas 1979
 Moyer Douglas Richard 1972
 Mulford David Humphrey 1846
 Mulford Elisha 1855
 Mulhern Daniel Kevin 1980
 Mullins Frederic Parsons 1912
 Munn John 1847
 Munroe George Edmund 1874
 Murchison Brian Cameron 1974
 Murchison Robert W. 1982
 Murphy Frederick James 1910
 Murphy Gerald Clery 1912
  Musser John Miller 1930
 Neale James Brown 1896
 Neigher Geoffrey Mark 1967
 Nelson Rensselaer Russell 1846
 Nettleton Edward Payson 1856
 Neville James E. 1921
 Nevins William Bessell 1846
 Newel Stanford 1861
 Newman Thomas Montgomery 1977
 Newton, Jr. James Quigg 1933
 Nichols Alfred Bull 1880
 Nichols Edward 1934
 Nichols William Allen 1983
 Nickerson Sereno Dwight 1845
 Noble Lawrence Mason 1927
 Noble, Jr. Lawerence Mason 1953
 Noble Frederick A.
 Noel Christopher  1983
 Nondorf Kurt D. 1979
 Nordhaus William D. 1963
 Norris William Herbert 1839
 Northrop  Cyrus 1857
 Northrop Birdsey G.
 Northrup Robert Smitter 1960
 Norton Wiliam Bunnell 1925
 Norton, Jr. George Washington 1923
 Novkov David A. 1953
 Novosel David Gerard 1981
 Noyes Edward MacArthur  1971
 O'Brien Donald Patrick 1979
 O'Brien Frank 1906
 O'Brien, Jr. Frank 1947
 O'Brien, Jr. Philip 1945W
 O'Connell Timothy James 1963
 O'Keefe Regis James 1981
 O'Leary, Jr. John Joseph 1969
 O'Neill, Jr. Eugene Gladstone 1932
 Oberlin John P. 1957
 Ogden Alfred 1932
 Ohene-Frempong Kwaku 1970
 Oler Wesley M. 1916
 Oler, Jr. Clark Kimberly 1976
 Olmstead John Hull  1847
 Olsen Albert William 1917
 Ord Joseph Pacificus 1873
 Ordway Henry Choate 1880
 Orr Andrew Alexander 1956
 Orrick Andrew Downey 1940
 Orrick, Jr. William H. 1937
 Osborn Richard  1914
 Osborne Arthur Sherwood 1882
 Osborne Thomas Burr 1881
 Otis James Sanford 1919
 Overton John Williams 1917
 Owen Charles Hunter 1860
 Owen Edward Thomas 1872
 Owen Henry Elijah  1864
 Owens Samuel L. 1978
 Packard Lewis Richard 1856
 Paddock Brace Whitman 1900
 Page Robert Guthrie 1922
 Paine Levi Leonard 1856
 Paine Ralph Delahaye 1894
 Paine, Jr. Ralph D.  1929
 Painter Henry McMahon 1884
 Palmer Arthur Edward 1930
 Palmer Charles Edward 1947
 Palmer Harry Herbert 1883
 Palmer William Henry 1864
 Palmer II L. Guy 1957
 Paris Irving  1915
 Park William Edwards 1861
 Parker Grenville 1898
 Parker Robert Boyd 1933
 Parker Wilbur 1880
 Parker William White Wilson 1893
 Parkin William 1874
 Parrott Joseph Robinson 1883
 Parsons Francis 1893
 Parsons Henry McIlvaine 1933
 Parsons Langdon 1921
 Partridge Sidney Catlin 1880
 Patterson George Washington 1914
 Patterson Lee 1922
 Patterson Morehead  1920
 Patterson Thomas Cleveland 1927
 Patton John 1875
 Paul Charles Henry 1912
 Payson Henry Silas 1872
 Peck Tracy 1861
 Peck, Jr. Arthur John 1962
 Peitz William Learned  1931
 Pelly Bernard Berenger 1923
 Pendexter John Fowler 1958
 Percy Frederick Bosworth 1877
 Perit Pelatia
 Perkins John 1840
 Perkins Nathaniel Shaw 1842
 Perkins Thomas Albert 1858
 Perkins William 1840
 Perrin Bernadotte 1869
 Perrin John 1879
 Perrin John Bates  1909
 Perrin Lee James 1906
 Perrin Lester William 1908
 Perry David Brainard 1863
 Perry David Bulkey 1977
 Perry John Hoyt 1870
 Perry Wilbert Warren 1871
 Pershing Richard Warren 1966
 Peters Daniel James 1970
 Peters Elliot Remsen 1980
 Peters Eric Brooks 1979
 Peters Frank George 1886
 Peters John Andrew 1842
 Peters Kenneth Graham 1981
 Peters William Allison 1880
 Peterson Paul Clifford 1981
 Pfau, Jr. George Harold 1948
 Phelan Howard T. 1958
 Phelps Edward Johnson 1886
 Phelps Sheffield 1886
 Phelps William Walter 1860
 Phelps Zira Bennett 1895
 Philbin Jesse Holladay 1913
 Philbin II Stephen 1910
 Phinney Elihu 1846
 Pickett Lawrence Kimball 1941
 Piel Geoffrey D. 1978
 Pierce Frederick Erastus 1904
 Pierson Charles Wheeler 1886
 Pierson William Seward 1836
 Pillsbury Edmund Pennington 1936
 Pillsbury, Jr. John Sargent 1935
 Pinchot Amos Richards Eno 1897
 Pinchot Gifford 1889
 Pinckard Thomas Cicero 1848
 Pinela Carlos  1983
 Pinney John Mercer 1965
 Pionzio Dino John 1950
 Platt Henry Barstow 1882
 Platt Lewis Alfred 1879
 Polich Richard Frank 1954
 Pollock George Edward 1878
 Pollock William  1882
 Pomeroy John Norton 1887
 Pond Jeffrey Craig 1965
 Poole William Frederick 1891
 Poore Charles Graydon 1926
 Porter Edward Clarke 1858
 Porter III Gilbert Edwin 1916
 Porter Noah
  Post Russell Lee 1927
 Post, Jr. Russell Lee 1958
 Potter Roderick 1902
 Potwin Lemuel Stoughton 1854
 Pratt George 1857
 Pratt Julius Howard 1842
 Pratt William Hall Brace 1864
  Prentice John Rockefeller 1928
 Prentice Samuel Oscar 1873
 Preston Henry Kirk 1836
 Preston James Marshall 1967
 Preston John Louis 1958
 Preston Ord 1899
 Price Frank Julian 1892
 Price Ross E. 1954
 Price, Jr. Charles Baird 1941
 Price, Jr. Raymond Kissam 1951
 Prideaux Tom  1930
 Prindle Thomas Harrison 1964
 Pugsley Isaac P. 1864
 Pulaski, Jr. Charles Alexander 1964
 Pumpelly Harold Armstrong 1915
 Purnell Charles Thomas 1854
 Putnam James Osborne 1839
 Putnam Phelps  1916
 Pyle Michael J. 1961
 Quarles III James Perrin 1965
 Rachlin David Isaiah 1982
 Rafferty John Chandler 1835
 Ramsdell Charles Benjamin 1872
 Rand Stuart Craig 1909
 Randolph Francis Fitz  1911
 Rankin B. Courtney 1936
 Rankin Robert 1845
 Ranney George Alfred 1934
 Rathborne Joseph Cornelius 1931
 Raymond George T.P. 1949
 Raymond Henry Hunter 1841
 Raymond Henry Warren  1869
 Read Richard Rollins 1947
 Reed Edward Snover 1951
 Reed Harry Lathrop 1889
 Reed Lansing Parmalee 1904
 Reid Jasper 1982
 Reigeluth Douglas Scott 1975
 Reilly John Sylvester  1915
 Reponen Robert Gordon 1954
 Ribeiro Carlos Fernando 1838
 Rich Eugene Lamb 1838
 Richards Davi Alan 1967
 Richards George 1840
 Richardson Allan Harvey 1901
 Richardson Gardner  1905
 Richardson Rufus Byam 1869
 Richardson Walker 1849
 Richie Wallace Parks 1927
 Riggs  Benjamin Clapp 1865
 Rimar III Stephen 1977
 Ripley George Coit 1862
 Ritchie, Jr. Wallace Parks  1957
 Ritterbush, Jr. Stephen G. 1972
 Rizzo Robert John 1978
 Robb James Madison 1844
 Robb  John Hunter 1843
 Robbins Edwards Denmore 1874
 Robbins William Wells 1927
 Roberts Ellis Henry  1850
 Roberts, Jr. Charles Holmes 1916
 Roberts, Jr. George Brooke 1952
 Robertson Charles Franklin 1859
 Robertson Robert 1833
 Robertson, Jr. Howard Copland 1928
 Robeson Abel Bellows 1837
 Robinson Frederick Flower  1927
 Robinson George Chester 1856
 Robinson Henry Seymour 1889
 Robinson John Trunbull 1893
 Robinson  John Trunbull 1937
 Robinson Lucius Franklin 1843
 Robinson Lucius Franklin 1885
 Robinson, Jr. H.C.  1947
 Roby Joseph 1893
 Roby Samuel Sidney 1888
 Rockefeller Percy Avery 1900
 Rockwell  Foster Harry 1906
 Rockwell John 1849
 Rodd David B. 1940
 Rodd Thomas  1935
 Rodman Robert Simpson 1879
 Rogers D. 1898
 Rogers Derby 1893
 Rogers  Edmund Pendleton 1905
 Rogers Herman Livingston 1914
 Rogers John 1887
 Root Alexander Porter  1861
 Root Reginald Dean 1926
 Root Wells 1922
 Rose Jonathan Chapman 1963
 Ross  Lancelot Patrick 1928
 Ross Thomas Bernard 1951
 Ross William Baldwin 1852
 Rowe, Jr. Thomas D.  1984
 Rowland John T. 1911
 Rowland William Sherman 1836
 Roy John Marcus 1978
 Rulon-Miller  Patrick 1963
 Rumsey David McIver 1966
 Rumsley Bronson Case 1902
 Runnalls John Felch Bertram  1937
 Russell Frank Ford 1926
 Russell Philip Gray 1876
 Russell Richard George 1981
 Russell  Richard Warren 1951
 Russell William Huntington 1833
 Ryan Joseph Mather 1951
 Ryan III Allan A.  1954
 Ryle Ernest 1892
 Saffen David 1975
 Safford George Blagden 1852
 Safford  Theodore Lee 1920
 Sage Dean 1897
 Sage Henry Manning 1890
 Salbeh Richard Alan  1972
 Saleh Muhammad Ahmed 1968
 Salisbury Edward Elbridge
 Salzman Mark Joseph 1982
 Sanderson Benjamin  1909
 Sanford Charles Frederick 1847
 Sanhago Eddie 1982
 Sanon James M. 1967
 Sargent Joseph Weir 1920
 Sargent Murray 1905
 Savage Bouifelle 1932
 Savage Josiah  1846
 Sawyer, Jr. Homer Eugene 1913
 Scarborough William Smith 1837
 Scattergood Thomas B. 1970
 Schermerhorn Alfred Cosler 1920
 Schermerhorn Amos Egmont 1938
 Schlesinger Daniel Adam 1977
 Schmidt Thomas Carr  1968
 Schnaitter Spencer Jason 1954
 Schollander Donald Arthur 1968
 Schuyler Eugene 1859
 Schwab John Christopher 1886
 Schwab Laurence vonPost 1913
 Schwarzman Stephen Allen 1969
 Scott Eben Greenough  1858
 Scott Eugene Lytton 1960
 Scott Henry Clarkson 1925
 Scott Larry Glenn 1977
 Scott  Stewart Patterson 1928
 Scott William Iain 1973
 Scudder Doremus 1880
 Seabury Mortimer Ashmfad  1909
 Seaman, Jr. Irving 1945
 Sears Joshua Montgomery 1877
 Seeley George Wheeler 1961
 Seeley  John Edward 1835
 Seeley John Frank 1860
 Seeley William Wallace 1862
 Seeley, Jr. Edward Howard  1878
 Selander Duane Arthur 1969
 Selden Edward Griffin 1870
 Senay Edward Charles 1952
 Seward  William Henry 1888
 Seymour Charles 1908
 Seymour Horatio 1867
 Seymour John Forman  1835
 Seymour John Sammis 1875
 Seymour S.O. 1857
 Seymour, Jr. Charles 1935
 Seymour  Thomas Day
 Shackelford Robert Campbell 1958
 Sharp Jonathan Douglas 1983
 Shattuck John H.F. 1965
 Shattuck John Waldon 1870
 Shearer Sextus 1861
 Shedden William Martindale 1915
 Sheffield George St. John 1863
 Sheffield James Rockwell 1959
 Sheffield John Van Loon 1983
 Shelden Allan 1913
 Shelly Hugh White 1835
 Shepard B. 1936
 Shepard Charles R.S. 1951
 Shepard Donald Carrington 1950
 Shepard Donald Carrington 1916
 Shepard Frank Parsons 1917
 Shepard Lorrin Andrews 1914
 Shepard Roger Bulkley 1908
 Shepard, Jr. Lloyd Montgomery 1939
 Shepard, Jr. Roger Bulkley 1935
 Shepley Arthur  1895
 Sheppard Walter Bradley 1887
 Sherill Franklin Goldwaithe 1949
 Sherman Frederick Roger 1836
 Shevlin Edward Leonard 1921
 Shipman Arthur Leffingwell 1886
 Shirley Arthur 1869
 Shugart Thorne Martin  1955
 Sill Edward Rowland 1861
 Sill George Griswold 1852
 Silliman Professor Benjamin 1837
 Simmons Frank Hunter 1898
 Simmons Wallace Erskine 1890
 Simms William Erskine 1891
 Simpson Kenneth Farrand  1917
 Sincerrbeaux Frank H. 1902
 Singer Ronald Leonard 1966
 Singleton II Thomas 1961
 Skibell Steven Alan 1984
 Skrovan Stephen Thomas 1979
 Slade Francis Henry 1954
 Slade John Milton  1851
 Sloane Henry Thompson 1866
 Sloane John 1905
 Sloane Thomas Chalmers 1868
 Sloane  William 1895
 Slocum Edwin Lyon 1915
 Smith Bradford Curie 1967
 Smith Bruce Donald  1906
 Smith Charles Edgar 1865
 Smith Edward Curtis 1875
 Smith Eugene 1859
 Smith  Frederick W. 1966
 Smith Herbert Augustine 1889
 Smith J. Gregory 1912
 Smith John Donnell  1847
 Smith Lloyd Hilton 1929
 Smith Rufus Riggs 1876
 Smith Traver 1919
 Smith  William Thayer 1860
 Smith Winthrop Davenport 1896
 Smith III Bruce Donald 1960
 Smith, Jr. Howard Freeman  1942
 Smyth Nathan Ayer 1897
 Snell Raymond Franklin 1918
 Solbert Peter O. 1941
 Solley  Fred Palmer 1888
 Solley Robert Folger 1922
 Somerville John W. 1957
 Soper Willard Burr  1904
 Soule Leslie 1911
 Southgate Charles McClellan 1866
 Southmayd Samuel Gray 1834
 Southworth  Edward Wells 1875
 Southworth George Champlin 1863
 Spalding Ebenezer 1838
 Spalding George A.  1872
 Spaulding Josiah Augustus 1945
 Spear Wesley John 1974
 Spears Robert Samuel 1952
 Speed  James Breckinridge 1956
 Spencer Charles Langford 1878
 Spencer Edward Curran 1880
 Spencer George Gilman  1834
 Spencer James M. 1867
 Sperry Watson Robertson 1871
 Spitz Robert W. 1962
 Spitzer, Jr.  Lyman 1935
 Spofford Charles Merville 1924
 Spring Andrew Jackson 1855
 Sprole Frank Arnoit  1942
 Stack, Jr. Joseph William 1940
 Stackpole Edward James 1915
 Stagg Amos Alonzo 1888
 Stanberry, Jr. William Burks 1966
 Stanley Harold 1908
 Stanley William 1852
 Stapler Henry Beidleman Bascom  1874
 Staven Karl Eric 1981
 Steadman John Montague 1952
 Steadman Richard Cooke 1955
 Stearns  Edwin Russell 1870
 Stebbins Hart Lyman 1933
 Stebbins Henry Hamilton 1862
 Steele Henry Thornton  1846
 Sterling John William 1864
 Stetson, Jr. Eugene William 1934
 Stevens Albert B. 1940
 Stevens  Eric Eugene 1980
 Stevens Frederic William 1858
 Stevens Henry 1843
 Stevens Marvin A.  1925
 Stevens, Jr. Joseph B. 1938
 Stevenson Charles 1979
 Stevenson Charles P. 1941
 Stevenson  Donald D. 1925
 Stevenson Frederic Augustus 1888
 Stewart Charles Jacob 1918
 Stewart Donald Ogden  1916
 Stewart James C. 1961
 Stewart James Ross 1931
 Stewart John 1921
 Stewart  Percy Hamilton 1890
 Stewart Peter Hellwege 1928
 Stewart Philip Battel 1886
 Stewart Potter  1937
 Stewart Zeph 1943
 Stewart, Jr. Walter Eugene 1894
 Stiles Joseph 1846
 Stiles  William Augustus 1859
 Stille Charles Janeway 1839
 Stillman George Schley 1935
 Stillman Leland Stanford  1894
 Stillman Peter Gordon Bradley 1940
 Stimson Henry Albert 1865
 Stimson Henry Lewis 1888
 Stokes  Anson Phelps 1896
 Stokes Harold Phelps 1909
 Stokes Horace Sheldon 1889
 Stokes, Jr. Anson Phelps  1927
 Stone Charles Martin 1878
 Stone Harold 1902
 Stone Louis T. 1937
 Stone  William 1865
 Storrs Cordial 1850
 Stratton Daniel James 1981
 Street Henry Abbott  1912
 Strikler Samuel Alexander 1848
 Strong Caleb 1835
 Strong Charles Hall 1870
 Strong  George Arthur 1871
 Strong Henry Barnard 1922
 Strout, Jr. Edwin Augustus 1912
 Struzzi Thomas Allen 1975
 Stubbs Alfred 1835
 Stucky William McDowell 1940
 Sturges Hezekiah 1841
 Sturges  Thomas Benedict 1835
 Sullivan Charles S. 1978
 Sullivan Corlis Esmonde 1900
 Sulzer James S. 1973
 Sumner Graham 1897
 Sumner William Graham 1863
 Sumner William S. 1945
 Sutherland  Richard Orlin 1931
 Sutphin Stuart Bruen 1903
 Swan Joseph Rockwell 1902
 Sweet Carroll Fuller 1899
 Sweet Edwin Forrest 1871
 Swenson, Jr. Edward Francis 1940
 Swift John Morton 1836
 Swift Walker Ely 1915
 Swil Roy Anthony 1967
 Swinburne Louis Judson 1879
 Swoope Walter Moore 1931
 Tabor John Kaye 1943
 Taft Alphonso 1833
 Taft Charles Phelps 1918
 Taft Henry Waters 1880
 Taft Horace Dutton 1883
 Taft Hulbert 1900
 Taft Peter Rawson 1867
 Taft Robert Alphonso 1910
 Taft Thomas Prindle 1971
 Taft William Howard 1878
 Talcott Thomas Grosvenor 1838
 Tarbell Frank Bigelow 1873
 Taylor Alan McLean 1902
 Taylor Alfred Judd 1859
 Taylor John Phelps 1862
 Taylor Richard 1845
 Teig Joseph Benjamin 1980
 Tener Alexander Campbell 1912
 Tener Kinley John 1916
 Terry H.P. Baldwin 1935
 Terry Wyllys 1885
  Terry III Wyllys 1962
 Thacher James Kingsley 1868
 Thacher John Seymour 1877
 Thacher Sherman Day 1883
 Thacher Thomas 1904
 Thacher Thomas 1871
 Thacher Thomas Anthony 1835
 Thacher Thomas Day 1904
 Thacher William Larned 1887
 Thomas Charles Henry 1873
 Thomas John Allen Miner 1922
 Thomas Walton D. 1941
 Thompson Donald 1903
 Thompson John R. 1938
 Thompson Jonathan Penfield 1970
 Thompson Norman Frederick 1881
 Thompson Oliver David 1879
 Thompson Rev. Joseph Parrish 1838
 Thompson, Jr. Stepehn Eberly 1967
 Thompson, Jr. William McIlwaine 1969
 Thomson Clifton Samuel 1924
 Thomson Samuel Clifton 1891
 Thorne Brinkley Stimpson 1968
 Thorne Charles Hedges McKinstry 1974
 Thorne David Hoadley 1966
 Thorne Peter Brinckerhoff 1940
 Thorne Samuel Brinckeroff 1896
 Thorson Peter Andreas 1959
  Thorton Edmund Braxton 1954
 Thorton James Carlton 1908
 Throwbridge Mason 1902
 Tiffany William Henry 1840
 Tighe Ambrose 1879
 Tighe Laurence Gotzian 1916
 Tighe Richard Lodge 1923
  Tighe, Jr. Laurence Goizian 1941
 Tillinghast Charles 1875
 Tilney Thomas Joseph 1870
 Tilney II Robert Fingland 1905
 Tingey Douglas Stuart 1981
 Tinker Anson Phelps 1868
 Tom III Chan Bruce 1977
  Tomlinson Henry A.
 Tompkins Ray 1884
 Towers Jonathan David 1982
 Townsend George Henry 1908
 Townsend James Mulford 1874
 Townsend William Kneeland 1871
 Townsend, Jr. Frederic dePeyster 1922
 Tracy Evarts 1890
 Train Robert 1936
 Traphagen Peter A. 1956
 Trask Charles Hooper 1846
 Treadway Ralph Bishop 1896
 Trotter Silas Flournoy 1839
 Trower C. Christopher 1970
 Troy Alexander 1981
 Trudeau, Jr. Edward Livingston 1896
 Trudeau Garry 1970
 Truesdale Calvin 1907
 Tucker Luther B.D. 1931
 Tucker, Jr. Carl 1947
 Tufts Bowen Charlton 1935
 Tumpane Timothy Michael 1980
 Turner Elvin D. 1978
 Turner Harold McLeod 1937
 Turner Harold McLeod 1905
 Turner Spencer 1906
 Tuttle George Coolidge 1907
 Tuttle George Montgomery 1877
 Tweedy Henry Hallam 1891
 Tweedy John Hubbard 1834
 Tweedy Samuel 1868
 Twichell Charles Pratt 1945W
 Twining Alexander C.
 Twombly Alexander Stevenson 1854
 Twombly Edward Bancroft 1912
 Twombly Henry Bancroft  1884
 Tyler Charles Mellen 1855
 Tyler Cheever 1959
 Tyler George Palmer 1836
 Tyler  Moses C. 1857
 Tytus Edward Jefferson 1868
 Urquijo Conzalo 1984
 Van deGraaff Adrian Sebastian  1881
 Van Dine Vance 1949
 Van Loan Eugene 1964
 Van Name Addison 1858
 Van Reypen, Jr.  William Knickerbocker 1905
 Van Sinderen Henry Brinsmade 1911
 Van Slyck DeForest 1920
 VanAntwerp, Jr. William Meadon  1958E
 Vanderbilt Alfred Gwynne 1899
 Vargish Thomas 1966
 Varnum Joseph Bradley 1838
 Vernon  Frederick Richardson 1881
 Vincent Francis T. 1931
 Vogt Tom D. 1943
 von Holt Herman Vademar  1916
 Vorys John Martin 1918
 Vorys Martin W. 1952
 Vose Elliot Evans 1945W
 Vose  James Gardiner 1851
 Wack Damon deBlois 1929
 Waddell Geoffrey Hamilton 1961
 Wade Levi Clifford  1866
 Wadsworth, Jr. James Wolcott 1898
 Wagner Victor Edmond 1983
 Waite Morrison R. 1888
 Waite  Morrison Remick 1837
 Walcott Frederic Collin 1891
 Walcott William Stuart 1894
 Wald Stephen George  1975
 Walden Howard Talbott 1881
 Walden Robert S. 1972
 Walden Russell 1874
 Wales  Leonard Eugene 1845
 Walker Charles Rumford 1916
 Walker George Nesmith 1919
 Walker Horace Flecher  1889
 Walker Jeffrey Pond 1944
 Walker John Mercer 1931
 Walker John S. 1942
 Walker  Joseph Burbeen 1844
 Walker Louis 1936
 Walker Ray Carter 1955
 Walker Samuel Johnson  1888
 Walker Stoughton 1928
 Walker III George Herbert 1953
 Walker, Jr. George Hebert 1927
 Walker, Jr.  Samuel Sloan 1948
 Walker Francis Amasa
 Wallace Alexander Hamilton 1893
 Wallace Henry Mitchell 1903
 Walsh  Hugh 1835
 Walsh, Jr. John Joseph 1961
 Ward John Abbott 1862
 Wardwell Allan  1904
 Wardwell Edward Rogers 1927
 Waring Antonio Johnston 1903
 Warren George U. 1945W
 Warren  Henry Waterman 1865
 Warren John Davock 1927
 Warren, Jr. William Candee 1914
 Washburn William Barrett  1844
 Washington George 1839
 Washington William Henry 1834
 Waters William Otis 1913
 Watkins  Charles Law 1908
 Watson John Marsh 1839
 Watson William Berkley 1940
 Watson III Charles  1927
 Wayland Francis
 Weaver Howard Sayer 1948
 Weber John William 1953
 Wedsworth James Jeremiah  1854
 Weed George Haines 1938
 Weeks Robert Kelley 1862
 Weinstein Adam 1984
 Weir  John Ferguson
 Welch George Arnold 1901
 Welch William Henry 1870
 Welles, Jr. Charles Hopkins 1899
  Wells Harold Sherman 1907
 Wells Henry Dorrance 1851
 Wells Herbert Wetmore 1889
 Wells John Lewis 1882
 Wells Nathan Dana 1857
 Wells II George 1929
 Wesson Charles Holland 1863
  Westerfield Richard H. 1979
 Wetherell John Walcott 1844
 Wetmore George Peabody 1867
 Weyerhaeuser Frederick Edward 1896
 Wheeler Alfred Newton 1923
 Wheeler Lawrence Raymond 1911
 Wheeler Thomas Beardsley 1958
  Wheeler William 1855
 Wheelwright Joseph Stober 1897
 White Andrew Dickerson 1853
 White Charles Atwood 1854
 White George 1848
 White George Edward 1866
 White Henry Charles 1881
  White Henry Dyer 1851
 White John Richards 1903
 White Oliver Sherman 1864
 White Percy Gardiner 1902
 White Roger Sherman 1859
 White Warren Benton 1941
 White William Gardiner 1942
 White Henry
 Whitehead Mather Kimball 1936
 Whitehouse Charles Sheldon 1947
 Whitehouse Edwin Sheldon 1905
  Whitehouse William Fitzhugh 1899
 Whitman Jr. Francis Slingluff 1938
 Whitmore, Jr. James Allen 1944
 Whitney Edward Baldwin 1878
 Whitney Edward Payson 1854
 Whitney Emerson Cogswell 1851
 Whitney Harry Payne 1894
  Whitney James Lyman 1856
 Whitney Joseph Ernest 1882
 Whitney Payne 1898
 Whitney William Collins 1863
 Whitney William Dwight
 Whiton James Morris 1853
 Wickes Forsyth 1898
 Wickes  Thomas P. 1874
 Wickwire Winthrop Ross 1949E
 Wiggin Frederick H. 1904
 Wilbur John Smith 1933
 Wilbur Richard Emery 1938
 Wilbur, Jr. John Smith 1964
 Wilcox Giles Buckingham 1848
 Wilcoz  Asher Henry 1859
 Wilder Amos Parker 1884
 Wilhelmi Frederick William 1939
 Wilhelmi Frederick William 1903
 Wilkie, Jr. Valleau 1948
 Willard Andrew Jackson 1853
 Willard Charles Hastings 1926
 Williams  Burch 1939
 Williams Darryl L. 1976
 Williams Henry 1837
 Williams James Willard 1908
 Williams Norman Alton 1897
 Williams Ralph Omsted 1861
 Williams Samuel Goode 1932
 Williams Thomas Scott 1838
 Williams William Bruce 1957
 Williams William Perkins 1839
 Williams S. Wells
 Willis  Richard Stobbs 1841
 Wilson A. 1844
 Wilson Daniel Richard 1979
 Wilson Hugh Robert  1906
 Wilson John 1847
 Wilson Zebuon Vance 1972
 Winston Dudley 1886
 Winston  Frederick Seymour 1877
 Winter Daniel R. 1920
 Winter II Edwin Wheeler 1921
 Wiseman II Stephen  1984
 Witter, Jr. Dean 1944
 Wittherbee Frank Spencer 1874
 Wittherbee W.C. 1880
 Wodelll  R.A. 1910
 Wolcott Elizer 1839
 Wolfe II Stephen 1964
 Wood George Ingersoll  1833
 Wood John Seymour 1874
 Wood William C. 1868
 Woodford Oswald Langdon 1850
 Woodlock  Douglas Preston 1969
 Woodruff Francis Eben 1864
 Woodruff George Washington 1889
 Woodruff Timothy Lester 1879
 Woodsum, Jr. Harold Edward 1953
 Woodward John Butler 1883
 Woodward Richard William 1867
 Woodward  Stanley 1922
 Woodward Stanley 1855
 Woodward William Herrick 1858
 Woolfolk William Grey 1841
 Woolley John Eliot 1918
 Woolley Knight 1917
 Woolsey Heathcote Morison 1907
 Woolsey  Theodore Salisbury 1872
 Woolsey Theodore White
 Worcester Edwin Dean 1876
 Worcester Franklin Eldred 1882
 Worcester  Wilfred James 1885
 Word Charles Francis 1891
 Wray James McAlpin 1836
 Wright Alfred Parks  1901
 Wright Henry Burt 1898
 Wright Henry Park 1868
 Wright II William Henry 1982
 Yang  James Ting-Yeh 1982
 Yardley Henry Albert 1855
 Yarnall Thomas C. 1841
 Yent, Jr. James B.  1979
 Yerkes Stephen 1837
 Young Benham Daniel 1848
 Zallinger Peter Franz 1965
 Ziegler  Stan Warren 1972
 Zigerelli Lawrence John 1980
 Zorthian Barry 1941
 Zorthian Gregory Jannig  1975
 Zucker Bernard Benjamin 1962
Bushes at Yale Year Notes 
 Reverend James Bush 1844 Paternal grandfather of Prescott 
 Robert E. Sheldon, Jr. 1904 Prescott’s maternal uncle 
 Prescott Bush 1917 Father of GHW Bush, grandfather of GW Bush 
 James Smith Bush 1922 Prescott’s brother 
 Prescott S. Bush, Jr. 1944 Did not graduate. Left after his junior year 
 George H.W. Bush 1948 41st President of the U.S.--- Son of Prescott 
 Jonathan James Bush 1953 GHW Bush’s brother 
 William Henry Trotter Bush 1960 GHW Bush’s brother 
 George W. Bush 1968 GHW Bush’s son 
 Prescott Bush III 1970 Prescott Jr’s son 
 William P. Bush 1986 William H.T. Bush’s son 
 Barbara Bush 2004 GW Bush’s daughter 
George W. Bush's Skull and Bones Class 
 1968 --- The First Class to Include Blacks, Muslims and Jews 
 Roy Leslie Austin
 
Robert Richards Birge
 
Christopher Walworth Brown
 
George Walker Bush
 
Kenneth Saul Cohen
 
Rex W.F. Cowdry
 
Donald Etra
 
G. Gregory Gallico III
 
Robert Karl Guthrie
 
Britton Ward Kolar
 
Robert Davis McCallum Jr.
 
Muhammad Ahmed Saleh
 
Thomas Carlton Schmidt
 
Donald Arthur Schollander 
 
Brinkley Stimpson Thorne

Very incomplete list!

• William Frank Buckley, Jr. (b. 1925) — also known as William F. Buckley, Jr. — of Manhattan, New York County, N.Y. Born in New York, New York County, N.Y., November 24, 1925. Brother of James Lane Buckley; married 1950 to Patricia Taylor. Conservative. Served in the U.S. Army during World War II; candidate for mayor of New York City, N.Y., 1965. Catholic. Irish and Swiss ancestry. Member, Skull and Bones. Leader of the conservative movement; founder and editor of National Review magazine; author and lecturer; host of television news show "Firing Line"; recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom on November 18, 1991. Still living as of 2004.

• See also: Internet Movie Database profile.
• Books by William F. Buckley, Jr.: Getting It Right (2003); God and Man at Yale : The Superstitions of 'Academic Freedom' (1951); Spytime : The Undoing of James Jesus Angleton (2000); Nearer, My God : An Autobiography of Faith (1997); The Lexicon : A Cornucopia of Wonderful Words for the Inquisitive Word Lover (1998); Airborne : A Sentimental Journey (1984); In Search of Anti-Semitism (1992); Brothers No More (1995); Up From Liberalism (1959); The Committee and its critics : a calm review of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (1962); Elvis in the Morning (2001); Execution eve, and other contemporary ballads (1975); Four reforms : a guide for the seventies (1973); Gratitude : reflections on what we owe to our country (1990); Nuremberg : the reckoning (2002); Overdrive : a personal documentary (1983); United Nations Journal : A Delegate's Odyssey (1974); The unmaking of a mayor (1966); Ronald Reagan: An American Hero (2001)
• Fiction by William F. Buckley, Jr.: Stained Glass : A Blackford Oakes Novel (1978); Marco Polo, If You Can : A Blackford Oakes Mystery (1981); Saving the Queen : A Blackford Oakes Mystery (1976); See You Later, Alligator : A Blackford Oakes Mystery (1985); Tucker's Last Stand : A Blackford Oakes Mystery (1991); Mongoose, R.I.P. : A Blackford Oakes Mystery (1990); A Very Private Plot : A Blackford Oakes Mystery (1994); High Jinx : A Blackford Oakes Mystery (1986); Who's on First : A Blackford Oakes Mystery (1980); The Redhunter : a novel based on the life of Senator Joe McCarthy (1999)
• Books about William F. Buckley, Jr.: John B. Judis, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives

• George Herbert Walker Bush (b. 1924) — also known as George Bush; "Poppy"; "Sheepskin"; "Timberwolf" — of Midland, Midland County, Tex.; Houston, Harris County, Tex. Born in Milton, Norfolk County, Mass., June 12, 1924. First cousin thrice removed of David Davis; son of Prescott Sheldon Bush and Dorothy (Walker) Bush (1901-1992); married, January 6, 1945, to Barbara Pierce; father of George Walker Bush and John Ellis Bush. Republican. Served in the U.S. Navy during World War II; delegate to Republican National Convention from Texas, 1964; candidate for U.S. Senator from Texas, 1964, 1970; U.S. Representative from Texas 7th District, 1967-71; U.S. Representative to United Nations, 1971-73; Chairman of Republican National Committee, 1973-74; U.S. Liaison to China, 1974-75; director, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 1976-77; candidate for Republican nomination for President, 1980; Vice President of the United States, 1981-89; President of the United States, 1989-93; defeated, 1992. Episcopalian. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; American Legion; Society of the Cincinnati; Skull and Bones; Delta Kappa Epsilon; Phi Beta Kappa. Still living as of 2003.

• Cross-reference: Caspar W. Weinberger; John H. Sununu
• See also: congressional biography; Internet Movie Database profile.
• Books by George H. W. Bush: All The Best, George Bush: My Life and Other Writings (1999); Looking Forward (1987, out of print); A World Transformed (1998)
• Books about George H. W. Bush: John Robert Greene, The Presidency of George Bush; Tim O'Shei & Joe Marren, George H. W. Bush (for young readers)
• Critical books about George H. W. Bush: Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush; Kitty Kelly, The Family : The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty

• George Walker Bush (b. 1946) — also known as George W. Bush; "Dubya"; "Shrub"; "The Smirking Chimp" — of Midland, Midland County, Tex.; Crawford, McLennan County, Tex. Born in New Haven, New Haven County, Conn., July 6, 1946. Grandson of Prescott Sheldon Bush; son of Barbara (Pierce) Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush; married, November 5, 1977, to Laura Welch; brother of John Ellis Bush. Republican. Delegate to Republican National Convention from Texas, 1988; Governor of Texas, 1995-2000; President of the United States, 2001-. Methodist. Member, Skull and Bones; Delta Kappa Epsilon. Still living as of 2004.

• See also: Internet Movie Database profile.
• Books by George W. Bush: A Charge to Keep (1999)
• Books about George W. Bush: J. H. Hatfield et al, Fortunate Son : George W. Bush and the Making of An American President; Roger Simon, Divided We Stand : How Al Gore Beat George Bush and Lost the Presidency; Frank Bruni, Ambling into History : The Unlikely Odyssey of George W. Bush; Bryan Laberge, George W. Bush : In the Whirlwind; Lou Dubose et al, Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush; Bill Sammon, Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters; David Aikman, A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush; Bob Woodward, Bush at War; Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack; Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties; Bill Sammon, Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters; Sandra J. Kachurek, George W. Bush (for young readers); Tim O'Shei & Joe Marren, George W. Bush (for young readers)
• Critical books about George W. Bush: Molly Ivins, Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush; David Corn, The Lies of George W. Bush : Mastering the Politics of Deception; Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush; John Dean, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush; Kitty Kelly, The Family : The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty; John W. Dean, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush; Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill; Robert C. Byrd, Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency; Jack Huberman, The Bush - Haters Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years

• William Averell Harriman (1891-1986) — also known as W. Averell Harriman — of Manhattan, New York County, N.Y. Born November 15, 1891. Married to Pamela Beryl Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman. Democrat. U.S. Ambassador to Soviet Union, 1943-46; Great Britain, 1946; , 1961, 1965-69; U.S. Secretary of Commerce, 1946-48; candidate for Democratic nomination for President, 1952, 1956; delegate to Democratic National Convention from New York, 1952, 1956, 1960; Governor of New York, 1955-59. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Knights of Pythias; Skull and Bones. Received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969. Died July 26, 1986. Interment at Arden Farm Graveyard, Arden, N.Y.

• Books about Averell Harriman: Walter Isaacson, The Wise Men : Six Friends and the World They Made

• John Forbes Kerry (b. 1943) — also known as John F. Kerry; "Liveshot" — of Boston, Suffolk County, Mass. Born in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, Aurora, Adams County, Colo., December 11, 1943. Married the widow of Henry John Heinz III; married, May 23, 1970, to Julia Stimson Thorne (divorced 1988) and Teresa Heinz. Democrat. Served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War; lawyer; Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, 1983-85; U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, 1985-; delegate to Democratic National Convention from Massachusetts, 2000, 2004. Catholic. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Skull and Bones. Still living as of 2004.

• See also: congressional biography; Internet Movie Database profile.
• Books by John Kerry: A Call to Service : My Vision for a Better America (2003); The New War: The Web of Crime That Threatens America's Security (1997); Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World, with John Edwards (2004)
• Books about John Kerry: Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty : John Kerry and the Vietnam War; Michael Kranish et al, John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best; Paul Alexander, The Candidate: Behind John Kerry's Remarkable Run for the White House; George Butler, John Kerry: A Portrait
• Critical books about John F. Kerry: John E. O'Neill & Jerome R. Corsi, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry; David N. Bossie, The Many Faces of John Kerry

• Potter Stewart (1915-1985) — Born in Jackson, Jackson County, Mich., January 23, 1915. Served in the U.S. Army during World War II; Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, 1954-58; Justice of U.S. Supreme Court, 1958-81. Episcopalian. Member, Freemasons; Skull and Bones. Died in Hanover, Grafton County, N.H., December 7, 1985. Interment at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va.
• Henry Lewis Stimson (1867-1950) — also known as Henry L. Stimson — of New York, New York County, N.Y.; Huntington, Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y. Born in New York, New York County, N.Y., September 21, 1867. Republican. Candidate for Governor of New York, 1910; U.S. Secretary of War, 1911-13, 1940-45; delegate to New York state constitutional convention at-large, 1915; delegate to Republican National Convention from New York, 1916, 1932; colonel in the U.S. Army during World War I; U.S. Secretary of State, 1929-33. Presbyterian. Member, Skull and Bones. Died in Huntington, Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y., October 20, 1950. Interment at Memorial Cemetery, near Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N.Y.

• See also: Internet Movie Database profile.
• Books about Henry L. Stimson: Godfrey Hodgson, The Colonel : The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson, 1867-1950; David F. Schmitz, Henry L. Stimson : The First Wise Man

• Charles Phelps Taft II (1897-1983) — also known as Charles P. Taft — of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. Born in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio, September 20, 1897. Great-grandson of Peter Rawson Taft; grandson of Alphonso Taft; nephew of Charles Phelps Taft and Henry Waters Taft; son of William Howard Taft and Helen (Herron) Taft; first cousin of Walbridge S. Taft; brother of Robert Alphonso Taft; married, October 6, 1917, to Eleanor K. Chase; uncle of William Howard Taft III and Robert Taft, Jr.; father of Seth Chase Taft; granduncle of Robert A. Taft II. Republican. Served in the U.S. Army during World War I; lawyer; Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, 1927-28; member, Cincinnati City Council, 1938-42; Republican candidate for Governor of Ohio, 1952, 1958 (primary); mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio, 1955-57. Episcopalian. Member, American Bar Association; American Legion; Skull and Bones; Beta Theta Pi; Phi Beta Kappa; Phi Delta Phi. Died in 1983. Burial location unknown.
• Henry Waters Taft (1859-1945) — also known as Henry W. Taft — of Manhattan, New York County, N.Y. Born in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio, May 27, 1859. Grandson of Peter Rawson Taft; son of Alphonso Taft; half-brother of Charles Phelps Taft; brother of William Howard Taft; father of Walbridge S. Taft; uncle of Robert Alphonso Taft and Charles Phelps Taft II; granduncle of William Howard Taft III, Robert Taft, Jr. and Seth Chase Taft; great-granduncle of Robert A. Taft II. Republican. Lawyer; candidate for Justice of New York Supreme Court, 1898; delegate to Republican National Convention from New York, 1920, 1924. Member, American Bar Association; Skull and Bones; Psi Upsilon. Died in 1945. Burial location unknown.
• William Howard Taft (1857-1930) — also known as William H. Taft; "Big Bill" — of Ohio. Born in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio, September 15, 1857. Grandson of Peter Rawson Taft; grandson-in-law of Ela Collins; son of Alphonso Taft; nephew by marriage of William Collins; married to the sister-in-law of Henry Lippitt; half-brother of Charles Phelps Taft; married, June 19, 1886, to Helen Herron; brother of Henry Waters Taft; uncle of Walbridge S. Taft; father of Robert Alphonso Taft and Charles Phelps Taft II; grandfather of William Howard Taft III, Robert Taft, Jr. and Seth Chase Taft; great-grandfather of Robert A. Taft II. Republican. Superior court judge in Ohio, 1887-90; Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals, 1892-1900; Governor of the Philippine Islands, 1900-04; U.S. Secretary of War, 1904-08; President of the United States, 1909-13; defeated, 1912; Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court, 1921-30. Unitarian. English ancestry. Member, Freemasons; Skull and Bones; Phi Alpha Delta; Psi Upsilon. Died in Washington, D.C., March 8, 1930. Interment at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va.

• Cross-reference: Walter P. Johnson; Fred Warner Carpenter
• Books about William Howard Taft: Paolo Enrico Coletta, The Presidency of William Howard Taft; James Chace, 1912 : Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft and Debs : The Election that Changed the Country; Alpheus Thomas Mason, William Howard Taft
• Critical books about William Howard Taft: Nathan Miller, Star-Spangled Men : America's Ten Worst Presidents

• Nelson Strobridge Talbott III (b. 1946) — also known as Strobe Talbott — of Ohio. Born in 1946. U.S. Ambassador to , 1993-94. Member, Skull and Bones. Still living as of 1994.

Skull and Bones Society

ORGANIZATION

Founded in 1832 at Yale. Originally called the Eulogian Club. The society owns Deer Island in the St. Lawrence River.

Name	Occupation	Birth	Death	Known for
Victor Ashe	Diplomat	1-Jan-1945		US Ambassador to Poland
Roy L. Austin	Diplomat	13-Dec-1939		US Ambassador to Trinidad
David L. Boren	Politician	21-Apr-1941		Governor and Senator from Oklahoma
James L. Buckley	Politician	9-Mar-1923		US Senator from New York 1971-77
William F. Buckley	Columnist	24-Nov-1925		National Review
William Bundy	Government	24-Sep-1917	6-Oct-2000	Cold War advisor to JFK, LBJ
George H.W. Bush	Head of State	12-Jun-1924		41st US President, 1989-93
George W. Bush	Head of State	6-Jul-1946		43rd US President
Jonathan J. Bush	Relative	1931		Brother of George H.W. Bush
Prescott Bush	Politician	15-May-1895	8-Oct-1972	US Senator from Connecticut, 1952-63
Henry Sloane Coffin	Religion	5-Jan-1877	25-Nov-1954	Meaning of the Cross
William Sloane Coffin	Activist	1-Jun-1924	12-Apr-2006	Civilly disobedient chaplain
Bill Donaldson	Government	2-Jun-1931		SEC Chairman, 2003-05
Irving Fisher	Economist	27-Feb-1867	29-Apr-1947	The Theory of Interest
W. Averell Harriman	Diplomat	15-Nov-1891	26-Jul-1986	Ambassador to USSR, Governor of NY
John Heinz	Politician	23-Oct-1938	4-Apr-1991	US Senator from Pennsylvania, 1977-91
Robert Kagan	Government	1958		Influential neocon, cofounded PNAC
John Kerry	Politician	11-Dec-1943		US Senator from Massachusetts
Winston Lord	Diplomat	17-Aug-1937		US Ambassador to China, 1985-89
Henry R. Luce	Business	3-Apr-1898	28-Feb-1967	Founded Time Magazine
Archibald Macleish	Poet	7-May-1892	20-Apr-1982	Conquistador
F. O. Matthiessen	Critic	19-Feb-1902	1-Apr-1950	American Renaissance
Robert D. McCallum, Jr.	Diplomat	1946		US Ambassador to Australia
Dana Milbank	Journalist	27-Apr-1968		Washington Post White House reporter
Donald Grant Mitchell	Author	12-Apr-1822	15-Dec-1908	Reveries of a Bachelor
John Negroponte	Government	21-Jul-1939		US Director of National Intelligence, 2005-07
Stephen A. Schwarzman	Business	14-Feb-1947		Co-Founder, Blackstone Group
Frederick W. Smith	Business	11-Aug-1944		Founder and CEO of Federal Express
Potter Stewart	Judge	23-Jan-1915	7-Dec-1985	US Supreme Court Justice
Henry L. Stimson	Government	21-Sep-1867	20-Oct-1950	US Secretary of War 1911-13, 1940-45
Alphonso Taft	Government	5-Nov-1810	21-May-1891	Attorney General under Grant
William Howard Taft	Head of State	15-Sep-1857	8-Mar-1930	27th US President, 1909-13
Strobe Talbott	Diplomat	1946		Time journalist, US diplomat
Morrison Waite	Judge	29-Nov-1816	23-Mar-1888	US Supreme Court Chief Justice, 1874-88
George Herbert Walker III	Diplomat	c. 1931		US Ambassador to Hungary
James Whitmore	Actor	1-Oct-1921		Tora! Tora! Tora!
William C. Whitney	Business	5-Jul-1841	2-Feb-1904	US Secretary of the Navy 1885-89

Dossier BRussells Tribunal

THE BRUSSELLS TRIBUNAL

Questioning the New Imperial World Order

A Hearing on the

“Project for the New American Century”

14-17 April 2004

Brussel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Platform text                                                                                          p. 4

II. Charter                                                                                                  p. 12

III. Procedure and mandate of the Commission                                         p. 14

IV. Dossier                                                                                                   p. 16

A. Officials documents

1. Statements of Principles (June 1997)                                                                     p. 16

2. Rebuilding America’s Defense (September 2000)                                                       p. 17

3. National Security Strategy of the United States of America (September 2002)    p. 17

B. Testimonies

Opening night :

1. Jacques Derrida : For a justice to come (a philosophical prologue)              p. 18

2. Ramsey Clarke : Open letter to Kofi Annan (testimony on video)                           p. 25

Day 1 :

3. Tom Barry (‘amicus curiae’) : Pax Americana : What’s the Alternative ?  p. 30

4. Felicity Arbuthnot : Introduction by the Prosecution (no text available yet)                     

5. Geoffrey Geuens : “All power fused” : Economic ties of the PNAC with the        p. 42

petrochemical industry and the military industrial complex

6. John Saxe Fernandez : The neoconservative ideology and                         p. 52

the Bush administration

7. Sara Flounders : “The power complex”: The ties of PNAC

members with the oil industry                                                                               p. 61

8. Saul Landau : “Pre-emptive Empire”: How the United States became

an Empire instead of a Republic                                                                           p. 66

9. Armand Clesse : How Europe reacts to the Neocon Imperial War Policy p. 72

Day I1 :

10. Immanuel Wallerstein : “Benevolent hegemony ?” : The neoconservative

policy as a break  with longstanding standards of US foreign policy                  p. 76

11. Michael Parenti : "The Rulers of the world": Geopolitical strategies

behind the New Imperial War Policy   (text not available yet) p. 81

12. Michel Collon : The Global War has begun:

       The neocon blueprint of wars to come                                                                  p. 81

13. Hans Von Sponeck : “Pre-emptive strike” : the war against Iraq,

the UN, and international law                                                                              p. 92

14. Haifa Zangana : Why Iraqi women aren't complaining                                           p. 97

15. Abdul Ilal Al Bayaty : Divide et Impera : The War In Iraq in the light

of US Middle East Policy (text not available yet)                                                     p. 99

16. Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar : One year later : An Iraqi speaks from Baghdad p. 99

17. Karen Parker : Concluding speech of the Prosecution (text not available yet)                p. 103

18. Jim Lobe : Concluding speech of the Defense (text not available yet)                  p. 103

C. Written Testimonies

1. Neil McKay : Bush planned Iraq "regime change" before becoming President   p. 104

2. Tom Barry : The Right’s Architecture of Power                                                     p. 106

3. Amy Bartholomew : Human Rights as Swords of Empire ?                                    p. 112

4. Scott Ritter : Not everyone got it wrong on Iraq’s Weapons                                  p. 121

5. Glen Rangwala : The War in three short texts                                                        p. 124

6. Jacques Pauwels : Why America needs War                                                p. 136

7. William Clark : Petrodollar Warfare : Macroeconomics and

       Geostrategy behind the Iraq War                                                                          p. 144

8. Jeffrey Blankfort : A War for Israël ?                                                            p. 154

9. Ed Blanche : Neocons at work: Israel gets its 1st slice of Iraqi pie                        p. 163

10. Michel Chossudovsky : America’s War for Global Domination                             p. 165

11. Michael C. Ruppert : The Bush – Cheney Drug Empire                                            p. 174

12. Issa G Shivji : Law’s Empire and Empire’s Lawlessness :

       Beyond the Anglo-American Law                                                                          p. 184

13. Lieven De Cauter : Giorgio Agamben on the State of Exception                          p. 189

D. Appendices : post script on a possible future

1. Paul Mc Geough and Barry Yeoman : The Privatisation of War                            p. 194

2. Robert Cooper : A European counterpart to PNAC ?                                              p. 197

3. Progressive internationalism                                                                                 p. 204

Personnal notes

I. Platform Text

Questioning the New Imperial World Order

An international hearing on the ‘Project for the New American Century’

and its war policies put into effect under the Bush administration by the invasion of Iraq

Synopsis

The Brussels Tribunal will be a hearing or a commission of inquiry, composed of academics, intellectuals and artists, in the tradition of the Russell Tribunal, set up in 1967 to investigate war crimes committed during the Vietnam War. The hearing is scheduled for 15-17^th April 2004 at The Beursschouwburg and Les Halles in Brussels. It will be presided over by Professor François Houtart, one of the founding fathers of the World Social Forum in  Porto Allegre. It is directed against the war in Iraq and the Imperial war policies of the Bush II administration. Its main focus will be the ‘Project for the New American Century’, the think tank behind this war and in particular three of the co-signatories of the mission statement: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, as they are the physical link between the discourse and the brutal practice of the New Imperial World Order as designed by PNAC.

History of the initiative

Just before the start of the war in Iraq, a petition was launched. It was signed by some 500 artists, writers, intellectuals and academics, including Julia Kristeva, Richard Plunz, Irving Wolfharth, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, Hans Ulrich Obrist, and François Houtart. It called for moral and, if possible, legal action against the ‘Project for the New American Century’ and the authorities responsible for the war against Iraq. It was published on March 21^st , 2003 in two Belgian newspapers, De Standaard and De Morgen. It was soon apparent that legal action was unlikely to succeed as the United States have consistently acted against any legal authority that would be liable to threaten them and still continue to do so.

Hence the idea to set up a ‘Moral Court’ or ‘Peopless Court’ to condemn the new American policy as well as the think tanks behind it (the latter always remain beyond the grasp of legal action). A broad platform composed of several Belgian cultural organizations was created to carry out the petition’s first proposal: to set up a Brussels Tribunal, after the historic example of the Russell Tribunal. At a networking conference set up by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation at the end of June 2003 in Brussels, it was decided that a series of hearings would be held at different locations all over the world, culminating in a final session in Istanbul. The Brussels Tribunal will be one of these commissions of inquiry. The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation will support the initiative. In a press release after the conference they stated: “A proposal to constitute a Commission of Inquiry culminating in a Tribunal on the war in Iraq was discussed. Working parties would be considering this proposal further in a round of consultations in Turkey, Belgium, the United States and Japan”. Many peace and lawyer organizations around the globe have since joined the network. The initiative is gaining in scale and momentum everyday.

Concise information on PNAC[1]

The acronym PNAC is key to the war in Iraq and to many other wars to come. In the spring of 1997, the neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard founded ‘The Project for the New American Century’ (PNAC). The most distinguished signatories of the mission statement are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush (George W. Bush's brother), Francis Fukuyama, and last but not least Paul Wolfowitz, a former Professor of International Politics and former Dean of the Department of International Politics at Johns Hopkins University. Its current director is Gary Schmitt. It is important to note that many of its members have close ties with both the military and the oil industry. PNAC describes itself as “a non-profit, educational organization whose goal it is to promote American global leadership.”

Its ‘Statement of principles’ is unequivocal: “The history of the 20^th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.” (That is the doctrine of "Pre-emptive Strike" and "Benevolent Hegemony")

PNAC drew up a four-point agenda to achieve its mission:

- “we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;”

- “we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;”

- “we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;”

- “we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles”.

In September 2000, before George W. Bush won the presidential election, PNAC published the crucial report ‘Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century’, in which they clearly stated that to attack Saddam was but an alibi for American supremacy: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” (p. 14). The report argued for a large-scale upgrade of the army and estimated that an annual budgetary increase of 15 to 20 billion dollars would be required to transform the army into something like an 'imperial super-force’, taking the lead in “the revolution in military affairs”. However, PNAC was well aware that this objective would not be easy to achieve: “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” (p. 51). Thomas Donnelly, main author of the report is currently working for Lockheed Martin.

When Bush came to power, with Dick Cheney as Vice-President, Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense, the PNAC theories became a blueprint for the American defense and international policy. This policy was officially accepted in a White House document personally signed by President Bush: ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’ (September 2002). Events in the meantime have confirmed that the theory of ruthless military world dominance is currently being put into practice.

After 9/11, these people had in hand the necessary “catastrophic and catalyzing event” and the political credit to implement their program. They could carry out one of the four core tasks of the transformed American army: “to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” (p. IV). This terrible sentence perhaps requires some explanation. “Major theatre wars” is a military term for extended battlefields, but if you know that you will “decisively win” even before going to war, the effort becomes a ‘theatre war’ in the more general sense of a ‘theatrical war’. The rhetoric should be obvious to the entire planet. In the words of George W. Bush himself: “Who is not with us, is against us”. Therefore, these wars have to be “multiple and simultaneous”. As was the case in the Roman Empire, the Project for the New American Century wants to enforce a planet-wide so-called “Pax Americana”, but its means is "Full spectrum dominance". The PNAC report is a road map to a New Imperial Order, with a high-tech mega-army ruling “an increasingly chaotic world” with shock and awe interventions and slash and burn techniques.

'Accusation'

We believe that the PNAC program, put into practice by the Bush War Cabinet, leads directly to violations of international law, thousands of unnecessary war victims, and the destabilization of the entire planet in a social, political, and humanitarian respect. It is heading for an unheard of militarization of the world. This New American Hegemony is, in fact, a way to serve the glory of the oil industry and military industrial complex (with which many PNAC members and Bush aides are closely linked). This policy threatens world peace in a sustained and severe way. The ‘bill of indictment’ may provisionally be phrased as follows: “The Project for the New American Century and its members, especially PNAC's key figures in the Bush War Cabinet, have been preaching, planning and committing crimes against international law and against humanity.”

Even if PNAC has only been producing discourse and therefore could and will invoke "free speech", we believe that their speech acts are performative: it is an intention for action. Such speech acts are not merely free speech, they are the source of actions. The actions that directly followed the PNAC discourse and its translation into "The national Security Strategy of the United States”, signed by president Bush (September 2002), are inadmissible. The most important ones are listed below:

1) Planning a war without proof of imminent danger to the country involved is considered an ‘act of aggression’ under international law. Waging such a war of aggression is a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

- The doctrine of the “pre-emptive strike” proposed by Paul Wolfowitz in the 1991 Defense Guidelines is incompatible with international law, which restricts the use of force in self-defense to situations where a State has been subjected to an armed attack, i.e. an aggression. This doctrine, officially taken up by President Bush in his speech at West Point Military Academy (January 6, 2002) is a major threat to world peace and a violation of international law.

-     The invasion of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom is a major violation of international law and of the UN Charter.

- Aside from situations of self-defense, the UN Charter determines that States can only resort to armed force with the consent of the UN Security Council.  The Charter has instituted a system of collective security, which is being blatantly disregarded by the current US administration. Moreover, top administration advisers such as Richard Perle consider it irrelevant, and an obstacle to be removed.

-     So far no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found, rendering the entire casus belli a fraud.

2) During the Iraq war international humanitarian law was breached on several occasions, and repeatedly and grossly violated:

-     The use of cluster bombs against civilians can be considered a war crime, as it causes unnecessary injuries, including those which occur long after combat has ceased.

- The use of uranium in ammunition and bombs can be considered a completely unnecessary act and a severe war crime.

-     The hunt for non-embedded journalists can be seen as a war waged against the free press and, therefore, a violation of the right to free speech.

-     International law states clearly that it is the duty of the army at war to identify and bury the soldiers it has killed. The United States and the coalition forces have not complied with this rule.

3) The duties of an occupation force were not (and are still not) respected:

- Not only did the massive bombing wreck the country’s infrastructures, the fact that the looting of hospitals went on for several days proves that the coalition was not interested in putting a stop to it (its forces exclusively secured the oil fields and the oil Ministry). The total lack of protection of all hospitals was a breach of the occupying forces' duty to assist the victims of war. We may consider this severe omission a breach of the laws of war, as international war legislation clearly states that it is the duty of the occupying country to establish order and security in the occupied country.

            -    The permissive policy regarding the looting of all Ministries proves that the coalition is not really interested in investigating the history of this hideous regime, for it tolerated the destruction of a significant part of its archives. This constitutes in a sense an attack on Iraq's collective memory.

- The permissive policy of the US Army and the coalition forces regarding the looting of the National Museum of Baghdad may be considered a crime against the cultural heritage of the country, and even of humanity itself.

-          The reconstruction of Iraq is, and will be a profitable deal for several American companies: Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, Bechtel. The revenues from Iraqi oil will flow directly back to American companies (incidentally, most of them being competitors in the oil business). This runs contrary to the most basic principles of international law, according to which the State(s) responsible of breaches of international laws or regulations may not take advantage of this fact and are required to provide compensation for damages resulting from those breaches.

4) The occupation of Iraq by the US and British military forces is a violation of international law.

The fact that the occupation powers are permanent members of the UN Security Council and will veto any resolution aimed at ending the occupation, does not change the situation of permanent violation of international law and of the UN Charter, ratified by both the US and the UK.

5) The ‘New American Imperial Sovereignty’ is heading for a global 'State of Exception'.

The war in Iraq is not an isolated event, as can be concluded from the content of the PNAC report and the case of Afghanistan, not to mention the threats against Syria and Iran or the concept of ‘punishing’ France for its opposition to this war or Belgium for its anti-genocide law. This ‘unilateral policy’, heading for a hegemony of the entire world as spelled out by the PNAC report (September 2000), then translated into the official ‘Security Report’ of President George W. Bush (September 2002) and put into practice since, will continue to destabilize the planet in a social, economical, political and humanitarian  respect and claim many unnecessary and innocent victims.

The rejection of all international law authorities that would be able to control or convict the citizens of the United States, notably the blatant opposition to the United Nations and the rejection of the International Criminal Court, prove that the United States are withdrawing all respect for the international legal order. It seems necessary for us to study and criticize the ‘philosophical’ (or ideological) foundations of this ‘New Imperial Order’ in the works of Robert Kaplan, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, and others. It is necessary to expose the foundations of the new concept of “full spectrum dominance”[2].

The change American policy has undergone is dramatic and alarming. The transition from multilateralism to unilateralism is not innocent. The “benevolent hegemony”[3] Robert Kagan and William Kristol, founding members of PNAC, were arguing for in 1996, has become ‘malevolent’. The “American exceptionalism” they were advocating is heading towards a ‘State of Exception’. Sovereignty has always been the right to declare the state of exception (according to Carl Schmitt[4]), and it seems that the new American policy is cumulating this policy of exception:

- Many war prisoners of the Afghan and Iraqi wars are being detained in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), a location chosen because it is outside American territory. Consequently the Bush administration claims that the American legislation on the treatment of prisoners does not apply. (The practices in Guantanamo have been criticized by several leading Human Rights organizations.)

- The already mentioned doctrine of “Pre-emptive strike”;

- The abandoning of the Kyoto agreements on climate control;

- The rejection of the International Criminal Court in The Hague;

- The rejection of the  Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;

- The Patriot acts I and II which suspend many basic civil rights;

- The expulsion since 9/11 of thousands of immigrants, who lived in the United States for years;

- The total abandoning of the poor and unemployed (in ghettos like Skid Row in L.A.) -

all this points clearly to the fact that the "American exceptionalism" is heading towards a dangerous 'State of Exception' (also within the United States itself).

Conclusion: Why a Brussels Tribunal?

It took years for the opposition to the Vietnam War to develop into a mass movement. The current situation is different. Even before the start of the Iraq War the American-British invasion was globally rejected and condemned. The sole aim of the Commission of Inquiry in Brussels, and indeed of the entire process up to the final Istanbul Tribunal, cannot actually be to bring the unlawful character of this war under public attention. It has already been largely acknowledged and debated. What then are the real goals? Why set up this tribunal?

Because it is extremely important for the future of the planet to resist the tendency to present the current situation as normal, which is exactly what is happening and what the Bush administration is trying to do.

Because it is important not to accept this “fait accompli” under the heading of “Realpolitik”, as some politicians and journalists in Europe are inclined to do.

Because it is important to make this point explicitly, even if it is already well-known, and to state “this is a crime” and “this is a violation of international law.”

Because it is important to keep up the spirit. Most governments, including the Belgian, are inclined to give in and to bow to the American pressure. We, the civil society, the people, need to raise our voice.

Because it is important to defend fundamental human dignity, justice and above all World Peace. The war in Iraq is only a step, a stage in the attempt to impose a “Pax Americana” through multiple and simultaneous wars – for more wars are bound to follow. The stronger the resistance is from the start, the bigger the chances are that we can turn this imperial tide. We are on the brink of disaster. Breaking the will to resist is the cornerstone of the Bush administration's policy. Capitulating to this course will only lead to more capricious, frantic and aggressive interventions. The treaty of Munich that paved the way for the Second World War should be kept in mind as a serious historical precedent. The most ardent interventionists have already mapped out a string of preventive interventions: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya and even China.

The “Pax Americana” is a New World Order designed in the interest of a handful of American corporations. Under the banner of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ the new global economy appears as a source of poverty for many countries in the developing world. It can only result in endless resistance from the have-nots.

The “Pax Americana” can only endure through discord and, hence, war. In order to mobilize the necessary political forces, the Bush administration stirs up all possible minor disagreements and contradictions in the world: the tension between the Western world and Islam, the tension between ‘New Europe’ and ‘Old Europe’, the tension between different developing countries. It also goes to work inside these countries by encouraging leanings such as nationalism, tribalism and fanaticism. The Bush administration follows more plainly than ever the imperial motto: “divide et impera” and intensifies or creates potential conflicts all over the world.

To guard the “Pax America” and impose “full spectrum dominance” the Bush administration is developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. These warheads will have the capability of penetrating the armored protection of underground command centers or weapons sites. The project threatens to blur the line between nuclear and conventional arms. In the hawks' eyes these “usable nuclear arms” will restore the credibility of US nuclear power. As a result of this policy the nuclear threshold will be lowered and the risks of a nuclear nightmare will be heightened, even beyond the most threatening episodes of the Cold War.

In a short statement written for the International Tribunal Initiative of Istanbul John Berger states: “The records have to be kept and, by definition, the perpetrators, far from keeping records, try to destroy them. They are killers of the innocent and of memory. The records are required to inspire still further the mounting opposition to the new global tyranny. The new tyrants, incomparably over-armed, can win every war - both military and economic. Yet they are losing the war (this is how they call it) of communication. They are not winning the support of world public opinion. More and more people are saying NO. Finally this will be the tyranny's undoing. But after how many more tragedies, invasions and collateral disasters? After how much more of the new poverty the tyranny engenders? Hence the urgency of keeping records, of remembering, of assembling the evidence, so that the accusations become unforgettable, and proverbial on every continent. More and more people are going to say NO, for this is the precondition today for saying YES to all we are determined to save and everything we love.” (John Berger, 18.06.2003, Paris - Mieussy)

Therefore, we conclude that there are sufficient and, in fact, urgent reasons to hold a hearing against this New Imperial policy – as a successful outcome of any legal action is highly improbable – and to

investigate both the theory and practice of this policy. That is why we have chosen ‘The Project for the New American Century’ as our focal point. We are convinced that it is the duty of the people of planet Earth to protest against this dangerous, immoral and, in fact, criminal policy: The People vs. Total War Incorporated.

II. Charter of the brussells tribunal

-PREAMBLE-

CONSIDERING that in 1997 a Washington (D.C.) think-tank was founded, the “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC), aimed at promoting “American leadership worldwide”,

MINDFUL that in 2000 and 2001, reports have been adopted in the framework of PNAC, which proclaim that American hegemony should be realised by a tremendous growth in the defense budget; "by fighting and decisvely winning, multiple simultaneous major theater wars"; by deterring all potential competing powers and by permanent military presence all over the planet, particularly in the Gulf;

TAKING NOTE that crucial elements of the doctrine put forward in the framework of PNAC have been officially endorsed by the US administration, especially in the “National Strategy Security” approved by President George W. Bush in September 2002;

PREOCCUPIED by the fact that the National Security Strategy has provided the conceptual framework within which the “preventive war” fought against Iraq in 2003 has been decided and carried out, whereas there was no legal basis for this war in the United Nations Charter or Security Council Resolution 1441;

WORRIED by the disastrous impact of the war against Iraq on the Middle-East Region and in the Arab world, by the instability it has brought to international relations and all the disastrous implications for the entire planet;

ALARMED by the threats that the PNAC and National Security Strategy may hold for the future, and by the fact that other “preventive wars” may be decided and carried out in the near future against so-called “rogue States” or other States perceived to be a threat to US national security; and

WILLING to assess the risks and threats that the abovementioned US policies may hold for the world in the years to come in an extensive and informed manner,

The BRussells Tribunal Committee have resolved as follows :

ARTICLE 1. ESTABLISHMENT AND MISSION OF THE TRIBUNAL

It is hereby decided to establish an international Commission of inquiry, under the name “The Brussells Tribunal” (hereinafter “the Tribunal”), aiming at developing an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the PNAC and of the United States National Security Strategy, as well as assessing the risks and threats that those policies may hold for international peace and security in the future. The hearing is part of the World Tribunal on Iraq , a series of hearings and tribunals with final session in Istanbul .

ARTICLE 2. COMPOSITION OF THE TRIBUNAL

The Tribunal shall be composed of 7 members of high moral reputation. In the selection of Tribunal members, attention will be paid to an adequate representation of various parts of the world.

ARTICLE 3. ORGANIZATION OF THE TRIBUNAL

In the performance of its duties, the Tribunal will be assisted by the following organs :

1. A Registry. The Registry shall be responsible for the administration and servicing of the Tribunal,

2. Prosecutor, and two Assistant-Prosecutors,

3. Counsel for defense.

ARTICLE 4. PROCEDURE

1. The Tribunal shall conduct public hearings in Brussels , Belgium , between the 14th and the 17th of April, 2004.

2. The Tribunal shall hear witnesses who shall provide information on various aspects of PNAC and the National Security Strategy. The testimony of each witness may not exceed 30 minutes.

3. Witnesses shall be examined and cross-examined, in turn, by the Prosecutor and by Counsel for defense. Questions may be put to the witnesses by members of the Commission. The purpose of examination, cross-examination and questioning is to contribute to the analysis, understanding and dissemination of information concerning PNAC and NSS, and to put at the disposal of the Tribunal as comprehensive information as possible on all aspects of these policies and their consequences.

ARTICLE 5. FINAL CONCLUSIONS

After the hearing of all witnesses, the Tribunal shall recede in closed session in order to reach its final conclusions on the issues submitted to it. The Tribunal's conclusions shall be presented orally at the end of the session. The conclusions shall also be presented in writing, and publicized widely, among the media, politicians, intergovernmental organizations, NGO's, etc.

III. Procedure of the hearing

and mandate of the Commission

In order to conform to the idea of a Commission of inquiry rather than to the idea of a tribunal with a real judicial task, it has been decided that the BRussells Tribunal will function in the following manner:

- The mandate of the members of the Commission will consist in establishing a certain number of facts and draw a certain number of conclusions following from these facts ;

- In order to do this, the members of the Tribunal will be able to draw upon, on one hand, the founding documents of the Project for the New American Century (hereafter PNAC) and the National Security Strategy that have been supplied to them by the organizers, and on the other hand, upon the different testimonies, written and oral, that will be presented to them in the course of the sessions of the hearing being held on April 15^th and 16^th 2004;

- In order to enable the members of the Commission to have access to all information, that should be as complete and detailed as possible, the witnesses will be questioned after their testimonies by specialists charged to underscore the positive aspects (representatives of the "defense") and the negative aspects (representatives of the "prosecution") of the policies or the issues under scrutiny; if after this first round of interrogation the members of the tribunal wish to obtain supplementary information, they themselves can address questions to the witnesses; the entire period for questionning  will however not exceed the time given to the witness for the presentation of their main testimony (being 30 minutes);

- On the basis of the collected information they will have at their disposal at the end of the hearing, the members of the Commission will have to prepare a written report, in which their findings and conclusions will be expressed; the report will be presented publicly at the end of the hearing on Saturday April 17^th 2004 (at 5 pm to the press, at 10.30 pm to the general public during the closing event); the report will thereafter be published together with the documents presenting the PNAC and the testimonies of the different participants (and if possible with a summary of the witness cross-examinations);

-this report, will have at least to pronounce its  opinion on the following questions:

-can one conclude that the proposals of the PNAC have been endorsed, in an official or unofficial manner, by the contemporary american  [American] administration; and by doing this, has the Bush administration made it into a founding element of its foreign policy?

-can one see in a certain number of actions carried out by the United States in the course of recent years and in particular in the war waged against Iraq from March 2003 onwards, the concrete implementation of the principals and proposals laid out in the founding documents of the PNAC?

-do the principals and proposals exposed in the founding documents of the PNAC, appear, in the light of the recent developments, to reinforce stability and security in international relations or [on the contrary] are they to be considered on the contrary as containing risks for international stability and security?

-who are the persons and special interest groups behind the PNAC? Do the documents and the testimonies submitted to the members of the Commission confirm the presentation by the PNAC itself of its aim and structure, notably that of an "educational non-profit organization"?

The BRussells Tribunal is however not entitled to address strict judicial questions raised by - or in the frame of - the war in Iraq. This goes particularly for the question of the legality of this war in the light of international law, and more specifically of the charter of the United Nations, and also for the conformity to international humanitarian law of the diverse military actions in Iraq carried out by the States that engaged in the military intervention. These judicial questions will indeed be treated in a specific manner by other hearings held in different regions of the world, in the frame of "the World Tribunal on Iraq" which the BRussells Tribunal is part and parcel of. In that respect, the role of the defense will not consist of developing a judicial argument on these questions but rather to attempt to justify the logic that underpins the discourse of the PNAC, and its concrete consequences, notably actions like the one carried out against Iraq.

IV. DOSSIER

A. OFFICIALS DOCUMENTS

1. THE PNAC’S STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today.

Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams    Gary Bauer    William J. Bennett    Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney    Eliot A. Cohen    Midge Decter    Paula Dobriansky    Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg    Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney    Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad    I. Lewis Libby    Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle    Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld    Vin Weber    George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz

2. REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES (September 2000)

This text is available on the PNAC’s website : www.newamericancentury.org

3. NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (September 2002)

This text is available on the White House’s website :  www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

B. TESTIMONIES

Opening Night

1. JACQUES DERRIDA

For A Justice To Come

(February, 19^th 2004)

Lieven De Cauter: While thanking you for your generosity—why have you decided to grant us this interview on our initiative, the “BRussells Tribunal”?

Jacques Derrida: First of all I wanted to salute your initiative in its principle: to resuscitate the tradition of a Russell Tribunal is symbolically an important and necessary thing to do today. I believe that, in its principle, it is a good thing for the world, even if only in that it feeds the geopolitical reflection of all citizens of the world. I am even more convinced of this necessity in light of the fact that, for a number of years now, we have witnessed an increased interest in the working, in the constitution of international institutions, institutions of international law which, beyond the sovereignty of States, judge heads of State, generals. Not yet States as such, precisely, but persons responsible for, or suspected of being responsible for, war crimes, crimes against humanity—one could mention the case of Pinochet, despite its ambiguity, or of Milosevic. At any rate, heads of State have to appear as such before an International Criminal Court, for instance, which has a recognised status in international law, despite all the difficulties you know: the American, French, Israeli reservations. Nonetheless this tribunal exists, and even if it is still faltering, weak and problematic in the execution of its sanctions, it exists as a recognised phenomenon of international law.

            Your project, if I understand it correctly, is not of the same type, even if it is inspired by the same spirit. It does not have a juridical or judicial status recognised by any State, and it consequently remains a private initiative. Citizens of different countries have agreed among each other to conduct, as honestly as possible, an inquiry into a policy, into a political project and its execution. The point is not to reach a verdict resulting in sanctions but to raise or to sharpen the vigilance of the citizens of the world, in the first place that of the responsible parties you propose to judge. That can have a symbolic weight in which I believe, an exemplary symbolic weight.

            That is why, even though I do not feel involved in the actual experience you intend to set up, I think it is very important to underscore that the case you are about to examine—which is evidently a massive and extremely serious case—is only one case among many. In the logic of your project, other policies, other political or military staff, other countries, other statesmen can also be brought to be judged in the same manner, or to be associated with this case. Personally, I have a critical attitude towards the Bush administration and its project, its attack on Iraq, and the conditions in which this has come about in a unilateral fashion, in spite of official protestations from European countries including France, in violation of the rules of the United Nations and the Security Council... But notwithstanding this criticism — which I have expressed in public, by the way — I would not wish for the United States in general to have to appear before such a tribunal. I would want to distinguish a number of forces within the United States that have opposed the policy on Iraq as firmly as in Europe. This policy does not involve the American people in general, nor even the American State, but a phase in American politics which, for that matter, is about to be questioned again in the run-up to the presidential elections. Perhaps there will be a change, at least partially, in the United States itself, so I would encourage you to be prudent as regards the target of the accusation.

LDC: That is why we have directed our attention not to the government in general but more particularly to the Project for the New American Century, the think tank which has issued all these extreme ideas of unilateralism, hegemony, militarisation of the world etc….

JD: Where there is an explicit political project which declares its hegemonic intent and proposes to put everything into place to accomplish this, there one can, in effect, level accusations, protest in the name of international law and existing institutions, in their spirit and in their letter. I am thinking as much of the United Nations as of the Security Council, which are respectable institutions, but whose structure, charter, procedures need to be reformed, especially the Security Council. The crisis that has been unfolding confirms this: these international institutions really need to be reformed. And here I would naturally plead for a radical transformation — I don’t know whether this will come about in the short run — which would call into question even the Charter, that is to say the respect for the sovereignties of the nation-states and the non-divisibility of sovereignties. There is a contradiction between the respect for human rights in general, also part of the Charter, and the respect for the sovereignty of the nation-state. The States are in effect represented as States in the United Nations and a fortiori in the Security Council, which gathers together the victors of the last war. All this calls for a profound transformation. I would insist that it should be a transformation and not a destruction, for I believe in the spirit of the United Nations…

LDC: So you still remain within the vision of Kant…

JD: At least in the spirit of Kant, for I also have some questions concerning the Kantian concept of cosmopolitanism.[5] It is in this perspective that I believe initiatives such as yours (or analogous initiatives) are symbolically very important to raise consciousness about these necessary transformations. This will have — at least that is what I hope — the symbolic value of a call to reflection we are in need of, and which the States are not taking care of, which not even institutions like the International Criminal Court are taking care of. . .

LDC: If I may allow myself one specification: we are part of a whole network called “World Tribunal on Iraq”. There will be sessions in Hiroshima, Tokyo, Mexico, New York, London, and Istambul. . .. In London, and there the link between the International Criminal Court and the moral tribunal is very strong, those in charge of the Tribunal on Iraq have, together with specialists, assembled a dossier to investigate whether Blair (who has recognised the International Criminal Court) has broken international law. By all evidence, there is a considerable consensus among specialists to say that this war is a transgression, it is an “aggressive war” in the technical sense of the term as used in the charter of the UN, since there was no imminent threat to the territory of the countries involved. The upshot of this inquiry is that they have submitted a dossier to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Similarly in Copenhagen, since Denmark is part of the coalition. So it’s possibile that our moral initiative may be transformed, in some of its components, into a juridical procedure strictly speaking.

JD: That would be desirable, evidently! But the probability that this would come about seems low, for there would be too many States who would oppose your initiative becoming institutional and generally judicial, and not just the United States. Yet if this doesn’t come about, that does not mean your project is destined to ineffectiveness. On the contrary. I believe in its considerable symbolic effectiveness in the public domain. The fact that it is said, published, even if it isn’t followed by a judgement in the strictly judicial sense, let alone actual sanctions, can have considerable symbolical impact on the political consciousnes of the citizens, a relayed, deferred effect, but one that raises high expectations. I would hope that you would treat those you accuse justly, that yours would be an undertaking of true integrity, devoid of preliminary positioning, without preconditions, that everything would be done in serenity and justice, that the responsible parties would be accurately identified, that you would not go over the top and that you would not exclude other procedures of the same type in the future. I would not want this procedure to serve as an excuse for not conducting other procedures that are just as necessary concerning other countries, other policies, whether they be European or not. I would even wish that the exemplary character of your initiative would lead to a lasting, if not a permanent instance.

            I believe that it would be perceived as being more just if you didn’t commit yourself to this target as if it were the only possible target, notably because, as you are aware, in this aggression against Iraq, American responsibility was naturally decisive but it didn’t come about without complex complicities from many other quarters. We are dealing with a knot of nearly inextricable co-responsibilities. I would hope that this would be clearly taken into account and that it wouldn’t be the accusation of one man only. Even if he is an ideologue, someone who has given the hegemony project a particularly readable form, he has not done it on his own, he cannot have imposed it on non-consenting people. So the contours of the accused, of the suspect or the suspects, are very hard to determine.

LDC: Yes, that is one of the reasons why we have abandoned the strictly juridical format. One of the disadvantages of the juridical format is that you can only target persons. Whereas we want to take aim at a system, a systemic logic. We name the accused (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) to show people we’re not talking about phantoms, but we take aim at the PNAC as a set of performative discourses, that is to say plans to achieve something, intentions to be translated into action. Our difficulty is also one of communication: communicating to people that PNAC exists and that it is important to spread this knowledge, is already a job in itself.

JD: Of course. And for that reason, it is important that matters are partly personalised and partly developed at the level of the system, of the principles, the concept, where this system, these principles, these concepts violate international laws which must be both respected and perhaps also changed. This is where you will not be able to avoid talking about sovereignty, about the crisis of sovereignty, about the necessary division or delimitation of sovereignty. Personally, when I have to take a position on this vast issue of sovereignty, of what I call its necessary deconstruction, I am very cautious. I believe it is necessary, by way of a philosophical, historical analysis, to deconstruct the political theology of sovereignty. It’s an enormous philosophical task, requiring the re-reading of everything, from Kant to Bodin, from Hobbes to Schmitt. But at the same time you shouldn’t think that you must fight for the dissolution pure and simple of all sovereignty: that is neither realistic nor desirable. There are effects of sovereignty which in my view are still politically useful in the fight against certain forces or international concentrations of forces that sneer at sovereignty.

            In the present case, we have precisely the convergence of the arrogant and hegemonic assertion of a sovereign Nation-State with a gathering of global economic forces, involving all kinds of transactions and complications in which China, Russia and many countries of the Middle East are equally mixed up. This is where matters become very hard to disentangle. I believe that sometimes the reclamation of sovereignty should not necessarily be denounced or criticised, it depends on the situation.

LDC: As you have clearly demonstrated in Voyous [Rogues], in deconstructing the term, there is no democracy without “cracy”: a certain power, and even force, is required.

JD: Absolutely. You can also talk of the sovereignty of the citizen, who votes in a sovereign fashion, so you need to be very cautious. In my view, the interesting thing about your project is in taking up or pursuing this reflection starting from an actual case which takes a specific form: military, strategic, economic, etc. It is very important to develop such reflection on a case, but this reflection requires considerable time and must accompany the entire geopolitical process in decades to come. It is not just as a Frenchman, European or citizen of the world but also as a philosopher concerned to see these questions developed that I find your attempt interesting and necessary. It will provide an opportunity for others, many others I hope, to adopt a position with regard to your efforts, to reflect, possibly to oppose you, or to join you, but this can only be beneficial for the political reflection we are in need of.

LDC: I was amazed by the definition you give in The Concept of September 11: a philosopher, you say, is someone who deals with this transition towards political and international institutions to come. That is a very political definition of the philosopher.

JD: What I wanted to convey is that it won’t necessarily be the professional philosophers who will deal with this. The lawyer or the politician who takes charge of these questions will be the philosopher of tomorrow. Sometimes, politicians or lawyers are more able to philosophically think these questions through than professional academic philosophers, even though there are a few within the University dealing with this. At any rate, philosophy today, or the duty of philosophy, is to think this in action, by doing something.

LDC: I would like to return to this notion of sovereignty. Is not the New Imperial Order which names “Rogue States” a State of exception? You speak in Voyous about the concept of the auto-immunity of democracy: democracy, at certain critical moments, believes it must suspend itself to defend democracy. This is what is happening in the United States now, both in its domestic policy and in its foreign policy. The ideology of the PNAC, and therefore of the Bush administration, is exactly that.

JD: The exception is the translation, the criterion of sovereignty, as was noted by Carl Schmitt (whom I have also criticised, one must be very cautious when one talks about Carl Schmitt, I have written some chapters on Carl Schmitt in The Politics of Friendship where I take him seriously and where I criticise him and I would not want my reflection on Schmitt to be seen as an endorsement of either his theses or his history). Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. Exception and sovereignty go hand in hand here. In the same way that democracy, at times, threatens or suspends itself, so sovereignty consists in giving oneself the right to suspend the law. That is the definition of the sovereign: he makes the law, he is above the law, he can suspend the law. That is what the United States has done, on the one hand when they trespassed against their own commitments with regard to the UN and the Security Council, and on the other hand, within the country itself, by threatening American democracy to a certain extent, that is to say by introducing exceptional police and judicial procedures. I am not only thinking of the Guantanamo prisoners but also of the Patriot Act: from its introduction, the FBI has carried out inquisitorial procedures of intimidation which have been denounced by the Americans themselves, notably by lawyers, as being in breach of the Constitution and of democracy.

Having said that, to be fair, we must recall that the United States is after all a democracy. Bush, who was elected with the narrowest of margins, risks losing the next elections: he is only sovereign for four years. It is a very legalistic country rich in displays of political liberty which would not be tolerated in a good many other countries. I am not only thinking of countries known to be non-democratic but also of our own Western European democracies. In the United States, when I saw those massive marches against the imminent war in Iraq, in front of the White House, right by Bush’s offices, I said to myself that if in France protesters assembled in their thousands and marched in front of the Elysée in a similar situation, that would not be tolerated. To be fair, we must take into account this contradiction within American democracy — on the one hand, auto-immunity: democracy destroys itself in protecting itself; but on the other hand, we must take into account the fact that this hegemonic tendency is also a crisis of hegemony. The United States, to my mind, convulses upon its hegemony at a time when it is in crisis, precarious. There is no contradiction between the hegemonic drive and crisis. The United States realises all too well that within the next few years, both China and Russia will have begun to weigh in. The oil stories which have naturally determined the Iraq episode are linked to long-term forecasts notably concerning China: China’s oil supply, control over oil in the Middle East… all of this indicates that hegemony is as much under threat as it is manifest and arrogant.

            It is an extremely complex situation, which is why I am bound to say it should not be a matter of blanket accusations or denunciations levelled against the United States, but that we should take stock of all that is critical in American political life. There are forces in the United States that fight the Bush administration, alliances should be formed with these forces, their existence recognised. At times they express their criticism in ways much more radical than in Europe. But there is evidently — and I suppose you will discuss this in your commission of inquiry —the enormous problem of the media, of control of the media, of the media power which has accompanied this entire history in a decisive manner, from September 11 to the invasion of Iraq, an invasion which, by the way, in my opinion was already scheduled well before September 11.

LDC: Yes, as a matter of fact that is one of the things that need to be proven. The PNAC, in 2000, writes: “the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” They write this in September 2000: it was already decided, all the rest was  just an alibi.

JD: I have had this debate in public with Baudrillard, who said that the aggression against Iraq — which was then being prepared— was a direct consequence of September 11. I opposed that thesis, I said that I thought it would take place anyway, that the premises had been in place for a long time already, and that the two sequences can be dissociated, to a certain extent. The day when this history will be written, when the documents are made public, it will become clear that September 11 was preceded by highly complicated underhand negotiations, often in Europe, on the subject of petrol pipe-line passage, at a time when the petrol clan was in power. There were intrigues and threats, and it is not impossible to think that one day it will be discovered that it was really the Bush clan that was targetted rather than the country, the America of Clinton. But we shouldn’t stop at petrol: there are numerous other strategic geopolitical stakes, among them the tensions with China, Europe, Russia. Alliances with the United States, variable as ever, since it has attacked those who they have supported for a very long time. Iraq was an ally of the United States as of France: all of this is part of  diplomatic inconstancy, hypocritical from end to end, and not only on the part of the United States. There are many more stakes than petrol alone, especially since petrol is a matter of only a few more decades: there won’t be any oil left in 50 years! We must take the petrol question into acount, but we shouldn’t devote all our attention and analysis to it. There are military questions, passing through territorial questions of occupation and control. But military power is not only a territorial power, we know that now, it also passes through non-territorialised controls, techno-communicational channels etc. All of this has to be taken into account.

LDC: And Israel?

JD: Many have said that the American-Israeli alliance or the support the United States give to Israel is not unrelated to this intervention in Iraq. I believe this is true to some extent. But here too matters are very complicated, because even if the current Israeli government—and here I would take the same precautions as for the United States: there are Israelis in Israel who fight Sharon — has indeed congratulated itself officially and in public on the aggression against Iraq, the freedom this may have apparently given Israel in its offensive initiatives of colonisation and repression is very ambiguous. Here too we could speak of auto-immunity: it’s very contradictory, because at the same time this has aggravated Palestinian terrorism, intensified or reawakened symptoms of anti-semitism across Europe…

            It’s very complicated, for if it is true that the Americans support Israel — just like the majority of European countries, with different political modulations - , the best American allies of Sharon’s policy, that is to say the most offensive policy of all Israeli governments, are not only the American Jewish community but also the Christian fundamentalists. These are often the most pro-Israeli of all Americans, at times even more so than certain American Jews. I’m not sure it will turn out to have been in Israel’s best interest that this form of aggression against Iraq has come about. The future will tell. Even Sharon meets with opposition in his own government nowadays, in his own majority, because he claims to withdraw from the Gaza colonies. The difficulty of a project such as yours, however just and magnificent it may be in its principle, is that it must cautiously take this complexity into account, that it must try not to be unfair to any of the parties. That is one of the reasons why I insist in confirming my solidarity in principle. Unable to participate effectively in the inquiry and in the development of the judgement, I prefer to restrict myself for now to this agreement in principle, but I will not hesitate to applaud you afterwards, if I find you have conducted matters well!

LDC: Your statements are limpid and will serve as drink for many who are thirsty (for justice, for instance). Thank you very much. By way of post-script: let us speak of messianism for a minute or so. That is to say of “the weak force”, which refers to Benjamin and which you evoke in the “Prière d’insérer”, the preface to Voyous. Allow me to quote from it: “This vulnerable force, this force without power exposes to what or who is coming, and coming to affect it (…) What affirms itself here would  be a messianic act of faith—irreligious and without messianism. (…) This site is neither soil nor foundation. It is nonetheless there that the call for a thought of the event to come will take root: of democracy to come, of reason to come. All hopes will put their trust in this call, certainly, but the call will remain, in itself, without hope. Not desperate but alien to teleology, to the expectancy and the benefit [salut] of salvation. Not alien to the salavation [salut] of the other, nor alien to the farewell or to justice, but still rebellious towards the economy of redemption.”… I thought this very beautiful. Almost a prayer to insert — into the everyday, into our project. What is it, this messianism without religion?

JD: The weak force indeed refers to the interpretation of Benjamin, but it is not exactly mine. It is what I call “messianicity without messianism”: I would say that today, one of the incarnations, one of the implementations of this messianicity, of this messianism without religion, may be found in the alter-globalisation movements. Movements that are still heterogeneous, still somewhat unformed, full of contradictions, but that gather together the weak of the earth, all those who feel themselves crushed by the economic hegemonies, by the liberal market, by sovereignism, etc. I believe it is these weak who will prove to be strongest in the end and who represent the future. Even though I am not a militant involved in these movements, I place my bet on the weak force of those alter-globalisation movements, who will have to explain themselves, to unravel their contradictions, but who march against all the hegemonic organisations of the world. Not just the United States, also the International Monetary Fund, the G8, all those organised hegemonies of the rich countries, the strong and powerful countries, of which Europe is part. It is these alter-globalisation movements that offer one of the best figures of what I would call messianicity without messianism, that is to say a messianicity that does not belong to any determined religion. The conflict with Iraq involved numerous religious elements, from all sides—from the Christian side as well as from the Muslim side. What I call messianicity without messianism is a call, a promise of an independent future for what is to come, and which comes like every messiah in the shape of peace and justice, a promise independent of religion, that is to say universal. A promise independent of the three religions when they oppose each other, since in fact it is a war between three Abrahamic religions. A promise beyond the Abrahamic religions, universal, without relation to revelations or to the history of religions. My intent here is not anti-religious, it is not a matter of waging war on the religious messianisms properly speaking, that is to say Judaic, Christian, Islamic. But it is a matter of marking a place where these messianisms are exceeded by messianicity, that is to say by that waiting without waiting, without horizon for the event to come, the democracy to come with all its contradictions. And I believe we must seek today, very cautiously, to give force and form to this messianicity, without giving in to the old concepts of politics (sovereignism, territorialised nation-state), without giving in to the Churches or to the religious powers, theologico-political or theocratic of all orders, whether they be the theocracies of the Islamic Middle East, or whether they be, disguised, the theocracies of the West. (In spite of everything, Europe, France especially, but also the United States are secular in principle in their Constiutions. I recently heard a journalist say to an American: “how do you explain that Bush always says ‘God bless America’, that the President swears on the Bible, etc.” and the American replied: “don’t lecture us on secularity for we put the separation of Church and State into our Constitution long before you did”, that the State was not under the control of any religion whatsoever, which does not stop Christian domination from exerting itself, but there too it is imperative to be very cautious). Messianicity without messianism, that is: independence in respect of religion in general. A faith without religion in some sort.

2. RAMSEY CLARK

Open Letter to Kofi Annan

January, 29, 2004

Dear Secretary General Annan,

U.S. President George W. Bush again confirmed his intention to continue waging wars of aggression in his State of the Union message on January 20, 2004. He began his address: "As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American service men and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror.  By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure." He proclaimed: "Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people... America is on the offensive against the terrorists..."

Continuing, he said: "...our coalition is leading aggressive raids against the surviving members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.... Men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows." In Iraq, he reported: "Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45.  Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids a week...." Explaining his aggression, President Bush stated: "...After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.  The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got."

Forget law.  No more legal papers, or rights.  Forget truth.  The claim that either Afghanistan, or Iraq declared war on the U.S. is absurd. The U.S. chose to attack both nations, from one end to the other, violating their sovereignty and changing their "regimes", summarily executing thousands of men, women and children in the process.  At least 40,000 defenseless people in Iraq have been killed by U.S. violence since the latest aggression began in earnest in March 2003 starting with its celebrated, high tech, terrorist "Shock and Awe" and continuing until now with 25, or more, U.S. raids daily causing mounting deaths and injuries.

All this death-dealing aggression has occurred during a period, Mr. Bush boasts, of "over two years without an attack on American soil".  The U.S. is guilty of pure aggression, arbitrary repression and false portrayal of the nature and purpose of its violence. President Bush's brutish mentality is revealed in his condemnations of the "killers" and "thugs in Iraq" "who ran away from our troops in battle".  U.S. military expenditures and technology threaten and impoverish life on the planet.  Any army that sought to stand up against U.S. air power and weapons of mass destruction in open battle would be annihilated.  This is what President Bush seeks when he says "Bring 'em on."

President Bush declared his intention to change the "Middle East" by force. "As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends.  So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East.  We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends." "...America is a nation with a mission... we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."

He extended his threat to any nation he may choose: "As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.  The United States and our allies are determined: We refuse to live in the shadow of this ultimate danger." President Bush's utter contempt for the United Nations is revealed in his assertion that the United States and other countries "have enforced the demands of the United Nations", ignoring the refusal of the U.N. to approve a war of aggression against Iraq and implying the U.N. had neither the courage nor the capacity to pursue its own "demands". His total commitment to unilateral U.S. action, was asserted by President Bush when he sarcastically referred to the "permission slip" a school child needs to leave a classroom: "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people".

President Bush intends to go it alone, because his interest is American power and wealth alone, though he prefers to use the youth of NATO countries and others as cannon folder in his wars. President Bush believes might makes right and that the end justifies the means.  He declares: "...the world without Saddam Husseins regime is a better and safer place". So U.S. military technology which is omnicidal- capable of destroying all life on the planet-will be ordered by President Bush to make the world "a better and safer place" by destroying nations and individuals he designates.

President Bush presided over 152 executions in Texas, far more than any other U.S. governor since World War II. Included were women, minors, retarded persons, aliens in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and innocent persons.  He never acted to prevent a single execution.   He has publicly proclaimed the right to assassinate foreign leaders and repeatedly boasted of summary executions and indiscriminate killing in State of the Union messages and elsewhere.

The danger of Bush unilateralism is further revealed when he states: "Colonel Qaddafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure without weapons of mass murder.  Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not."

Forget diplomacy, use "intense negotiations".  If President Bush believed it was "diplomacy", which maintained genocidal sanctions against Iraq for twelve years that failed, rather than an effort to crush Iraq to submission, then why didn't he use "nine months of intense negotiations" to avoid a war of aggression against Iraq?  He was President for nearly twenty seven months before the criminal assault on Iraq, he apparently intended all along.  Iraq was no threat to anyone.

What President Bush means by "intense negotiations" includes a threat of military aggression with the example of Iraq to show this in no bluff. The Nuremberg Judgment held Goerings threat to destroy Prague unless Czechoslovakia surrendered Bohemia and Moravia to be an act of aggression.

If Qaddafi "correctly judged his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder", why would the United States not be better off, and far more secure, if it eliminated all its vast stores of nuclear weapons?  Is not the greatest danger from nuclear proliferation today without question President Bush's violations of the Non Proliferation (NPT), ABM and Nuclear Test Ban treaties by continuing programs for strategic nuclear weapons, failing to negotiate in good faith to achieve "nuclear disarmament" after more than thirty years and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, small "tactical"weapons of mass murder, which he would use in a minute?  Has he not threatened to use existing strategic nuclear weapons?  The failure of the "nuclear weapon State Party(s)" to the NPT to work in good faith to achieve "nuclear disarmament these past 36 years is the reason the world is still confronted with the threat of nuclear war and proliferation.

None of the many and changing explanations, excuses, or evasions offered by President Bush to justify his war of aggression can erase the crimes he has committed.  Among the less invidious misleading statements, President Bush made on January 20, 2004 was: "Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." Three days later, Dr. Kay told Reuters he thought Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but that by a combination of U.N. inspections and Iraq's own decisions, "it got rid of them".  He further said it "is correct" to say Iraq does not have any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in the country.  He has added that no evidence of any chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq.

Iraq did not use illicit weapons in the 1991 Gulf war.  The U.S. did - 900 tons plus of depleted uranium, fuel air explosives, super bombs,, cluster bombs with civilians and civilian facilities the "direct object of attack".  The U.S. claimed to destroy 80% of Iraq's military armor. It dropped 88,500 tons of explosives, 7 1/2 Hiroshima's, on the country in 42 days.  Iraq was essentially defenseless.  Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians perished.  The U.S. reported 157 casualties, 1/3 from friendly fire, the remainder non combat. U.N. inspectors over more than 6 years of highly intrusive physical inspections found and destroyed 90% of the materials required to manufacture nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  U.N. sanctions imposed August 6, 1990 had caused the deaths of 567,000 children under age five by October 1996, the U.N. FAO reported.  Twenty four percent of the infants born live in Iraq in 2002 had a dangerously low birth weight below 2 kilos, symbolizing the condition of the whole population. In March 2003 Iraq was incapable of carrying out a threat against the U.S., or any other country, and would have been pulverized by U.S. forces in place in the Gulf had it tried.

More than thirty five nations admit the possession of nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons.  Are these nations, caput lupinum, lawfully subject to destruction because of their mere possession of WMDs?  The U.S. possesses more of each of these impermissible weapons than all other nations combined, and infinitely greater capacity for their delivery anywhere on earth within hours.  Meanwhile the U.S. increases its military expenditures, which already exceed those of all other nations on earth combined, and its technology which is exponentially more dangerous.

The U.N. General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression of December 14, 1974 provides in part:

Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State;

Article 2: The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression;

Article 3: Any of the following acts ... qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack;

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State.

If the U.S. assault on Iraq is not a War of Aggression under international law, then there is no longer such a crime as War of Aggression.  A huge, all powerful nation has assaulted a small prostrate, defenseless people half way around the world with "Shock and Awe" terror and destruction, occupied it and continues daily assaults. President Bush praises U.S. soldiers' "...skill and their courage in armored charges, and midnight raids." which terrorize and kill innocent Iraqis, women, children, families, nearly every day and average 180 attacks each week.

The first crime defined in the Constitution annexed to the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg)  under Crimes Against Peace is War of Aggression.  II.6.a. The Nuremberg Judgment proclaimed: "The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity.  War is essentially an evil thing.  Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world."

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime...

The "seizure" of Austria in March 1938 and of Bohemia and Moravia from Czechoslovakia in March 1939 following the threat to destroy Prague were judged to be acts of aggression by the Tribunal even in the absence of actual war and after Britain, France, Italy and Germany had agreed at Munich to cede Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Germany.

The first conduct judged to be a war of aggression by Nazi Germany was its invasion of Poland in September 1939.  There followed a long list, Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Yugoslavia, Greece.  The attack on the USSR, together with Finland, Romania and Hungary, was adjudged as follows: it was contended for the defendants that the attack upon the U.S.S.R. was justified because the Soviet Union was contemplating an attack upon Germany, and making preparations to that end.  It is impossible to believe that this view was ever honestly entertained.

The plans for the economic exploitation of the U.S.S.R., for the removal of masses of the population, for the murder of Commissars and political leaders, were all part of the carefully prepared scheme launched on 22 June without warning of any kind, and without the shadow of legal excuses.  It was plain aggression.

The United Nations cannot permit U.S. power to justify its wars of aggression if it is to survive as a viable institution for ending the scourges of war, exploitation, hunger, sickness and poverty. Comparatively minor acts and wars of aggression by the United States in the last 20 years, deadly enough for their victims, in Grenada, Libya, Panama, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Yemen with many other nations threatened, sanctioned, or attacked, some with U.N. complicity and all without effective United Nations resistance, made the major deadly wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq possible.

Failure to condemn the massive U.S. war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq and any U.N. act providing colorable legitimacy to the U.S. occupation will open wide the gate to further, greater aggression.  The line must be drawn now.

The United Nations must recognize and declare the U.S. attack and occupation of Iraq to be the war of aggression it is.  It must refuse absolutely to justify, or condone the aggression, the illegal occupation and the continuing U.S. assaults in Iraq.  The U.N. must insist that the U.S. withdraw from Iraq as it insisted Iraq withdraw from Kuwait in 1990.

There must be no impunity or profit for wars of aggression. The U.S. and U.S. companies must surrender all profits and terminate all contracts involving Iraq.

There must be strict accountability by U.S. leaders and others for crimes they have committed against Iraq and compensation by the U.S. government for the damage its aggression has inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq, the peoples injured there and stability and harm done to world peace.

This must be done with care to prevent the eruption of internal divisions, or violence and any foreign domination or exploitation in Iraq.  The governance of a united Iraq must be returned to the diverse peoples who live there, acting together  consensually in peace for their common good as soon as possible. Sincerely,

The identical letter has been sent to: Members of the UN Security Council The President of the UN General Assembly The Secretary General of the UN The President of the United States

Day One

3. TOM BARRY (‘amicus curiae’)

Pax Americana : What’s the Alternative ?

Where are the internationalists—on the left or the right—who say that absolute deference to national sovereignty should be the baseline for multilateral relations?

Where are the internationalists who say that foreign and military policy should be guided by national interests and realpolitik--rather than by a strong sense of moral clarity?

Where are the internationalists who believe that traditional diplomacy is the only effective instrument for advancing and protecting international cooperation and peace?

And where are the internationalists who believe that the United Nations can and will always act expeditiously and effectively to protect our mutual security and our common rights?

If internationalists who hold such beliefs are among us, let them cast the first stones against PNAC. But in doing so, they should understand that PNAC is not alone in its conviction that U.S. military, economic, diplomatic, and technological dominance require that Washington exercise global leadership. Neither does PNAC stand alone in its belief that global leadership should be guided by moral clarity, or in the belief that the U.S. government should use its superior military power to ensure world order and peace. These are convictions that are widely shared in the U.S. political community and by the U.S. public.

Appreciation Not Aspersion

Instead of accusing the neoconservative internationalists of high crimes, we should be grateful that they were bold enough in the 1990s to tackle the most pressing question in international affairs—namely how to ensure that U.S. power and leadership have moral foundations and are used responsibly. PNAC stands accused by many liberals and progressives of laying out a set of principles and policy recommendations. Yet these principles and policies are based on universal values and on the reality of power relations in the post-cold war world. Rather than casting blame on PNAC, we should instead express our appreciation for its efforts to formulate a new foreign policy agenda—one that provides intellectual orientation to the new era in international relations and offers a practical roadmap to guide the international engagement of the sole superpower. Moreover, it’s an agenda that is explicitly tied to the defense and promotion of universal values.

In its 1997 Statement of Principles, PNAC expressed this challenge as follows: “As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades?” Across the political spectrum in the 1990s, the end of the cold war and the rapid pace of globalization combined to cast the history of U.S. foreign policy into memory hole. But PNAC’s charter signatories insisted that we not forget the lessons of history—the fundamental role played by the United States in leading the Allies to victory in two world wars and establishing the norms and institutions that finally brought political and economic order to the 20th century.

As PNAC declared: “The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

As a politically engaged policy institute that aimed to address the lack of a post-cold war vision for international affairs, PNAC should be commended, not condemned. Its critics should consider the neoconservative institute as a model for successful agenda-setting. Indeed, PNAC’s detractors only highlight their own failures as political analysts and actors when they attempt to defame the Project for the New American Century.

Getting Back on Course

In the 1990s, while other political sectors were floundering and unable to resolve contradictions in their own principles and policies, PNAC boldly charted a new course for U.S. international engagement. Four years into the “New American Century” heralded by PNAC, the traditional right, the liberal center, and the left have yet to formulate an international affairs agenda or ideology that approaches the cohesiveness and clarity of PNAC’s principles and policy framework. And these political pundits, 15 years after the end of the cold war, have yet to address the fundamental question about the responsible exercise of what William Kristol and other neoconservatives call “American preeminence.”[6] In keeping with the historical practices of the left, the self-righteous critics of the “New American Century” agenda are content in dishing out indignant condemnations of U.S. policy and offering their utopian dreams as a substitute for prescriptive policy analysis.

In their 1996 essay in Foreign Affairs, William Kristol and Robert Kagan called for a “broad, sustaining foreign policy vision” that would fill the gap left by the realists, isolationists, anti-globalizers, and “peace dividend” progressives.[7] The next year they founded the Project for the New American Century to flesh out the principles and policies of such a vision. While these neoconservatives unflinchingly set about forging the intellectual and policy framework of a new foreign and military policy for the world’s most powerful nation, traditional conservatives, progressives, and liberals floundered.

And what was the counterpart international affairs agenda of progressives in the 1990s? Although instinctively and historically anti-interventionist, many progressives in the 1990s advocated so-called humanitarian interventionism around the world—in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Kosovo. There was also some support for U.S. political aid to foster democratization in countries ranging from Cambodia to Mexico to the former Yugoslavia. For the most part, however, progressives ignored the conundrums and challenges of traditional foreign policy and security issues, concentrating instead on foreign economic policy. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that in progressive circles before September 11, 2001, economic globalization was treated as a synonym for international affairs.

Kristol and Kagan observed that conservatives were badly “adrift” in foreign policy—swept back and forth by currents of “America First” isolationism and nationalism and by tides of a morally bankrupt Kissingeresque realism. In PNAC’s assessment, the leaders of political parties as well as Americans in general were ready to unshoulder the vast responsibilities that U.S. leadership had assumed at the end of the Second World War and instead concentrate energies either at home or in furthering U.S. economic interests abroad. PNAC aimed to wake up America from its “return to normalcy” slumber, to substitute reality for dreams about a globalized future, and to provide principles and a vision that would shape a new foreign policy while energizing the American public (and a revitalized Republican Party leadership team) behind the moral foundations of its New American Century policy.

However, it wasn’t until early 2002 that liberals and progressives began waking up to the fact that there were major, indeed radical, differences between the foreign and military policies of the George W. Bush administration and that of his predecessors. Despite public statements by PNAC associates, many of whom became high officials in the Bush administration, and the aggressive anti-multilateralism demonstrated during the administration’s first year, most observers failed to notice that Washington’s new national security strategy was a policy foretold.

Moral Clarity First

Some criticize PNAC’s foreign and military policy agenda as being narrowly tied to U.S. economic interests. This is not a fair criticism, at least in light of PNAC’s published analysis and policy recommendations.

In its Statement of Principles, PNAC calls for a foreign and military policy driven by morals and values, not by profits. The statement complained that in the post-cold war administrations, “the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations.” Moreover, PNAC observed that America and the world needed “a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.” This new foreign policy should be one defined by its “moral clarity,” declared Kristol and Kagan in 1996.

In marked contrast to foreign policy realists, PNAC has declared its commitment to reestablishing the United States as a “benevolent hegemon”—a global power whose leadership serves not only its own national interests but those of the entire world. Nowhere in the PNAC policy blueprints or in its statement of principles—or, for that matter, in the White House’s national security strategy document of 2002—does one find the argument that U.S. foreign and military policy should always serve the goal of securing U.S. economic dominance.

In their Foreign Affairs essay, Kristol and Kagan called for the “remoralization of American foreign policy,” arguing that only a morally based foreign policy could win the support of the American people. Moreover, a moral makeover of U.S. foreign policy would contribute to the “remoralization of America at home.” In public documents by PNAC and its associates, the moral fundaments guiding their foreign policy vision are those declared by America’s founding fathers. And they make the strong argument that the “principles of the Declaration of Independence are not merely the choices of a particular culture but are universal” or, as the founders themselves asserted, “self-evident” truths.

In its moral moorings, PNAC’s foreign policy agenda has far more in common with the international engagement principles advocated by the traditional left and progressives than it does with the tenets of the traditional rightists or foreign policy realists. Because of the moral principles on which it is based, the internationalism described by PNAC’s ideologues is eminently more defensible than the foreign policy objectives of European governments that prioritize commercial interests. If the Pax Americana envisioned by PNAC is regarded as an empire by its critics, then it is a new kind of empire, one driven at least as much by a moral mission as by national economic interests. As Kristol and Kagan advised in 1996, “The United States should not blindly ‘do business’ with every nation, no matter its regime.”

The virtue of American power is that it is morally anchored. Henry Luce, who coined the term “American Century,” said the purpose of U.S. power should be to establish “an international moral order.” Such an order, based on the belief of “freedom and justice for all,” would create the preconditions for global peace and prosperity. The architects of the new American century share this conviction and mission.

As Kristol and Kagan note, “A hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain.”[8] PNAC’s agenda is not to establish a new empire—or a “neo-imperial world order”—but only to ensure that the widely acknowledged American hegemony is not squandered by a post-cold war America turned inward, lacking a moral compass, and concerned only about markets and consumption. As PNAC’s founders correctly observe: “The United States achieved its present position of strength not by practicing a foreign policy of live and let live, nor by passively waiting for threats to arise, but by actively promoting American principles of governance abroad—democracy, free markets, and respect for liberty.”[9]

A Radical Break

Voices within the Democratic Party, from Europe, and among progressive global networks routinely charge that PNAC’s foreign policy agenda for a new world order represents a radical break with traditional frameworks. But given the sad state of those traditional frameworks and the absence of other effective global leadership, shouldn’t PNAC be commended for its effort to establish new frameworks? Should the tattered frameworks have been retained, or is a radical revisioning needed?

Traditionally, U.S. hegemony has entailed close association and consultation with Western European allies. But why should the world order of the 21st century remain a construct of 20th century Atlanticism? Traditionally, the world order has assumed that the Middle East would remain a region impervious to democracy and controlled by dictators aligned with Western elites. Neoconservative ideology holds that certain cherished political and religious rights should be universal. Furthermore, that until these rights take hold in the Middle East and North Africa, international peace and prosperity will remain at risk. A clean break is needed from the old frameworks in the Middle East. Who will argue authoritarian regimes in the Middle East should not be restructured? The casualties in the terrorist attacks in New York City and Madrid were victims of a traditionalism that mires the Middle East in fundamentalism, anti-intellectualism, and authoritarianism.

Most frequently cited in critiques of PNAC’s ideological radicalism is the neoconservatives’ failure to support the post-cold war framework of multilateralism. First, it should be recognized in PNAC’s writings its founders pay homage to the visionary leadership of the liberal internationalists of the first American century—the Democratic Party statesmen who broke the back of the Republican isolationism of the 1940s and 1950s and formulated the political, military, and economic multilateralism that established global order and spurred economic progress from the devastation left by the Second World War. Chaos thus having been averted in the second half of the 20th century, improvements in the internationalist model were in order. In its efforts to craft a modern, more effective global order, PNAC cast aside the retrograde nationalism and militarism of the traditional right, and it dismissed the center-left’s knee-jerk defense of a post-WWII multilateralism that was increasingly ineffective and gutless. Instead, PNAC called for a radically new internationalism—one that refused to bow to the sanctity of failed policy frameworks and that soundly criticized those who would retreat to isolationism or an economistic foreign policy.

The PNAC team advanced a new policy framework in which international affairs are restructured by coalitions of the willing, inspired by U.S. leadership and fortified by U.S. might and resolve. No longer would rogue nations, obstructionist great powers like Russia and China, or outdated international rules that unduly revere national sovereignty stand in the way of groups of nations determined to protect themselves from national or subnational threats to regional and international peace. Some Western European governments condemn the neoconservative agenda and the Bush administration for advocating such a framework of international engagement. But their vision is clouded by their own naiveté and hypocrisy.

Western Europe and the United Nations stood idly by as ethnic fratricide surged on its borders in the former Yugoslavia. Only when the United States signaled its political will to intervene did Western Europe act to secure the peace and foster the political restructuring of the Balkans. Although Western European nations often condemn the U.S. internationalists for their militarism and expansionism, they remain willing partners in a U.S.-led North Atlantic military alliance that perfunctorily acknowledges the United Nations and plays to the region’s nativist fears of Russia and other Eastern nations.

New political ideologies and policy frameworks are needed to address the challenges of the new century. No doubt PNAC’s agenda is a radical one, but there is no virtue in holding on to flawed and outdated processes for managing ever-evolving international affairs.

Radical and New, But Deeply Embedded in American Tradition

Too much can be made of neoconservative radicalism. If there is a vice to be found in the neoconservative vision for U.S. foreign and military policy, the dark thread runs deep in America. The genius of PNAC’s agenda for the New American Century lies less in its innovative features—such as its embrace of the politics of regime change and of preventive war against threats to Pax Americana—than in its blending of core traditional components of Americana. If one is to condemn the neoconservative vision, then one must denounce all the historical tendencies that run deep in U.S. foreign policy.

PNAC has produced a powerful blend of the best aspects of American nationalism, isolationism, messianism, exceptionalism, and realism. It has distilled the essence of American belief structures. In the process, PNAC helped bring together diverse constituencies behind a new ideology of American supremacism.

All those attempting either to understand American foreign policy or to chart a new course for America in the 21st century are indebted to PNAC for its success in synthesizing and crystallizing the historical undercurrents in U.S international affairs.

Responding to the Questions Posed by the Commission of the Brussels Tribunal

Question One: Can PNAC documents be considered a founding element of the Bush foreign policy?[10]

It is clear that the policy documents prepared by PNAC associates and the group’s statement of principles—including the Defense Policy Guidance of 1992, Present Dangers, and Rebuilding America’s Defenses—formed the blueprints for the national security doctrine of the George W. Bush administration. PNAC’s founders set out to “lay the groundwork for a neo-Reaganite foreign policy,” and they largely succeeded. This outcome testifies to the intellectual, strategic, and political abilities of the PNAC associates as well as to their sense of history and their grasp of the enduring beliefs of the American people.

There is little doubt that Washington’s foreign policy is based on the ideology and the policy vision of a small circle of neoconservative strategists and military-industrial complex advisers. However, any criticism that a cadre of visionaries unduly influenced the foreign policy apparatus of the U.S. government could also be leveled against many previous administration brain trusts. Foreign policy in the United States, as elsewhere, is historically the domain of competing elites from different sectors of the business, academic, think tank, and political community.

What normative judgment, then, should follow from this conclusion about PNAC influence? Certainly not one that blames PNAC associates for their political prowess, intellectual verve, and determination to grapple with the most pressing enigmas of foreign and military policy. If in the medium term it is found that PNAC’s vision did not enhance security and expand the reach of universal values, then the burden of this shortcoming must fairly be shared by competing political sectors—both in the United States and around the world—who all failed to take up the intellectual and political challenge of articulating a new foreign policy vision. History will record that the neoconservatives took up the challenge of designing a foreign policy for the world’s hegemonic power, while other political actors shirked from this task.

Question Two: Can the foreign and military policy operations of the Bush administration be considered the implementation of the principles and policy recommendations set forth by PNAC?

Again, the answer is clearly yes. However, these policies—including the support for the hardliners in Israel, the bombing campaign against the Taliban government, the invasion of Iraq, to the newly confrontational approach to relations with the rogue states of Iran, Syria, and Korea, the new emphasis on the protection of religious rights of Christians and Jews, and the expansion of NATO—have enjoyed broad bipartisan and popular support in the United States, and to some degree in the world community. If such actions prove less than helpful or are deemed violations of international law, then the blame rests with the larger community that supported the policy and ideological frameworks outlined by this small clique of neoconservatives.

Question Three: Have the principles and proposals set forth by PNAC associates led to decreased international stability and security?

There is no doubt that international affairs today are more conflictive than in the 1990s. But the implicit accusation that PNAC visionaries (and, by extension, the Bush administration policies) are responsible for this instability is politically motivated and is not an objective assessment of the causes of current instability and the threats to peace.

In 1996 and 1997, PNAC’s founders warned that a lack of attention to international affairs and a lack of serious consideration of the responsibilities incumbent on the world’s only superpower constituted the primary threat to international peace and stability. Let’s recall the alarm raised by PNAC’s Statement of Principles:

“We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital--both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements--built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world… We are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.”

It could well be argued that a lack of serious attention in the 1990s to the rise of Islamist militancy, the problem of entrenched Middle East/North Africa dictatorships, the buildup of weapons of mass destruction by Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, China’s militarism and political repression, the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, and the failure to guarantee Israel’s security have resulted in the instability that we now experience.

It’s too early to evaluate the consequences of PNAC’s agenda and the Bush Doctrine. In the medium term, we may very well come to the conclusion that these neoconservative initiatives sparked much-needed political reforms in the Middle East, obligated rogue and militarized regimes to desist from attempts to acquire WMDs much as Libya has done, and encouraged other powers to assume a more responsible role in meeting threats to peace and human rights around the world.

Question Four: Who are the figures and what are the special interests behind PNAC, and do they extend beyond those appropriate to a nonprofit educational organization?

Although overwhelmingly Republican, PNAC associates include some Democrats.[11] PNAC’s founders profoundly believe in the conservative slogan: “Ideas have consequences.” The success of PNAC in achieving bipartisan support for much of its agenda is a tribute to the power of this strategically focused educational institute. Clearly, many PNAC signatories later joined the Bush administration.[12] But this by no means disqualifies PNAC as an educational or nonprofit institution, nor does the interchange between government and a foreign policy institutes constitute a new phenomenon in the U.S. foreign policy community. In decades past, both left-wing and right-wing critics of U.S. foreign policy have cited such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations as extensions of the liberal foreign policy establishment. Today, the Council on Foreign Relations has given way to the influence of institutes such as the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute.

This question should be placed in a proper context. By way of comparison, it’s worth considering the connections and influence of the liberal Progressive Policy Institute, which recently published its own foreign policy blueprint entitled Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.[13] Should the Progressive Policy Institute be disqualified as a nonprofit educational organization if its members and supporters are invited to join a future Democratic Party administration? It’s also relevant to note, with respect to the larger question about PNAC accountability to the current state of world affairs, that the policy framework of this proposed “progressive internationalism” in many respects mirrors the neoconservative posture.

Like PNAC’s founders, the Progressive Policy Institute hails the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which warned of the present danger in its documents, the Progressive Policy Institute declares that “America is threatened once again” and needs assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. Its observation that “like the cold war, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades” mirrors neoconservative and administration national security assessments. The Progressive Policy Institute stands behind the invasion of Iraq, “because the previous policy of containment was failing,” and the Saddam Hussein regime was “undermining both collective security and international law.”

Like PNAC and the Bush administration, the Progressive Policy Institute has a vision of national security that extends to fostering democracy and freedom around the world in “the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.” It’s likely that PNAC itself would heartily agree with the Progressive Policy Institute’s criticism of those who complain that “the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America’s national security strategy.” Rather, quoting the Progressive Policy Institute’s assessment of the Bush foreign policy agenda, “we believe it has not been ambitious enough or imaginative enough.” Clearly, then any inquiry into the “neo-imperial world order” or Pax Americana should extend beyond the self-styled “conservative internationalists” of PNAC.

The Progressive Policy Institute is a center-right educational organization that boasts close ties with large numbers of Democratic Party leaders and congressional representatives.[14] The closely associated Democratic Leadership Council includes the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Senator John Kerry. The institute’s president, Will Marshall, is a member of various advocacy groups that have been closely associated with PNAC, such as the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

When one looks to the future, as PNAC has, care should be taken in any attempt to attribute the structure and structure of what the Brussels Tribunal calls the “neo-imperial order” solely to PNAC neoconservatives. Consider, for example, the following statement: “We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing America’s awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy.”[15] Is this an expression of what PNAC calls “conservative internationalism,” or is it an articulation of “progressive internationalism”? And if one believes that such statements that link power, leadership, morality, and mission are trappings of a Pax Americana, then the following questions must be discussed: What’s wrong with seeking moral clarity and moral foundations for U.S. leadership? Is it arrogant to assume the responsibility for global leadership, given the many dimensions of U.S. power and given the absence of other sources of global leadership? Do critics of American leadership dispute the existence of universal values, as expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence? And aren’t these universal values best promoted by liberal democracy?

Finally, what are the alternatives to the benevolent hegemony of a Pax Americana? If the critique of PNAC is that its principles and policy recommendations haven’t produced the benevolent hegemony its founders intended, what principles and what policies would ensure benevolent U.S. global leadership? And if one disputes the entire notion of a Pax Americana, what are the real alternatives to the exercise of U.S. military power as the guarantor of international security? Would the European Union, Russia, China, Japan—or the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations—be willing to assume the burden of the “muscular internationalism” that the leading internationalists of both political parties in the United States say is a fundamental condition of international security and stability? If the history of the 20th century—the “first American century”—is our guide, then it’s unlikely that serious alternatives to Pax Americana will emerge in the near future.

Counterterrorism Postscript

Although the commissioners of the Brussels Tribunal have not raised the issue of a counterterrorism agenda as part of their charges against the Project for the New American Century, this matter deserves to be part of this inquiry. Perhaps the most striking aspect of PNAC is not its call for a renewed Pax Americana or its candid embrace of American supremacy but rather its failure to address the threat of international terrorism.

Aside from its focus on the threat of terrorism against the state of Israel, PNAC’s founders, associates, and signatories made only passing reference to international terrorism by nonstate actors. One can find no more than a few lines about international terrorism in PNAC’s 80-plus page blueprint for a national security strategy, Rebuilding America’s Defenses—published a year before the September 11 attacks. There is no discussion of the need for a counterterrorism offensive in PNAC’s policy volume Present Dangers or its Statement of Principles. Similarly, when Kristol and Kagan warned of the “present danger” to U.S. national security in their signature essay in Foreign Affairs, they ignored the present danger of Islamist terrorism, which has since struck the European and American heartlands. If PNAC is guilty of intellectual sloppiness and an overly ideological view of international affairs, the evidence can best be found in this stunning oversight.

But before one rises to throw stones at PNAC, it should be considered that arguably the only political sector that was more blinded by its ideological bearings was the transnational community of leftists and progressives. One would be hard put to find any pragmatic counterterrorism analysis in the 1990s (or even today) by the center-left foreign policy pundits that constitute PNAC’s harshest critics.

PNAC Distills the Essence of American Internationalism

Nationalism

Though many populists of both the left and the right espouse a reactionary and nativist “America First” nationalism, PNAC’s nationalism, as described by its founders, is a “uniquely American variety—not an insular, blood-and-soil nationalism but one that derived its meaning and coherence from being rooted in universal principles first enunciated in the Declaration of Independence.”1

Isolationism

PNAC’s foreign policy agenda is driven by internationalist impulses, but it is an internationalism featuring, as one of the cornerstones, traditional American isolationism that dates back to the country’s colonial and revolutionary period. At its heart, this historical isolationism harbors a deep distrust of Europe, engendered by the immigrant nation’s experience of a European proclivity for war, colonialism, and religious repression. This isolationism was manifest in the oft-repeated warning by America’s first president against “entangling alliances,” and it was reinforced by the 19th and 20th century observation of the imperial and world wars that arose in the heart of Europe. Like its nationalism, American isolationism was unique and was aptly captured by PNAC’s founders, especially Robert Kagan.2 Though exhibiting a reluctance to entangle itself in European infighting, this American isolationism retained for the United States its own extraterritorial prerogatives—especially, its exclusive right to intervene in hemispheric affairs and its early claim to predominant influence in the Pacific.

Messianism

What are the political and religious roots of America’s messianic foreign policy? Politically, there is a deep belief that the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence—the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—and in the Pledge of Allegiance—“with liberty and justice for all”—are (or should be) universal values. The idea of a special mission has deep roots in the religious history of the New World. In the early 17th century, the Puritans believed that they had entered into a covenant to establish a domain that would be a model for the Christian world. The Puritans’ sense of mission, together with their deep conviction that daily life was a constant interplay between the forces of good and evil, has long reverberated through American society and politics. U.S. politicians, in advocating their various brands of internationalism, often describe the redemptive value of U.S. international engagement in bringing peace, prosperity, and modern value systems to less-privileged countries.

1 William Kristol and Robert Kagan, “National Interest and Global Responsibility,” in Kagan and Kristol, eds., Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000), p. 23.

2 See Robert Kagan, Of Power and Paradise: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003). Kagan opens his book with these lines: “It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power—the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power—American and European perspectives are diverging.” Kagan observes that the “United States remains mired in history” because of its power and sense of responsibility for maintaining the liberal world order. Meanwhile, the Europeans have opted for a Kantian “post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity,” leaving the dirty work of enforcing law and order to the Americans.

Exceptionalism

Paralleling America’s messianic internationalism is its sense of exceptionalism, which also has political and religious dimensions. The U.S. government—and the PNAC neoconservatives—have long advocated a system of international norms and rules. However, as officials of the world’s sole superpower with role of enforcing both global security and international rules and values, the political leaders of both parties have argued that U.S. global management should not be constrained by the rules that apply to powers of lesser responsibilities. In the United States there is also a deep and commonly expressed belief that U.S. power and wealth reflect a divine approval and sense of purpose. America has assumed the burden of fostering and protecting the global common good, and it needs room to maneuver to accomplish this often self-sacrificing goal.

Life magazine publisher Henry Luce believed that “no nation in history, except Israel, was so obviously designed for some special phase of God’s eternal purpose.”[1] This belief in the special civilizing role of Judeo-Christianity, as embodied in U.S. values, is one that pervades PNAC’s own arguments for American exceptionalism and is frequently articulated in President Bush’s references to “America’s special mission.”

Realism

PNAC follows a course that navigates midway between moralism and idealism. In the tradition of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, neoconservatives often hold that their political philosophy is one of “idealism without illusions.” Though they always stress the moral imperatives of their internationalism, neoconservatives recognize that ideological flexibility and selectivity are key to successful politics. With this sense of realism, neoconservatives carefully pick their priorities. Fortified by their moral foundation, PNAC associates are unapologetic in their advocacy of a political philosophy whereby common-good ends justify means. With this sense of realism, the neoconservatives carefully pick their priorities. While considering China as a strategic competitor and North Korea as a pariah state, PNAC has outlined a foreign policy agenda blends idealism and realism, targeting for regime change or intervention those nations considered the least defensible and against which there is the most political will in the broader community.

[1] Jack Kobler, Henry Luce: His Time, Life and Fortune (London: MacDonald, 1968).

Tom Barry is Policy Director of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), online at www.irc-online.org. He is the founder of Foreign Policy In Focus and directs the IRC’s Right Web project.

4. FELICITY ABURTHNOT

Introduction by the prosecution

No text available yet

5. GEOFFREY GEUENS

Imperialist State, Nation of Capitalists

The Links between the PNAC and the US

military-industrial complex

If European imperialism is currently in competition with its North American counterparts, via EADS (European Aeronautical Defense and Space Company) it is also true that fundamentally and, to a degree, financially, NATO is first and foremost the military wing of the USA.  Unsurprising then, that for the summit marking the 50th anniversary of NATO in Washington, a dozen companies, all of them American, each contributed around 250, 000 dollars towards the organization of the event[16]. Included in the list of these multinationals, all involved to varying degrees in the defense industry, were Ameritech, Boeing, Ford, General Motors, Honeywell, Lucent, Motorola, Nextel, SBC Communications and United Technologies.  The Washington Post[17] has indicated some of the reasons which persuaded these arms manufacturers, defense electronics and telecom firms to participate in this sponsorship.  Many of them make products highly valued in the Central and Eastern European markets, but others were particularly interested in the acquisition of telecom networks in the East.  It is also necessary to realize that some of these companies have been lobbying for a long time in the background, in order to pressurize, if necessary, the US Congress to support the integration of such countries as Poland and Hungary into NATO. These new political partners are in the process of becoming potential clients for American industries and investors. In his own manner, this was confirmed by a lead journalist from the New York Times, who gave the game away when he stated: " McDonalds can’t really prosper without McDonnell Douglas, the F-15 airplane constructor"[18].

Crisis and solution: the growing militarization of the economy

            Thus, the Americans did not wait for the European Union’s deployment before filling their defense industry’s order books.  They had only just declared, via the intermediary of an orthodox intellectual, and with a lot of commotion, the " End of History " and its corollary, the dawning of an era of peace, when they announced the setting up of a program, Revolution in Military Affairs, whose objective was then to support the development of the military-industrial complex useful to the maintenance and protection of the new world financial order.

            Between 1993 and 1998, nearly 40 mergers/acquisitions marked the evolution of the North American aeronautics industry which had been undergoing a complete restructuring, up until Lockheed Martin officially abandoned their project to buy Northrop Grumman.   By the end of this wave of consolidation, four multinationals dominated the market: Lockheed Martin, Boeing McDonnell, Raytheon Hughes and Northrop Grumman. The first three benefited, in 1999 alone  " from more than 50% of the 50 billion dollars worth of arms orders and the 35 billion dollars worth of credits for Research and Development in the military’s budget"[19] . Warming up for the war led by NATO against Serbia, Bill Clinton’s Democratic administration announced a increase of 110 billion dollars between 1999 et 2003 for equipment alone.  Recently, benefiting from the opportunity offered by the events of 11 September, the conflict in Afghanistan and the " holy" war against terrorism, Georges Bush Jr.’s government announced a substantial increase of the military budget, of  339 billion dollars in 2002, 379 billion in 2003 and a target of some 451 billion in 2007. In parallel with this refinancing, the Secretary of Defense also offered Lockheed Martin a contract of 200 billion dollars for the production of the Joint Strike Fighter which would henceforth replace the F16.   Boeing had to content itself with the 4 billion dollars received towards the development of the JSF 119 engine for its program of pilotless Pratt & Whitney planes[20].

In this context, added to the redeployment of the defense industries was the new economic crisis situation of the capitalist system.  First of all, if we recall, there was the collapse of the supposed "model" of the Asian " tigers".  Following this, was the stock market disaster of the so-called technology values, and finally, more recently, the financial crisis of the aeronautics sector, which profited from the occasion in order to deeply " restructure " itself. During each one of these crises, a number of observers feared a recession of such a degree that it would have carried Wall Street and other stock exchanges with it.   If we remember, many did not hesitate to invoke the memory of the crash of 1929.

Responding to these different crises, Pentagon chiefs chose once again, the miracle solution: the militarization of the economy via, among other things, a vertiginous increase in military orders issued by the Secretary of Defense.This solution was called for just as strongly by representatives of American high finance and pension funds, who had widely participated in the recent mergers and acquisitions in the aeronautics sector.

            Economists François Chesnais and Claude Serfati point out that "the conception and the production of weapons indeed offer high rates of return, and stocks and shares of aerospace production are a part of the core of values upon which the Dow Jones "health" is highly dependent.  In this sense, their activities depend not only on the Pentagon’s orientations,but equally under the attentive eyes of the shareholders.  In order to stay in line with Wall Street prices, the very high investments necessary for weapons production require increasing outlets in order to be amortized."[21]   When the war broke out in former Yugoslavia, the Financial Times of 12 April 1999 wrote: " It might seem a bit grim to look for beneficiaries of the Kosovo conflict, but the stock market is not emotional. " The "holy" war against Afghanistan supports this analysis. In an economically fragile context, characterized by the recent collapse of price indexes linked to new technologies and growing insecurity, the redeployment of military expenditure was responsible for increasing the value of publicly quoted defense businesses.

For several years then we have been witnessing a genuine militarization of the global economy driven by New York high finance and the North American military industrial complex. At the heart of this : the Information Technology and Communication sector  (ITC) of which the stunning Nasdaq index’s drop since Spring 2000 revealed , to use the phrase of Aris Roubos, "a double crisis situated on the demand and offer markets".   Describing the economic situation at that moment, Roubos states : "On the one hand, a crisis of over-production which, latent for several years in traditional sectors such as the automotive industry,  has ,during the past year, been affecting businesses linked to the information society.   On the other hand, the new products available on the market are not themselves sufficient to replace established products"[22]. ITC and the telecoms sector thus became a major  pawn of the "new" military industrial complex, alongside defense electronics and more traditional actors such as  aeronautics, the arms industry and the chemical industry.

Finally, we must mention the political and geo-strategic factors influencing the regeneration of the military industrial complex. US hegemony, at times exercised with disdain in regard to other powers and international regulations, for example with regard to disarmament, is inevitably going to make medium and long term tensions increasingly visible between the different blocs.  Likewise, there is no doubt that social, ecological and economic effects created by these diverse imperialisms, will inevitably be at the origin of deep discontent and resistance to the new world economic order. At which point, the military could come into play once again to take up the central position in any other sector that it occupies in defense of industry and finance.

            It is true that the links between ITC and the military’s "R&D" have existed for many years. The "mathematical" theory of information, published in 1948 by engineer Claude Elwood Shannon, is to a large degree the result of the cryptological work he did during the Second World War for Bell Laboratories. John von Neumann, known for perfecting the last great electronic calculator, considered by many to be the nearest ancestor of the computer, also worked at the request of the US Army, then hoping to measure ballistic trajectories. One could also cite the case of Norbert Wiener. He founded Cybernetics, after having solved the problem of missile control for the DCA, the US anti-aircraft defense.  Here also, the contract had been made between the prestigious MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the National Defense Research Committee.  Finally, closer to home, we can recall that the  "network of networks", the Internet, has its most immediate origins in the development, by Vinton Cerf et Bob Kahn in 1973, of TCP/IP protocol for the Pentagon. The links between these two sectors are woven constantly tighter.

         Since its creation Alcatel also welcomed on its Board such personalities as Otto Graf Lambsdorff, Alexander Haig (former Commander in Chief of NATO) and Rand Araskog (President of ITT et Secretary of Defense member from 1954 to 1959). Another particularly revealing example is that of David Packard. Co-founder and former President of Hewlett-Packard, he left his company in 1969 to become Vice-Secretary of Defense in the first Nixon administration up until 1971. In 1985, Packard was nominated by Ronald Reagan  as President of the "Blue Ribbon" Commission on Defense Management and was a member of the Consultative Committee for Science and Technology (1990-1992) for  President George Bush Sr. He would later become Director of Boeing and of the petrol company, Chevron.

         This tight interweaving between the telecom, new technology and military industries would continue with the so-called Nasdaq crisis, bringing with it some of the most fragile New Technology enterprises. The companies of these sectors and more generally of the electronics sector, would quickly reorient their activities, becoming real "weapons" industries.  Aris Roubos, specialist in defense economics, has shown how things got to that point[23]. The evident overproduction in the new technology and information industries (ITC) had led the businesses in the sector to seek other outlets. Thus these enterprises quite naturally turned towards the defense market.  For example, Electronic Data Systems (EDS), signed a contract of some 6.9 billion dollars for setting up a multimedia Intranet for the Navy and the Marines. The results of this financial operation were immediate : share prices of  EDS rose significantly after having gone through a rather moribund period.  Moreover, at the time, EDS was collaborating with other companies in the sector such as Microsoft, Dell and Cisco Systems.  The Pentagon is of course part and parcel of these recent evolutions of the electronics and computer industries. The American Department of Defense ("DoD") today defines itself  as a real partner and collaborator with national industry, the best commercial agent of Silicon Valley technologies[24].

Lastly, we can specify the major presence of two other sectors which seem today to be taking an increasingly important place inside this "new" military industrial complex : the chemical industry and the energy sector (oil, gas, electricity). Concerning the first of these, the Western powers’ declarations of war against "bio-terrorism" have opened potentially gigantic markets.  Companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Bayer or Aventis have, in the space of the last few years, heavily invested in research and development in the field of bacterial – biological weapons. As for the second, merely evoking the real reasons for the latest military conflicts by itself  is sufficient to explain its engagement on the side of the military.

But the energy crisis also reinforced this alliance, as Aris Roubos again reminds us : "If the energy crisis is affecting the enterprises of the information society, it is equally touching the enterprises of the aerospace – defense sector. The latter are equally massively present in regions such as the South and in California. In addition, the development of space technology contributes to innovation in the energy sector. At the same time, George W. Bush’s energy plan is linked with the treatment of military nuclear waste for civil purposes. These phenomena contribute to the creation of a net of converging interests which, having thrown the alliance of economic and financial protagonists together with political and military actors equally interested in the revival of military sales, leads straight towards a process of militarization of the American, and indeed, the global, economy." [25]

            It is thus understood that the new military industrial complex is today a prime factor in the convergence of interests of sectors as diverse as those of New Technology, of Information or telecoms, with the aeronautics, pharmaco-chemical  and petro-energy. And all of this, under the central direction of the Pentagon and the American Secret Services.

Project for A New American Century :

the organic intellectual counterpart of the defense industries

This thesis could have been supported from an analysis of the interlocking of capital in these various extremely important sectors. We prefer to choose a less orthodox demonstration in presenting a detailed analysis of the composition of the Boards of Directors of certain multinationals. For this reason, you will find below the list of the major links which are being forged in the USA, between defense industries, the Republican administration of Bush Jr. (which does not exclude of course the same links with the Democratic bloc in power[26]) and its think tank, the PNAC.

Created in 1997, the Project for a New American Century aims very explicitly to defend and extend the global hegemony of the United States of America to the rest of the world. More precisely, it is about trying to convince the North American executive of the validity of its theses in calling for, on the one hand, a significant rise in the defense budget, and on the other hand, direct confrontation with regimes "hostile" to American interests and values - the famous "Rogue States" denounced by partisans of the  “Axis of Good”. Born out of the will of certain Republican leaders to publicly and definitively ratify a massive increase in military spending, agreed already for some time by US industry, this newcomer on the neo-conservative think tank scene has ultimately a single objective: to further at all costs the influence of the US as the world’s superpower, even to directly respond to the interests of its multinationals.  Focused on such problematic issues as national security, relations between NATO and Europe, Iraq and the Middle East and the Balkan and East Asian markets, this institution is directed by figureheads of the current administration of Bush Jr. Maintaining, as we will see below, close ties with the industries of the military industrial complex[27].

Directors of the  PNAC

William Kristol (President): Co-chair of the Advisory Committee, Govolution (Government IT Service). It is necessary to understand that Kristol, when led to justify the military intervention in Iraq several times in the Weekly Standard, recalled that he had himself lobbied for this "preventive" war since 1998, well before the September 11th attacks. For William Kristol, proving the existence of weapons of mass destruction does not matter because without doubt, the intention of Saddam Hussein’s regime was to really develop them. On what basis can he prove this ?  We are still waiting.

Bruce P. Jackson: Chair of the U.S. Committee think tank on NATO, Officer in charge of Military Intelligence for the US Army (1979-1990), member of the Cabinet of the Defense Secretary (1986-1990). He left the Department of Defense in 1990 and went over to the business world. He became Director of Martin Marietta Corporation in 1993, in charge of strategic plans and then of development projects. Following the merger of Martin Marietta with Lockheed in March 1995, he was responsible for, among other things, the analysis of the enterprise’s strategies for the defense sector and aeronautic markets. He was the Director of Global Development for Lockheed Martin in 1997 and Executive Vice-President in 1999. In 1996 and again in 2000, he was a delegate at the Republican National Convention. The reason for scrutinizing the role of Bruce Jackson is because he is quite probably one of the kingpins of the Iraq war, via his key position situated at the intersection of various kinds of power which include the US State machinery, the weapons industry and their think tanks. A lobbyist without equal, Jackson has done his utmost, for several years already, to find new commercial outlets for Lockheed. His first  "big deal", was the setting up of the "Project on Transitional Democracies" and of the US Committee to Expand NATO, sister-organizations sharing the same final objective, admitted by their leaders, to ensure the integration, amongst others, of the former Eastern Bloc countries into NATO. These countries thus becoming potential clients of the US weapons manufacturers[28].  But Jackson is at the core of the creation of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq within which we find other people who are also close to the US military industrial complex, such as George Shultz (former Secretary of State under the Reagan administration, on the Boards of Bechtel and Gulfstream Aerospace), Richard Perle and James Woolsey (former Director of the CIA). Finally we can usefully specify that the "Vilnius Group", which published a press release bringing together ten European Heads of State in favor of the war, is a member of the network of institutions of the Committee for the Expansion of NATO …of Jackson & Co..

Lewis E. Lehrman: former partner of Arbusto Energy (the Bush family’s petrol firm)

Randy Scheunemann: founder and President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (2002-2003), consultant for Iraq policy to the Cabinet of the Secretary of Defense (2001), member of the U.S. Committee on NATO. President of Mercury Group (1999-2000), a lobby firm with as clients, among others: BP America and Lockheed Martin.

The Staff of  PNAC

Thomas Donnelly (senior fellow) : Director Strategic Communication and Initiatives of Lockheed Martin (2002)

Associate members

William J. Bennett : former US Education Secretary, Bennett is a member of Empower America. Situated in the heart of Washington DC, close to the most radical wing of the Republican Party, this veritable ideological war machine comprises the best of North American industry. Its Directors are, among others, Jack F. Kemp (Board member of Oracle, Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 1996, member of the Atlantic Initiative and of CFR) and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (former Cabinet member of Ronald Reagan and of the National Security Council, former Ambassador to the UN, member of the Atlantic Initiative and of CFR). The President of the institute is also well known by the military industrial complex. He is Floyd Kvamme, former Executive Vice-President of Apple and on the Board of numerous US companies specializing in semi-conductors, strategic for the defense Industry.

Jeb Bush : brother of President George Bush Jr. : as Jean-Pierre Page reminds us, Arbusto, George Bush Jr.’s petrol company  "although in deficit, but with prestigious godfathers, benefited from the support of rich Saudis such as the petrol State of Bahrain. What is interesting to note is that among its shareholders figure a certain James Bath, an intimate friend of George W. Bush, very active in property and in the rental and sales of airplanes, in reality responsible for money laundering for personalities in the Gulf States, including Salem Bin Laden, one of the 17 brothers of Osama[29]. This company merged with Spectrum 7 in 1984 without however, being a great success. Spectrum was then bought by the petrol firm Harken Energy in 1986, and George Bush Jr. was offered a seat on the Board. More recently, the failure of the energy services company, Enron, should bring to mind the close links which existed not long ago between its President, Kenneth Lay, who for some years had subsidized electoral campaigns, and the current American Head of Government. 

Dick Cheney : President of Halliburton from 1995 until his nomination as Vice-President of the US. Halliburton is a Texan service company specializing in the development of gas and oil production throughout the world. With an annual turnover of over 15 billion dollars and nearly 100,000 employees dispersed in over 130 countries, Cheney has made this company the global leader in its sector. We can also add that his wife, Lynne Cheney, has been a Board member of Lockheed Martin (1994-2001).

Steve Forbes: the owner of Forbes magazine keeps links with the military industrial complex via the intervention of his group. The President of Forbes Inc. is Caspar Weinberger, former Defense Secretary under Reagan and former Board member of the Bechtel Group. One of the regular columnists for Forbes is George Schultz. Schultz, former US Secretary of State,  is currently on the Boards of Directors of the Bechtel Group, Gilead Sciences and Gulfstream Aerospace.

Fred C. Ikle: President of Telos Corp., Board of Directors of CMC Energy Services

Zalmay Khalilzad: nominated by President Bush as  US Ambassador in Afghanistan (2003-), former analyst for the petrol firm Unocal.

Vin Weber: former advisor to George Bush Jr. for presidential campaigns, Board of Directors of  ITT Educational Services.

Paul Wolfowitz : Joint Secretary for Defense , former consultant for Northrop Grumman.

Lewis Libby: Director of the Cabinet of Vice-President Dick Cheney, former advisor to Northrop Grumman.

Dan Quayle:  US Vice-President (1989-1993), Board of Directors of American Standard Companies, Amtran Technology, Behavior Tech Computer.

Donald Rumsfeld: Former Director of GD Searle & Co. (multinational pharmaceutical company), former President of General Instruments (electronics company), former member of the Boards of Gulfstream Aerospace, Rand Corporation, Metricom et Amylin Pharmaceuticals. 

Signatories of PNAC letters or reports

James Woolsey: member of the Defense Policy Board, former member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Director of the CIA (1993-1995), Board member of Fibersense Technology Corp., former Board member of Martin Marietta, Fairchild Industries, DynCorp.,British Aerospace, Aerospace Corp.

Frank C. Carlucci: Defense Secretary under the Reagan administration, Honorary President of the Carlyle Group, of Nortel Networks, current President of Neurogen Corp., on the Boards of directors of Encysive Pharmaceuticals, United Defense, Kaman Corp. et Pharmacia Corp.

Dov S. Zakheim: Under-Secretary for Defense, Auditor and Financial Director of the Department of Defense (2001-), member of the Advisory Council of Northrop Grumman, consultant for McDonnell Douglas.

Robert Zoellick  former Enron consultant.

We will complete this list with the people cited below. Particularly influential in the current Bush administration, although not members of PNAC, they also maintain strong links with defense industries.

Secretary of State

Colin POWELL: after the operation Desert Storm, General Colin Powell became a Board member of Gulfstream Aerospace.

National Security Councilor

Condoleezza RICE: former Board member of the petrol company, Chevron.

Head of the Cabinet of the US President

Andrew CARD: former Executive Vice-President of General Motors.

Trade Secretary

Donald EVANS: one of the most generous contributors to the electoral campaigns of Bush, he is the founder and former President of Tom Brown Inc., a company active in the exploration, development and production of natural gas and crude oil.

Under-Secretary of Trade

Kathleen COOPER: former chief economist at Exxon Mobil.

Transport Secretary

Norman MINETA: Executive Vice-President Lockheed Martin (1995-2000) 

Energy Vice-Secretary

Francis BLAKE: former Vice-President of General Electric

Energy Under-Secretary

Robert G. CARD: former Vice-President of CH2M Hill Companies, one of the most powerful global businesses in the sectors of, among others, engineering and construction of transport for energy materials.

Political Under-Secretary for Defense

Douglas J. Feith : former lawyer for Northrop Grumman

Former Under-Secretary for Defense

Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge: Under Secretary for Defense in charge of acquisitions until June 2003. Currently Special Assistant to the Defense Secretary – since May 2003, Board member of  Lockheed Martin, CEO Aerospace Corp. (1992-2001),  President, McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems Co. (1988-1992), formerly at LTV Aerospace Corp.

Joseph W. Ralston: Supreme Allied Commander Europe (NATO) from May 2000 to January 2003. Member of the Boards of Lockheed Martin since April 2003 and of URS Corp.

PNAC and the militarization of minds: a good lesson for Europeans ?

If the PNAC is incontestably, as we have just demonstrated, a key player in the US  military industrial complex, certain members of this think tank are equally at the heads of   institutions which have played key roles, for example, in the justification of the war in Afghanistan. One case is William Bennett and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). In November 2001, ACTA published a report on the "wavering patriotism" of certain intellectuals and professors of prestigious universities who saw themselves more or less accused of "academic high treason". Studying the comments of some 117 college and higher education teachers who dared to protest against the supposed " war against terrorism " led by the Bush administration, the report does not hesitate to describe certain of the most eminent professors including Noam Chomsky as "the weak link of America’s reaction to the aggression of 11th September"[30]. The North American press, joined for the occasion by some European media "under orders", at the time largely echoed this study presented by an "independent" organization which presented itself as a "nonprofit educational organization”, which claims to be “committed to academic freedom” ! Founded in 1995, a national organization whose members have come from some 400 American colleges and universities, ACTA is, in reality,  one of the most powerful US lobbies, a genuine "liaison agent" between the education sector, the administration in power and the financial and economic elite of the country.  The composition of the directing authority of the association is, in this regard, unambiguous. Its founder, who by the way, was responsible for promoting the report to the American public, was none other than Lynne Cheney, the wife of the current Vice-President of the US.   A Board member of the defense industry, at Lockheed Martin, between 1994 and January 2001, Lynne Cheney is currently Director of American Express Funds. As for the National Council of ACTA, among its Board members is Hans Mark (US Air Force Secretary between 1979 et 1981), William Tell Jr. (former Vice President of Texaco) as well as William Bennett.

It is understandable that with such links ACTA cannot be considered as a model of scientific independence and academic freedom. Its report found grace, however, with the media, which ensured its publicity and authority.  Notably, the report was commented upon and defended by Norman Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary.  Podhoretz, an intellectual, also a member of PNAC, will go down in posterity for having described the Vietnam syndrome (the rejection by the American people of the military interventions led by the US government) as "pathological inhibition of the use of force"  and "pathological dysfunction".

The militarization of minds was en route and the war in Iraq was not going to wait either. At the moment when some, condemning American imperialism for good reason, called for the construction of a strong Europe and for an "independent" army, it is not superfluous to recall; first of all, that Europe, such as it has been constructed from the beginning, has seen itself as an institution in the service of its own multinationals, secondly, that the political personnel of the Old Continent also maintains very close ties with the business world, and finally that if McDonalds needs McDonnell, Danone also needs Dassault.

6.  JOHN SAXE-FERNANDEZ

The neoconservative ideology and

the government of George W. Bush*

John Saxe-Fernández[31]

1.      The neoconservative project

On September the 15^th of 2002, almost one year after the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Sunday Herald carried an article about the existence of a plan drawn up by the “neo-conservative” institute – the term used in the press release- identified as the “Project for the New American Century”, which started work in 1997. This institute was orientated to boost what its founding document qualified as a Reaganian policy of military strength and moral clarity, considered as something necessary for the USA – based on the success of the last century- to consolidate our safety and our greatness in the next century. The document, of an extreme-nationalist line, raises the creation of a “Global Pax Americana”. It was created by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeff Bush and Lewis Lobby, chief of Cheney's staff, and also with the participation of political operators and ideologists such as Francis Fukuyama: The Sunday Herald emphasized that,  in keeping with the document, before Bush assumed the presidency in January of 2002, he and his cabinet were already contemplating and planning a “regime change” in Iraq, which would be achieved by a premeditated attack against that country[32]. The main proposal of the document, whose principal author is Thomas Donnelly, is that “ nowadays, the USA don't have any global rival and their overall strategy must be designed to preserve and spread out that advantageous position in the future, as much as it could be possible. The military tool is considered – as in Reagan's times- the foundation of the “defense of the mother country”, the ability to wage several wars at the same time, as well as the development of military and “paramilitary” forces, dedicated to influence in a decisive way, the foreign policy of the USA. Finally, it proposes to change the armed forces to take advantage of “the revolution in military affairs”[33]. For this to happen, the USA must keep their superiority in nuclear strategy and not restrict itself  in the balance of power with Russia; increase the military staff, and replace the military forces as an answer to the strategic realities, changing the permanent deployment towards the Southeast of Europe and Southeast Asia, whilst also modifying naval deployment to reflect the strategic self-interests of the USA in the Southeast of Asia.

2.      Continuities and discontinuities.

The outline -which is focused on Reagan's military programs and, after the end of the Cold War, on the ones set during the government of Bush Senior- implies, to the approval of the “military-industrial complex”, enlargements of the military budget and to focus on the maintenance and extension of the American supremacy, in terms of military strength. The events on September the 11^th were suited to a tee[34] to promote this proposal, which involved a deepening and toughening of militarist and right wing stances and  related programs, which had already appeared during Clinton's government, in which, with nationalistic and imperialist arrogance, the USA were considered “the indispensable nation”. Bush made this more acute and took this viewpoint further, paradoxically raising doubts about the whole multilateral structure and the alliances' system of the Pax Americana: It is of extreme importance to take note that during the eight months before 9/11,th the Bush Administration seems to have made a systematic effort at dismantling all internal counter-terrorist programs while at the same time- withdrawing unilaterally from the Treaty for the global traffic control of small caliber weapons; the Kyoto Agreement; the Treaty to remove land mines; the Convention on Biological Weapons and Toxins; and the Anti-Ballistic Agreement (ABM), whilst also being against – and sabotaging in a very “proactive” way - the establishment and consolidation of the International Criminal Court[35] Also, they were to cause deeper transatlantic frictions with their stances related to the steel trade,  compensations for agriculture and high technology, increases of the military presence in several countries and restoring alliances and bases, without bothering, as it happened in Reagan's times[36], to consider issues of Human Rights, because, according to the instigators of that time (and nowadays members of Bush’s cabinet), above these there are “vital” interests and “the necessities of a global war against terrorism” taken as a central organizing principle only “after” de Sept. 11 attacks. Raising these subjects and their concretion in decisions like the ones exemplified before, a group of hard line ideologists was founded, also including journalists and opportunity academics such as William Bristol and Robert Kagan, founder members of  The Project for the New American Century; David Frum, who invented the term “axis of evil”; Richard Perle, extreme-right ideologist, well-known in Reagan's government as “the prince of darkness”, who, joining the staff of the White House, “condemned” completely the multilateralism of the members of the European Union. For years they have been thinking about the justifications needed to break out an attack on the multilateral system and reaffirm with that, USA hegemony. John Bolton, member of the extreme-right and anti-Mexican staff headed by Jesse Helms - nowadays in charge of Bush’s policy in the UN - holds that in fact, such an organization does not exist. In his opinion, there is an international community “that must be ruled by the only world power left”. That “international community”, according to Bolton, only works when it is for the USA’s interest and “when we can get other countries to follow our line”. Robert Kaplan, another one of the journalists and writers who join with the White House staff, brings up, in the Atlantic Monthly magazine a kind of “recipe book” to keep a stealth supremacy by means of strengthening the paramilitarism, clandestine operations, assassinations and counterinsurgent violence. For example, he thinks that it would be necessary to use local forces under the rule US military advisers in Arauca, Colombia, a very important city because of its hydrocarbon resources. No surprise. McNamara proposed the same In Kennedy and Johnson’s times. Kaplan thinks that now, diplomacy should be carried out by military means, developing strong ties between the local militaries and supporting relationships between the powers through the sale of weapons and training. Kaplan proposes the use of military forces to promote “democracy”, to increase the display of military bases in order to control natural resources[37] and return to former programs, such as selective assassinations[38] . Also added would be technologic development which would aim bullets at specific targets in the next decades, in a such a way that, using satellites, it could be possible to track a person’s neurobiological signatures, which makes assassinations more feasible, allowing the USA to kill leaders such as Saddam Hussein, controlling population by conventional weapons[39].

The way of moral superiority that is linked to the clandestine operations, the violation of Human Rights and the massacre of civilians – as it happened in Iraq - is set in the deep-seated conviction of George W. Bush and his cabinet ( and very rooted in the political history of the USA as well) that “God is with us”. James Hardind, journalist of the Financial Times said ironically on February  27^th last ,

…with Bush in the White House, God is placed stronger than ever in the heart of the American political project[40].

Analyst Mariano Aguirre, from the Institute for Peace in Madrid realizes that, indeed, “…the president’s staff is being guided by principles that range from geopolitics…and a fundamentalist reading of religion”[41] and remembers, that the right-wing Christian Church of the USA and TV evangelists, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Faldwell, who have millions of followers, supported both Bush in his crusade against Saddam Hussein and suuported Sharon in the brutal attacks against Palestinians, developing at the same time a strong campaign against the Moslem community in the USA. Also, it is important to remember that these fundamentalists,

“ are the vanguard in the fight which will end up with the liberties won in the last thirty years in areas such as single mothers, the use of science in the public educational system and free sexual choices. We have to remember that after September the 11^th , Jerry Faldwell, one TV preacher, was sure that the attacks were a punishment for the sins of the USA and Pat Robertson accused “pagans, women who had had an abortion, feminists, gays, lesbians, American Civil Liberties Union. I point my finger at you and say: Thou helped to make this happen”.[42]

These and other offensive remarks and the national and international positions that distinguish the “neoconservatism” of Bush and his staff, did not appear by chance. We should remember the historical antecedents and raise several political and ideological components that form part of the right-wing foundations in the USA[43]

Though the rise to central government by the right-wing’s forces – commonly known as “the new right” - resulted in Reagan's government and was extended for four more years with George Bush Senior, this is, in fact, not so recent. Analysts, sociologists, journalists and commentators of the political and social scene realized this rising long before Reagan, Bush and now, another member of the Bush Clan arrived in the Oval Office. Regarding this, we have to ask ourselves how the problem has been dealt with, how it is being continued and what kind of changes we can notice of late.

With Reagan and Bush Senior, a big number of people who identified with the more reactionary political currents were appointed to the higher positions of power. In view of this, what was previously a phenomenon usually viewed with scorn from the political point of view, started to be considered, in a more serious and systematic way. That is, the linking of several extreme-right groups that were firmly and tenaciously supported economically by big enterprises located in strategic sectors like the gas and the oil industry. This also included the petrochemical industry, as one of these groups was  headed by the Dupont group from Delaware, and companies closely linked to the military-industrial complex. In these right-wing groups supported by this corporate machine, we must mention the John Birch Society, a pressure group headed by Robert Welch, a phenomenon that was minimized by those in political science and sociology because it was considered as a “marginal” fringe in the us political spectrum. After all, it was difficult to take Welch seriously, he was someone who maintained that liberals were part of a big communist conspiracy to end freedom in the USA: “…the whole country is a big madhouse and we  have allowed some of the worst patients to run this place”. That was one of his favorite warnings.

The conspiratorial element that so vigorously contributed to Reagan’s rise to power and his huge campaign of re-armament, has strong personal and ideological roots. Firstly, Reagan’s "McCarthyian" convictions when he used to be an actor and the leader of the actor’s union in Hollywood and secondly, the Christian anti-communist crusade in which most of the characters, of both now and then, were trained.

The new American right has been mainly “anti-political”, in the sense that it has never recognized the legitimacy of its opponents, nor accepted “the rules of the game”. It had to be in the middle eighties, when its influence in the Republican Party increased significantly, during which time, those groups considered it appropriate to use the “party” to articulate and amalgamate their interests, with the powerful fragments of the leading class of high capital. During the Cold War years, the extreme-right wing was convinced that the USA had fallen into the hands of corrupted and harmful politicians who were selling out to the enemy and were  subverting the nation’s basic traditions. At that moment, their perception was so extreme that they raised that Reagan could not do anything (about this subversion) because he was surrounded by communist agents hidden in every corner of the federal government.

This crude, anti-political conception of the neoconservatives, which now has a different ideological shade with the Bush administration, contrasts with historical American conservatism. Traditional  conservatism has been analyzed by both historians and sociologists from the USA, they conceive it as the first political movement directly involved in politics. In a study published in 1977, a sociologist raised the point  that one of the most important aspects of the “classical-modern” conservatism, that is, the conservatism from the eighteenth and nineteenth century, was that, “it was the result of the political decisions of those who were directly involved in the building or destruction of nations”[44]. In order to do this, an important group of scholars contrasts the “new right” with the conservative movement which arose from the political action of paradigmatic people such as Alejandro Hamilton and John Adams.  But this is not a phenomenon which appears because it is an ideological movement with a preconceived plan to change the world, but is more the result of an effort to try to keep the status quo intact: Classical-modern conservatism was mainly preoccupied about the maintenance of the status quo, because the men identified as conservatives, were men in power, anxious about social and political chaos  that could shatter their position in the power structure[45].

It is necessary to distinguish between the traditional conservative thought and the new right because there are important contrasts. While the first was the answer for the political action in which their supporters were involved in, according to the rules to get consensus, the second seems to be the result of an alienation of political activity itself, something that arises outside of the system, something similar to how the German extreme-right was perceived and subsequently, its first demonstrations in the nazi movement during the Weimar Republic. Nazis were interpreted, in the beginning, like an extremist phenomenon focused on a conversion of the “community” into a myth, alienated and because of that, marginal[46]. In the USA, the “anti-politic” tendency of the neo-conservatives was expressed in a paradigmatic way by people such as Welch. This is what he said in the presence of an audience:

“Gentlemen, we are living in a moment in which the only certain political victories could be achieved by non-political organizations that have a more secure, positive and permanent proposal than the immediate political aims, that is, by means of organizations which have basis, cohesion, clear power and a stable leadership, which are impossible in the traditional authorities of a political party”.[47]

3. The neo-conservatives and the political establishment.

Virtually until the election of Ronald Reagan, the new right in the USA has acted outside of the system ’s borders. Its apolitical views and the idea that the country is invaded by the enemy has lead them to underestimate political organizations and procedures and it has even served them as a "leitmotiv" for the creation, training and technical support of paramilitary, and indeed, terrorist teams. What is radical about this group, as was well pointed out by sociologist Edward Shils, is not its opposition to the domestic or international social aid programs, or to the payment of taxes, or that evolution theory be taught but its hostility towards the political system frame and its enormous predisposition to put aside the established order. As was observed by Daniel Bells, it would not represent a major trauma for this kind of right ‘to break up with the constitutional procedures, suspend civil liberties… in its fight against communism: It is in this sense in which the right, more than any other ideology, is a threat for the American political civility’[48].

But, as I emphasized before, it is necessary to recognize that a lot of the thoughts of the new right are a central part of the cultural inheritance of the USA as well as the tendencies and ideological campaigns that, in different ways, have promoted and used the monopolistic interests of that country to achieve its goals and to increase and preserve their power: The USA, as a social system, are not an exception in connection with this issue because within it, reactionary procedures have always led up to reactionary ideas[49].

A lot of the main analysts of the political-ideological situation of the USA, like Tocqueville, don’t seem to have registered or noticed the huge persuasive power carried by the territorial, commercial, industrial and financial expansionism from the emerging and vigorous bourgeosie of the USA. For this upper class class, as Mariategui said, ‘no material or moral obstacle has get in the way of its energetic and free flowering’, not even what was called by Tocqueville ‘despotism of the majority’. That power elite (to use C. Wright Mills term) used in its favor, when it was convenient to them, the xenophobic impulses that it knew they were nested a long time ago in those majorities. It started to use those impulses as it wanted in military campaigns, genocide campaigns, campaigns against Native Americans and to conquer the continent, including, during the first period of the Manifest Destiny,  the dispossession of Mexican population with the motto ‘to the Mexicans like the Apaches’. As it is noted by John Bunzel, virtually since Lord Baltimore, in the middle of a growing paranoia, condemned the imminent take of power by the Catholics in Maryland, until the most varied and recent conspiracy nightmares of the new right, those elements strongly filled with ethnocentrism and collective hallucinations were exploited with skill in order to drive the main interests of the territorial expansionism during the first half of the 19th century and as a way of commercial consolidation and industrial and strategic control since the second half of the 20th century until the present:

Those have been the ideological basis over which the political system was legitimized and its international alliances system totally melted with the material interests of its ruling class. War is a business and it has been incorporated into the social system and the economic and cultural machine. It is natural then, that the notion of the enemy and the notion of the internal and external threat also exist as a psychological ingredient. This is a feature that is linked to the establishment, after the Second World War, of an economy in permanent military-industrial mobilization. The conception by Herbert Marcuse of Warfare State in the United States, as a State in which the Wealfare State is attained through the total mobilization of human and material resources for the eventuality of war, both internal or external, against an enemy, internal or external, real or imagined, has been expressed specifically,  from the political and ideological side, in both the ‘liberal’ and ‘neoconservative’ dimensions. If one looks at the military expenses by Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan,  it will become apparet that the main beneficiaries are the same political forces and enterprises . When Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or ‘Star Wars’, as a costly antiballistic shield, both the scientific community and the democrats showed their skepticism and rejection. In the governments of Reagan and Bush (senior), the SDI was seen as a project sponsored by the republican hawks. After assuming the presidency, Clinton cut the funding to various programs of the SDI, though the Democrat continued supporting different projects of Research and Development of the system with billions of dollars As Nicholas Guyatt[50] remembers:

Finally, in 1999, the Clinton government bowed to republican pressure and promised to build a National Antiballistic System as soon as possible: The Democrats, who previously had condemned ‘Star Wars’ as a momentary Reagan administration excess, adopted the project as their own[51].

 This way, since the arrival to the power of the ‘new right’ with Reagan, by means of the Republican Party, central parts from the neoconservatives’ agenda like the National Antiballistic System, a growing unilateralism and militarization of diplomacy and the withdrawal from multilateral schemes[52], have entered gradually but constantly in what is known as the mainstream of the American politics.

4. The enemy, ‘national security’, 09/11 and the Constitution.

During the cold war, the quality of the ‘national character’ was strongly influenced by the sense of vulnerability. After all, with the development of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons and intercontinental rockets from the Soviet side, the territory and the population of the USA started to be a part and parcel of the ‘battlefield’ of the Third World War. That meant, that because of the specific features of the State of War, to the average American ‘anybody can be my enemy at any moment’. Analyzing this topic from an anthropologic perspective, and in the middle of the cold war, Jules Henry made some remarks of great pertinence today when considering the anti-terrorist global war that is now used by the extreme right to replace anti-communism. According Henry, in the USA a remarkable anthropological fact has taken place, that is, the growing confusion between the friend and the enemy:

‘…during the Second World War, Japan was our enemy, now it is our friend; the USSR was our friend, now it is our enemy, Germany was our enemy, now a part of it is our friend and another part our enemy. France was our friend, now it is almost our enemy. Yugoslavia was our friend, now one day it is our friend and the following day it is our enemy depending on the turnarounds of our foreign policy. During the Second World War, China was our friend, now it is our enemy… Italy was our enemy and now it is our friend and so on.’[53]

The strong shifts in the definition of friend and enemy are producing cynicism and the predisposition to leave it to the important people, the experts tell us who is the friend and who is the enemy. The character gets used to accepting the premise that anyone can be my enemy at any moment. It is a condition of the national character that has not arisen with the neoconservatives. We are seeing the long term results of political-strategic and economic processes that have been being brewing since the end of the Second World War with the establishment of a wide and permanent ‘national security’ machinery built apart from the margins of the Constitution[54]. When driven by a neoconservative point of view, the attack on ‘civility’, on the juridical and politic-electoral principles and procedures, it is stressed to dangerous extents. The adoption of the ‘preventive self-defense strategy’, defined as a war crime under the law of the Nuremberg Trials, brings a strong dose of uncertainty, chaos and anarchy to the political and economic relations as it breaks with the basis of relations amongst states, established since the so called Westphalia’s Pax (1648). This strategy is being put into practice, since 9/11, with the excuse of a war against terrorism together with a systematic attack on the constitutional machinery and the civil rights in the USA. The actions of the National Security State applied by Bush question ‘two centuries of constitutional right’. This can be read in an editorial of The New York Times[55] dedicated to the trial of Zachariah Moussaoui, in which the district attorney arbitrarily suspended the rights given by the Sixth Amendment, denying the defense the access to fundamental evidence in the case. This issue is very important because the district attorney’s office tries to keep secret evidence about the links of Al Qaeda with the machinery of the State.

Final thoughts

The Neoconservatives’ profile is highly militarized. The ideologists and members from the Bush cabinet give little attention to economic issues and show clumsiness in dealing with the political-constitutional mess in the middle of which the regime is involved. James Petras has attracted attention to these deficiencies and observed that the economical pillars to sustain the supremacy of the USA are not solid. He describes them as ‘unstable and unsustainable’[56]. The first one lies on a sector highly vulnerable and speculative that tends to go to volatility and that is entering into a deep recession. The second one is the dependence of that ‘supremacy’ in a high level of transferences, benefits, rate payments and royalties from the colonized areas. Using an index made for Pablo Gonzalez Casnova and José Gandarilla about the transference of surpluses that includes debt service, loses due to exchanges, flight of capital, unilateral transferences, direct inversion net utilities and errors and omissions, I made an estimate with Omar Nuñez about the surplus transferences from Latin America to the USA and other creditors between 1976 and 1997[57]. We used figures from the FMI, BM and CEPAL published since 1982. Adding the total amounts separated by areas and their subsequent deflation using the implicit deflator of USA’s GDP with base 100 in 1990, we obtained a conservative but very impressive figure of 2 trillion, 51 billion and 619.1 millions for surplus transferences. Other estimates by Petras and Veltneyer indicate that in Latin America only, between 1990 and 1998, more than 700 billion dollars were transfers for payments to banks and corporations in Europe and in the USA.

The third pillar of the imperial supremacy identified, is the political power, including the power to print money, to cover the deficit and the security that are offered to nationals and foreigners and the ones dedicated to illicit businesses (drug dealing). The modifications observed in the structure of power of the international monetary system with the arrival of the Euro and its adoption as a currency reserve for central banks (besides the dollar), that is, as a means sketch of Pax Americana made after the Second World War, make a very striking contrast with the neoconservative discourse that appeals to an American supremacy, based, almost exclusively on the huge conventional military power of the USA, as it was noted in the war of conquest against Iraq ( in which the control of it large reserve of oil reserve  seems to have played a key geostrategic and entrepreneurial role). But we have to remember that it is the aggression  (and troubled occupation) of a colossus with an economy 280 times bigger that the one of that Arab nation and which had a military machinery with a strength 300 times bigger than that of  Saddam Hussein regime. The aggressive unilateralism of military (and also commercial) policy practiced by Bush, along with his crusade against the authorities of International Law, have put him, according to several surveys made in Europe, as ‘a threat to world peace, bigger than Hussein’. It is the supremacy of a rogue state that acts out of the borders of the democracy, outside and inside its territory. As it was expressed by the London newspaper Guardian,

"The USA, the "indispensable nation", begins to resemble the ultimate rogue state.

Instead of leading the community of nations, Bush's America seems increasingly intent on confronting it. Instead of a shining city on a hill.... comes a devastatingly different, divisive and nationalistic jingle: we do what we want, for ourselves... And if you don't like it, well, tough."[58]

7. SARA FLOUNDERS

“The Power Complex” : the links of PNAC members to industrial interests in general and to the petroleum industry in particular

The International Action Center and its founder, the former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, salutes the Belgian comrades and friends and all the others working on this hearing for the work they are doing in establishing that elements in U.S. ruling circles and especially those who were to become the Bush administration established a foreign policy for the United States that led it to wage a war of aggression against Iraq in the spring of 2003.

A whole section of the U.S. ruling class, through its think tanks and strategists, the so-called neo-cons, had developed a plan. What is useful for a hearing like this is that they published their plan – The Plan for the New American Century - or PNAC -- in 1998, two years before George W. Bush slipped into the White House after a dubious election. This can establish premeditation on the part of the U.S. government with regard to this very serious war crime.

I will not focus on the PNAC itself as other will develop this point fully. I would like instead to make a presentation on two main points that continue from the discussion of the ideology of the PNAC. First, as an additional motive, one might even call it a driving force, I will show the connections between the Bush administration and the military-industrial complex, especially the so-called oil lobby, and its impact on the aggression against Iraq. Second, I will quote from a Bush administration insider to show that the Bush administration was discussing the implementation of the PNAC from the very FIRST meeting of the National Security Council, long before the attack of September 11, 2001.

The whole PNAC plan is based on the assumption that because U.S. ruling circles were willing to use the overwhelming force of the Pentagon that they could overwhelm ALL opposition. I will end by showing that as of now, a year after the war ended, nothing is going according to their plan. And our task in the anti-war movement should be not just to evaluate their power and their crimes, but to add to their problems in waging war.

The Motive of Profit

In the first volume of Capital, Karl Marx cites a British trade unionist, T.J. Dunning, on the greed of capitalists. It has been quoted many times since because it is so powerful and so true.

"With adequate profit," Dunning said, "capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent certain will produce eagerness; 50 percent, positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is here stated."

A lot has changed since Dunning said this. But not the attitude of the capitalists. This was apparent in the period leading up to the March 20, 2003, invasion of Iraq. The Oil Lobby in the United States, the military contractors, the banks that finance them, all hoped to grow fabulously rich from the war.

And these same businesses were closely connected with the "neo-conservative" ideologists in the Bush administration who also hoped to grow rich from the war. They believe that their friends and associates and they themselves have the right to grow rich as much as they believe

in any more complicated ideology. Ideology and self-interest and class interest were intimately entwined and interrelated.

The war served a small group of very rich and powerful owners of the corporations and banks that dominate the world. It served especially the energy, construction and military industries that stood to make enormous fortunes from the conquest of Iraq. It had the almost unanimous support of the U.S. ruling class. But the oil monopolies, the energy dealers, the construction companies and the military-industrial complex, became the strongest champions for war.

Driven by both ideology and self-interest, the Bush administration convinced the bulk of U.S. capitalists that U.S. world domination, won and preserved using the overwhelming military superiority of the Pentagon, would guarantee that they continue to profit and expand even

if their competitors suffered and collapsed from the economic crisis.

Ties of individual governement members to the monopolies

Members of the Bush family have blatantly used their political offices--from father to sons--to increase their personal fortunes. They have also packed their administrations with other politicians whose positions and personal wealth are tied to energy and military industries. President George W. Bush himself is a Texas oilman. His company, Arbusto, merged with Spectrum 7 in 1984 as it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Spectrum was bought out by Harken Energy in 1986, giving Bush a seat on Harken's board, some stock options and a $120,000 consulting contract.

Vice President Dick Cheney made millions of dollars, after leaving the first Bush administration, as CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Halliburton is the world's largest oil field services company. Cheney continues to receive as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation.

National Security Council Director Condoleezza Rice was a member of the board of directors of Chevron Corporation. Chevron named a 130,000-ton oil tanker after Ms. Rice. She served as their expert on Kazakhstan. Chevron holds the largest of the oil concessions in Kazakhstan.

Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans spent 25 years at Tom Brown Inc., a Denver-based oil and gas company. He was chairman and CEO of the $1.2 billion company and also sat on the board of TMBR/Sharp Drilling, an oil and gas drilling operation.

Secretary of Energy Stanley Abraham was also an executive at Tom Brown Corp.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among other things, was a director for Gulfstream Aerospace. His stock in the company reportedly was valued at $11 million when the company was acquired by defense contractor General Dynamics in 1999.

Many of the other cabinet members had connections to pharmaceutical industries, military industries and banks. Like the usual U.S. government, the Bush administration represented the interests of the richest capitalists. Indeed, the Bush grouping was even more narrow than most, representing only a narrow stratum of the very rich, mainly energy and arms corporations.

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was a chief executive at Alcoa, the largest aluminum manufacturer. O'Neill was a standing member of the National Security Council, a longtime friend of Vice President Dick Cheney and a protégé of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the Ford administration. He met one-on-one with Bush weekly during his two years as secretary of the treasury before he was fired for objecting to Bush's tax cuts.

Paul O’Neill’s revelations

O'Neill recently gave interviews for a book by Ron Suskind about his experience in the administration, which he left in 2003. Especially important for this testimony is what O'Neill reports about how the Bush cabinet discussed war with Iraq. And when.

In the book itself, Suskind recounts those early NSC meetings. On Jan. 30, 2001, at the first NSC meeting of the Bush administration, which lasted less than an hour, the first topic was about how the administration was going to side with Israel and openly let Ariel Sharon have full freedom to attack the Palestinians without any restraint from Washington.

Then Bush turned to Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser, and says, "So, Condi, what are we going to talk about today?"

"How Iraq is destabilizing the region, Mr. President,' she replied in what was described as a "scripted exchange." Then CIA head George Tenet pulled out his infamous photos of an alleged chemical weapons plant and they all huddled excitedly around the photos as though they had found the smoking gun. These were the same meaningless photos of a factory with unidentified trucks standing by that Colin Powell tried unsuccessfully to sell to the UN Security Council in the final stages of war preparation.

Two days later, on Feb. 1, the second meeting took place. Secretary of State Colin Powell had been assigned the task of tightening up the sanctions regime at the first meeting. Says the book:

"Powell began by discussing the new strategy for 'targeted sanctions.' But after a moment Rumsfeld interrupted.

"'Sanctions are fine,' he said. 'But what we really want to think about is going after Saddam.

"'Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests,' Rumsfeld said. 'It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about.'"(p.85)

At another point in the book, Suskind recounts that "One document, headed 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Con tracts,' lists companies from 30 countries--including France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom--their specialties, and in some cases their particular areas of

interest. An attached document maps Iraq with markings for 'supergiant oilfield,' 'other oilfield,' and 'earmarked for production sharing,' while demarking the largely undeveloped southwest of the country into nine 'blocks' to designate areas for future exploration." (p.96)

Suskind recounts that at the start of 2001, "Actual plans, to O'Neill's astonishment, were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it--complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals--carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war." (p. 129)

Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld -- the same people whose personal interests merged with their ideology -- drove toward the war on Iraq long before September 11, 2001, and long before any proof of so-called weapons of mass destruction.

After September 11, they only stepped up the march toward war. Suskind writes of a briefing meeting on September 13, 2001, before a National Security Meeting.

"O'Neill had received a short briefing before the meeting. What was guiding the discussion thus far was whether this was a war against al-Qaeda and its host, Afghanistan's Taliban regime, or the first step in abroader struggle against worldwide terrorism and the numerous states that support terror. At an NSC meeting the day before, just as O'Neill'sC-17 was landing at Andrews Air Force Base, Rumsfeld had raised thequestion of Iraq. The Pentagon had been working for months on a military plan for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Any initiative against worldwide terrorism would surely, at some point, Rumsfeld had argued, take the United States to Baghdad." (page 184)

Summer of 2002 – Full speed ahead for War

After 9/11, the administration was able to mobilize the population for war. The assault on Afghanistan ended quickly and was apparently successful. Since then, Afghanistan has proven impossible to stabilize.

But by the spring of 2002, the administration was already preparing the assault on Iraq. By fall, this campaign was in full gear.

Meanwhile Exxon/Mobil Corp., Chevron/Texaco Corp., Conoco Philips, Halliburton and Bechtel lined up for the contracts to "reconstruct" Iraq. Executives from these companies met with the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney the prior October [2002] to discuss a future carve-up of oil territories in Iraq, according to the January 20, 2003, Wall Street Journal.

The war took place, with all its horrors for the Iraqi people. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Rice--believed they had a quick and easy victory over Iraq last May 1. They believed that military power was enough to turn Iraq back into a colony. They were arrogant enough to start looking for the next target in Bush's endless war--Syria, Iran, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Cuba was threatened with war--Zimbabwe and Venezuela targeted for subversion.

The financial rewards went in both directions. On October 31, 2003, the New York Times published an article stating that "executives, employees and political action committees of the 70 companies that received government contracts" adding up to $8 billion "for work in either Iraq or Afghanistan" contributed slightly more than $500,000 to President Bush's 2000 election campaign.

The overwhelming majority of government contracts for billions of dollars of reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan went to companies run by executives who were heavy political contributors to both political parties. They gave about two-to-one to the Republicans, and more money to Bush than any other politician in the last 12 years.

"Nine of the 10 biggest contractors — the biggest of which were Bechtel Corporation and Halliburton, either employed former senior government officials or had close ties to government agencies and to Congress."

When Congress passed the additional $87 billion bill funding the Iraq occupation, it approved  an additional $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan this week. Much of it is going to these samecompanies.

You don’t always get what you want

Many of the administration's friends are getting rich from this government money in Iraq, despite the failure of the U.S. to turn Iraq into a compliant colony. Much to the surprise of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company, the occupation of Iraq aroused a resistance that has continued to grow since May 1, 2003.

The momentum of the campaign for "endless war" has been drastically slowed by the determined resistance of the Iraqi people to the brutal colonial occupation of their country. More and more U.S. soldiers are killed and wounded on a daily basis. Hatred for the occupiers spreads throughout the country. The attempt to set up a compliant yet stable Iraqi client regime has failed utterly.

The Pentagon may have world's largest military machine – larger than the rest of the world combined. But occupations can only succeed if they are unchallenged. The Israeli army is finding this out in Palestine. The Pentagon in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have not heard the end of the story in Haiti or even in Yugoslavia, the four places in the past five years that the U.S. military has forcibly occupied.

One thing a successful prosecution needs to show is the motive for the crime. I believe that my testimony today gives some insight to the motives of those making the decisions for the U.S. government in waging aggressive war against Iraq.

The task of a people's tribunal, like the one we are carrying on here that has more moral authority than any of the tribunals set up in The Hague by the imperialist powers, is to preserve the truth, to bring it out before the people. This is an important task. But the struggle of the Iraqi people to free their country from colonial occupation once again is what is making people listen. Once again, on March 20, 2004, people came out in over 60 countries and close to 1,000 cities around the world to say no to occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and all over.

8.  SAUL LANDAU

These texts  might differ from the actual testimony, but gives an idea of the witnesses approach

The Empire in Denial and the Denial of Empire

George W. Bush, for all the jokes about his intellectual challenges, has established an unsurpassed level of imperial denial, while he blithely rejects notions that he runs an empire that has run into considerable trouble. Indeed, except for the comments of a few humorists and pundits, the media has failed to call the emperor on his political fiascoes. Instead, they have bought Bush’s own description of them as successes. “The Bush universe of eternal sunshine,” as NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd called it, amounts to a bubble of errors covered by holy-sounding rhetoric. 

W and his tough guys have intimidated the media -- and most nations of the world -- with relative impunity. Bush repeatedly claims to have made the world safer from terrorism. Yet, terrorist incidents have multiplied since he announced his “war against terrorism” (Not counting Israel, just look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, Bali etc.). Critics credit his crude tactics with fostering the recruitment of new militants. Bush declared last May, almost a year ago, that the war in Iraq had ended. Last week, the US body count topped 610 and no one expects it to stop there.

Indeed, after the December 13, 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush had assured the nation that the resistance would collapse. Instead it has grown more intense. Bush insists that he will prevail in his mission to bring freedom to Iraq. The foreign terrorists responsible for the daily carnage, insist Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Colonial Governor L. Paul Bremer, operate only in the limited area of the Sunni Triangle (Baghdad-Fallujah-Tikrit). Presumably Sunnis –Hussein is a Sunni – continue to resist out of loyalty. But over the April 2-4 weekend, a Shi’ite cleric organized massive and bloody demonstrations in parts of the Sunni Triangle and in other cities as well!

If freedom to Bush meant only the privatization of formerly public wealth, his claims might carry more weight. Bremer’s gang has usurped the Iraqi patrimony and offered it for sale and a buyers’ market prevails. Given the violent atmosphere insurance companies are understandably reluctant to issue policies on businesses; thus, few buyers will come forth. Essentially, Bush offers the security provided by over 100,000 members of the US armed forces and tens of thousands of hired mercenaries (Blackwater, Halliburton et. al) paid for by US taxpayers – just to secure Iraq for the western way of life: business.

Despite daily news and photos to the contrary, Bush persists with his “Iraqis are happier” hymn. Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the out-of-tune right wing radio chorus sing along, just as Marines begin their retaliation against the perpetrators of the killing and mutilating of four US mercenaries last week in Fallujah. Hundreds of people – or more -- took part at some level in the deed and celebration that followed.

When I discussed with a pro-Bush colleague the difference between my pessimistic Iraqi scenario and the optimistic White House picture, he dismissed my criticism as “carping” and offered wisdom like, “you have to break eggs to make an omelet,” and “democracy doesn’t just happen.”

He believes that God intended Bush to bring democracy to the world. I got a more secular spin on that idea in grade school. My teachers told me that democracy and freedom stand as indelible US values at home and our nation sells our cultural offerings to the world – for them to literally buy. US culture and ideology, after all, count as our most successful exports.

The very repetition of this “selling freedom” mantra has elevated it to unquestioned status – despite evidence that repeatedly contradicts it. Last week, Bush again boasted of having brought freedom to the people of Iraq, seemingly oblivious to the fact that on March 28 occupation forces shut down Al-Hawza, a newspaper critical of US policies – because “it didn’t print the truth.”

In addition, Bush might not have read about the documents emerging from the national security classification cellar that showed the US helping to overthrow the elected Brazilian government of Joao Goulart in 1964 and supporting a military dictatorship in its place. Since Goulart’s nationalistic economic policies lacked US approval, U.S. ambassador Lincoln Gordon sent top secret cables to national security heavies in Washington pleading for "a clandestine delivery of arms" for military coup plotters.

On March 29, 1964, Ambassador Gordon recommended secretly "pre-positioning" the armaments to be used by "friendly military." President Johnson had authorized CIA covert operations to support anti-Goulart military and political forces.

This new material also contains an audio tape of President Johnson receiving a Brazil briefing by phone at his Texas ranch, as general and admirals mobilized against Brazil’s elected government. "I'd put everybody that had any imagination or ingenuity...[CIA Director John] McCone...[Secretary of Defense Robert] McNamara" on ensuring the coup’s success, Johnson instructs undersecretary of State George Ball. "We just can't take this one," Johnson says. "I'd get right on top of it and stick my neck out a little."

Shocking? The nation of democracy and freedom, the place where revolution received its first justification – “when in the course of human events” – also became the bastion of counterrevolution, the exporter of dictatorship, the grand interventionist in the affairs of less powerful nations whose leaders refuse to abide by US dictates.

Few nations have borne as much US wrath over their insubordination as Cuba. Indeed, the island has become a perpetual target.

On March 31, with the false claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction still fresh in the public mind, John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, offered Congress 35 pages of written testimony that Cuba "remains a terrorist and [biological weapons] threat to the United States.”

Bolton didn’t even use discredited exile sources – like those who fed false information to the Administration on Iraq – to support his contention. Acting without fear of replicating the baseless WMD charges that became the casus belli for Bush’s war against Iraq, Bolton asserted in his fact-free belief that "the case for the existence of a developmental Cuba [biological weapons research and development] effort is strong."

Bolton first made these charges on May 2002, but almost two years later he has still not gathered a fact to support them.

The Cuban government denied the accusation and invited US scientists to inspect the labs to which Bolton referred. Just as Bolton’s boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, has made public his unhappiness with the shoddy intelligence delivered to him on Iraq, Bolton uses imprudent charges that could become the basis for war with Cuba.

One of Powell’s more prudent subordinates, Assistant Secretary of State for

Intelligence and Research Carl Ford, told Congress on June 5, 2002 that the US had no evidence of a full-fledged biological weapons "program." He did say that the administration was “worried” about Havana's capabilities.

Cuba’s biotech industry produces medicines and vaccines, as the world knows, and therefore theoretically has the ability to create weapons as well. But Fidel Castro knows that such a move would amount to suicide and he has shown no tendency to self destruct during his 45 year rule.

I detect evidence, however, that Cuba may have employed some of its sophisticated biological weapons here in the United States. Observe the strange behavior of Lincoln Diaz Balart, (R-FL) – called “Low IQ Lincoln” by some of his colleagues. In March, Diaz Balart called on the President to assassinate Fidel Castro. Sources in the national security apparatus said they had not carried out any tests on Diaz-Balart’s cerebral cortex to determine whether he might have succumbed to some sophisticated bio-brain vapor that Cuban covert operatives had managed to slip into his breakfast cereal. His colleagues found it otherwise difficult to explain how a Member of Congress could otherwise be so oblivious to the law and to the implications of advocating such actions.

That neither the media nor Congress responded in shock to Diaz Balart’s remarks, or Bolton’s unfounded charges, attests to the state of imperial denial under Emperor Bush. On the one hand, the national security apparatus has again insinuated assassination into the foreign policy play book, thanks not only to Israel’s example of blatantly targeting Palestinians, but also because of the mystification process that has obscured the nature of the “terrorist enemy.”

Indeed, Bush’s rival, John Kerry, has not decried the policy and has tried to show he would act even more aggressively against Castro.

When declassified documents appear and show how Washington overthrew elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile etc… the media and government officials act as if this material relates only to unfortunate errors of the Cold War. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have a major media source simply admit: “hey, we’re the world’s biggest empire; we offer the world our version of democracy and freedom and if rogue nations reject it, we’ll shove up it up their…”

The problem is that people, like Iraqis, resist conquest and occupation. Does denying the existence of empire naturally lead imperial rulers to practice denial?

Landau’s new film, SYRIA: BETWEEN IRAQ AND A HARD PLACE is distributed by Cinema Guild (800-723-5522). His new book is THE PRE-EMPTIVE EPIRE: A GUIDE TO BUSH’S KINGDOM. He teaches at Cal Poly Pomona University and is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.

The Bushies : Obsessed and Aggressive Liars ?

Kerry : A Less Dangerous Imperialist ?

By Saul Landau

It seems obvious that Bush recapturing the White House in November would make the world more dangerous. Just last week, the Bushies demonstrated their character by launching a jugular attack on former White House counter terrorism chief Richard Clarke. Clarke’s new book, Against All Enemies, like his lengthy appearance on “60 Minutes” (3/21/04) and his testimony before the 9/11 Commission (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), reveals the foremost Bush obsession: war on Iraq (a fixation stronger even than his hatred for abortion and gay marriage).

Before the attacks, Clarke maintains, the top officials had brushed aside warnings about an impending terrorist attack. After 9/11, according to Clarke, rather than focus on getting the fiends who planned the dirty deeds against the twin towers and the Pentagon, President Bush and his leading cabinet members seemed obsessed with making war on Iraq – well before 9/11. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill supports Clarke on that point. “Sour grapes,” said one Bushie of Clarke’s statements. “He’s auditioning for the Kerry campaign,” said another high official. The Bushies, however, have no proof to refute Clarke’s carefully documented accusations. Indeed, Clarke, who has thus far withstood the smears, revealed that he registered as a Republican in the 2000 election.

But Clarke obviously anticipated the retaliatory war. Previously, the Bush gang had struck back against former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who disproved the phony administration claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger.  Pro-Bush columnist Robert Novak published the name of Wilson’s wife, an undercover CIA operative. Valerie Plame worked for the Agency on nuclear weapons proliferation. Evidence points to the leaker as a high official in Vice President Cheney’s office.

Ironically, Bush had sworn to punish anyone who revealed the name of a protected national security employee. He has been remarkably passive in finding the culprit in this case. But the 9/11 blame issue transcends the exposing of a covert official. As the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission probes for information about lack of preparedness in the pre 9/11 period in the Clinton and Bush Administrations, I added up the factors that argue for a vote for John Kerry, presumably the Democratic presidential nominee. Bush’s unscrupulous tactics toward “disloyal” officials, critics in general and whistle blowers is minor compared to the multiple lies he told about why we had to go to war with Iraq. His vindictiveness pales before the horrendous loss of civil liberties that have ensued under the Ayatollah Ashcroft’s reign as Attorney General. Then, there’s Bush’s skewering of the public wealth, thanks to his reward the rich tax plan, his proposal for a Constitutional amendment to stop gay marriages, his wholesale destruction of the environment and his sneaky appointments of ultra reactionary judges and heads of agencies -- more than sufficient reasons to vote for Kerry.

I almost convinced myself that the gravity of the 2004 elections might compare to the momentous 1860 contest that decided whether the United States remained a union or split into a slave and a free state. So worked up had I become, that an old radical friend laughed at me. “You’re nothing but a liberal,” he said.

I spilled my latte, closed the New York Review of Books and placed it on the coffee table, pushing aside my Picasso print book and laying it atop my piles of The Nation and the New Yorker. I even turned off the CD playing Dylan’s greatest hits. “Are you crazy?” I retorted. “If Bush wins in 2004, why, we might not have another election. If his gang recaptures the White House, will any public property remain? Will government offer any services to poor and middle class people? Surely, in his three plus years Bush has validated Jim Hightower’s quip: “never have so few done so much for so few.” “True, enough,” my friend retorted, “but is Kerry any better?” “Yes,” I screamed. “This is a contest between fascism and….” I couldn’t think of the proper word. “…Old fashioned imperialism,” I weakly uttered. He chuckled triumphantly. Why couldn’t my mouth articulate what my gut was telling me? In despair I watched Dick Cheney on TV attacking John Kerry. Cheney’s smirk alone almost converted me into a Kerry fanatic.

The chutzpah-loaded Cheney, who should make medical history -- having heart attacks without possessing a heart – questioned Kerry’s fitness to be president. Cheney echoed a Bush campaign ad that charged Kerry with voting against an $87 billion war funding bill. Cheney, almost whispering, said that Kerry -- who fought courageously in Vietnam -- did not have “an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief in this time of testing for our country.”

I recall Cheney saying he didn’t serve in the military because he “had better things to do.” Did he not remember that he conspired (consulted) with Enron officials on a 2001 national energy plan just as those officials were looting the company and bilking shareholders and employees? My antipathy for the Bushies, however, might well have colored my positive feelings for Kerry. “He hasn’t said he would pull the United States out of Iraq, after all,” my friend reminded me.  “The Democrats,” he admitted, “have a clear cut issue: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell lied, lied and then lied some more to make a plausible case for war with Iraq. No WMDs, nor proof of Saddam’s intention to use or them Al-Qaeda, nor any ties between Saddam and the 9/11 gang. Since there was no cause for war, Kerry should logically want to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

            But instead he proposes to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. And he hasn’t said he would withdraw US troops. Kerry even phoned newly elected Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to try to persuade him not to withdraw Spain’s 1,300 troops. Zapatero refused, saying he would reconsider only if the United Nations replaced the current “coalition” in Iraq. Kerry wants to share responsibility with other countries in the military operations in Iraq, but hasn’t said he’d turn command over to the UN. No way!

            “So, who’s the bigger imperialist?” my friend asked. “Kerry wants to cover his occupation of Iraq with multinational alliances and agreements, while Bush wants to take on the world with only those he can bribe and intimidate.” The more I thought about him, the less I liked Kerry. He attacked Bush's military leadership, and then pandered to the military – saying we needed more people in the army, with new benefits and better pay to go die in Iraq and other exotic places. Kerry kissed the butt of the Miami Mafia by claiming Bush has been soft on Castro and sought additional right wing Latino votes in Florida by tossing an ignorant barb at Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In the 1960 campaign, another JFK charged Richard Nixon with being soft on Castro. Kennedy knew that Nixon could not answer because he was the man in charge of the covert Bay of Pigs operation designed to overthrow Castro by force and violence. Thus, he pretended to get to the right of Nixon, who wrote in his memoirs that at that moment he knew Kennedy had made a serious inroad: he had gotten to the right of Nixon and posed as strong while portraying Nixon as weak. This strategy may work for Kerry, but it discourages people who would work hard to register others.

            Yes, I rationalize, if elected, Kerry will appoint better judges and heads of agencies. His attorney general’s policies will probably be an improvement on those of John Ashcroft and women will not worry about losing their reproductive rights. I will vote for Kerry, try not to throw up as I leave the voting booth and remember: if God had really intended us to take voting seriously he would have given us better candidates.

Both texts published in Progressive Weekly, April 2004

9. ARMAND CLESSE

How Europe reacts to the Neo-con Imperial War Policy

In a recent article for the journal "Survival", John Ikenberry, who certainly cannot be suspected of any leftist leanings, predicts the imminent demise of the neo-conservative moment. Is it conceivable that at a time when many people see the so-called neo-conservatives firmly entrenched in power, the latter are in fact losing steam and most of their luster? Are they really on the defensive, a species beleaguered inside and outside of the Bush Administration or is their possible retreat just a provisional, a tactical one? It seems that the further fate of the neo-conservatives will depend on imponderables such as the evolution of the Iraqi situation or "terrorist" events around the globe, and, of course, particularly in the American homeland.

What are in fact the neo-conservatives exactly standing for and what is the difference between neo-conservatives and traditional conservatives? It seems that the distinction between the two is sometimes rather blurred. That is probably why many analysts rather than coming up with clear-cut definitions prefer to point to what are considered to be protagonists of the various movements. They enumerate as important figures of neo-conservativism Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Kagan, David Frum, Max Boot, William Kristol and of course Paul Wolfowitz whose immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, is considered a traditional conservative as are Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski. Positions on key matters of international affairs are certainly vacillating. Therefore a number of analysts prefer to use terms such as right or rightists, fundamentalists or new fundamentalists, hawks etc. Conservatives as well as neo-conservatives share certain key "values" and they are both convinced of the inherent superiority of the American model and the special mission of the American nation. They all tend to focus on the use of military power rather than of diplomacy, they prefer a unilateralist to a multilateralist approach and coercion to persuasion, intervention to dissuasion, preemption to negotiation.

A Manichean and Machiavellian approach of the world

Neo-conservatives are a kind of political and ideological "nouveaux riches" exhibiting more proudly, more aggressively their basic convictions, they are zealots showing greater contempt for international norms and rules as well as for their allies, particularly the Europeans. Traditional conservatives accept alliances at least under certain conditions, they also tend to be more aware of the limits of power and in general are more careful and restrained in the handling of that power.

In any case the neo-cons constitute the spearhead of a much wider movement, the crystallization of wider currents of the American society, the focal point of perennial aspirations, the ideological hypostasis of much broader societal strivings.

The neo-conservative precepts constitute the paroxysmal expression of political desires increasingly present in the policies of the US since the late 1940s in Republican as well as Democrat administrations.

The basic approach of the neo-cons is a Machiavellian one: all means that fit their ends are acceptable including the use of nuclear weapons. Oderint dum metuant - may the others hate us provided they are afraid of us. The neo-cons do not care much about the psychological and long-term political implications of their actions. They prefer to create a climate of fear rather than of trust. They are prepared to bully foes and friends alike. They are guided by a general attitude of suspicion towards the outside world: there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Alliances and other engagements are just meant to suit American needs and can be modified at will. The aim of any active involvement in world affairs is to adapt those affairs to the American gusto. Any opposition, actual or potential, is to be eliminated. Neo-cons are guided by a mental friend-foe scheme, a deeply Manichean view of the world ("who is not with us is against us"). They disregard humanitarian concerns and they are seldom moved by human misery and suffering.

Neo-cons are bent on creating a highly stratified power system at a planetary scale with the US at its helm, a kind of global and total American empire where nobody would be tempted any more to challenge US primacy.

They want to establish a supercapitalist world order under American guidance in which the last remnants of alternative economic and social systems are to be eliminated. Theirs is a totalistic and totalitarian design. The ultimate ambition is total control, absolute security and invulnerability implying complete vulnerability for all the others. For those who will disagree with the US, for the dissidents, the opponents, that means the terrorists, a kind of gigantic Guantanamo Bay camp might be envisaged, a camp for the psychological annihilation of any foes, a concentration camp where through sensorial deprivation the will of the inmates is broken and their self-esteem destroyed. The ultimate obsession of some more extremist neo-cons is a world under full US control where nobody would be able to move any more without the US checking those moves, where a kind of virtual protective fence would be erected between the US and the rest of the world. Technology, they hope, especially when it comes to achievements in space, will help them to fulfill those dreams.

Iraq as a test case

For the neo-cons the "war" against Iraq was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to the world the total superiority of the US in terms of raw military power, its will to use this power to reach its aims, to cow the world into subservience and to prevent thereby the emergence of any rival ambition, to demonstrate the enormous - and growing - discrepancy of power between the US and the rest of the world. The message to China, to Russia and also to Europe was clear: "Don't even try to think about being able to challenge our primacy, not now and not in fifty years ...."

There were of course other goals for that "war": establish a power basis in a geopolitically crucial area; preserve global American economic interests; contain Arab nationalism; spread American societal and civilizational norms.

Iraq is another test case of what the US is up to in its willingness to intervene wherever it wants, how it wants, with total impunity, its determination to eliminate any opposition and make the world free for US global empire. From this imperial perspective Islam is perceived as the single greatest obstacle to the Americanization of the world.

The "war" in Iraq reflects basic traits of the American society, the hubris and greed of a megalomaniac ruling elite, a kind of plutocracy, manipulating a profoundly pathological society. It has been launched and conducted in the usual American style characterized by self-complacency, autism, racism, brutality and cowardice.

The US behavior in Iraq, particularly after the end of the formal military operations is that of brutalized, in a sense dehumanized young men, a kind of automatic killers as described by Anthony Swofford in "Jarhead". The enemy is robbed of any human characteristics: enemies are "terrorists" bent upon taking the life of innocent American citizens and can therefore be eliminated at will, pulverized for the greater well-being of the sacred nation. The American occupiers apply this same kind of savage behavior towards Iraqi prisoners.

A Europe whole, divided and helpless

Europe has nothing meaningful to oppose to the US design, not an enlightened, liberal, progressive agenda and not a conservative one. Europe is a shattered land, without any self-confidence, without a substantive political project for this or any century. Those European countries that have tasted till quite recently a kind of national grandezza as for example Great Britain and France, exhibit the most pathetic behavior in terms of pretentiousness, hollowness and cowardice.

Europe is unable to device any significant response to the American challenge. It appears helpless in face of the frontal American strategic assault. It reacts with embarrassment yielding to American threats and blackmail, moving back before the gathering thunderstorm, buckling in front of the manifestations of overwhelming US power. Europe appears exhausted, it is hapless, dispirited and confused, aware of its impotency and of its historic failure, an amorphous entity dominated by feelings of shame and even of guilt.

This is exactly how the neo-cons perceive Europe: as a trembling, stuttering, stumbling old man, unable to control its vital functions, eager only to rest, lost in lethargy, an assisted part of the world, not capable to exist by itself and to defend its existential interests, politically and ideologically divided, without a strong will, harmless and gutless, worn out by centuries of civil strife. The European Union is seen as an anemic, soulless bureaucratic device without any sense of purpose.

Indeed, Europe was unable to come up with any strong, united political position on Iraq. The various attitudes, such as for example the Franco-German stance, were not based on fundamental philosophical, moral or legal judgement but rather on political contingencies, intra-European haggling, general misunderstandings, diplomatic opportunism and American blunders. It was above all the product of circumstances, random events, a process of diplomatic escalation and polarization, of face-saving and hurt vanity.

Therefore this Franco-German stance is highly artificial, precarious and ephemeral. It reflects the general situation of Europe, its frailty, its uncertainties, its hesitations and its vacillations. Europe seems to be stuck forever in its idle petty power games, its bureaucratic infighting, its endless quest for an elusive political order. It was partially saved politically - at least those countries that joined the Franco-German camp - by the diplomatic clumsiness and miscalculation of the Bush people: they thought that through a game of deception and promises, the smart application of a mixture of political pressure (and even blackmail) and material incentives they could induce Europe and of course the rest of the world to give in to American demands and thus get the support of the whole "international community" for the war as an extra bonus (and facilitating at the same time the political task of their European allies such as Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi, responding to some of the anxieties of their public).

The Americans got the spontaneous support of most Eastern European countries for their war plans. The leaders in those countries invoked their experience under the communist regimes, the way they were treated by the Soviet Union, their striving for freedom.

The betrayal of the "elites"

It seems however that they were rather haunted by this perspective of freedom, that they are longing for a firm hand, a combination of Soviet-style colonialism with stars and stripes imperialism. A in general politically and morally corrupt leadership got the support, in a process of betrayal and self-betrayal, of prominent "intellectuals" such as Vaclav Havel, Adam Michnik or György Konrad proclaiming in concert with their reactionary Western European counterparts such as Hans Magnus Enzensberger, André Glucksmann or Bernard-Henri Lévy their support for the American imperialist undertaking. Some people in Europe, politicians as well as analysts had even expressed the naive or rather silly and perhaps also hypocritical hope that Europe would come out strengthened of this campaign.

The neo-cons and other conservatives were not surprised by the reaction of European governments such us the French and German ones and European public opinion in general nor were they disappointed. The European reaction corresponded to what they expected on the basis of their elementary analysis of European motives and aspirations and they were even elated because the European behavior allowed them to draw a clearer line between themselves and the Europeans. By the way they have, as they made clear from time to time, no deep respect for Blair's Britain, Aznar's Spain, Berlusconi's Italy, not to mention Kwasniewski's Poland or Iliescu's Romania.

Sometimes of course one could notice the dissociation between their rhetoric and their real goals when they were calling for a strong Europe while in fact Europe can't be weak enough for them.

One has to admit that no matter how intellectually primitive the credo of the neo-cons is, no matter how crude their recipes, this creed at least reflects a will and gives them a direction, offers certainties and tells them how to preserve power and how to impose their rule upon the world.

It is probably true that there exists a historical disjunction between Europe and the United States, that the two are in different phases of historic development. It is almost trivial to state that Europe appears as a tired semi-continent - spiritually, morally, politically, a terminal, an end society. After the totalitarian lapses in the first half of the twentieth century Europe seems too weak to engage in new totalitarian ventures, but there are creeping dangers nevertheless: the rampant xenophobia, the lack of self-confidence which in the European history has often set off reactionary policies and regimes, the unfinished revolutions or rather the pseudo-revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe, the looming crisis of the welfare state, the general intellectual and moral disarray, the political softening, the growing strategic irrelevance. The European Union itself is shrinking, diminishing in significance while expanding, further eroding the scarce institutional achievements, losing its nerve and its last sources of inspiration.

In this respect some of the critiques of the neo-conservative analysis may be deemed appropriate but not, as the neo-cons assert, because Europe is unable to seek to impose itself upon the world by violent means, not because it has no imperial ambitions, but because it is unable to muster a civil, societal counter-project and thus constitute a non-militaristic countervailing power to the American imperial model.

Day Two

10.  IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN

"'Benevolent Hegemony?'

        The Neocons' Policy as a Break with Longstanding Standards

of U.S. Foreign Policy"

To understand the policy of the neocons now in power in the United States government one needs to appreciate the extent to which they think of themselves as a beleaguered minority, who are morally justified in a fight with what they perceive as the naive follies of the U.S. Establishment. The opening paragraph of the Statement of Principles of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), published on June 3, 1997, sets the tone:

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this.

This statement was signed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby, among others. The statement calls their program a "Reaganite policy" but in fact it calls for a policy that goes far beyond anything that was known under Reagan. While they speak only of Clinton's policy as "incoherent," their statement involved an implicit critique of the real foreign policy of every U.S. president from Nixon to Clinton, including both Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and beyond that to that of Eisenhower, who presided over the acute reduction of U.S. defense spending in the 1950s.

Let us start by assuming that any U.S. government intends to defend the interests of the United States. Let us also agree that, for a very long time, at least since 1945, the governments of the United States have defined its self-interest as the maintenance of its economic superiority over all other countries, its right to be the leading force in defining the political structures of the world-system, and the need to maintain the military clout to enforce its strategic program. The only question has been how these objectives might best be achieved. We should analyze this debate at three successive time periods: 1945 to circa 1970; 1970 to 2001; since 2001.

In the first time period, that following the Second World War, the United States was the only industrial power that had not had its infrastructure severely damaged by the war. Given its already strong position before 1939, this meant that it could dominate the world market with ease. In addition, it emerged from the war with one central military advantage, the possession of nuclear weapons. It could thus assume a position of hegemony, that is, the ability to determine the basic institutional structures of the world-system.

In 1945, the United States faced only two problems. First of all, the degree of economic destruction caused by the war created a serious limit on the ability of most countries to import goods and therefore of U.S. producers to sell their products in other parts of the world. And secondly, the military power of the United States was confronted with the existence of a serious rival, the Soviet Union, which furthermore had pretensions to represent an alternative ideological vision to that of the United States. The U.S. needed to resolve both problems if it were to enjoy the benefits of its hegemony.

Within five to ten years, both problems were more or less solved. On the one hand, it made a de facto deal with the Soviet Union. The fact that the Soviet Union, as of 1949, was also a nuclear power led to the long-lasting "balance of terror" between the two countries. The arrangements which went under the label of Yalta involved an agreement by both powers to observe as political boundaries of their respective zones in Europe the military boundaries which emerged at the end of the war. The Berlin Blockade and the Korean War tested this agreement and both ended at the point where they began, confirming the agreements and extending them to include East Asia as well as Europe.

The de facto political division of the world was seconded by strong economic frontiers, which actually served the interests of the United States well. It gave the U.S. the possibility of persuading the U.S. Congress to give extensive aid for the economic reconstruction of western Europe and Japan under the label of anti-Communism. This both resolved the need of the United States to create effective demand for its production and allowed it to create strong political and military alliances with these countries which became politically dependent upon the U.S. The rhetoric of the Cold War allowed both the United States and the Soviet Union to consolidate their political control over their respective satellites.

Despite the manifestly favorable position of the United States at the time, the putative neocons of that era were most unhappy with these arrangements, constantly calling for a policy of "rollback" [of Soviet control over eastern Europe] instead of a mere "containment" of the Soviet Union. The fact is however that they were unable to obtain a serious hearing for rollback within the U.S. government. This can be seen in the acceptance, however reluctant, by the United States of the Geneva accords of 1955, the non-violent resolution of the Quemoy-Matsu dispute of 1955, and the purely verbal, non-military reaction to the 1956 uprisings in Hungary and Poland. The reason the advocates of rollback never got anywhere was that, from a U.S. point of view, all was going quite well. The U.S. was flourishing economically. It could get what it wanted politically 95% of the way 95% of the time. It did not need to risk this by an adventurous policy.

Two developments upset these cozy arrangements. On the one hand, various countries of what came to be called the Third World refused to accept the status quo - notably, China, Vietnam, Algeria, and Cuba. The United States was quite uncomfortable about the increasingly radical thrust of the forces of national liberation. But so was the Soviet Union, which saw these movements as too independent, not at all ready to be pulled fully into a disciplined subordinate relationship with the world Communist movement. Basically, these movements were calling the Yalta accords into question and undermining its legitimacy.

Secondly, the economic recovery of western Europe on the one hand and of first Japan and then of the so-called Four Dragons on the other transformed the structure of the world-economy, creating centers of capitalist accumulation which came to be fully competitive with the United States, and hence weakening the long-term hold of the United State over its political allies. The concomitant expansion of productive capacity led to a stagnation in the world-economy that began to felt at the end of the 1960s, which would result in a struggle ever since among the so-called Triad, each of them seeking to minimize the damage to its economic position by placing the burden on the other two members.

From circa 1970, the United States had to face the reality that its hegemonic dominance was slipping. The main thrust of U.S. foreign policy from that point on was to slow down this slippage and try to maintain as long as possible U.S. "leadership" in the world-system. The Establishment response within the U.S. was threefold. First, the U.S. sought to slow down Europe's temptation to move towards political autonomy by offering it (and Japan) the status of "partners" in a multilateral definition of geopolitical decision-making. In addition, the U.S. sought to remind Europe and Japan of their opposition to the Soviet Union and of their common interest with the United States in maintaining their economic advantages over the South (the now renamed Third World).

  Secondly, the U.S. sought to reinforce its military edge by launching a campaign against nuclear proliferation. By 1970 not only the Soviet Union but France and China had become nuclear powers. The U.S. hoped it could stop expansion there, as it feared that nuclear weapons, however few, in the hands of countries of the South would ensure their ability to inflict a degree of military damage in any conflict sufficient to make it difficult to intimidate them politically. Nonetheless, India, Pakistan and Israel all became nuclear powers, and clearly a number of other countries began down this path.

Thirdly, the U.S., in collaboration with western Europe and Japan, sought to use the world economic stagnation to persuade peripheral and semiperipheral countries to abandon their "developmentalist" agendas and to accept the inevitability of what was called "globalization," which involved opening their frontiers one-sidedly to the influx of imports from the North and most importantly of capital flows. This program was implemented by a combination of pressures from the U.S. Treasury, the International Monetary Fund, and later of the newly-constructed World Trade Organization.

This program, pursued by all U.S. governments from Nixon to Clinton, was partially successful. The policy always sought to stay within the confines of international law and maintained a constant multilateral facade, which somewhat limited U.S. ability to do everything it wished. The collapse of the Soviet Union, hailed as an ideological victory, in fact weakened the position of the United States by undermining one of the few remaining justifications for "partnership." It forced the U.S. to look for new justifications for its leadership. Saddam Hussein took advantage of the new world power situation to pursue his own policies. And while the U.S. was able to organize a coalition to push Iraq out of Kuwait, it felt that, for both political and military reasons, it could not march on Baghdad, and had to be content with a truce at the line of departure (plus U.N. sanctions).

Once again, the neocons were quite unhappy. The clearest evidence of their frustration occurred during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, serving under the then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, drafted a document entitled "Defense Planning Guidance" which asserted that the number one objective of post-Cold War political and military strategy should be "to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival." This document mentioned four regions in which such an emergence might occur: Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia. It called for a policy that would "discourage [advanced industrial nations] from challenging [U.S.] leadership" and would "maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Note the phrase, "even aspiring."

The document spelled out seven scenarios in potential trouble spots, the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea. It said: "If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action," and added that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated." Note the word, "orchestrated."

One sees in this document the policy that came into reality under President George W. Bush. But in 1992, after circulating for several weeks in the Pentagon, the document was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post. It created such an uproar that the White House ordered that it be rewritten to remove such phrases. One more frustration for the neocons. During the Clinton years, the PNAC sent a public letter to President Clinton on January 26, 1998 calling for a strategy that would aim "above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." The letter said "this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.” It said further:

We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary action, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Four months later, on May 29, 1998, the PNAC sent another letter to the Republican leaders of the U.S. Congress complaining that Clinton had not acted on their demands. This letter said: "The American people need to be made aware of the consequences of this capitulation to Saddam: - We will have suffered an incalculable blow to leadership and credibility." The letter called once again to make Saddam Hussein's removal from power am "explicit goal" and to use the necessary political and military measures to do so. The failure to act on these proposals is what the neocons meant by Clinton's "incoherent" policies.

Finally, in September 2000, PNAC issued a new report, entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses." This paper spoke of:

two important truths about the current international order. One, the Cold-War standoff between America and its allies and the Soviet Union that made for caution and discouraged direct aggression against the major security interests of either side no longer exist. Two, conventional warfare remains a viable way for aggressive states to seek major changes in the international order.

It proceeded to cite Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as reflecting these two truths. It should be noted that this document acknowledges the negative consequences for U.S. policy of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The document proceeds to criticize the weak actions of the U.S. under both the first President Bush and Clinton: "As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility." The report says that the U.S. must be ready not merely to resist military action by Iraq or North Korea but then "to remove these regimes from power." The U.S. needs, it claims, an air force that has "a global first-strike force." It argues that ballistic missiles in the hands of countries in the South pose a danger because, if tipped with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads, "even weak regional powers have a credible deterrent, regardless of the balance of convectional forces." It continues: "We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself."

So, the policy advocated by the neocons has been clear and publicly avowed for a long time. It is a policy based on the fear of the loss of credible American leadership, which they see as having continuously been occurring for the last thirty years of the twentieth century. It is a policy that calls for unilateralism, not really as second-best, but as the primary thrust, because it is only by forceful intimidation that the United States can retain, really reassert, its primacy, which the neocons see as threatened not only by the so-called rogue states of the South and not only by China, but by Europe, "old Europe," as Secretary Rumsfeld scornfully termed it.

It is only with the administration of George W. Bush that the multilateral facade has been overturned, and that the U.S. could adopt in September 2002 as its official "National Security Strategy" a new definition of international law, one that goes against 500 years of the latter's slow development:

Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat - most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means....[I]n an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.

This statement legitimates "preemption" any time the United States government would determine that "dangers gather" - an incredibly loose and uncontrollable definition which renders all existing international law meaningless.

What distinguishes U.S. foreign policy of the neocons from that pursued by every U.S. administration from Nixon to Clinton is the total lack of deference to international norms, the willingness to use war for its own sake merely because it increases "credibility" and intimidates allies as well as enemies. As has now become clear, the U.S. government of George W. Bush invaded Iraq not because it had weapons of mass destruction but precisely because it didn't. It chose Iraq as an object lesson because it was an easy target. It was afraid to attack North Korea or Iran.

The neocons have come to power after 50 years of frustration. They have been determined to make the most of their opportunity and to create irreversible situations. If they feel they might lose power in the United States to the former Establishment which might once again pursue what they consider an "incoherent" policy, they might be tempted to take further irreversible action.

11.  MICHAEL PARENTI

Text not yet available

12. MICHEL COLLON

Global War has begun

A geopolitical analysis by Michel Collon

(November 2001)

“War against Terror”? If this were the title of a film, the official script would have been discarded as utter nonsense and hiding ulterior motives.

The points of contention are:

1. In 1999, and later in 2001, the Taliban considered the presence of Bin Laden on their territory as an obstruction of their international recognition, and offered the United States his elimination or neutralization. Each time the United States refused. This was revealed by Laili Helms, the official representative of the Taliban in Washington who has not denied any of this. Why?

2. Not long before the attacks, Bin Laden, the actively searched for public enemy, appeared suddenly after three years in Dubai where he was taken care of for medical reasons. There he met the acting local CIA representative.

3. After the attacks, the Taliban again offered to deliver Bin Laden on the premise that he would be judged in a neutral country. A similar solution was applied in the case of the aerial attack over Lockerbie, resulting in the condemnation of a Libyan citizen. Bush always refused. Why?

4. Everyone today knows about the fact that the United States installed, financed, and armed Bin Laden in order to control Afghanistan. It is less often stated that fanatical militias have been used by them for similar objectives in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Chechnya. Why do they refuse to come into the open with the role they played in these wars and the tragic consequences that followed?

5. We are told that in order to guarantee democracy and women’s rights, the Taliban needed to be eliminated. And who will take their place? The Northern Alliance under commander Massoud with its bloody history of terror and criminal traffic. He who himself imposed the Islamic Sharia in Kabul in the year 1994.

The apparent contradiction at the root of the problem: Everyone knows that one cannot eliminate terrorism by means of bombs, but by attacking the injustice and oppression that feed it.

Do they attack the global hunger then, that could be eradicated with an ample 15 billion dollars? No, they increase the military budget of the US with 40 billion. And the European budgets will follow in its wake. Rather than solving the Palestinian question, Bush signs an enormous contract in November 2001 (200 billion) concerning the construction of an even more terrifying bomber; the Joint Strike Fighter. So every victim is a contribution to the already bulging pockets of the constructors Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

All of this brings one to wonder whether the decision to go to war was not taken long before the attacks. As confirmed by the former Pakistan Minister of Foreign Relations, Niaz Naïk. As soon as the end of July, “American functionaries told him about an American plan concerning a military action in order to overthrow the Taliban regime and to install instead a government of “moderate” Afghans. All of this would take place starting from bases located at Tajikistan where US advisors were already in place. They were told that if the plan is to be carried out, it should take place before winter sets in, around the middle of October or possibly a bit later.”

How do we explain these contentious points?

Actually, the United States pursue five broad goals by waging this war:

Control of the oil and gas in Central Asia

Installation of military bases in the heart of Asia between China and Russia

Maintenance of the US domination in Saudi Arabia

Militarization of the economy as a solution to the current crisis

Breaking the resistance of the Third World and fighting against anti-globalization.

In the simultaneous pursuit of these objectives, a power may seem strong. In reality however, it also shows its weakness. Ever more contested, by the third world at the WTO, by anti-global youths on the internet and in the streets, the United States and their allies respond with war. Sooner or later however, their diverging goals will conflict. At the same time, their arrogance, their bad faith, their aggression will only stimulate revolts everywhere. The Empire is in crisis.

Whoever fights for progress, justice and peace, and wishes to understand what is happening around him is thus forced to ask themselves whether the proclaimed objectives are the real ones. This is even more necessary since the US instigators themselves -  who usually minimize the width of their actions – this time publicly declare that the war will take long years, and that other states will become the targets. Moreover, these same instigators take measures – abroad but also on their own territory – of extremely serious repression. These measures can be used against any political opposition, and especially against the anti-globalization movement.

Yes, we are entering a new form of warfare, even more serious than its predecessors. We have entered the global war.

Objective n° 1: Control of the Oil Routes

Many wars that have been called incomprehensible are in fact wars about the black gold. The US oil multinationals and their government wish to control all the routes that allow them to export the huge reserves of oil and gas of Central Asia. Our geographical maps point at the unfortunate countries that find themselves at these routes to the East; Chechnya, Georgia, Kurdistan, but also Yugoslavia and Macedonia. More interferences means more wars. Also, these same maps identify the threats along the Eastern route (throughout China and Japan) as well as on the road South since the multinational corporation US Unocal, going back many years, seeks control of a future pipeline running through Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The oil industry is omnipresent, even in the very heart of the US administration. It has supplied all but two of the Ministers of Foreign Relations since WWII.

The current one: Colin Powell. But let’s not forget that the Bush family is one of the leading oil families in Texas. And especially the real man behind the Bush administration, the notable Dick Cheney himself, is a heavyweight in the oil industry.  On the eve of becoming vice president, he headed Halliburton for five years. A leading provider of services for the oil industry, present in over 130 countries, and employer of about one hundred thousand people. The sales in 1999 amounting to 15 billion dollars. One of the 400 biggest multinationals in the world. In order to achieve this position, Cheney did not hesitate to profit on his relationship with the dictatorship in Burma. And in Nigeria, his personal investments went though the roof after the assassination of several militant ecologists and the crushing of civil protests in the Nigerian Delta. Furthermore, according to documents discovered by the Los Angeles Times, the responsible people in the administration helped Halliburton to unhook contracts in Asia and Africa. The predicted war has thus begun. In fact, for more than twenty years, Washington maneuvered and conspired in order to seize Afghanistan, the strategic crossroads of Asia. The goal has not changed, in contrast to the tactics. This is the most enormous CIA operation in history. A US diplomat in Afghanistan revealed the following in 1996; “One can not inject billions of dollars into an anti-communist Jihad, accept participants from the entire world, and ignore the consequences. But we have done exactly that. Our goals were not the realization of peace and welfare of Afghanistan. Our goal was to kill communists and chase the Russians.”

Also, the mujahedins of the CIA have overthrown the only government ever that was able to emancipate the Afghan women and tried in spite of serious shortcomings to introduce some social progress. And how did these ultra-poor mujahedins pay for their American arms? By transforming their country – under the approving eye of the CIA – into the main global producer of heroin. This involved the creation of the very important Afghanistan – Turkey – Balkans – Europe drug connection, bringing on all the ensuing consequences. By the way, the oil–arms –drugs cocktail, is a classic CIA approach.

After the glorious victory of ‘their’ terrorism, the United States favored the Taliban in spite of the critical protests of human rights organizations. Asked about the destiny of the Afghan women, Madeleine Albright responded as follows; “Internal Affairs”! The Secretary of State thus played her role in representing commerce since Unocal invited these Taliban to Texas. Henry Kissinger also helped to establish a contract between Unocal, its Saudi partner Delta and the president of Turkmenistan. Later, Unocal and, thus, Washington decided to switch horses. The Taliban did not succeed in their attempts to bring stability to the torn country, other forces were to be relied upon in order to replace these former, embarrassing allies. This war, planned long before the attacks of 9/11 is not in the least more humanitarian than its predecessors. But Afghanistan is not the only victim of a war that is inherently about oil and gas. Iraq, Caucasus, Colombia, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, ... . In a nutshell, in any part of the world with exploitable oil or gas, the United States decide these resources are theirs, they proceed to install their military bases and provoke or entice wars they judge to be in their best interest.

Every sane person will then ask themselves the following question; do the United States really need this oil for their factories and cars, following the assumption that one has to preserve the contemporary absurd, suffocating and polluting economic model, wherein the price of oil– underpaid to the producers – is cheaper than water (without the taxes) ? No, the United States do not need all this oil. The reserves in their own ground are three to five times superior in regards to the reserves in Central Asia. As for natural gas, the superiority amounts to factor ten. Therefore, it is not about the usual justification that US governments claim on the eve of every war concerning “the securing of the supply of energy sources”.

A new logical question is thus raised; is oil the ultimate goal of the United States? No, it is not a goal in itself. It is a weapon, a possible blackmail. As we described in our book Monopoly (p. 112) “Whoever seeks to rule the world, needs to be in control of the oil supplies. All the of the oil. Wherever it is.” In the economic war that is the distinguishing feature of capitalism, the United States seek to keep a strategic card up their sleeve by controlling the energy supplies of their great rivals (Europe and Japan) and those others that risk becoming too independent. For example; if the Caucasian pipeline to the East would be Russian, and not Turkish or Macedonian, Europe would have access to oil that remains out of reach for the United States. Furthermore, concerning the installation of military bases in certain oil saturated regions, the United States are not keen on inviting their ‘best allies’.

All of this being said, is oil a sufficient reason to explain the war against Afghanistan? No, the United States are very familiar with the difficulties involved in conquering this particular country. Already, the British and the Soviets have been facing serious problems.

Objective n° 2: Implanting US military bases in the heart of Asia

In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, quoted before, defined the key of American foreign policy as such: control of Eurasia (Europe + Asia), comprising 75 % of the world population and 60 % of the world’s natural resources. In order to do so, one has to weaken potential rivals: Europe, Russia, China. Simultaneously precluding any alliance between them. The Asian continent is currently growing and will ultimately experience the greatest expansion. Within Asia, China in particular, incites cupidity with its formidable market potential, and its exceptional growth rate of 9,8 % in the last twenty years. Its production has almost tripled between 1990 and 1999. According to these ramifications, the part of the USA in the world GIP continues to fade away - from 50 % in 1945 to 35 % in the sixties and 28 % as we speak. The prospects are a further decline resulting in 10 % or 15 % in 2020 - and they will be caught up by China. This growing Chinese influence continues to excite the Washington dream; the degeneration of China into a neo-colony and obviously the liquidation of socialism. This is not an easy dream to realize, it has to be realized by means of dollars or force. Meanwhile, Peking remains loyal to its own strategy; the development of accelerated growth and the maintenance of the peaceful coexistence with the United States. Chinese leaders clearly understood the warning the United States sent them with the deliberative bombing of their embassy at Belgrade in 1999.

In fact, what just happened in Afghanistan is the strategic encirclement of this overly rebellious and powerful China. According to us, China is Washington’s major objective in this war. Why? Two other forces are also targets: Russia and Iran. True, the new Russian bourgeoisie currently plays a secondary role, its means of action are limited by the social and economic catastrophe provoked by the restoration of capitalism. Still, this bourgeoisie wants to play a more active and important role in international politics by combining two methods. Sometimes by servile alliances with the East, sometimes by playing its own card, in order to render themselves necessary and to raise the bids. Also, Moscow trades with, or forms alliances with, countries Washington considers to be ‘rogue states’: North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, ... . Furthermore, Putin opposes the missile shield, or put in another way, the restart of a new arms race. What then does Washington seek to obtain by the support of Islamic separatist militias in Chechnya? To take advantage from the brief moment of Russia at its lowest point, in order to weaken it permanently and prevent it from becoming a serious rival. The third power in this region Washington seeks to destabilize, is Iran. After having organized the overthrow of the overly independent prime minister of Iran Mossadegh, after having supported the bloody dictatorship of Shah Phalevi, Washington suffered a smarting defeat in this country with the Islamic and anti-imperialist revolution of 1979. It has also played its card in Afghanistan to worsen the contradiction between the Muslim Shi’ites (Iran) and Sunnites (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Afghanistan, Pakistan). In these countries, Washington employed the Sunnite Islamic strategy of general Zia who physically eliminated the prime minister Bhutto. Notably, through the Pakistan secret service, the CIA used the Afghan Mujahedin. The goal: to weaken the USSR, but also Iran.

Preventing an anti-hegemonic alliance between China – Russia – Iran:

Of course, the great principle of all imperial policy remains ‘divide and rule’. Brzezinski further explains the reason for United States meddling on the Asian continent: “China could be the pillar of a China – Russia – Iran anti-hegemonic alliance ”. Such an alliance portrays itself in the ‘Shanghai Group’ that unites China, Russia and four other republics in Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The goal: cooperation against Islamic terrorist incursions and economic collaboration. Such a cooperation being welcomed by these republics, also stricken by the disaster of the restoration of capitalism and the destruction of the USSR. The industrial production of Kazakhstan and Tajikistan has fallen by 60%. According to experts of the US Army: “Such an economic failure is comparable to war in these countries”. A comment of an Australian analyst: “The new Shanghai Group could very well become the most powerful force against US influence in the region. According to the Russian agency Interfax, India and Pakistan are also showing interest in joining this organization.” . Intolerable for the United States that have never, anywhere in the world allowed for a ‘common market’ that does not grant access to them. Another great strategist, Henry Kissinger, exposes the US strategy [not a direct quotation]: “Tendencies exist, emanating from China and Japan to create a zone of free exchange within Asia. A new financial crisis of importance in Asia or in the industrial democracies will certainly accelerate the efforts of Asian countries to get a better hold on their economic and political destinies. A hostile Asian bloc that combines the world’s most populated nations with the great resources and certainly the most important industrial countries would be incompatible with American national interests. For these reasons, America needs to stay in Asia, and its geopolitical goal should aim to prevent the transformation of Asia into a hostile bloc (which is most likely to occur under the leadership of one of these great powers)”. In short: ‘divide in order to rule’.

‘Hostile’, according to Kissinger, means: not submissive to the interests of multinationals. Therefore, it is by no means coincidental that the United States intervened in Afghanistan. They chose to use this country, well situated in the heart of Asia to become the basis for future actions against the neighbors: Russia, Iran, or China. Washington is very interested in the old Soviet bases of Bagram in Afghanistan, but already – and this is far easier – it has converted the Uzbekistan military bases and seeks to get a hold on the airports of Turkmenistan. The goal: chasing the Russian troops out of the region. Really, a very useful war.

As much as the United States expect difficulties around their existing Asian bases: Korea, Taiwan, Japan. The installation of US troops in Uzbekistan has been offered as an emergency measure, decided for in the wake of the attacks. In reality, as soon as 1999 Washington has sent their green berets, as well as welcoming numerous officers in US military schools. Also in 1999, the country has integrated a military anti-Russian alliance, GUAM: Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Moldavia. In fact, the United States seek to establish in every one of these strategic regions, a state that amounts to something like their Israël, their airport. After Kosovo and Greater Albania, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan are the lucky ones.

In the Caucasus, Azerbaijan and Georgia are entirely integrated in the US strategy. The oil republics of Central Asia however, are more reluctant, weighing the pros and cons of their economic and political approach towards China and Russia. How are they to be kept onside? Remember the maxim of the former US minister James Baker: “We must oppose Islamism only according to our interests ”.

Soon, if these oil republics refuse to succumb, the United States will destabilize them completely by making even more intensified use of the Islamic militias in Afghanistan. A scenario already experimented with in Kosovo: just around the corner, with the aid of the US military basis Camp Bondsteel where terrorists of the KLA attacked the south of Serbia late 2000, and Macedonia in the spring of 2001. Today, all Central Asian countries are to different degrees involved in a war against pan-Islamic militias. The most important being the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, trained in Mazer-i-Sharif that also houses militias active in Chechnya and the Chinese Xing Jiang.

Thanks to their war in Iraq, the United States were able to implant their military bases in the Persian Gulf. Thanks to their war in Yugoslavia, they installed them in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and Macedonia. This time, they hope to install them in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, while modernizing their Turkish base of Incirlik and those in Arabia.

If they manage to conquer a more advantageous position, they will be even closer – in a military respect – to Iran, Pakistan and China, encircling even more of Russia. Also an excellent starting point for new adventures in the South: the Indian Ocean, Indochina.

Control of Oil for China

Why are Unocal and other US firms associated with its consortium so interested in the Afghan oil route, risking so much themselves? Oil and gas of Central Asia have already been exported to Europe. So what? According to Bob Todor, vice president of Unocal: “ Eastern Europe is a difficult market characterized by high prices for oil products, an ageing population and a heightened competition coming from natural gas. Furthermore, the entire region is subject to ferocious competition.” Todor further explains that Unocal is  even more interested in  the Asian market since the pipeline arrives in the Indian Ocean and is even closer to the key markets of Asia: “ The US oil giants have a prospect to sell in expansionist markets. The announced profits are vastly higher than those on the European markets. But the construction can not start before an internationally recognized government is formed in Afghanistan.

Unocal talks about the profits it envisages. But the US administration also considers the blackmail it could use against the Chinese economy. In order to apply the strategy as described by Brzezinski and Kissinger (see above), oil is the weapon of dreams. Because of the very strong and permanent development of the Chinese industry and its consequent need for oil and gas. Once again, whoever controls the production and transport of these goods, controls the economies of whatever country is dependent on them.

Peking noticed the danger. Late august 2000, Xia Yishan, researcher at the Research Institute for International Affairs of China wrote: “Because of the sustained economic growth, in the last years, our country had to import big quantities of oil(...), the international capitalist monopoly, with the help of its governments, laid its hands on the greatest markets for oil and gas in the world. The Western capitalist monopoly fights ferociously for the oil resources of the former USSR countries. Of course, all attempt relentlessly to prevent Chinese companies obtaining these energy resources. We need to step up the development of our own strategy: internal production is the fundamental solution.”

After 9/11, Peking’s reaction followed immediately. From the 21st September on, Zhu Xingshan, vice-director of the Research Institute for the Economy and Energy Center learned his lesson: “We envisaged the installation of pipelines in order to increase our supplies departing from Central Asia and Russia, and we already have agreements with Russia. But, following the attacks of 11 September, we need to modify this strategy. The attacks objectively provided the United States with a pretext for entering Central Asia.” Also pleading for the rapid establishment of strategic reserves and the intensified study on the liquefaction of coal: “work that has been neglected because of the long years of high prices and the damage to the environment”.

A Hurry to find Bin Laden?

Why did the British Chief of the Armed Forces declare, only after two weeks of bombardments, that the conflict “could take 50 years”! In fact, they have known from the start that the war was likely to be a long one, but needed to wait some time before admitting this fact. It was important to trigger the war by manipulating public opinion and coercing their allies. Very swiftly, the US minister Rumsfeld also claimed that Bin Laden would possibly not be found. Why?

Because if you are a superpower and if you are determined to implant your military bases and strategy in places where you are not likely to be welcomed, you need to hide your hands. Set up a problem first by pouring oil on the flames. Bide your time and stick unflinchingly to what you decided on before. A precedent: the USA promised Kosovo multi-ethnicity and peace, but in reality they armed and excited the separatist KLA in order to destabilize the region for a long time. Therefore, they were able to install their greatest foreign military base since the Vietnam war. Washington does not seek a solution, it awaits a problem. For a long time.

Deliberately throwing people into suffering is not a moral problem for a superpower that seeks to dominate and exploit the world. Just another move in the great strategic game. This is the modern definition of barbarity, nothing more, nothing less.

Objective n°3: Preserving US dominance in Saudi Arabia

If the current war of Bush is an offensive war about obtaining control of the black gold in Central Asia, it is at the same time a defensive war in order to save the Saudi regime which is a decisive ally in the Middle East. In fact, Bin laden, just like the majority of the presumed authors of the attacks, and just like the majority of the financial sponsors of his organization Al Qaeda, is Saudi. Heading the major blame Bush addresses towards Bin Laden is the following claim: “They seek to overthrow existing governments in numerous Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan”.

Would it be a great loss for the Saudi Arabian people if their corrupt and tyrannical regime, the last feudal system in the world, would disappear? It does not seem so, even in the eyes of the New York Times: “As far as today, the flow of oil and Saudi money has silenced all serious American protest in spite of the complete corruption of the royal family, its contempt for democracy, and the revolting violations of human rights committed in its name.” According to the same journal: “For decades, the United States and Saudi Arabia have thrived upon the following soulless, heartless nature of their relation: America receives oil to sustain its economy in return for the protection of Saudi Arabia by American military power.” 

Exactly. In the year 2000, Saudi Arabia sold worth more than sixty billion dollars of oil to global markets. Half of the total of the entire Middle East. The Washington interest lies in the fact that instead of reinvesting these petrodollars locally, creating a local industry and social development, like Iraq tried to do, the Saudi dynasty spends them on insane luxury, but even more on Wall Street, and on the American treasury. Thus absorbing a considerable part of the US deficit. Kuwait and the Arab Emirates do likewise. Furthermore, control of the sheiks and emirs allows Washington to preserve the pricing of oil in dollars, and not in euro’s.

All goes well then? But for the fact that even a part of the rich Saudis is contesting, a great US editor recognizes that “Saudi Arabia is being attacked by the youth of the Saudi elite that, just like Bin Laden, declares itself an enemy of both America and its own leaders whom they recognize as totally corrupted.” ‘The money of the terrorists’ comes down from there as affirmed by the New York Times: “They are the elite of the Saudi society, prosperous men, respected for their global investments and characterized by a reputation of generosity. But the US government now affirms that important persona such as Yasi al-Qadi and many other influential Saudi citizens did transfer millions of dollars to Osama Bin Laden.”

What economic interests can explain this conflict? In fact, Bin Laden stems from an influential business family. Is it a national bourgeoisie or only another fraction of the feudal aristocracy? Anyhow, it seems like it is presently in conflict with the royal dynasty and with the United States. Because the 5,000 members of the dynasty elite did not create industry, blocking the economic development of the country, holding billions of dollars in foreign banks.

This is not the only part of the third world where the dominant classes, in the past privileged by the USA, end up clashing themselves about their plundering without restraints. This has been observed with the ‘tigers’ of South East Asia, in South Korea, and in Malaysia.

But is Saudi Arabia not one of these countries where everybody is rich and thus does not know about class conflict? In reality, the severe decline of the oil prices in the last years, brought about a decline in the earnings of ordinary citizens. From 16,000 $ at the beginning of the eighties, the yearly income per head of population has dropped to 7,000 $ today. Considering an increasing polarization between the rich and the poor, even the Financial Times points out: “the rich areas of Riyadh, with their luxurious US style shops, are in grave contrast with the poverty of the south of the city where certain women beg in the streets.” 35 % of the men are unemployed, 95 % of the women. There is no industrial war that could absorb this expanding army of the unemployed.

In this struggle for power, multiple Saudi clans use religion as an instrument. But also the resentment of the youth provoked by the presence of US troops in Palestine, who are considered to be occupiers. 5,000 officially, but five times more according to other sources. Already targets for several attacks such as the one in 1996 close to Dahran (19 US soldiers killed). The majority of the Saudi population wishes to see a diminishment of the US hold on the country. Bin Laden expresses this current, reinforced again after September 11. 

Let’s return to the main question: where does one invest these petrodollars? Do the Arab countries need to remain US pawns, or do they need to seek after their own development? This is exactly the same contradictory question raised by Saddam Hussein in February 1990. Talking to the chiefs of State of the Council for Arabian Cooperation: “If the people of the Gulf, together with all the Arabs, won’t see to it, the Gulf region will be ruled by the United States.” He proposed regional economical development agreements. A major crime! To suggest that the people of a region – and what region! – would organize themselves and function according to their own interests and not to those of US multinationals! This of course, is what provoked the terrible punishment inflicted upon Iraq. Washington wanted to put an example of total destruction in order to intimidate the entire Arab bourgeoisie tempted to follow an independent course.

But does Washington really risk to lose its dominant position in Saudi Arabia? “Yes” answers an expert of the Advanced Strategic and Political Studies of Washington: “In 1995, Saudi Arabia almost fell into civil war because of an internal struggle for power between the royal prince Abdullah and his rival and brother in law, the Prince Sultan. that has hardly been noticed in the West. The Prince Sultan prayed to the ultimate religious authority, the Ulema, to support his aspirations for the throne. The Ulema refused. Abdullah thus consolidated his position demanding the engagement of some quite spectacular military moves from the national Bedouin guard. 

The conflict did not end: “For a long time Bin Laden succeeded in escaping American bombs, reinforcing the spirit of resistance among its Saudi partisans. In this context, the hereditary Prince Abdullah could very well seek for the abdication of the King Fahd. He and his royal family are thus placed in a very peculiar position: facing Bin Laden or reaching a big compromise. It can decide on leading the Bedouin troops of the National Guard in a great battle against the supporters of Ben Laden. A great inter-Wahabit battle without precedent, in practically a civil war. Or it can ask America to retreat it’s forces from the country. Such a compromise would reduce the influence of the members of the royal family, considered to be allies of the West. A dilemma shared by Washington. It is not coincidental that Bush stopped the FBI investigations leading to certain Saudi supporters of Bin Laden.

In fact, Washington is faced with a grave contradiction in the whole of the Middle East: it does not want to sacrifice either Israel or Saudi Arabia. The first is its major military pawn, in fact an extension of the US army. But Israel can only maintain itself by oppressing the Palestinians and threatening its neighbors. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is its major economic pawn in securing the oil income in its own pocket. As it happens, the Saudi leaders, like any other Arabian leaders, are confronted with the pressure of the struggle of the Palestinian people. The only true mass movement, the only one that excludes every corrupt compromise of the privileged Arab – and other – classes.  Intifada is Washington’s worst nightmare. And the hope of all people.

Objective n° 4: Militarization of the economy as a ‘solution’ to the crisis

In spite of certain favorable circumstances, the conjunctive crises of Western capitalism succeed each other in steadily increasing rate. Furthermore, several ‘promising regions’ collapsed one after another: the Asian ‘tigers’, Russia, Latin America. Each time, financial analysts estimate that Wall Street, and the entire global system are involved in a catastrophic recession. Many of them don’t exclude a reprint of the 1929 crash and fearfully observe the continuing slowdown of the economy since 2000.

Anyhow, even if it succeeds in avoiding the crash this time, Western capitalism only postpones its problem. Seeing as though one is increasingly reminded of the weight of this crisis for the third world and the poor. But this ‘solution’ creates an even greater problem: How can multinationals sell to those they impoverished themselves? This reminds us all of shooting oneself in the foot.

The gap between the rich and the poor is not only a moral injustice, it is also an insolvable problem for capitalism in general. On the one side we are facing an unprecedented production capacity that continues to grow as we speak, a growing deflection between those who produce and those who consume. Nine out of ten persons are currently in need, and the programs of the World Bank or the IMF do nothing but worsen this fact. This is not the way to create clients on which the global economy is dependent.

Even before 9/11, the US economy (the model in which it becomes obvious) lost a million jobs in one year. And the technological companies (‘the future’ of the stock exchange, as we pointed out) continue to drop in free fall.

How to re-launch them? For the leaders of the United States, there are not many possibilities. Throwing the gauntlet to the military commanders is the method being used each time the US economy was threatened by recession as a means of ‘leaving the crisis behind’. In the era of Vietnam, fifteen US economists of high standard wrote: “It is impossible to imagine a substitute for war in the economy. No other technique is comparable in terms of efficient control over employment, production and consumption. War is by long an essential element in the stabilization of modern societies. (The military sector) constitutes the only sector of global economic importance, subject to complete and unconditional control of governmental authorities. War, and only war, is capable of solving problems of stock exchange”.

Peace is thus an enemy. At the end of his term, Clinton called for an increase of 70% over six years in the US military budget, although in its own it already surpassed those of all the other great military powers taken together. Bush continued to follow this trail with the National Missile Defense, the JSF superbomber, and other military programs.

This militarization of the economy serves two purposes. Firstly, replacing the dying economic engine of ‘consumption’ by huge public orders for arms. One has to realize that the military-industrial complex as it is called, is in no way limited to traditional arms dealers, it encompasses classical multinationals as well: Ford, General Motors, Motorola, the technical societies. Secondly, making use of even more military power in order to sweep in the riches of the world. At the expense of certainly the third world, but also at the expense of what Washington calls its friends but are in fact its rivals in the partition of the world.

The missile shield (NMD) is the perfect example. First of all, it is not a ‘shield’ but an offensive weapon. It allows the United States to attack any country it pleases without fearing any retaliation. Furthermore, it guarantees plenty of benefits for the military-industrial complex. Finally, the NMD enables the United States to re-launch a new arms race, in order to keep their potential military rivals at a distance by further weakening them: Europe, Russia, China. Already, the European Union decided to follow, creating a united military industry, raising its budget in face of a European army.

End of testimony, not the end of this text.

13. HANS VON SPONECK

The War in Iraq : America's War - America's Peace ?

America's present Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, went to visit Saddam Hussein in 1983 as a special envoy for the Middle East on behalf of President Ronald Reagan. The meeting was about improving relations between the USA and Iraq. Both countries were uneasy allies in the conflict with the fundamentalist Iran of Ayatollah Khomeiny. Iraq was conducting an expensive war with heavy losses against its Islamic neighbor. 

Twenty years later, in March 2003, the US Government waged a war against its former ally. Twenty five million dollars were promised by the USA for any hint that would lead to the capture or the death of Saddam Hussein, the former partner.

How can these changes in the Iraqi-American relations be explained ? Documents of the American Secret Service from the years 1985-1990 point out that Iraq had made good use of the acquired western and Russian technology in the domain of weapons of mass destruction. Competent, and often trained in the USA, Iraqi scientists were doing research in, and working on biological, chemical, nuclear and ballistic weapons.  And the Iraqi army started testing them. Chemical weapons were used for the first time in the war against Iran. Hallabja, a small village in the Kurdish north in the country, is today the historical proof for the brutal treatment of a people by its dictator. There, the poisonous gasses of the Iraqi army were used that caused the death of several thousands of people.

Neither the American Government nor the American Congress did more than to express their concern towards the Iraqi Government. Diplomatic relations were not put on hold and the trade between the two countries went on. Military and Intelligence cooperation were kept unchanged. In spite of a military embargo, the USA went on handing Iraq, via third parties, material for non-conventional weapons. What kept them together was the common enemy, Iran. Besides this, the reservations about the political ambitions of the dictator Saddam Hussein increased within the US administration. For the superpower USA, the regional power Iraq had become too independent and too strong, and therefore became a threat for the geostrategic interests of the USA. The USA were mainly focused on the control of the oil fields, but also on their role as protecting power of Israël.

Rumsfeld's visit of 1983 to Baghdad was also meant to warn the Iraqis not to attack the Iranian oil fields because this could drag Washington into the war. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990 enabled a welcome political change in the American Iraq Policies. Already, on August 6th 1990, the UN Security Council decided upon trade sanctions and a military embargo, instigated by the Americans. On January 16th 1991, the first Gulf War by the Americans against Iraq began. After six weeks, the war was won. The sanctions were kept after Iraq's retreat from Kuwait and prolonged for years, in spite of the terrible consequences for the Iraqi population, with great determination. After the war of arms, the sanctions became the new weapon of mass destruction.

The weakening of the population by the sanctions, as means of pressure on the Iraqi Government, and containment or isolation of the country from the world community, supplied the basis for the Iraq Policy of  President Bill Clinton‘s administration.

The amount of influential politicians from all parties in the US, who were unsatisfied with this Iraq Policy, viewing it as too soft,  was growing. Politicians and intellectuals, amongst them Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Francis Fukuyama, wrote on January 26th 1998 to President Clinton a very transparent "Letter of the Eighteen". They thought the containment policy of the Government would erode on an international scale, that this policy would threaten the security of the American forces in the region,  allies such as Israël and the Gulf States and as well "an important part of the oil supplies of the world".

A regime change in Iraq became more and more part of the discussion on Foreign Policy in Washington. On October 31st, 1998 the American Congress finally accepted the so-called Iraq Liberation Act. In this document, the liquidation of the regime of Saddam Hussein became an official goal of the American Policy. With this decision a further important, and moreover, formal step, was taken in the direction of a new Gulf War.

Mutual provocations from the side of the USA and Iraq during the work process of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the UN disarmament and weapons inspections in Iraq, led to escalating confrontations and finally, in December 1989, to the "Operation Desert Fox", the Anglo-American airstrike on Baghdad, Basra and other places in Iraq.

This four-day airstrike clearly signaled the more aggressive approach to Iraq that the American Foreign Policy had chosen from then on. US and British pilots got from their Governments, greater decision margins for their behavior in both no-fly zones. This was declared without the consent of the UN Security Council in 1991.

Terrorist actions of September 11th, 2001 on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, changed the vague plans of the US Government for regime change in Baghdad into a concrete decision towards armed actions against Iraq. America was in shock. The Nation became aware that even the sole superpower was vulnerable. For a Government deeply stunned by the devastating strike, the Pax Americana  became unthinkable without winning a war against Saddam Hussein. The link between terrorism and weapon of mass destructions appeared plausible. The request for the liquidation of Saddam Hussein as one of the "leading terrorists in the world" was raised a few days after September 11th by an influential group, the Project for the New American Century. One year later, on October 10th, 2002, the President of the Republican party in the House of Representatives, J.C. Watts, declared : "It has repeatedly been said that there were no proofs that Saddam Hussein was an immediate danger. When one looks for proofs, one has only to think of September 11th." The Bush Government did not have to be convinced. Iraq was suddenly in the sight and target range of  the President of the United States. The political priority was now to convince, with some credibility, the American people, the Governments of allied nations and the Security Council, that "containment", that is the enclosure of dictatorships who have weapons of mass destruction, was no longer an option. President Bush declared this at the Military Academy of West Point. The implementation of the new strategic doctrine of the right to self-defense by pre-emptive strike began. A war against Iraq had to be the beginning of this new hegemonic policy. The intertwining of Government and institutions with large financial funding, that does not exist in Europe but belongs to the American political tradition, was used by the Bush Government to the full. Conservative institutions, such as, for example, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI), the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and of course the "Project for the New American Century", supplied the intellectual basis for strategy and content of a new policy. In Shock and Awe about September 11th, the mighty representative of the American media decided to join this policy of aggressive unilateralism; and to support it by well-chosen reporting and comments.

The majority of the member states of the United Nations and the world public opinion were not prepared to accept this American war. Unambiguous evidence was requested for the immediate threat to international peace by Iraq and thereby for the fact that the dictator Saddam Hussein  and Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda had really concluded a devil's alliance. Both the League of Arab Nations and the Movement of Independent States warned on several occasions against the American war plan. Against its will, Washington appeared to bow to international pressure in autumn 2002. The Iraq intervention policy was now conducted on two levels.

In close cooperation with the British Government of Tony Blair, the Bush Government tried to legitimatize, in a multilateral way, the war that was already decided upon. Via fierce American lobbying, the Resolution 1441 was unanimously accepted by the UN Security Council on November 8th, 2002. In this document, vague formulations express the threat that "material breaches" on the side of Iraq would lead to "serious consequences". The Security Council left the Member States the privilege of interpretation. Here lies one of the great weaknesses of this multilateral institution that needs reform, since there will always be the temptation to use and abuse consensus decisions by power politics.

The fact that, under international pressure, the Government of Saddam Hussein accepted on September 16th 2002 the return of the UN weapons inspectors without conditions, does not matter anymore. The UN weapons inspectors who returned end of November 2002 to Iraq, could not, in the following month, and in spite of the newest inspections technology, confirm by any discovery  the hypothesis of the threatening danger of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The USA and the UK declared afterwards that Iraq had hidden its weapons of mass destruction or had brought them to other countries. The fact that no places of re-armament were found, was considered by the USA as a proof of the  insufficient collaboration of Iraq with UNMOVIC, the UN weapons inspection team and the International Atomic Agency (IAEO) and constituted for them, in the sense of Resolution 1441, a "serious material breach". By this, a justification for "serious consequences" was given. The preparations for war continued bilaterally with the Blair Government as close ally in a in a manner suggesting there was no multilateral ground for peaceful solutions to the conflict with Iraq. Amongst these American preparations were : secret arrangements about the presence of American special forces in Jordan, the use of the Egyptian Suez Canal, the arrangement of air and logistic support basis in Eritrea and Djibouti, and a slow build-up of force units in Kuwait.

The negotiations with Turkey proved more difficult because of the transfer of American units to the Anglo-American air bases in Incirlik and other support bases in Turkey. The Erdogan Government and the Turkish Military were fundamentally prepared to give their consent. Pressure of public opinion, however, led ultimately to a rejection of the organization of an northern military deployment on Turkish territory, which was crucial for the American strategy. The worsening of the Saudi-American relations in the recent past, especially after September 11th, had as a consequence that the USA had no stronghold and could not use the Sultan air bases again as command center as they did in the first Gulf War of 1991. the American Government decided, on these grounds, to transfer the total planning and coordinating staff from Saudi Arabia to Qatar. There, on the edge of the Capital Doha, a major air base for the war had been undergoing a build up for quite some time.

These developments prove that the way to war, via the United Nations, represented for the American Government, nothing more than a political experiment, which would not however influence its decisions.

In October 2002, the American Congress gave the President of the USA its support for a military action against Iraq. (Note : the US House of Representatives voted with 296 for, and 133 against, the Iraq resolution 114. In the US Senate, 77 were for and 23 against the resolution). Though the Bush Government conducted a (war) "Policy without facts", it had the support of both the Representatives and the majority of the American people as polls document. Without the event of September 11th, the necessity of an American war with or without international help would have convinced neither the people nor the Parliament. The asymmetry of the military power of the USA, the belief that the world consists of a good and a bad part, and the resulting moral absolutism, but also the fear of a hard-to-define enemy, led to national consensus. In the interest of the defense of security and of American hegemony in the world, they were prepared to wage a pre-emptive war.

Resistance in the UN Security Council against the exception of supporting resolutions convinced the Government in Washington to go ahead in an unilateral way, with British support. That international law was breached was not a point of concern. The prospect of rising temperatures in the Middle East with the approach of summer, escalating military expenses and psychological pressure on the army that was preparing for war, explained why the American Government started the attack against Iraq on March, 20th 2003. It lasted less than a month. The outcome of this first preventive war in American history was no surprise : an American victory, the end of a dictatorship, but not however, the beginning of an Iraqi peace. The war should have created an artificial peace for the securing of American interests.

The Iraqi population remained far from harvesting the benefit of liberation from the yoke of Saddam Hussein. As Clausewitz said, "he who gets victory in war, has to decide what sort of peace he wants". The tragedy, that the American policy forgot to take the content of this historical word seriously, was already clear long before the war. In hearings of the American Congress in the summer of 2002, discussions were about the reasons for war, the cost and losses for the USA and the duration of the occupation. It was not about finding out what had to be done to build a true Iraqi peace after the war. This was a bad mistake.

Bombed Ministries for Planning, Education and Health but an intact Ministry of Oil, the taking for granted of looting of Universities, Museums, Libraries, considerable delays in the reconstruction of infrastructures and the giving away of major contracts to American firms, confirm the distrust of the Iraqi population in the motives of the victors. The trauma of dictatorship, war and sacrifice, the rapidly deteriorating security situation after the war, will determine the life conditions for a long time, especially when the war that was won leads to an American peace.

Here, Europe is needed. The transatlantic partner of Europe, the USA, has to be pressured, in its own interest, to turn its back on unilateralism and its striving to a USA empire, and to turn itself again towards the international community. There is need for the great potential and the possibilities of the USA, and the USA, at the time of the globalization of the world, needs the experiences and alternative attempts of the international community. Only in this manner it will be able to keep up its claim to preeminence. The alternative to military security is the fostering of a secure life via education, family care, health care, environmental protection and the struggle against poverty. The European States must have the courage to act together in order to bring these accomplishable requests for a human world onto the international political agenda.

The American way to peace in Iraq has failed. The American call for help, for a multilateral approach to nation building in Iraq, has to be heard. Here lies an occasion to give security to the Iraqis so that they can take into their own hands the dealing with the the past and the reconstruction of their country. Only in this way can a beginning be made to an enduring peace for Iraq.

Should this transatlantic collaboration in Iraq materialize, it would be a first big step towards the restoration  of an international legal order.

14. HAIFA ZANGANA

This text might differ from the actual testimony, but gives an idea of the witnesses approach

Why Iraqi women aren't complaining

Their secular family law is about to be overturned and

placed under religious control. So where's the outcry?

Iraqi family law is the most progressive in the Middle East. Divorce cases are heard only in the civil courts (effectively outlawing the "repudiation" religious divorce); polygamy is outlawed unless the first wife welcomes it (and very few do); and women divorcees have an equal right to custody of their children.

The "liberators" of Iraq can take no credit for this. The secular family code was introduced in 1959. Saddam Hussein weakened its inheritance provisions but left it mostly unchanged. Now it is under threat from the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. IGC resolution 137 will, if implemented, eliminate the idea of civil marriage and place several aspects of family law - including divorce and inheritance rights - directly under the control of religious authorities.

I was in Baghdad when the resolution was issued, on my first visit home since 1975 when, fearful for my life and the safety of my family, I left the country of my birth. I noticed with amazement how little attention any of the women I met paid to resolution 137. Only 100 women demonstrated in the city's Firdose Square to condemn it. Where was the outcry?

I had been terrified that my years away would have made me a stranger. But the minute I stepped into my family's house, I was at home. Over countless cups of Turkish coffee, I asked every woman I met why she seemed not to give a damn about a resolution that is surely going to change women's lives for the worse. I was met with kind smiles and the same weary reply: it's not going to change a thing.

Ten months after their "liberation", Iraqi women have only just started to leave their houses to carry out ordinary tasks such as taking their kids to school, shopping or visiting neighbours. They do so despite the risk of kidnapping or worse. It is women and children who bear the brunt of the absence of law and order, the lack of security and the availability of weapons.

Ten months on, most women graduates are still unemployed. Seventy-two per cent of working Iraqi women were public employees, and the public sector is in tatters. Other workers are suffering too. My niece, Luma, is a biologist. She was unemployed during Saddam's era because she wasn't a member of the Ba'ath party. She is unemployed now because she refused to get a tazkia (a recommendation form) from one of the main political parties represented in the IGC.

As a housewife and a mother, her daily life, like that of most Iraqi women, follows the same tedious routine: get gas for the cooker (make sure the cylinder doesn't leak - gas explosions are not unusual); buy oil (make sure it's not mixed with water); buy petrol for the car (she will queue for three hours, but the men's queues are even longer so the task falls to her).

At the sound of special hooting many of Baghdad's women rush outdoors to pay the refuse collectors to collect the rubbish (in the heart of old Baghdad, rubbish piles as high as the buildings. Women and children search there for anything they can sell or eat).

The electricity supply hasn't improved in the past 10 months either, despite Paul Bremer's claims. In my family's house in Palestine Street, a middle-class area, the women have to deal with three different supply sources to get just 12 hours of power a day. The first source is the national grid, from which we receive electricity for two hours then are cut off for three (we're lucky - in al-Adhamia the on/off ratio is 2:4; residents there believe that they are being punished because they support the resistance). The second source is the local mosque, which acquired a generator during the looting and now supplies 100 houses with three hours of electricity per day. The third source is the house generator, which must be handled with special care. To add to the general misery, there is still no postal service in the country and no telephone services in most areas.

There has been no shortage of initiatives to "enlighten" Iraqi woman and encourage them to play an active role in the country's reconstruction. In one, the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office declared "the need, urgently, for a women's tent meeting in Baghdad with a declaration in compliance with 1325".

Patricia Hewitt tried to establish a high council for Iraqi women. Condoleezza Rice opened a centre for women's human rights in Diwanya. In her opening speech - delivered via satellite - she assured Iraqi women that "we are with you in spirit". It was attended by commanders and soldiers of the occupying forces, but by very few Iraqi women. Meanwhile in Diwanya itself, local farmers (many of them women) were unable to start the winter season because of unexploded cluster bombs on their land.

Iraqi political parties are also desperate to employ women to boost their own credibility. So why are Iraqi women not welcoming the chance to be a model for others in the Middle East?

Over countless coffees, the women explain. They are educated, resilient and survivors of atrocities of Saddam's regime. They replaced male workers during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, and set up cottage industries to support their families during 13 years of brutal sanctions. They are not about to forgive the US or British governments for strengthening Saddam's regime, imposing sanctions, and destroying their cities in two wars. Iraqi women know that the occupation forces are in the country to guard their own interests, not those of the Iraqis.

In refusing to take part in any initiative by the US-led occupation, or its Iraqi allies, women are practising passive resistance. They adopted the same technique against Saddam's despised General Union of Iraqi women. Then, they managed to cause the collapse of one of the richest, most powerful institutions for women in the Middle East. Perhaps they will do so again.

Thursday February 19, 2004

The Guardian            

15. ABDUL ILAH AL BAYATY

Text not yet available

16. GHAZWAN AL MUKHTAR

One Year Later: An Iraqi Speaks From Baghdad

As the bombs were falling on Baghdad a year ago, retired engineer Ghazwan al-Mukhtar told us: "UK/USA means to me United to Kill Us All." On the first anniversary of "Shock and Awe", Ghazwan joins us from Baghdad for a look back at a year under US occupation. Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar, a retired Iraqi engineer who finished his studies as a civil engineer in the USA, speaking from Baghdad.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you describe the situation in Iraq, one year after the invasion began?

GHAZWAN AL-MUKHTAR: Well, for twelve months I have been liberated from my water supply, liberated from electricity, liberated from my telephone; maybe soon I will be liberated from my life.

The invasion is nothing more than an extension of this sanctions - exempt it's worse. The medical system has collapsed; so has the water supply and the sewage system even deteriorated more. The security situation is atrocious. You cannot drive outside your house safely at night. The bombing is happening. Almost every day we hear a bomb. In fact, we hear more bombs than it is reported on the news media. Now that the telephone system -- we are without a telephone system for now a year. I still don't have a telephone line. The land lines have been damaged totally. The health system just collapsed. So, it is even worse than what it was a year ago. And there is no prospect of improvement within the foreseeable month or next few months or a year, even, because the attempt -- no attempt has been visible on the reconstruction of all those facilities. So, I would say a year after the invasion, life is miserable in Baghdad. It was much more -- it is a lot worse than it was in 2003.

AG: How’s the attitude to U.S. soldiers?

GAM: Well, the attitude to U.S. soldiers are becoming more hostile because the U.S. soldiers are misbehaving and mishandling the people. They are shooting more people. But yesterday they killed a photographer and a journalist for Al-Arabiyah Newspaper according to the eye-witness reports and I have seen on television. Unjustifiably, it is actually a cold-blood murder of those two journalists. So, that's bound to increase the resistance against the U.S. invasion. I was told today that the other part of Baghdad, which used to be called Saddam City, a dominantly Shiite area in Baghdad, there is a demonstration against the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

So, things are not improving. They are deteriorating and deteriorating rapidly. I was just traveling on the Amman to Baghdad road two nights ago and we had to stop for two hours because it was dark and we were chased by a pickup truck which the driver. It was some people trying to hijack the car on the road. So, when we stopped about 60 kilometers or 70 kilometers from the Iraqi border inside Iraq. We stopped. We couldn't travel because it was too dangerous. We found more than 300 cars parked at a coffee shop and we have to wait until about 5:30 in the morning so we can go on a convoy together.

One can not talk about the situation in occupied Iraq without understanding the situation that existed in Iraq over the last 13 years of sanctions. The sanctions affected every aspect of life of every Iraqi. The occupation added more problems to the already overburdened Iraqis. The occupation so far is nothing more than a much more brutal extension of the sanctions.

In order to establish law and order, a strong "force" must take care to implement the order. The Americans having dissolved the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police have created a power vacuum. Armies are an essential element in every society. Their duty is to help restore order. They have the capability to respond quickly in case of emergency. Look what happened in Los Angeles when riots happend: they called the national guards. In Iran, they called the Army to help with the earthquake. With no army and no effective police force, the US made it impossible for the American Army to withdraw from Iraq.

They will stay in Iraq after June or July this year because they made it part of the agreement with the IGC that they will be invited to stay so as not to make them an occupying power.

My understanding is that they have no intenstion to leave soon. They say that they will stay as long as needed. They are the ones who decide that they are needed.

We were probably afraid to talk about one person, Saddam. Now we are afraid to talk about all the 25 people running the IGC as well as Bremer and the Americans.

Some weeks a go I gave a radio interview to a radio station in San Francisco over a telephone issued to my wife by UNDP. The American MCI disconnected her telephone because of the interview. UNDP asked repeatedly to have the line reconnected but failed.

AG: You are an engineer. In terms of reconstruction, what has happened?

GAM: Visibly, nothing. They painted few schools and they cleaned some of the rubble off of the buildings that have been bombed. Let me give you an example, which uses a telephone exchange which serves my area. In 1991, that building was totally demolished with all the equipment destroyed. With the engineers of Iraq managed to clear the rubble, redesign the building, building it and having it operational in three to four months. Now with a year after the occupation -- by the way, we did that despite the sanctions and we didn't have Bechtels or Halliburtons and all those highly-paid advisers. We did it in three months. Now a year after the invasion they haven't rebuilt the building. They just rerouted the cables, put a container on the floor on the ground and they are trying to fix the telephone system. I still don't have a telephone after three years. After a year. I'm talking to you by a mobile phone that may or may not work. I have a backup system and another system just in case things don't work out.

I’m a sixty year old man, but I am not going to let anybody, any foreigner tell me what to do or running my own country. This is a country I have spent all my life, trying to build something, to do something about improving the lot of the Iraqi people. Iraq is a wealthy country, Iraq has been, because of the sanctions, relegated to a third class country. You remember in 1961, that’s 42 years ago, the Iraqi government then, and it wasn’t the Ba’ath Party government, sent me to the States to study. I was a high school student. They sent me. Iraq has invested a lot of money in our education, a lot of time. The consecutive governments, all the governments of Iraq, and we are trying to build a country and you have ruined it. The US government is destroying everything. They destroyed it in ‘91 and we rebuilt it and they are destroying whatever we have rebuilt--

AG: The US government says it’s Saddam Hussein ruined it.

GAM : Well, they’re entitled to their view, but my view is that Saddam Hussein, was in 1984 was the President when Donald Rumsfeld came and shook his hand and said “he’s a nice fellow, we can work with him.” Saddam Hussein is the same Saddam Hussein that you people gave commodity credits to. So what changes is the perceptions of Donald Rumsfeld of what Saddam Hussein is. Saddam Hussein is the same Saddam Hussein that I have known in ’79 when he took power. So anything that changes, it’s the perception of Donald Rumsfeld. Saddam Hussein is the same Saddam Hussein that dealt with Ronald Reagan and the presidents before him. It’s now Bush, he doesn’t like Saddam Hussein and they are ruining the country. Bush is entitled to say whatever he wants. But that doesn’t make him right.

If I was Paul Bremer, I would reinstate everybody that they have kicked out of his job, barring only those people who are criminals, who have committed a crime. In fact, those who are suspected of committing a crime should be even kept in the government and investigated. If they have committed a crime, they should be kicked out of the government. You don't punish a person by denying him a job because you think he is-- he might have done something wrong.

If I was Paul Bremer, I would return all those people to their previous jobs because those are experienced people. Those are people that you cannot replace. You get somebody from Bechtel, the best engineer from Bechtel, and it takes him ages to understand what the problem is with the Iraqi oil, the Iraqi factory or the Iraqi telecommunication system. Until now, after one year, we still don't have a telephone system. I'm calling you from a mobile system which has a U.S. number because the landline doesn't work. About 60% of the telephone lines in Baghdad are not working. Totally not working. Saddam Hussein repaired the telephone system in three months. While Bechtel, and all the U.S. corporations and MCI and the rest-- so you have to rehire those people. They know how to fix-- how to do the things the most expedient and most efficient way. You don't get somebody from Brooklyn or somewhere in San Francisco to fix the telephones in Baghdad. You don't know where the cables go. You cannot even communicate with these people. If I was Paul Bremer, I would bring back those people, to be reemployed in the government of Iraq, and do what they have to do. To fix the mess.

AG: Would he then be reconstituting a pro-Saddam force?

GAM: It doesn't have to be a pro-Saddam force. An engineer who does his job is an engineer irrespective whether he is a pro or against Saddam. Do you think right now that they are hiring only the pro-American engineers working for the ministry of oil? Are you going to be-- kick everybody who does not like the U.S., or does not like Chalabi? Engineers and technicians and teachers are free to believe in whatever they want-- that's freedom. You cannot impose.

Now you have deposed the dictator, which, by the way you supported, the U.S. supported. In '94-- in '84, '83 and '84, it was Donald Rumsfeld who came and shook hands with Saddam Hussein, and he knew by then that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and he-- all that. But he elected to ignore that. While I'm talking to you now, I'm watching-- I have a picture in the office on my house of Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld to remind me that there is no principle-- the U.S. does not have a principle to deal with, they have interests. They are not after democracy. They are not after human rights. They are after their economic interests.

The same people who forced Saddam Hussein in 2003, that is to say Donald Rumsfeld and his group, and it is the same people who shook hands with Saddam Hussein in '83, and we established diplomatic relations with the dictator. And they are the same people who supported Saddam Hussein throughout the war with Iran. And it was, by the way, Bechtel, that was given a huge contract in the 80's to develop the petrochemical industry, so that the-- in return for the U.S. support in Iraq and on the Iraq/Iran, and it was Bechtel also to suppress the fact that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians. George Schultz was the secretary. We-- somehow we convinced him through Bechtel contract to forget about the thing. And it was the Americans who supported Saddam Hussein with the anthrax spores. It was the West who supported Saddam Hussein with the factories to develop the mass-- weapons of mass destruction.

You are penalizing us, the poor, powerless subjects of dictator for crimes they have committed. We haven't committed a crime. We, as individuals, haven't committed a crime against anybody. We are victims of ten years of-- 13 years of sanctions, and six months right now, ten months of occupation, and we are going to be punished and punished, again and again, again so that Halliburton and Bechtel and MCI and whoever can make profits. The U.S. has no intention of leaving Iraq. They're talking about how much it's going to cost them until the year 2013. That's ten years of occupation. He talks about democracy. What democracy is he talking about? Where the TV stations are subjected to harassment, where journalists are imprisoned, where people are detained for absolutely no reason? For up to 40 days, 50 days with no one knows about them. Read-- the American people should read not our-- what we say, they should read what the human rights-- Human Rights Watch was saying in that report published in-- last month. They should read what Amnesty International is writing about the human rights situation-- human rights abuses.

AG: Can you describe the reaction in the streets to what took place in Fallujah?

GAM : This incident happened in Fallujah where two days before that, the American army shot many many people, women and children, on the streets, and --- in a bizarre shooting incident that was unjustified, killing many people. Fallujah has been a place where the US Army has actually used brutal force to suppress the people there, including using the F-15s, and F-16s to attack villages and place where they think the resistances are, which is unjustified to use high explosives against individuals. This resulted in many, many casualties in the province. Added to it, they have detained, for 50 or 60 days, hundreds of people on and off, which alienated the people against the American forces and the American contractors or the American security contractors, which are really a private army, uncontrollable by the US. This is part of the privatization of the war. Two days ago, three days ago, there was a similar incident in Mosul, where two contractors were killed, under electricity. They were going to the electricity generating plant. The important -- the thing that I know is in the media says that the contractors were involved in protecting the food supply. This is the food supply for the US Army, not to be confused with providing help to the local population or anything. It's just a routine US convoy that may have food and may have on other occasions, armaments or anything. So, the resentments of the people of Fallujah are justified. What happens to them is -- it's a sad thing, but you know, brutality breeds brutality, and violence breeds violence, and he who started first should take the responsibility, and I think the US army has used an unjustified force against the people of Fallujah, and they have brutalized the people of Fallujah to the point where they had to respond with the same brutality.

AG: Well, some of the commercial media here in the United States are claiming that Fallujah is a hotbed of resistance, that up to 70% of the people are supporting attacks or have voiced in opinion polls support for attacks on the US forces. Is there a continuing large presence of US military within -- within the city itself, or have they largely pulled out to the outskirts of Fallujah?

GAM: They pulled out to the outskirts, but they keep intruding into the city. Ten days ago, I was passing through Fallujah, and in the middle of the city, they brought the main highway, and we saw inside the city a convoy of US military vehicles. So, they keep coming in and out. If they keep out, I don't think they would have that many attacks on them, but don't forget, those are an occupying force, and the people believe they have the right to resist an occupying force - a foreign occupying force. We -- the closest we come to you is eight hours difference. That's 8,000, 9,000 miles. That's between us. You people have – you came to the east 8,000 miles to run a country you have no business in occupying. After we discovered that there was no justification for the US occupation whatsoever, because there is no weapons of mass destruction. It's a weapon of mass deception that's been propagated by the US administration.

The final thing, the final thing, I think, it’s the blind leading the blind. You are blind, I mean the US government is blind, and it’s led by another blind people who were the Iraqi opposition who are telling you that we would welcome the American soldiers. And you see what’s happening in Basra, Najaf and Nassiriya. Those are the Shi’ite places where you think they should have welcomed the revolt against the government. But they did not. So it’s about time, you people open up your eyes and see what’s happening and understand the message and forget about the rhetoric.

17.  KAREN PARKER

Closing statement by the Prosecution

Text not available yet

18. JIM LOBE

Concluding speech of the Defense

Text not available yet

C. WRITTEN TESTIMONIES (absent witnesses)

1. NEIL MCKAY

Bush planned Iraq “regime change” long before becoming President

A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

(Sunday Herald)

2. TOM BARRY

The Right’s Architecture of Power

Over the past three decades, the strategists and ideologues of the right wing have designed a new architecture of power. This architecture currently frames most of the country’s policy debate and has attracted the allegiance of most sectors of Corporate America. At the same time, it has mobilized a reactionary populist movement to support its anti-popular economic and undemocratic agenda. Following Bush’s 2000 election, this architecture of power also incorporated into its structure the Republican Party and the executive branch of our federal government.

The architecture of power is a work in progress. Its designers and planners, while loosely committed as a team to the same ideologies and political goals, work independently to bolster the structure of the right’s power and influence. Rather than operating from a single blueprint, these architects of power are constantly renovating and commissioning new additions to their web of power in the form of new institutes, front groups, media outlets, and political projects.

The architecture of power is a post-modern structure that has no central office or main lobby, no fixed foundation, no elevator that takes you to different levels. Instead, it is an expansive complex that closely resembles a web whose principal skeins and cross-woven filaments constitute both its foundation and frame.

Within the United States, liberals and progressives have similar networks but none so immense, so closely knit, or so ideologically driven and so closely tied to the agendas of the most aggressive, reactionary sectors of corporate America. When compared with the web of multidimensional movements and institutions of the right’s web of power, the other networks competing for public, corporate, and policymaker support seem more like aging cobwebs—which unless similarly invigorated by integrated ideologies and visions of the future may eventually be swept away.

The architects of power are not conspirators or members of a secret cabal. Rather they come from a long tradition of all leading political actors that have operated in all variegations of the broad political spectrum. They are a collection of ideologues, intellectuals, scholars, strategists, visionaries, demagogues, and political officials and political operatives that share common critiques of liberal and progressive policy paradigms and uphold the principles of a new radical conservatism. Over the last three decades, this architecture of power has, according to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, “yanked politics to the right.”

Dimensions of the Right’s Power Complex

The most potent force in this architecture of power is the package of cultural, economic, political, and military ideologies propagated by the right’s think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, and Hoover Institution. Less prominent think tanks that advance neoconservative views on foreign policy include the Jamestown Foundation, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Manhattan Institute. Also important on the right but outside the neoconservative family is the prominent Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Other less prominent foreign policy think tanks on the right are the Lexington Institute and the Nixon Center.

Closely connected to these think tanks are scores of policy institutes that address the core issues of the right’s agenda in international affairs. These include a set of militarist instates such as the Center for Security Policy, National Institute for Public Policy, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Second-tier institutes focused on military policy include High Frontier, U.S. Space Foundation, and National Strategy Information Center.

One of the major achievements of the neoconservatives has been the integration of social conservatives, the religious right, and foreign policy hawks. Key to this success have been a small circle of interlinked neocon institutes including Empower America, Institute for Religion and Democracy, and the Institute for Religion and Public Life. Among the prominent neoconservatives associated with these institutes that promote the superiority of Judeo-Christian values and culture are Michael Novak, William Bennett, Hillel Fradkin, George Weigel, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Neuhaus.

Running in tandem with the right’s think tanks and policy institutes are its regionally focused advocacy groups and front groups. Some of these are permanent institutions such as the Middle East Forum and Washington Institute for Near East Affairs.  One of the newest and fastest growing policy institutes is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which like all neocon institutes and think tanks backs a right-wing Zionist agenda in the Middle East.

A more transient component of this architecture of power includes ad hoc citizen committees created to give the impression of broad public support for particular legislation and objectives. The latter sector includes such groups as the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, Americans for Peace in Chechnya, Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon, and the Coalition for Democracy in Iran. Neocon operatives such as Bruce Jackson, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, and Michael Ledeen are the central figures in most of these ad hoc groups. While some of them are strictly neocon affairs, others function as front groups that aim to build bipartisan support for their objectives. Conservative Democratic Party figures such as Senator Joseph Lieberman and Progressive Policy Institute president Will Marshall are found in such neocon front groups as the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

The right’s architecture of power extends into the infrastructure of the U.S. government. In the late 1990s, the two congressionally organized commissions on missile defense and space weapons chaired by Donald Rumsfeld were organized by legislators associated with such neoconservative institutes as the Center for Security Policy. Neoconservatives and their supporters have also been key to the establishment of several permanent government or quasi-government agencies, including U.S.-China Commission, U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, and the National Endowment for Democracy.

Getting the Message Right

Neoconservatives have a long tradition in publishing, dating back to the involvement of neocon forerunners in such anticommunist magazines as Encounter and right-wing Zionist magazines like Commentary.  Today, the Weekly Standard, closely associated with the ideological agendas of the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute, has established itself as the leading political voice of the neoconservatives. Commentary served until the late 1980s as the flagship publication of neoconservatism, but its influence among both neoconservatives and the Washington policy community has now been far surpassed by Weekly Standard.

Owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Weekly Standard regularly features Project for the New American Century analysts such as Reuel Marc Gerecht, Ellen Bork (daughter of AEI scholar and prominent Federalist Society member Robert Bork), Gary Schmitt, and Thomas Donnelly in addition to founders Kristol and Kagan. According to The Nation magazine’s media critic Eric Alterman: “The magazine speaks directly to and for power. Anybody who wants to know what this administration is thinking and what they plan to do has to read this magazine.”

From the perspective of Old Guard conservative Paul Gottfried, neoconservatives beginning in the late 1980s took control of the “New York-Washington” media corridor. Old Guard conservatives and paleoconservatives could no longer find an outlet for their analysis, even in the letters section of National Review, which had veered toward neoconservatism as has the Wall Street Journal. As Gottfried observed in 1993, neocons not only dominated the right’s main journals and magazines, they also raised prominent voices on the editorial pages of traditionally liberal media such as Washington Post, New Republic, and Atlantic.  In syndicated columns and national radio and television programs, such neoconservative analysts as Charles Krauthammer, Ben Wattenberg, Linda Chavez, William Bennett, and Morton Kronracke have injected neoconservative thinking into the mainstream of the American body politic.

Other right-wing publications with a marked neoconservative perspective include Public Interest, with founder and senior editorial associate Irving Kristol, American Spectator, with chief editor R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr. and board members Richard V. Allen and Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Washington Times, owned by Reverend Moon and featuring Frank Gaffney, a prominent PNAC associate and head of the Center for Security Policy.  Also key to the neoconservative information network are publishers that cater to neoconservative authors. Encounter Books, a San Francisco publishing house run by Peter Collier, produces a steady stream of books by neoconservative authors in collaboration with such entities as the Project for the New American Century and Commentary.

Center of the Neocon Matrix

At the center of the architectureof power are two closely associated institutions: American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

PNAC’s offices are located in what seems to be the core of the neoconservative matrix. Entering the 12-story building in downtown Washington, you see the office directory, which includes the stellar lineup of American Enterprise Institute scholars including Irving Kristol and Robert Bork. Like many neoconservative institutes, the AEI lost many of its best and brightest hawks and ideologues to the Bush II administration.

One has only to examine the American Enterprise Institute to appreciate the degree to which Corporate America has aligned itself with the right’s think tanks. Its board of directors includes the CEOs of such corporations as ExxonMobil, Motorola, American Express, State Farm Insurance, and Dow Chemical. Its board of trustees is also littered with corporate representatives, although a couple of the most prominent or infamous of them have left the board, such as Halliburton’s Richard Cheney and Enron’s Kenneth Lay. Expanding upon the existing stream of donations from the nation’s leading right-wing foundations, the AEI has achieved a diversified funding base among corporations from just about every sector of the economy—ranging from General Electric and AT&T to Ford and General Motors to Amoco and Shell to Morgan Guarantee Trust and American Express.

Many former AEI minds now at work implementing the peace-through-war/Pax Americana strategy of the Bush administration previously worked with the PNAC coalition, including Vice President Cheney, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton, and Director of International Broadcasting Seth Cropsey. Other PNAC-AEI members have retained their ties with these neoconservative organizations while serving on administration advisory boards, including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eliot Cohen, and the omnipresent Richard Perle. A quick scan of the list of AEI scholars and officers in the lobby’s office directory reveals at least a dozen PNAC associates, including such luminaries as Joshua Muravchik and Michael Novak. PNAC’s Middle East director Reuel Marc Gerecht and PNAC’s military analyst Thomas Donnelly number among the AEI associates who have signed PNAC’s public statements. 

Conveniently located in this neoconservative warren is the Philanthropy Roundtable, a right-wing association of foundations that split from the Council of Foundations in the early 1980s. Just as the Business Roundtable was created to unite Corporate America around conservative policy agendas, the Philanthropy Roundtable joined the counter-establishment matrix in the tradition of “shadow liberalism”—creating institutions and campaigns that parallel those of liberals and progressives.

Michael Joyce, longtime president (1986-2000) of the Bradley Foundation, served until 2003 as chair of the Roundtable’s board of directors.  Bill Kristol, like his father, has cultivated close ties with Bradley and other right-wing foundations that now exhibit a decidedly neoconservative cast.  Joyce feels it was inevitable that Bush would embrace the neoconservative agenda. “I’m not sure September 11 did more than push the timetable up,” Joyce noted.

Commenting on the special role of right-wing foundations, Michael Grebe, current president of the Bradley Foundation and one of the five directors of the Philanthropy Roundtable, said: “We have a role in sustaining a conservative intellectual infrastructure.” To that end, Bradley granted AEI $14 million between 1985 and 2002, and during the same period AEI received $6.5 million from the Olin Foundation.  A handful of archconservative foundations not only sustain the right-wing power complex but form part of the architecture of power through revolving door relationships. Michael Joyce, for example, beyond just providing start-up funding for Kristol’s Project for the Republican Future and PNAC, is a signatory of PNAC statements, a trustee of Freedom House, and a member or past member of various presidential and national commissions. Richard Mellon Scaife, who heads the Scaife family foundations and is a major PNAC supporter, was a member of the second Committee on the Present Danger and has been a trustee of the Hoover Institution and the Heritage Foundation.

Right-wing foundations have provided the start-up funding to get PNAC, AEI, and most other idea brokers of the right-wing’s power complex into high gear. Although early right-wing donors such as Coors and Amway have dropped off, the top tier of the right’s think tank all continue to drink from the same collective trough of right-wing foundations. The Bradley, Sarah Scaife, Olin, and Castle Rock foundations all funded the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, Hoover Institution, and Manhattan Institute in the 1997-2001 period.

PNAC “Set the Table” for Bush Administration’s Foreign Policy

With funding from the Bradley Foundation, William Kristol established the Project for the Republican Future in 1993 in anticipation of the 1994 congressional elections. Following the resounding victory of right-wing Republicans, he founded Weekly Standard in 1995 in the vacated offices of the Project for the Republican Future. The next year Kristol and Robert Kagan established the Project for the New American Century, which describes itself as a “nonprofit educational organization supporting American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership.”

A wide range of neoconservatives, representatives from the social conservative right, and leading national security hawks coalesced around PNAC. Its founding statement of principles, signed by several individuals who would later become high officials in Bush II’s foreign policy team (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams, Dobriansky, Libby, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, Rodman, and Friedberg) was a document aimed at reinvigorating and uniting U.S. citizens around a new vision of America that brimmed with confidence and moral conviction.

As Kristol and Kagan apparently recognized early on, the Project for the New American Century—with its focus on American supremacy and moral clarity—had all the right ingredients of a unifying ideology for a powerful new front group that could spearhead an elite social movement for radical political change. Although intent on establishing the vision and building blocks for a bold new foreign and military policy, the PNAC 1997 statement of principles avoided the type of provocative language that was common stock in neoconservative publications and in-house think tank policy briefs. There was no mention of a proposed security strategy driven by U.S. supremacy, no allusion to empire, and no explicit suggestion that the post-World War II framework of multilateralism should be tossed in the wastebin of history. Although Wolfowitz, Cheney, Khalilzad, and Libby—the team that fashioned the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance—signed PNAC’s statement of principles, the unifying document remained within the traditional “peace through strength” framework and omitted any language that would have explicitly foreshadowed PNAC’s agenda of preemptive strikes, regime change, and other measures to block any challenges to U.S. supremacy in the next century.

PNAC succeeded in integrating the various tendencies and diverse expertise found within neoconservatism, uniting political intellectuals associated with neocon publications (Norman Podhoretz and William Kristol), scholars (Eliot Cohen and Francis Fukuyama), military strategists (Paul Wolfowitz and Zalmay Khalilzad), and cultural/religious warriors (William Bennett and George Weigel). Among its 27 founding members, including cochairs Kristol and Kagan, only a handful of individuals didn’t match the neoconservative prototype although all shared in the agendas and new ideological vision of American supremacisim as articulated by the neocon political and military strategists.

The two most prominent in the small number of exceptions—Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld—came to their right-wing internationalism more by way of their ties with multinational corporations and the globalizing military-industrial complex, high-tech industries, and energy businesses. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld were corporate CEOs when they signed the PNAC charter.

Albeit sparsely represented, right-wing social conservatives closely associated with the Christian Right constituted another important sector in the PNAC coalition. Among those representing the social conservative faction were Gary Bauer, former director of the Family Research Council, and former Vice President Dan Quayle, as well as two other prominent cultural warriors: cofounder of Empower America and former Representative Vin Weber and Steve Forbes. Forbes, the quintessential corporate conservative, was also a former Empower America director and is associated with other right-wing social conservative and economic libertarian institutes. In 2002 Forbes, with his neocon colleagues, was a founding director of the pro-Likud Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As PNAC continues to issue new public declarations, it has maintained its strong neoconservative backbone while integrating top figures from other sectors of the right-wing’s power complex.

PNAC’s Executive Director Gary Schmitt once boasted that PNAC “helped set the table” for new policy decisions “by setting the agenda up.” Other factors that the none-too-modest Schmitt cites for PNAC’s success include: “We are articulate; we are very smart about when to say things and how to say it; and do have the advantage of an echo effect—if I write something, it may be picked up by the Weekly Standard or repeated by Bill or Bob in various media forums.”

Ideology of Power

Contrary to prevailing academic notions that hold that extreme political movements always revert to moderation, the right wing has maintained an evolving set of radical ideologies and strategies. Despite its extremist ideologies and policy agendas, the right-wing’s architecture of power does not operate on the edges of mainstream society and politics but stands at the very center of our society. Like all social/political movements, the right wing’s institutional web and its populist constituencies seek political and social power. Over the past three decades the right-wing institutions and associated populist backlash movements have succeeded in undermining liberal policy frameworks and establishing its radicalism as accepted political discourse.

Lately, the right-wing’s architecture of power has reformulated its concept of power—no longer merely as holding political power but now as a core ideological concept. In other words, the right-wing’s architecture of power since the late 1990s not only seeks increased political power and influence but is propagating an ideology of power that holds that U.S. supremacy—cultural, moral, military, economic, and diplomatic—is a self-evident truth and right.

3. AMY BARTHOLOMEW

Human Rights As Swords of Empire?

Amy Bartholomew and Jennifer Breakspear

[shortened version]

[T]he transition from a nation-state world order to a cosmopolitan world order brings about a very significant priority shift from international law to human rights.  The principle that international law precedes human rights which held during the (nation-state) first age of modernity is being replaced by the principle of the (world society) second age of modernity, that human rights precedes international law.  As yet, the consequences have not been thought through, but they will be revolutionary.

                                                                                                Ulrich Beck[59]

It is the very universalistic core of democracy and human rights itself which forbids its universal propagation by fire and sword.

Jürgen Habermas[60]

The US-led war of aggression against Iraq displays, for at least the fourth time since 1990 (the first three occasions being the Gulf War, the NATO intervention in Kosovo and the American attack on Afghanistan), the ‘revolutionary’ nature of the developments afoot in the transition from the ‘first’ to the ‘second age of modernity’. Yet any transition that may be underway is neither an historical necessity nor a clean break with the past.  Rather, it is shaping up to be a contradictory and contested set of processes, since the politics of the ‘first age of modernity’ are intertwined with those emerging in its ‘second age’. In emphasizing that cosmopolitanism has brought with it the ‘military humanism of the West’, Beck saw it as ‘founded on an uninterrogated world monopoly of power and morality’. But in making this argument he seemed to run together three distinct stances toward the relationship between international law and human rights: noninterventionism, cosmopolitanism, and what can only be called imperialism (however ‘benign’) – i.e. a situation where a self-appointed hegemonic power ‘defends’ human rights abroad by engaging in ‘military humanism’.

       We wish to suggest that justifications for the most recent Gulf war fall predominantly

into the third category, resting on a predatory rhetorical commitment to a cosmopolitan conception of human rights that is, in fact, wielded in the service of an imperialist project, rather than what Jürgen Habermas calls an ‘egalitarian universalism’.[61]  The dangers people face under these conditions are, of course, ‘asymmetrical’ - who faces what dangers is deeply important.  Yet reliance on a cosmopolitan conception of human rights as ideological cover for imperialist world politics also poses universalistic risks undermining not only the norm of non-intervention so central to the international legal architecture of the ‘first age of modernity’, but also the nascent development of cosmopolitan conceptions of law and human rights of the ‘second age’.

            It is remarkable in this respect that it is not just the neo-conservative hawks in the Bush administration and right-wing think tanks who justified this war against Iraq partly with reference to liberty, democracy and human rights for all, but also liberals like Jean Bethke Elstain, Christopher Hitchens and Paul Berman among many others.[62]  These 'liberal hawks' have argued that ‘pre-emptive’ war and ‘regime change’ are legitimate insofar as the war is aimed at countering real threats to human life and liberty, and that even forceful, unilaterally pursued ‘regime change’ may be a duty for those who enjoy freedom. But they have also seen this cosmopolitan aim as a duty falling pre-eminently on the United States.

            This essay asks how is it that liberals justify military humanism in the name of protecting freedom, human rights and democracy, even when it is pursued unilaterally by a self-appointed imperialist power.  We will focus on the justifications put forward by Michael Ignatieff, the Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, whose prominent writings in the New York Times Magazine in the run-up to the war and during it exemplify the ‘military humanism’ that Beck diagnosed.[63] In self-consciously embracing both the 'military humanism' currently espoused by many advocates of human rights and American imperialist politics, Ignatieff starkly reveals the dangers that reside in liberal nationalist conceptions of world politics and human rights when these are articulated by a self-appointed hegemonic power. While cosmopolitan justifications of military intervention may have played a prominent role elsewhere (pre-eminently in Europe during the war on Kosovo, and perhaps more generally in human rights organizations), in the USA liberals have been wont to appeal to a cosmopolitan military humanism in support of an imperialist republican nationalism. This point is important, because the implications of the liberal hawks’ justification for the American-led war on Iraq, like their neo-conservative counterparts, are deeply inconsistent with cosmopolitan principles in the crucial dimensions of morality, legality, and politics; because they threaten to erode multilateral institutions like the UN, and to legitimise ‘regime change’ and 'pre-emptive war' by an imperial power. We will argue that even if  the US could accurately be viewed as a republican Empire morally motivated to spread democracy and human rights abroad it could not do so morally, without undermining the development of international law in a cosmopolitan direction, and without further entrenching imperialism, which stands as one of the greatest impediments to human rights and democracy today.

Our analysis is premised on a 'critical cosmopolitanism' that we think is required to underpin any genuinely universal respect for, and protection of, human rights and popular sovereignty. But this position is deeply suspect in the eyes of many on the Marxist Left, as seen for example in the recent writings of Tariq Ali, Perry Anderson and Peter Gowan. We endorse their criticisms of 'military humanism' undertaken by imperialist powers but [in the second part of this essay] we [shall] suggest that to develop anti-imperialist, pro-human rights and democratic politics today requires us not to dismiss international law and institutions. And in order to develop a critical cosmopolitanism of this kind we also need to avoid the ‘instrumentalism’ that is evident in Left critiques of the UN and of human rights.  Rather, human rights and transnational institutions like the UN can be crucial arenas of struggle – as Marxists used to say – made more, not less, pertinent by the emergence of an imperialist power bent on self-legitimation and unilateral assertion in every instance that suits it.

Interrogating Ignatieff’s ‘I Don’t Know’

The United Nations lay dozing like a dog before the fire, happy to ignore Saddam, until an American president seized it by the scruff of the neck and made it bark. Multilateral solutions to the world's problems are all very well, but they have no teeth unless America bares its fangs….  The 21^st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known.[64]

Who wants to live in a world where there are no stable rules for the use of force by states?  Not me.  Who wants to live in a world ruled by the military power of the strong?  Not me.  How will we oblige American military hegemony to pay ‘decent respect to the opinions of mankind’? I don’t know. When the smoke of battle lifts, those who support the war will survey a battle zone that will include the ruins of the multilateral political order created in 1945….To support the war entails a commitment to rebuild that order on new foundations.[65]

Long seen as a principled left-liberal, Michael Ignatieff  ‘plumped’ – a term he has borrowed from Isaiah Berlin – in favour of the attack on Iraq just prior to its commencement.  Coming out in support of the war after due anguish, and against his friends (including those ‘left-wingers who regard American imperialism as the root of all evil’),[66] he insisted that support for the war did not make him or anyone else an ‘apologist for American imperialism’, and stated what was, for him, the key principle: “The problem is not that overthrowing Saddam by force is ‘morally unjustified.’ Who seriously believes 25 million Iraqis would not be better off if Saddam were overthrown?”  The ‘consequential’ justification that 25 million Iraqis will be liberated clearly overrides, he argued, the ‘deontological’ one that ‘good consequences cannot justify killing people.’ This is how Ignatieff believes the moral issue should be answered – regime change undertaken, in effect unilaterally by the US and British administrations, is morally justified by the cosmopolitan aim of liberating the Iraqi people.[67] But as if recognizing that the moral justification for the war was not as straightforward as he initially asserted, he went on to argue that that while it was unfortunate that the debate about Iraq became a debate about American power, rather than about the human rights of oppressed peoples, the events of September 11, 2001 had fundamentally altered the security threats to which the world must respond; and that those who failed to recognize this were blindly ‘wishing they could still live in the safety and collective security of the world that existed before 9/11.’[68] Arguing against the world-wide anti-war movement and  world public opinion, he suggested that, while the fact that the world did not support the US-led war posed a problem, a principle is not wrong because people disagree with it (nor right because they agree).[69]  Having asserted, then, the moral rightness of this war, the only remaining question, he suggested, is whether the risks are worth it; whether it is a prudent move. By implication, since he supported the war, the answer must be yes. 

Much of this echoed Ignatieff’s long-standing position that human rights considerations in the contemporary period have made judgments about war and the use of force complicated, as seen in his support for the military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and his insistence that these interventions demanded radical rethinking along cosmopolitan lines. In repeating many times the banal phrase that Saddam Hussein ‘really is awful’, and in later asserting that his regime not only had ‘just about the worst human rights record on Earth’ but was also ‘in possession of weapons of mass destruction,’[70] he also posed the cosmopolitan question: by what moral authority does a brutal regime claim unfettered sovereignty? He reiterated the case for American Empire as the best hope for installing stability, nation-building, and encouraging human rights, free markets and democracy around the world. Yet from another point of view his candid admission that the war would be fought at the price of leaving the multilateral political order in ruins did seem to fly in the face of his prewar support for military humanism on the basis of multilateralism. In 2000 he had claimed unconditionally that the Security Council ‘should remain the ultimate source of legitimacy for the use of military force’ – although this might require ‘crushing force’ by ‘combat capable warriors under robust rules of engagement’ directed by ‘a single line of command to a national government or regional alliance’; [71] and as late as 2002 he had argued that the US must respect international legal norms with regard to any military actions and ‘should accept international accountability for its actions’.[72] But Ignatieff's  ‘muscular’ conception of human rights[73] seemed to prepare the way for his unequivocal support for the war and his insistence that Iraq’s continuing violations of UN Security Council resolutions meant that the whole international community should ‘walk the walk’ with the American Empire.[74]

Ignatieff admitted well before the war that the idea of an Empire’s burden – American imperial power at work under what he views as the ‘official moral ideology of Empire – i.e. human rights’ – was far removed from that which had been sought by liberal cosmopolitan human rights activists and lawyers ‘who had hoped to see American power integrated into a transnational legal and economic order organized around the UN….[Rather] a new international order is emerging, but it is being crafted to suit American imperial objectives.’[75]  He also recognized that while Europe was more inclined toward a multilateral order that might hope to limit American power, ‘the Empire will not be tied down like Gulliver by a thousand legal strings’.[76] And yet he ‘plumped’ in favour of American Empire, showing, with each new article, greater confidence in the American imperial project, since it is, as Ignatieff put it, quoting Melville, an Empire that views itself as bearing ‘the ark of the liberties of the world’.[77]  This admittedly ‘imperial project’ will require bringing actual stability to the ‘frontier zones’ - and this must be done, Ignatieff insists, ‘without denying local peoples their rights to some degree of self-determination’.[78]  Thus Ignatieff’s realist acknowledgement that ‘empire lite’ is still empire (i.e., that ‘the real power in these [frontier] zones ...will remain in Washington’ and will involve protecting ‘vital American interests’) is married to his insistence that achieving human rights rests on republican duty which itself requires the Empire as midwife: ‘The case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike.’[79]

How should we evaluate this position?  On the one hand, Ignatieff recognizes the realpolitik of the situation -- the horrors visited on the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein, the fumbling, the weaknesses and the complicity of the UN system, the enormous power that the US wields, and the fact that the American invasion would be oriented to American interests. On the other hand, he has shown a stunning disregard for the lack of evidence, even before the war, of weapons of mass destruction or of any link between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda before he ‘plumped’ for war. He did not discuss, so far as we can find, the human rights issues implicit in civilian casualties. Nor did he address issues having to do with environmental contamination and the other ruthless 'side' effects that war was sure to produce. Surely a liberal human rights scholar favouring the war should have addressed these issues. The most that can be said is that he relied on his emerging philosophical position that we must act on the ‘lesser evil’.[80] But even here, he did not soberly address questions crucial to calibrating this equation, nor the requirement of  'proportionality' in the use of force in 'just war' theory, nor the enormous normative problems posed by asymmetric warfare (by which we mean the responsibility that must attend the power to produce ‘shock and awe’ or, as Ignatieff puts it, using ‘crushing force’ against an ‘enemy’ with far inferior military might).

Even months after the officially declared end of war, no weapons of mass destruction and no links with Al Qaeda have emerged. But insecurity and instability in the world have surely been increased, as clear-headed commentators across the political spectrum acknowledge, not just by increased hatred for Western (and particularly American) power and arrogance, but also by cluster bombs left over for Iraqi children to find, the pollution of Iraqi towns and drinking water, ongoing guerilla warfare, and so on. Add to this that civilian casualties produced during the ‘official’ war have been estimated by a British and US group of independent experts to range between five and ten thousand, while the US Defence Department spokesperson says the Pentagon has not looked into the question of civilian deaths because it was focused on ‘defeating enemy forces rather than aiming at civilians.’[81] And now, Paul Wolfowitz admits that the WMD justification for war was ‘settled on’ by the American administration ‘for bureaucratic reasons’, while Donald Rumsfeld concedes that WMD may never be found.[82] Finally, in a remarkable breach of his usual diplomatic demeanour, Hans Blix has admitted that the ‘bastards’ in the US administration viewed the UN as an ‘alien power’[83] and ‘leaned on’ the weapons inspectors to produce more damning reports while  initiating a smear campaign against him.[84]

But beyond all of this, which hardly needs rehearsal for any critical observer of the war and its aftermath, we need to consider the implications of the liberal hawks’ justification for war in terms of the categories of morality and legality. What are we to make of a liberal intellectual of Ignatieff’s stature recommending bypassing and potentially undermining fundamental norms of international law and resting his support so squarely on the moral case for war waged by a ‘moral’ republican Empire?  Even if we were to assume that the US actions were genuinely motivated by and aimed at achieving the liberation of the Iraqi people from oppression, the purported moral argument for unilateral intervention fails on two crucial counts. 

First, as Ignatieff recognizes, imperialism threatens republicanism.  As an imperial power takes on the role of GloboCop, emphasizing military, police and secret spying power, the more does it risk, as Habermas points out, ‘endangering its own mission of improving the world according to liberal ideas.’[85]  This is obvious from such facts as the illegal detention of ‘enemy combatants’ at Guantanamo Bay (and the US Supreme Court’s refusal to consider its unconstitutionality), the detention of ‘illegal aliens’, the ill-treatment of US citizens suspected of ties to terrorist groups, and the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and outside Baghdad Airport. Second, as Ignatieff acknowledges, following Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, morality requires that we pay ‘decent respect to the opinions of mankind’.  Ignatieff’s moral argument – who can believe that 25 million Iraqis would not be better off without Saddam Hussein? –implies a universal right to be free from oppression, and some version of this may indeed be defensible as a universal moral principle.[86] But the problem is not just that imperialism violates it, which it does by undercutting the republic’s commitment to the rule of law both at home and abroad, but also that the basic moral principle and the universalistic core of human rights should not be ‘confused’, as it is here, with the ‘imperial demand that the political life-form and culture of a particular democracy …is to be exemplary for all other societies’.[87] Again, while Ignatieff is careful to call for an avoidance of the ‘narcissism’ of earlier empires, - i.e. the delusion of earlier empires that their colonized aspired only to be ‘versions of themselves’[88] - his support for this war under these unilateralist conditions cannot avoid ‘narcissism’ or, more forthrightly put, an imperialist imposition of a false universalism.[89]

            Paying ‘decent respect to the opinions of mankind’ requires an egalitarian universalism that breaks with a liberal nationalist conception of republicanism and an imperial vehicle for its expansion. This is so for many reasons but the core moral reason is that no 'republican' imperialism – even that of the American 'republic' – can break from its provincial, particular perspective.  An egalitarian universalism, on the other hand, as Habermas says,  ‘insists on the de-centering of each specific perspective; it requires the relativization of one’s own interpretive perspective from the point of view of the autonomous Other.’[90] It is only in this way that even a ‘good hegemon’ could know whether the actions it justifies as in the best interest of others is in fact equally 'good for all’.

            We may summarize the moral problem as follows: The problem is that one party, even a ‘good hegemon’, cannot morally assume a moral duty unilaterally. ‘Plumping’ for war without taking into account the voices of all those others who also have interests at stake is immoral. Assuming a moral duty morally requires that those affected are genuinely involved in shaping the contours of the response to oppression, mutually and reciprocally. To do so would require, at a minimum, global political public spheres aimed at formulating a response that takes into account everyone’s point of view. Second, and consequently, even a ‘good hegemon’ bases its justification (as Ignatieff admits) on the ethnocentric ground of liberal nationalism – aimed at securing US safety, possibly at the expense of others and, very importantly, spreading the US’s particular interpretation of human rights and democracy abroad. This is why unilateralism is morally unacceptable. This is also why, as Habermas says, the ‘multilateral formulation of a common purpose is not one option amongst others – especially not in international relations.’[91]

            This suggests why Ignatieff’s 'liberal hawk' position in support of unilateralism poses a moral danger. But it also poses grave dangers to international law and the future of human rights. Ignatieff implied that the war might be legal when he suggested that Iraq’s continuing violations of Security Council resolutions might legitimate war. This runs contrary to the views of the great preponderance of respected legal scholars, including the International Commission of Jurists which has condemned the invasion of Iraq as an illegal war of aggression finding there is no ‘plausible legal basis for this attack.’[92] The most recent war on Iraq has illustrated, once again, the ease with which an illegal war can be waged while threatening the legal norms by which nations previously agreed to abide. This poses significant dangers for international law, both in its non-interventionist orientation, characteristic of the ‘first age of modernity’, and in its development toward a cosmopolitan order in the ‘second age’.

            In supporting this war Ignatieff also seemed to suggest that the international legal norms of non-intervention and national sovereignty of the post-World War II era, the ‘first age of modernity’, have run their course, when he acknowledged that the war would be waged on the ‘ruins of the multilateral political order’.[93] This is a dangerous derogation from the non-intervention principle because it violates the rule that the legitimate authority to decide whether Iraq was in violation of agreements to such an extent that intervention was warranted is the Security Council, not the hegemonic power. Dispensing with the legitimating authority of the UN, Ignatieff seems to see no reasonable alternative to the sovereign power of an imperial hegemon pursuing, as he admits, liberal nationalism, self-interest and an American conception of human rights. Such a shift not only violates the principle of non-intervention, but also endorses the Bush Doctrine of the right to wage ‘pre-emptive war’ against any entity the US deems hostile to its interests – a doctrine that threatens to undermine not just the norms of nonintervention but also the further development of norms of egalitarian universalism.

            Ignatieff clearly sees the path stretched out before us but shows little concern for its perils: ‘[a] new international [legal] order is emerging, but it is being crafted to suit American imperial objectives. The empire signs on to those pieces of the transnational legal order that suit its purposes…, while ignoring or even sabotaging those parts…that do not.’[94]  He claims he is neither apologising nor rationalising but rather stating the reality of international law in an age of empire. The American Empire is not to be constrained by multilateral concerns. International institutions that can be controlled and commandeered are to be retained, those that would require an egalitarian framework and fail to guarantee American dominance are to be discarded. Ignatieff offers essentially no juridical foundations for military humanism but merely approves as obvious the burden America is said to carry – a duty to breach bothersome legal trivialities in defence of human rights and freedoms. ‘Americans are multilateral when it is to the advantage of the United States, unilateral when they can get away with it. It is a vision in which world order is guaranteed by the power and might and influence of the superpower, as opposed to the spreading influence of international law.’[95] This serves as an apt description of American foreign policy, but if Ignatieff is critical of this vision the reader may be forgiven for failing to notice.

            International law failed in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. It failed the American imperial leadership that attempted to use international legal norms to frame their intent in legally justifiable rationales. It failed the leaders of France, Germany and Russia who played by the old rules while others rewrote the rulebook. It failed the people of Iraq who were powerless to face aggressors from within and without. And it failed the international rallying cry of concerned world citizens that defiantly and peacefully marched in numbers never before seen in opposition to an unjust war. All this because the international legal norms of the ‘first age of modernity’ were unable to constrain an imperial power determined and strong enough, in Habermas’s words, to ‘break the civilizing bounds which the Charter of the United Nations placed with good reason upon the process of goal-realization.’[96]

            Habermas maintains that the neo-conservatives associated with the Bush Doctrine confront international law ‘with a quite revolutionary perspective [asserting that]… when international law fails then the politically successful hegemonic enforcement of a liberal world order is morally justifiable...’ even when it is formally illegal.[97] What is remarkable, as we have emphasized, is that this is at least as characteristic of liberal hawks like Ignatieff as it is of the American neo-conservatives.  Still, this seems perplexing.  For why would one committed to human rights and democracy, as Ignatieff surely is, but as Bush and Co. clearly are not, recognize yet fail to undertake a consideration of the ‘revolutionary consequences’ attendant to this war aimed at pre-emption and ‘regime change’ and threatening the sole, however flawed, international institution available today to deal with such challenges? With the ratification of the UN Charter after World War II, states formally agreed to ‘give up their sovereign right to go to war’. [98]  Since this war is premised on re-establishing that right perhaps it would be better to call this a ‘restoration’ rather than a ‘revolution’.The liberal hawks, not unlike the neo-conservatives, have thus supported a war that is not only unjust and illegal but one that threatens to imbricate regressive norms in international law.  Michael Glenndon has stated, regarding the Kosovo intervention by NATO, that if ‘power is used to do justice, law will follow.’[99] But this logic works equally in reverse: if power is used to do injustice, unjust law will follow.

            And need we even say that this was not likely a ‘one off’ war? Plenty of commentators have made it clear that it is the first in a series of such wars – as Ignatieff implies when he claims that ‘[i]mperial ruthlessness requires optimism as a continued act of will.’[100] The empire must remain vigilant against all that would stand in the way of its advance. Imperial ruthlessness, however, seems also to require an elusive villain (Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, take your pick) that can be stalked across borders. A well-oiled public relations machine, replete with politicians to add accountability, embedded journalists to add 'integrity' and public intellectuals to add weight, lays the groundwork for war without end. 

            We do not mean to suggest that Security Council approval for multilateral military force would have wholly addressed the lack of legitimacy of the ensuing intervention. We recognise the undemocratic, not to mention the undeliberative, nature of the Security Council and see that the bullying and bribery of the Bush administration further undermined any possibility of achieving a legitimate decision taken by equals. But in ‘plumping’ for unilateral war, Ignatieff was also plumping for future forms of unilateralism, and plumping against multilateralism under international law and international institutions, pre-eminently the UN. A hegemonic unilateralism is primed to step into the void between the discarded norms of the ‘first age of modernity’ and the (still to be conceived) cosmopolitan norms and institutions of the ‘second age’. The key question is whether an international law justification for war should be replaced with ‘empire’s law’, provided by the ‘unilateral global politics of a self-empowering hegemon’.[101] We think the answer is clear: it should not.  As Eric Hobsbawm notes: ‘few things are more dangerous than empires pushing their own interest in the belief that they are doing humanity a favour.’[102]

[The second part of the text on critical cosmopolitanism had to be ommitted for reasons of seize]

4. SCOTT RITTER

Not everyone got it wrong on Iraq's weapons

 The missing WMD

WASHINGTON 'We were all wrong," David Kay, the Bush administration's former top weapons sleuth in Iraq, recently told members of Congress after acknowledging that there were probably no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Kay insisted that the blame for the failure to find any such weapons lay with the U.S. intelligence community, which, according to Kay, provided inaccurate assessments.

The Kay remarks appear to be an attempt to spin potentially damaging data to the political advantage of President George W. Bush.

The president's decision to create an "independent commission" to investigate this intelligence failure only reinforces this suspicion, since such a commission would only be given the mandate to examine intelligence data, and not the policies and decision-making processes that made use of that data. More disturbing, the commission's findings would be delayed until late fall, after the November presidential election.

The fact, independent of the findings of any commission, is that not everyone was wrong.

I, for one, was not. I did my level best to demand facts from the Bush administration to back up their allegations regarding Iraq's WMD and, failing that, spoke out and wrote in as many forums as possible in an effort to educate the publics of the United States and the world about the danger of going to war based on a hyped-up threat.

In this I was not alone. Rolf Ekeus, the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, has declared that under his direction, Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" as early as 1996. Hans Blix, who headed UN weapons inspections in Iraq in the months before the invasion in March 2003, stated that his inspectors had found no evidence of either WMD or WMD-related programs in Iraq. And officials familiar with Iraq, like Ambassador Joseph Wilson and State Department intelligence analyst Greg Theilmann, both exposed the unsustained nature of the Bush claims regarding Iraq's nuclear capability.

The riddle surrounding Iraq's WMD was solvable without resorting to war. For all the layers of deceit and obfuscation, there existed enough basic elements of truth and substantive fact about the disposition of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programs to permit the Gordian knot to be cleaved by anyone willing to try. Sadly, it seems that there was no predisposition on the part of those assigned the task of solving the riddle to do so.

Bush's decision to limit the scope of any inquiry to intelligence matters, effectively blocking any critique of his administration's use - or abuse - of such intelligence, is absurd, especially when one considers that the Bush administration was already talking of war with Iraq in 2002, prior to the preparation of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) - the defining document on a particular area of the world or specified threat - by the director of Central Intelligence.

According to a Department of Defense after-action report on Iraq titled "Operation Iraqi Freedom: Strategic Lessons Learned," a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times in September 2003, "President Bush approved the overall war strategy for Iraq in August last year." The specific date cited was Aug. 29, 2002 - eight months before the first bomb was dropped.

The CIA did eventually produce a National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq, but only in October 2002, after Bush had already decided on war. The title of the NIE, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," is reflective of a predisposition that was not supported either by the facts available at the time, or by the passage of time.

Stu Cohen, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, wrote in a statement published on the CIA Web site on Nov. 28, 2003, that the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate "judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles in excess of the 150-kilometer limit imposed by the UN Security Council. … These judgments were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and a wide array of intelligence services - friendly and unfriendly alike."

Cohen said the October NIE was "policy neutral" - meaning it did not propose a policy that argued either for or against going to war. He also stated that no one who worked on the NIE had been pressured by the Bush White House.

Cohen is wrong in his assertions. The fact that a major policy decision like war with Iraq was made without the benefit of an NIE is, in and of itself, policy manipulation.

I worked with Cohen on numerous occasions during this time, and consider him a reasonable man. So I had to wonder when this intelligence professional, confronted with the totality of the failure of the CIA to accurately assess the WMD threat, wrote that he was "convinced that no reasonable person could have viewed the totality of the information that the intelligence community had at its disposal - literally millions of pages - and reached any conclusions or alternative views that were profoundly different from those that we reached."

I consider myself also to be a reasonable person. Like Cohen and the intelligence professionals who prepared the October 2002 NIE, I was intimately familiar with vast quantities of intelligence data collected from around the world by numerous foreign intelligence services (including the CIA) and on the ground in Iraq by UN weapons inspectors, at least until the time of my resignation from Unscom in August 1998. Based on this experience, I was asked by Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control Association, to write an article on the status of disarmament regarding Iraq's WMD.

The article, "The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament," was published in June 2000 and received broad coverage. Its conclusions were dismissed by the intelligence communities of the United States and Britain. But my finding - that "because of the work carried out by Unscom, it can be fairly stated that Iraq was qualitatively disarmed at the time inspectors were withdrawn [in December 1998]" - was an accurate assessment of the disarming of Iraq's WMD capabilities, much more so than the CIA's October NIE or any corresponding analysis carried out by British intelligence services.

I am not alone in my analysis. Ray McGovern, who heads a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS, also takes umbrage at Cohen's "no reasonable person" assertion. "Had he taken the trouble to read the op-eds and other issuances of VIPs members over the past two years," McGovern told me, he would have found that "our writings consistently contained conclusions and alternative views that were indeed profoundly different - even without having had access to what Stu calls the 'totality of the information.' And Stu never indicated he thought us not 'reasonable' - at least back when many of us worked with him at CIA."

The fact is that McGovern and I, together with scores of intelligence professionals, retired or still in service, who studied Iraq and its WMD capabilities, are reasonable men. We got it right.

The Bush administration, in its rush to war, ignored our advice and the body of factual data we used, and instead relied on rumor, speculation, exaggeration and falsification to mislead the American people and their elected representatives into supporting a war that is rapidly turning into a quagmire. We knew the truth about Iraq's WMD. Sadly, no one listened.

5. GLEN RANGWALA

The thirty-six lies that launched a war

11 July 2003

published in part in The Independent, 13 July 2003

Weapons

1.         "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt … that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons"

The Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002

After over three months of inspections, the UN weapons inspectors reported on 6 March that "No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections." If Britain had any intelligence to indicate that Iraq had continued to produce prohibited weapons, where was it when it could have been checked out by inspectors?

2.         "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt .. that he [Saddam Hussein] continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons"

The Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council on 7 March 2003 that "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."

3.         "We know that this man has got weapons of mass destruction. That sounds like a slightly abstract phrase, but what we are talking about is chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses, bacilli and anthrax—10,000 litres of anthrax—that he has. We know that he has it, Dr. Blix points that out and he has failed to account for that."

Jack Straw to the House of Commons, 17 March 2003

The UN has never claimed that Iraq "has" these weapons, but that Iraq had certain amounts of weapons before 1991 or materials to build these weapons, and it hasn't adequately explained what happened to them. As Hans Blix said in September 2002, "this is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction. If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council."

4.         "There is no doubt about the chemical programme, the biological programme, indeed the nuclear weapons programme. All that is well documented by the United Nations."

Tony Blair, 30 May 2003

The UN has not found any evidence of any on-going programmes since the mid-1990s. Dr Blix said on 23 May that "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."

5.         "Iraq has chemical and biological agents and weapons available [..] from pre-Gulf War stocks".

Prime Minister's dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002

The claim that Iraq has managed to retain extensive stockpiles of these weapons for 12 years is not plausible. All chemical and biological agents that Iraq produced before 1991 - with the one exception of the chemical agent of mustard gas - would have degenerated by now.

6.         "plants formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme have been rebuilt. These include the chlorine and phenol plant at Fallujah 2 near Habbaniyah."

Prime Minister's dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002

All eight of the sites mentioned in the Prime Minister's dossier were visited by inspectors, who found no evidence of prohibited activities at any of them. At Fallujah II, the inspectors reported that: "The chlorine plant is currently inoperative".

7.         "According to intelligence, Iraq has retained up to 20 Al Hussein missiles … They could be used with conventional, chemical or biological warheads and, with a range of up to 650km, are capable of reaching a number of countries in the region including Cyprus, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel."

Prime Minister's dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002

There has been no sign of these missiles, and the government has downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq since the invasion began. Chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus soon after September, indicating that the government did not take its own claims seriously.

8.         "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

Prime Minister's dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002

Mr Blair asserts that this claim is still true, but even the US administration accepts that there is no reliable evidence for it. The IAEA, to whom the government has a responsibility to give any credible information about nuclear-related sales, has not received any information other than the infamous forged Niger documents.

9.         Saddam Hussein's "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

The Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002

Mr Blair himself contradicted this claim when he said on 28 April that Iraq had begun to conceal its weapons in May 2002, and that had meant that they could not have been used. The supposed source for this claim is one individual who was in Iraq's military: he or she has not been produced to provide evidence for this claim.

10.       "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

President Bush, 7 October 2002

This claim was repeatedly rubbished by the International Atomic Energy Agency, who observed that the tubes were being used for artillery rockets, but the US administration kept making it. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

11.       "The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure."

President Bush, 28 January 2003

The UN in fact drew the opposite conclusion. In March, UN inspectors reported: "it seems unlikely that significant undeclared quantities of botulinum toxin could have been produced, based on the quantity of media unaccounted for."

12.       "By 1998, UN experts agreed that the Iraqis had perfected drying techniques for their biological weapons programs."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003

Drying technology is important because only dried biological agents can be stored for years. The UN has never claimed that Iraq had perfected these techniques. In fact, in March they recorded that it "has no evidence that drying of anthrax or any other agent in bulk was conducted."

13.       "Saddam Hussein...has the wherewithal to develop smallpox"

US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003

The UN recorded in March 2003 that "there is no evidence that Iraq had possessed seed stocks for smallpox or had been actively engaged in smallpox research".

14.       "When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003

This camp was found to contain no suspicious materials. A journalist from ABC who entered the camp with US forces reported, "A specialized biochemical team scoured the rubble for samples. They wore protective masks as they entered a building they suspected was a weapons lab, but found nothing."

15.       "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

President George W. Bush, address to the nation, 18 March 2003

The "most lethal weapons" are nuclear weapons. Unlike the US, Iraq has never possessed nuclear weapons.

16.       "The evidence in respect of Iraq was so strong that the Security Council on the 8th of November said unanimously that Iraq's proliferation and possession of the weapons of mass destruction and unlawful missile systems, as well as its defiance of the United Nations, pose – and I quote – 'a threat to international peace and security'."

Foreign secretary Jack Straw, interview of 14 May 2003

There have been repeated attempts by the government to claim that the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1441 demonstrated that everyone accepted that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons. This is untrue: it claims that Iraq was not complying with inspectors, but nowhere asserts that Iraq possessed these weapons. Jack Straw here is wilfully misinterpreting one clause of the resolution, which stated in the abstract that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was a threat to international peace: it did not accuse Iraq of doing this, because most countries on the Security Council did not believe that Iraq was engaged in proliferation.

Inspections and Iraq's concealment of weapons

17.       "We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports"

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 3 February 2003

Most of this "intelligence report" turned out to be cribbed from three on-line articles which were jumbled together sometimes in an incoherent manner.

18.       "Escorts are trained, for example, to start long arguments with other Iraqi officials 'on behalf of UNMOVIC' while any incriminating evidence is hastily being hidden behind the scenes."

The dossier of February 2003

This claim was contradicted by the weapons inspectors. Chief UN inspector of Hans Blix told the Security Council on 14 February 2003 that "Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly ... we note that access to sites has so far been without problems".

19.       "Journeys are monitored by security officers stationed on the route if they have prior intelligence. Any changes of destination are notified ahead by telephone or radio so that arrival is anticipated. The welcoming party is a give away."

The dossier of February 2003

Hans Blix told the Security Council on 14 February that "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

20.       "Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003

Hans Blix had suggested in December that Iraq should give sets of names in stages: "Iraq may proceed in pyramid fashion, starting from the leadership in programmes, going down to management, scientists, engineers and technicians but excluding the basic layer of workers". This seems to be what Iraq did: it provided lists of 117 persons for the chemical sector, 120 for the biological sector and 156 persons for the missile sector by the end of December 2002. On the UN's request, Iraq added more names.

21.       "the reason why the inspectors couldn't do their job in the end was that Saddam wouldn't co-operate."

Tony Blair, interview on 4 April 2003

Hans Blix told the Security Council on 7 March 2003 that "the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive'".

Past weapons inspections

22.       "the UN has tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully."

Tony Blair, interview in the Independent on Sunday, 2 March 2003

In 1999, the Security Council set up a panel to assess the UN's achievements in the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. It concluded that: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated."

23.       "The UN inspectors found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme – which he claimed didn't exist – until his lies were revealed by his son-in-law."

Tony Blair, interview in the Independent on Sunday, 2 March 2003

This is pure fabrication, used to make the claim that weapons inspectors are ineffective. The UN had already determined that Iraq had had a biological weapons programme months before Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, defected. In the face of the evidence that the UN put to them, the Iraqi regime admitted that they had an offensive biological weapons programme on 1 July 1995. Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected on 7 August 1995.

24.       "Only then [after Hussein Kamel's defection] did the inspectors find over 8,000 litres of concentrated anthrax and other biological weapons, and a factory to make more."

Tony Blair, interview in the Independent on Sunday, 2 March 2003

UN inspectors have never found anthrax in Iraq. Iraq claimed that it had destroyed all its stocks of anthrax in 1991, and the dispute over anthrax since then has concerned the UN's attempts to verify these claims. The factory at which Iraq had made anthrax, al-Hakam, had been under inspection since 1991, contrary to the Prime Minister's claim.

Finding weapons

25.       "I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there. … once we have the cooperation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them."

Tony Blair, interview on 4 April 2003

Almost all the scientists have been captured, but there has still been no sign of the weapons.

26.       "On weapons of mass destruction, we know that the regime has them, we know that as the regime collapses we will be led to them."

Tony Blair, press conference with George W. Bush, 8 April 2003

The regime collapsed over three months ago; still no weapons of mass destruction found.

27.       "we know where they [the weapons] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

US Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, interview on 30 March 2003

If Mr Rumsfeld knew where the weapons were, why haven't they been found?

28.       "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons"

Tony Blair, press conference in Poland on 30 May 2003

In fact, government experts believe that the trailers were used for the production of hydrogen for artillery guidance balloons, a system sold by the UK to Iraq in the 1980s.

Iraq and terrorism

29.       "there is some intelligence evidence about linkages between members of al-Qaeda and people in Iraq."

Tony Blair to the House of Commons Liaison Committee, 21 January 2003

In early February, a classified British intelligence report, written by defence intelligence staff, was passed to the BBC. Far from substantiating the charge that there were "linkages" between al-Qaeda and Iraq, the report states that there were no current links between the two, and claims that Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq". The report was written in mid-January, and had been presented to Tony Blair just prior to his 21 January presentation at the Liaison Committee.

30.       "We believe that there have been, and still are, some al-Qaeda operatives in parts of Iraq controlled by Baghdad. It is hard to imagine that they are there without the knowledge and acquiescence of the Iraqi Government."

Foreign Office spokesperson, 29 January 2003

No evidence has been presented of al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq: if such persons were in Iraq, why haven't they been found?

The decision to go to war

31.       "As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, resolution 1441 gives the legal basis for this [war]"

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 12 March 2003

Resolution 1441 was secured on the British commitment that it did not authorise military action, even if the UK or US believed it was being violated by Iraq. Britain's UN ambassador Jeremy Greenstock told the Security Council on 8 November 2002 that "There is no 'automaticity' in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion".

32.       "Resolution 678 which says that the international community should take all necessary means to uphold security and peace. In other words, that Saddam Hussein should disarm".

Gordon Brown, interview on 16 March 2003

Resolution 678 was about using force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It was not about the disarmament of Iraq, a topic that was only discussed at the Security Council for the first time some four months after Resolution 678 was passed.

33.       "on Monday night, France said it would veto a second Resolution whatever the circumstances."

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003

Mr Blair claimed that diplomatic solutions were impossible because of French obstructionism at the Security Council. In fact, President Chirac said that France would vote against any resolution that authorised force whilst inspections were still working. Chirac said that he "considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to ... disarm Iraq", a position borne out by UN reports on the progress of inspections.

Post-war Iraq

34.       "the oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN."

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003

Britain co-sponsored a resolution to the Security Council, which was passed in May as Resolution 1483, that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund.

35.       "The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm ... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Motion to the House of Commons for war with Iraq, moved by Tony Blair, 18 March 2003

Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the British co-sponsored Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait.

36.       "our aim has not been regime change, our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction"

Tony Blair, press conference, 25 March 2003

This claim is looking increasingly implausible. Weapons inspectors were reporting Iraq's "proactive" cooperation, and were projecting that Iraq could be declared as fully disarmed within three months if that cooperation continued. If Mr Blair's aim was the elimination of prohibited weapons, why terminate the inspection process just when it was most effective?

A new type of war

(19 March 2004)

Published in Labour Left Briefing (April 2004)

On 5 March, Tony Blair offered his new doctrine on international affairs to an audience of businessmen in Sedgefield. This was a call for "a new type of war" to be directed at the prospect of terrorists possessing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister invoked the possibility of "Armageddon" to explain the scale of his fears that led him into launching an invasion of Iraq. Six days later, ten bombs in Madrid produced devastation on a scale, with over two hundred killed and a thousand injured, that many of its witnesses described in similarly apocalyptic terms. So, was Blair correct after all, then, that inaction in response to the threat from Islamist fanatics, when the evidence of the carnage they wish to cause is so palpable, would be to run the greatest risk of all?

In one sense, the answer is yes. Over the past few years, the nature of many radical Islamist groups has changed dramatically. From the mid-1960s through the Iranian revolution of 1979 and into the 1990s, the primary aim of most radical Islamist groups had been to capture power within predominantly Muslim countries, and so to transform the state into one that rules by (their interpretation of) Islamic law. These movements could threaten western economic interests and personnel based in those countries, but they were rarely a threat to the overwhelming majority of people in the US and UK.

 This has now changed: Islamist movements in much of the world, from the Latin American émigré groups to the Philippines, no longer talk primarily about their desire to transform their own state; that's old hat for many of them. Instead, all the emphasis is now on the global war, seen as Bush's crusades against the Muslim world. In this understanding, the massacres caused through bombs in Europe and North America are perceived as part of a global struggle that brings about the defeat of a bitter enemy. As Mr Blair put it, to think that a few more arrests of prominent Islamists would significantly reduce the risk of further large-scale attacks would be naïve and irresponsible.

 The problem for Mr Blair's argument is not so much with the identification of a problem as with an understanding of how this situation has been reached. The speech in Sedgefield was not only to propose a future course; it was also (maybe, primarily) to explain the past. It was a justification of why Iraq was attacked a year ago. The attack occurred when UN weapons inspections were working better than ever before in verifying the past destruction of Iraq's WMD programmes; even the prime minister does not claim that Saddam Hussein was transferring chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to Islamist terrorists.

 But Mr Blair gave a different form of justification for that war. "Suppose at that point we had backed away", he hypothesised. "The will to act on the issue of rogue states and WMD would have been shown to be hollow. The terrorists, watching and analysing every move in our psychology as they do, would have taken heart." This may be the most direct argument for the war that the prime minister has offered, and is worth considering. We invaded, he claims, not because Iraq was any sort of threat, but because to have not gone to war would have made the US and UK look weak.

 This of course is the long-standing argument of the neo-cons in the US. They proclaimed throughout the late 1990s that the US had lost its image of power worldwide because of its perceived reluctance to make large-scale displays of military force. The way for them, and now it seems for Blair, to dissuade further attacks by states or terrorist groups is to demonstrate one's military might. Terrorists strike you because they think you're weak; they respect you if they think you're strong.

This line of reasoning is entirely coherent in itself. It is also deeply flawed in its understanding of the world; and, if it becomes part of policy-making, it is hard to think to a more highly dangerous approach to take. The reason is that nothing has brought support for violence against civilians in Europe and America to greater levels than the aggression conducted by the US and UK against Iraq. Far from building respect, the invasion has had the effect of polarising sentiment, providing recruits and a supportive base to terrorist groups. An image of western strength only gives prestige to those groups who go about challenging the west and demonstrating its vulnerabilities.

A few days after the Madrid bombs, the Washington-based Pew Research Center released a report on global attitudes, conducted under the direction of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Among the pro-US countries of the Muslim world, it found that 65% of the population of nuclear-armed Pakistan had a favourable impression of Osama bin Laden (a further 26% refused to answer). 55% of Jordanians agreed with this sentiment (in Mr Blair meeting's with King Abdullah of Jordan earlier in March, he proclaimed that relations between Jordanians and the British were "excellent"), and more Moroccans voice favour for bin Laden than oppose him.

 These results are highly disturbing, particularly as they demonstrate a much greater level of support for bin Laden than that found two years ago. But they are hardly incomprehensible. They are not the consequence of a deranged mentality pervasive across the Arab and Islamic world. To think of them as a result of the news coverage of Arab satellite stations, as members of the US administration have claimed, is to have taken leave of all political responsibility and sense. Instead, they are the very real result of a widespread perception of a US attempt to maintain control of the Middle East in particular, a stated goal of President Bush's national security strategy.

 This point was made well by Graham Fuller, former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA. "The whole point is to make sure that the US learns that such interventionist projects are flights of dangerous folly," he wrote on the day before the carnage in Madrid in reference to another bombing. "Radicals seek to drive home the point that Americans should never contemplate for even a moment the ambition of visiting American military force against the Muslim world ever again."

 Voters in Spain have realised that their former prime minister's sponsorship of interventionist projects has led to a situation in which those who threaten violence against them draw support across a wide swathe of the world. The British right-wing press has howled that the Spanish electorate has given in to terrorism (as if it should be the responsibility of the Spanish to be attacked so that we might be spared). That attention would be better spent on those who have spent the past years feeding it instead, at - as yet - untold costs to all of us.

The President and his consequences

(21 November 2003)

Published in Labour Left Briefing (December 2003)

Children in Baghdad have a new game. They go up in small groups to US soldiers, who are either on foot patrol or more usually in their tanks. The children wave and smile. At the same time, they compete with one another to call out in Arabic the most obscene insults they can think of at the soldiers. "The children here know all about the mothers of these soldiers," an Iraqi colleague joked to me during one such encounter. The soldiers don't understand a word that they hear and think the children are being friendly. They always raise their thumbs or wave back. Sometimes they give out sweets or (bizarrely) beanie baby toys. Of course, this sends the children into fits of giggles, as they try to conceive even more revolting substances to compare the soldiers and their relatives to.

President Bush's visit to Britain in November was not all that different from this. He listened to Tony Blair's platitudes on something Blair labelled a "real living alliance". Like the soldiers in Iraq, he will go back believing in the friendliness of the natives (though it's not known if he gave Blair a beanie baby). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands were out in the streets throughout the country to denounce Bush's policies, his arrogance and his lies.

They have good reasons to this do this. At the most direct and self-interested level, Bush's invasion of Iraq produces fear of the anticipated response. One of the more striking results from a November poll of European citizens organised by the European Commission showed that fear of terrorism was greatest in those countries whose governments supported the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, the three countries most at fear are those encumbered with the three strongest allies of Bush as premiers: Britain, Spain and Italy. As Blair and Bush met, two British-linked facilities in Istanbul were devastated in what may tragically be the first step in a long and bloody cycle of violence. The message to political leaders from common sense, and at least a minimal awareness of how people behave, is clear: if you want to preserve the safety of your citizens and reduce the level of fear, you don't ally yourself with international aggressors.

However, the climate of hostility generated by the war on Iraq and its consequences also has the effect of encouraging some of those who are brought up to believe in the innate goodness of American power to find other targets to blame. In mid-summer, a survey conduced by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre found that more US citizens agreed that "Islam encourages violence" than disagreed. This wasn't the effect of the September 11th attacks: in the aftermath of that, in March 2002, 33% of those who had an opinion believed that there was a link between the religion and violence. This had jumped to 52% by July 2003. Iraqis are now ruled by a country in which the predominant belief is that their religion is inherently violent. It's not a recipe for an amicable relationship.

In general, Bush's world has become increasingly divided into bitterly antagonistic camps. An October poll in Israel conducted by the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies showed that the numbers of Israelis who supported "encouraging" the Arab population of Israel to emigrate, and who believed that the Palestinians of the occupied territories should be forcibly deported ("transferred", in the euphemism used), were at record levels – 57% and 46% respectively. Assuming that the Arab population of Israel (around 18%) opposed both propositions, a clear majority of Israeli Jews now support full-blown ethnic cleansing. If Israel takes this line of action in future, the support of the US looks increasingly likely: the Pew survey mentioned earlier  finds that now 36% of US citizens believe that "the state of Israel is a fulfillment of the biblical prophesy about the second coming of Jesus."

The mirror image of these results is that fewer people in the Muslim world believe that a solution is possible to the Arab-Israeli conflict that falls short of the outright victory of one side and the conquest of the other. According to surveys by the Pew Research Centre, less than a quarter in most Muslim countries believe that Palestinian rights can be upheld whilst the State of Israel continues to exist. The changes in attitudes towards the US and its policies are severe: in 2002, 25% of Jordanians had a favourable view of the US. That has fallen to only 1% by the end of the Iraq war. In Pakistan, 28% believed in 2002 that their religion was under threat from external powers. That had risen to 64% a year later.

When George Bush last visited the UK in April, during the first phase of the war on Iraq, Tony Blair stood alongside him and told him that "the regime is weakening, the Iraqi people are turning towards us". The truth is very different: seven months later, the US has restarted aerial bombardments in a futile endeavour to quell a violent resistance movement than can outlast and outwit them. As Blair welcomed Bush to London this time, he would have been well advised to tell him how fractured the world had become under his presidency, and how his legacy will be decades of intense, angry violence between peoples whose core values have now been pitched against each other. Instead, like the American soldier in the tank, all he did was stick his thumbs in the air, oblivious to the voices of hatred all around him.

6. JACQUES PAUWELS

Why America needs War

March 2003

Wars are a terrible waste of lives and resources, and for that reason most people are in principle opposed to wars. The American President, on the other hand, seems to love war. Why? Many commentators have sought the answer in psychological factors. Some opined that George W. Bush considered it his duty to finish the job started, but for some obscure reason not completed, by his father at the time of the Gulf War; others believe that Bush Junior expected a short and triumphant war which would guarantee him a second term in the White House.

I believe that we must look elsewhere for an explanation for the attitude of the American President. The fact that Bush is keen on war has little or nothing to do with his psyche, but a great deal with the American economic system. This system -- America’s brand of capitalism -- functions first and foremost to make extremely rich Americans like the Bush “money dynasty”[1] even richer. Without warm or cold wars, however, this system can no longer produce the expected result in the form of the ever-higher profits the moneyed and powerful of America consider as their birthright

The great strength of American capitalism is also its great weakness, namely, its extremely high productivity. In the historical development of the international economic system that we call capitalism, a number of factors have produced enormous increases in productivity, for example, the mechanization of the production process that got under way in England as early as the 18th century. In the early 20th century, then, American industrialists made a crucial contribution in the form of the automatization of work by means of new techniques such as the assembly line. The latter was an innovation introduced by Henry Ford, and those techniques have therefore become collectively known as “Fordism.” The productivity of the great American enterprises rose spectacularly; for example, already in the twenties countless vehicles rolled off the assembly lines of the automobile factories of Michigan every single day. But who was supposed to buy all those cars? Most Americans at the time did not have sufficiently robust pocket books for such a purchase. Other industrial products similarly flooded the market, and the result was the emergence of a chronic disharmony between the ever-increasing economic supply and the lagging demand. Thus arose the economic crisis generally known as the Great Depression. It was essentially a crisis of overproduction. Warehouses were bursting with unsold commodities, factories laid off workers, unemployment exploded, and so the purchasing power of the American people shrunk even more, making the crisis even worse.

It cannot be denied that in America the Great Depression only ended during, and because of, the Second World War. (Even the greatest admirers of President Roosevelt admit that his much-publicized New Deal policies brought little or no relief.) Economic demand rose spectacularly when the war which had started in Europe, and in which the USA itself was not an active participant before 1942, allowed American industry to produce unlimited amounts of war equipment. Between 1940 and 1945, the American state would spend no less than 185 billion dollar on such equipment, and the military expenditures’ share of the GNP thus rose between 1939 and 1945 from an insignificant 1,5 per cent to approximately 40 per cent. In addition, American industry also supplied gargantuan amounts of equipment to the British and even the Soviets via Lend-Lease. (In Germany, meanwhile, the subsidiaries of American corporations such as Ford, GM, and ITT produced all sorts of planes and tanks and other martial toys for the Nazi’s, also after Pearl Harbor, but that is a different story.) The key problem of the Great Depression -- the disequilibrium between supply and demand -- was thus resolved because the state “primed the pump” of economic demand by means of huge orders of a military nature

As far as ordinary Americans were concerned, Washington’s military spending orgy brought not only virtually full employment but also much higher wages than ever before; it was during the Second World War that the widespread misery associated with the Great Depression came to an end and that a majority of the American people achieved an unprecedented degree of prosperity. However, the greatest beneficiaries by far of the wartime economic boom were the country’s businesspeople and corporations, who realized extraordinary profits. Between 1942 and 1945, writes the historian Stuart D. Brandes, the net profits of America’s 2,000 biggest firms were more than 40 per cent higher than during the period 1936-1939; such a “profit boom” was possible, he explains, because the state ordered billions of dollars of military equipment, failed to institute price controls, and taxed profits little if at all. This largesse benefited the American business world in general, but in particular that relatively restricted elite of big corporations known as “big business” or “corporate America.” During the war, a total of less than 60 firms obtained 75 per cent of all lucrative military and other state orders. The big corporations -- Ford, IBM, etc. -- revealed themselves to be the “war hogs,” writes  Brandes, that gormandized at the plentiful trough of the state’s military expenditures. IBM, for example, increased its annual sales between 1940 and 1945 from 46 to 140 million dollar thanks to war-related orders, and its profits skyrocketed accordingly.  

America’s big corporations exploited their Fordist expertise to the fullest in order to boost production, but even that was not sufficient to meet the wartime needs of the American state. Much more equipment was needed, and in order to produce it, America needed new factories and even more efficient technology. These new assets were duly stamped out of the ground, and on account of this the total value of all productive facilities of the nation increased between 1939 and 1945 from 40 to 66 billion dollar. However, it was not the private sector that undertook all these new investments; on account of its disagreeable experiences with overproduction during the thirties, America’s businesspeople found this task too risky. So the state did the job by investing 17 billion dollar in more than 2,000 defense-related projects. In return for a nominal fee, privately owned corporations were permitted to rent these brand-new factories in order to produce...and to make money by selling the output back to the state. Moreover, when the war was over and Washington decided to divest itself of these investments, the nation’s big corporations purchased them for half, and in many cases only one third, of the real value.

How did America finance the war, how did Washington pay the lofty bills presented by GM, ITT, and the other corporate suppliers of war equipment? The answer is: partly by means of taxation – about 45 per cent --, but much more through loans – approximately 55 per cent. On account of this, the public debt increased dramatically, namely, from 3 billion dollar in 1939 to no less than 45 billion dollar in 1945. In theory, this debt should have been reduced, or wiped out altogether, by levying taxes on the huge profits pocketed during the war by America’s big corporations, but the reality was different. As already noted, the American state failed to meaningfully tax corporate America’s windfall profits, allowed the public debt to mushroom, and paid its bills, and the interest on its loans, with its general revenues, that is, by means of the income generated by direct and indirect taxes. Particularly on account of the regressive Revenue Act introduced in October 1942, these taxes were paid increasingly by workers and other low-income Americans, rather than by the super-rich and the corporations of which the latter were the owners, major shareholders, and/or top managers. “The burden of financing the war,” observes the American historian Sean Dennis Cashman, “[was] sloughed firmly upon the shoulders of the poorer members of society.” However, the American public, preoccupied by the war and blinded by the bright sun of full employment and high wages, failed to notice this. Affluent Americans, on the other hand, were keenly aware of the wonderful way in which the war generated money for themselves and for their corporations. Incidentally, it was also from themselves – from the businesspeople, bankers, insurers and other big investors – that Washington borrowed the money needed to finance the war; corporate America thus also profited from the war by pocketing the lion’s share of the interests generated by the purchase of the famous war bonds. In theory, at least, the rich and powerful of America are the great champions of so-called free enterprise, and they oppose any form of state intervention in the economy; during the war, however, they never raised any objections to the way in which the American state managed and financed the economy, because without this large-scale dirigist violation of the rules of free enterprise, their collective wealth could never have proliferated as it did during those years.            

During the Second World War, the wealthy owners and top managers of the big corporations learned a very important lesson: during a war there is money to be made, lots of money. In other words,  the arduous task of maximizing profits -- the key activity within the capitalist American economy -- can be absolved much more efficiently through war than through peace; however, the benevolent cooperation of the state is required. Ever since the Second World War, the rich and powerful of America have remained keenly conscious of this. So is their man in the White House today, the scion of a “money dynasty” who was parachuted into the White House in order to promote the interests of his wealthy family members, friends, and associates in corporate America, the interests of money, privilege, and power.

In the spring of 1945 it was obvious that the war, fountainhead of fabulous profits, would soon be over. What would happen then? Among the economists, many Cassandras conjured up scenarios that loomed extremely unpleasant for America’s political and industrial leaders. During the war, Washington’s purchases of military equipment, and nothing else, had restored the economic demand and thus made possible not only full employment but also unprecedented profits. With the return of peace, the ghost of disharmony between supply and demand threatened to return to haunt America again, and the resulting crisis might well be even more acute than the GreatDepression of the “dirty thirties,” because during the war years the productive capacity of the nation had increased considerably, as we have seen. Workers would have to be laid off precisely at the moment when millions of war veterans would come home looking for a civilian job, and the resulting unemployment and decline in purchasing power would aggravate the demand deficit. Seen from the perspective of America’s rich and powerful, the coming unemployment was not a problem; what did matter was that the golden age of gargantuan profits would come to an end. Such a catastrophe had to be prevented, but how?

Military state expenditures were the source of high profits. In order to keep the profits gushing forth generously, new enemies and new war threats were urgently needed now that Germany and Japan were defeated. How fortunate that the Soviet Union existed, a country which during the war had been a particularly useful partner who had pulled the chestnuts out of the fire for the Allies in Stalingrad and elsewhere, but also a partner whose communist ideas and practices allowed it to be easily transformed into the new bogeyman of the United States. Most American historians now admit that in 1945 the Soviet Union, a country that had suffered enormously during the war, did not constitute a threat at all to the economically and militarily far superior USA, and that Washington itself did not perceive the Soviets as a threat; these historians also acknowledge that Moscow was very keen to work closely together with Washington in the postwar era. Indeed, Moscow had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from a conflict with superpower America, which was brimming with confidence thanks to its monopoly of the atom bomb. However, America -- corporate America, the America of the super-rich -- urgently needed a new enemy in order to justify the titanic expenditures for “defense” which were needed to keep the wheels of the nation’s economy spinning at full speed also after the end of the war, thus keeping profit margins at the required -- or rather, desired -- high levels, or even to increase them. It is for this reason that the Cold War was unleashed in 1945, not by the Soviets but by the American “military-industrial” complex, as President Eisenhower would call that elite of wealthy individuals and corporations that knew how to profit from the “warfare economy.” 

In this respect, the Cold War exceeded their fondest expectations. More and more martial equipment had to be cranked out, because the allies within the so-called “free world”, which actually included plenty of nasty dictatorships, had to be armed to the teeth with US equipment. In addition, America’s own armed forces never ceased demanding bigger, better, and more sophisticated tanks, planes, rockets, and, yes, chemical and bacteriological weapons and other martial tools of mass destruction. For these goods, the  Pentagon was always ready to pay huge sums without asking difficult questions. As had been the case during the Second World War, it were again primarily the large corporations who were allowed to fill the orders. The Cold War generated unprecedented profits, and they flowed into the coffers of those extremely wealthy individuals who happened to be the owners, top managers, and/or major shareholders of these corporations.  (Does it come as a surprise that in the United States newly retired Pentagon generals are routinely offered jobs as consultants by large corporations involved in military production, and that businessmen linked with those corporations are regularly appointed as high-ranking officials of the Department of Defense, as advisors of the President, etc.?)  

During the Cold War too, the American state financed its skyrocketing military expenditures by means of loans, and this caused the public debt to rise to dizzying heights. In 1945 the public debt stood at “only” 258 billion dollar, but in 1990 -- when the Cold War ground to an end -- it amounted to no less than 3.2 trillion dollar! This was a stupendous increase, also when one takes the inflation rate into account, and it caused the American state to become the world’s greatest debtor. (Incidentally, in July 2002 the American public debt had reached 6.1 trillion dollar.) Washington could and should have covered the cost of the Cold War by taxing the huge profits achieved by the corporations involved in the armament orgy, but there was never any question of such a thing. In 1945, when the Second World War come to an end and the Cold War picked up the slack, corporations still paid 50 per cent of all taxes, but during the course of the Cold War this share shrunk consistently, and today it only amounts to approximately 1 per cent. This was possible because the nation’s big corporations largely determine what the government in Washington may or may not do, also in the field of fiscal policy. In addition, lowering the tax burden of corporations was made easier because after the Second World War these corporations transformed themselves into multinationals, “at home everywhere and nowhere," as an American author has written in connection with ITT, and therefore find it easy to avoid paying meaningful taxes anywhere. Stateside, where they pocket the biggest profits, 37 per cent of all  American  multinationals -- and more than 70 per cent of all foreign multinationals -- paid not a single dollar of taxes in 1991, while the remaining multinationals remitted less than 1 per cent of their profits in taxes.

The sky-high costs of the Cold War were thus not borne by those who profited from it and who, incidentally, also continued to pocket the lion’s share of the dividends paid on government bonds, but by the American workers and the American middle class. These low- and middle-income Americans did not receive a penny from the profits yielded so profusely by the Cold War, but they did receive their share of the enormous public debt for which that conflict was largely responsible. It is they, therefore, who were really saddled with the costs of the Cold War, and it is they who continue to pay with their taxes for a disproportionate share of the burden of the public debt. In other words, while the profits generated by the Cold War were privatized to the advantage of an extremely wealthy elite, its costs were ruthlessly socialized to the great detriment of all other Americans. During the Cold War, the American economy degenerated into a gigantic swindle, into a perverse redistribution of the nation’s wealth to the advantage of the rich and to the disadvantage not only of the poor and of the working class but also of the middle class, whose members tend to subscribe to the myth that the American capitalist system serves their interests. Indeed, while the wealthy and powerful of America accumulated ever-greater riches, the prosperity achieved by many other Americans during the Second World War was gradually eroded, and the general standard of living declined slowly but steadily. During the Second World War America had witnessed a modest redistribution of the collective wealth of the nation to the advantage of the less privileged members of society; during the Cold War, however, the rich Americans became richer while the non-wealthy -- and certainly not only the poor -- became poorer. In 1989, the year the Cold War petered out, more than 13 per cent of all Americans -- approximately 31 million individuals -- were poor according to the official criteria of poverty, which definitely understate the problem. Conversely, today 1 per cent of all Americans own no less than 34 per cent of the nation’s aggregate wealth. In no major “Western” country is the wealth distributed more unevenly. 

The minuscule percentage of super-rich Americans found this development extremely satisfactory; they loved the idea of accumulating more and more wealth, of aggrandizing their already huge assets, at the expense of the less privileged. They wanted to keep things that way or, if at all possible, make this sublime scheme even more efficient. However, all good things must come to an end, and in 1989/90 the bountiful Cold War elapsed. That presented a serious problem. Ordinary Americans, who knew that they had borne the costs of this war, expected a “peace dividend;” they thought that the money the state had spent on military expenditures might now be used to produce benefits for themselves, for example in the form of a national health insurance and other social benefits which Americans in contrast to most Europeans have never enjoyed; in 1992, Bill Clinton would actually win the presidential election by dangling out the prospect of a national health plan, which of course never materialized. A “peace dividend”, then, was of no interest whatsoever to the nation’s wealthy elite, because the provision of social services by the state does not yield profits for entrepreneurs and corporations, and certainly not the lofty kind of profits generated by military state expenditures. Something had to be done, and had to be done fast, to prevent the threatening implosion of the state’s military spending. 

America, or rather, corporate America, was orphaned of its useful Soviet enemy, and urgently needed to conjure up new enemies and new threats in order to justify a high level of military spending. It is in this context that in 1990 Saddam Hussein appeared on the scene like a kind of deus ex machina. This tin-pot dictator had previously been perceived and treated by the Americans as a good friend, and he had been armed to the teeth so that he could wage a nasty war against Iran; it was the USA -- and allies such as Germany -- who originally supplied him with his infamous weapons of mass destruction. However, Washington was desperately in need of a new enemy, and suddenly fingered him as a terribly dangerous “new Hitler,” against whom war needed to be waged urgently, even though it was clear that a negotiated settlement of the issue of Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait was not out of the question. George Bush Senior was the casting agent who discovered this useful new nemesis of America, and who unleashed the Gulf War, during which Baghdad was showered with bombs and Saddam’s hapless recruits were slaughtered in the desert. The road to the Iraqi capital lay wide-open, but the Marines’ triumphant entry into Baghdad was suddenly scrapped. Saddam Hussein was left in power so that the threat he was supposed to form might be invoked again in order to justify keeping America in arms. After all, the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union had shown how inconvenient it can be when one loses a useful foe.

And so Mars could remain the patron saint of the American economy or, more accurately, the godfather of the corporate Mafia that manipulates this war-driven economy and reaps its huge profits without bearing its costs. The despised project of a peace dividend could thus be unceremoniously buried, and military expenditures could remain the dynamo of the economy and the wellspring of sufficiently high profits. Those expenditures increased relentlessly during the 1990s. In 1996, for example, they amounted to no less than 265 billion dollar, but when one adds the unofficial and/or indirect military expenditures, such as the interests paid on loans used to finance past wars, the 1996 total came to approximately 494 billion dollar, amounting to an outlay of 1.3 billion dollar per day! However, with only a considerably chastened Saddam as bogeyman, Washington found it expedient also to look elsewhere for new enemies and threats. Somalia temporarily looked promising, but in due course another “new Hitler” was identified in the Balkan Peninsula in the person of the Serbian leader, Milosevic. During much of the nineties, then, conflicts in the former Yugoslavia provided the required pretexts for military interventions, large-scale bombing operations, and the purchase of more and newer weapons.

 The “warfare economy” could thus continue to run on all cylinders also after the Gulf War. However, in view of occasional public pressure such as the demand for a peace dividend, it is not easy to keep this system going. (The media present no problem, as newspapers, magazines, TV stations, etc. are either owned by big corporations or rely on them for advertising revenue.) As mentioned earlier, the state has to cooperate, so in Washington one needs men and women one can count upon, preferably individuals from the very own corporate ranks, individuals totally committed to use the instrument of military expenditures in order to provide the high profits that are needed to make the very rich of America even richer. In this respect, Bill Clinton had fallen short of expectations, and corporate America could never forgive his original sin, namely, that he had managed to have himself elected by promising the American people a “peace dividend”  in the form of a system of health insurance. On account of this, in 2000 it was arranged that not the Clinton-clone Al Gore moved into the White House but a team of militarist hardliners, virtually without exception representatives of wealthy, corporate America, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice, and of course George W. Bush himself, son of the man who had shown with his Gulf War how it could be done; the Pentagon, too, was directly represented in the Bush Cabinet in the person of the allegedly peace-loving Powell, in reality yet another angel of death. Rambo moved into the White House, and it did not take long for the results to show.

After Bush Junior had been catapulted into the presidency, it looked for some time as if he was going to proclaim China as the new nemesis of America. However, a conflict with that giant loomed somewhat risky; furthermore, all too many big corporations make good money by trading with the People’s Republic. Another threat, preferably less dangerous and more credible, was required to keep the military expenditures at a sufficiently high level. For this purpose, Bush and Rumsfeld and company could have wished for nothing more convenient than the events of September 11, 2001; it is extremely likely that they were aware of the preparations for these monstrous attacks, but that they did nothing to prevent them because they knew that they would be able to benefit from them. In any event, they did take full advantage of this  opportunity in order to militarize America more than ever before, to shower bombs on people who had nothing to do with 9/11, to wage war to their hearts’ content, and thus for corporations that do business with the Pentagon to ring up unprecedented sales. Bush declared war not on a country but on terrorism, an abstract concept against which one cannot really wage war and against which a definitive victory can never be achieved. However, in practice the slogan  “war against terrorism” meant that Washington now reserves the right to wage war worldwide and permanently against whomever the White House defines as a terrorist.

And so the problem of the end of the Cold War was definitively resolved, as there was henceforth a justification for ever-increasing military expenditures. The statistics speak for themselves. The 1996 total of 265 billion dollar in military expenditures had already been astronomical, but thanks to Bush Junior the Pentagon was allowed to spend 350 billion in 2002, and for 2003 the President has promised approximately 390 billion; however, it is now virtually certain that the cape of 400 billion dollar will be rounded this year. (In order to finance this military spending orgy, money has to be saved elsewhere, for example by cancelling free lunches for poor children; every little bit helps.) No wonder that George W. struts around beaming with happiness and pride, for he -- essentially a spoiled rich kid of very limited talent and intellect -- has surpassed the boldest expectations not only of his wealthy family and friends but of corporate America as a whole, to which he owes his job.

9/11 provided Bush with carte blanche to wage war wherever and against whomever he chose, and as this essay has purported to make clear, it does not matter all that much who happens to be fingered as enemy du jour. Last year, Bush showered bombs on Afghanistan, presumably because the leaders of that country sheltered Bin Laden, but recently the latter went out of fashion and it was once again Saddam Hussein who allegedly threatened America. We cannot deal here in detail with the specific reasons why Bush’s America absolutely wanted war with the Iraq of Saddam Hussein and not with the arguably much more dangerous regime of North Korea. A major reason for fighting this particular war was that Iraq’s large reserves of oil are lusted after by the US oil trusts with whom the Bushes themselves -- and Bushites such as Cheney and Rice, after whom an oil tanker happens to be named -- are so intimately linked. The war in Iraq is also useful as a lesson to other Third World countries who fail to dance to Washington’s tune, and as an instrument for emasculating domestic opposition and ramming the extreme right-wing program of an unelected president down the throats of Americans themselves. 

The America of wealth and privilege is hooked on war, without regular and ever-stronger doses of war it can no longer function properly, that is, yield the desired profits. Right now, this addiction, this craving is being satisfied by means of a conflict against Iraq, which also happens to be dear to the hearts of the oil barons. However, does anybody believe that the warmongering will stop once Saddam’ scalp will join the Taliban turbans in the trophy display case of George W. Bush? The President has already pointed his finger at those whose turn will soon come, namely, the “axis of evil” countries: Iran, Syria, Lybia, Somalia, North Korea, and of course that old thorn in the side of America, Cuba. Welcome to the 21st century, welcome to George W. Bush’s brave new era of permanent war!

Finally this. Some experts claim that wars are actually bad for the American economy. This is partly correct, but also partly false. It all depends about which economy, about whose economy one is talking. For the economy of average Americans, the war in Iraq is definitely a catastrophe, because they will pay its huge bills. With their money, but also with their blood, since it is also the ordinary -- and preferably black and/or Hispanic -- Americans who supply the cannon fodder and who are exposed to “friendly fire” and to the carcinogenic depleted uranium and other risks associated with handling some of the more exotic weapons in the Pentagon’s arsenal, as was already the case during the Gulf War. The sons of the wealthy and privileged stay safely at home; is this not what young George W. Bush did at the time of the Vietnam War? For the military-industrial complex, for the economy of the Bushes, Cheneys, Rices, Rumsfelds, etc., for the economy of the oil trusts and weapons manufacturers, for the economy of the wealthy Americans who own the shares of these trusts and corporations, this war -- like wars in general -- is nothing less than wonderful. Because they will pocket the profits that wars generate as profusely as the death and destruction that will befall others. Their economy thrives on war, their “warfare economy” cannot function without war. This is why Bush must continue to find new enemies for America, continue to conjure up new threats, continue to wage war.  If peace might ever break out in the world, it would be nothing less than a catastrophe for the economy of Bush’s America.

From the International Press on Saturday, March 22, 2003:

The cost to the United States of the war in Iraq and its aftermath could easily exceed $ 100 billion... Peace-keeping in Iraq and rebuilding the country’s infrastructure could add much more...The Bush administration has stayed tightlipped about the cost of the war and reconstruction... Both the White House and the Pentagon refused to offer any definite figures.

(The International Herald Tribune, 22/03/03)

It is estimated that the war against Iraq will cost approximately 100 billion dollar. In contrast to the Gulf War of 1991, whose cost of 80 million was shared by the Allies, the United States is expected to pay the entire cost of the present war... For the American private sector, i.e. the big corporations, the coming reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure will represent a business of 900 million dollar; the first contracts were awarded yesterday (March 21) by the American government to two corporations.

(Guido Leboni, “Un coste de 100.000 millones de dolares,” El Mundo, Madrid, 22/03/03)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] George W.’s grandfather Prescott Bush, a New York banker, specialized during the thirties in business with Nazi Germany, made huge profits in the process, and used that money to launch his son George, later to become head of the CIA and, later still, president of the USA, in the oil industry.

7. WILLIAM CLARK

Petrodollar Warfare :

Macroeconomics and Geostrategy behind the Iraq War

March 2004

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be . . . The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe."

Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that have beset America.  It is a disturbing fact that the U.S.-led war against Iraq appears to have been waged under fraudulent premises.  It is now obvious that Saddam did not possess an imminent or viable threat to the U.S., but like his illusionary ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11, the Bush administration will not let such facts get in their way.  So, why did the US invade Iraq?  Simple: Empire - the desire to maintain US economic hegemony. 

Over the past year since the war began, there is much evidence to suggest the war was designed to accomplish three primary US geostrategic objectives.  Perhaps one of the original factors driving this administration to war was long-standing US geostrategy to develop several permanent U. military bases in the Persian Gulf.  Given Saudi Arabia’s domestic problems with continued US basing, Iraq became an even better geographical option. This long-standing US geostrategy regarding the Persian Gulf can be traced back to Henry Kissinger’s tenure.  Robert Dreyfuss’s wrote an excellent essay on this history, entitled, “The Thirty Year Itch.” [1] US control of the Persian Gulf oil is the stated goal.  On a related note, the French, Russian and Chinese oil exploration contracts that Saddam initiated during the 1990s now appear to be void under the post-war US/UK occupation.  The cancellation of these contracts worth a reported $1.1 trillion dollars is to be expected considering the neoconservative agenda is premised upon  a US Global Power willing to thwart any nation that “even aspires” to challenge the US’s role in the world.

The second factor the Bush administration is undoubtedly and acutely aware of is the recent studies by oil geologists regarding Peak Oil.  The most comprehensive analysis is probably provided by the highly regarded firm, Petroconsultants, Inc. out of Zurich.  In 1995 their ($35,000) annual report predicted world oil production would peak at the “end of the next decade,” or 2010. [2]  This date coincides with the technical analysis provided by respected oil geologists such as Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrère. [3] However, some veteran geologists such as Kenneth Deffeyes have now concluded that Peak Oil may in fact occur earlier, perhaps between 2004 and 2008. The following illustrates his sentiments:

"My own opinion is that the peak in world oil production may even occur before 2004. What happens if I am wrong? I would be delighted to be proved wrong. It would mean that we have a few additional years to reduce our consumption of crude oil. However, it would take a lot of unexpectedly good news to postpone the peak to 2010. [4]

However, the third and critical coalescing factor that led to the Iraq war is the one least understood.  It was the unexpected challenge to the dollar’s hegemonic status from the emergence of a “petroeuro” in Iraq that provided the final macroeconomic factor that necessitated Saddam’s overthrow and the installment of a pro-US puppet government.  The following is how an individual very well versed in the nuances of macroeconomics alluded to the unspoken truth for the unilateral invasion of Iraq:

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

This essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.   The Iraq war had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s old weapons of mass destruction program and certainly less to do to do with fighting terrorism than it has to do with the almighty dollar.  Iraq was in large part an oil currency war – a war designed to keep the euro from becoming an alternative oil transaction currency. 

Origins of the “Petroeuro” and the 2003 Iraq War

Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced on September 24, 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s oil for food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency. [5] (Later Iraq’s $10 billion UN reserve fund also transitioned to euros) At that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under President George W. Bush.  As revealed in recent books by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and former Counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, the Bush administration intended to overthrow Saddam from their first week in office. [6][7] From the ‘Big Picture’ perspective, everything else aside from the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran/Iraq oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to the Bush administration.  Furthermore, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough the neoconservatives decided to jeopardize the transatlantic relationship, which has resulted in the subsequent EU economic backlash.  The risks of war were undertaken in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. 

Regarding Iraq, WMD or no WMD, it is clear the Bush administration entered office seeking to replace Saddam with a pliant regime. This information about Iraq's oil currency was not discussed by the U.S. media or the Bush administration as it would have exposed the US/UK war plans are purely imperialistic. This quasi `state secret' was briefly addressed in a Radio Free Europe article that discussed Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros, to be effective November 6, 2000:

"Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington's hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency." [8]

At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing to give up approximately $270 million in annual oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq actually profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and transaction currencies to the euro. Indeed, The [UK] Observer divulged these facts in an article one month before the war: `Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro,' (February 16, 2003).

"A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of millions of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted upon dumping the US Dollar -- `the currency of the enemy' -- for the more multilateral euro." [9]

Although Iraq's oil currency switch appears to be completely censored by the U.S. media conglomerates, this UK article illustrates that the euro has gained about 25% against the dollar since late 2001, which also applied to the $10 billion in Iraq's UN `oil for food' fund that was previously held in dollars. In February 2003 it was reported that Iraq's oil for food reserve fund had swollen from $10 billion dollars to about € 26 billion euros. According to a former government analyst, the following scenario would occur if OPEC made an unlikely, but sudden (collective) switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition.

"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.

"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."

Although a collective switch by OPEC would be extremely unlikely barring a major panic on the US dollar, it would appear that a gradual transition to a “basket of currencies” or a dual-OPEC currency transaction standard including the dollar and euro is quite plausible. Unfortunately the current Bush administration has chosen a military option instead of a multilateral conference on monetary reform to resolve these issues. In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the US wants to keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no real `exit strategy,' as the US military will be needed to protect the newly installed regime, and to send a message to other OPEC producers that they too might receive `regime change' if they convert their oil payments to euros. 

Below are excerpts from an article on www.prudentbear.com that candidly address the importance of petrodollars. Despite several logical flaws in this article such as equating a change in the oil export currency to an “Arab oil embargo,” the author does acknowledge one key issue about the Iraq war:

. . . the one factor underpinning American prosperity is keeping the dollar the World Reserve Currency. This can only be done if the oil producing states keep oil priced in dollars, and all their currency reserves in dollar assets. If anything put the final nail in Saddam Hussein's coffin, it was his move to start selling oil for Euros.

The US is the sole super power and we control and dictate to the Middle East oil producers. America has the power to change rulers if they can't follow the "straight line" the US dictates. America's prosperity depends on this.

Governments have secrets. If politicians always told the truth, there wouldn't be any secrets. So, if governments are to keep secrets, how can you fault a politician for not telling the whole truth? We would assert that the President failed to present the real case for Iraq, which is: 1) prosperity for America based on controlling Middle East oil, and on maintaining the Dollar as the World Reserve Currency, and 2) peace and stability, which the guaranteed access to oil brings to the world. [10]

The last sentence illustrates how the U.S. government uniquely defines “access” to oil as control of oil. Indeed, this definition of “access to oil” is not free market economics, but rather a military command economy.  Additionally, I find the statement about the "need" for government secrecy to be rather tautological, circular in logic, and certainly not in the spirit of what the Founding Fathers stated was imperative to a functioning democracy -- an informed citizenry. In any event, the author is quite correct that much of our prosperity has been created by artificial geopolitical arrangements, some of which are under strain from the euro and geopolitical tensions arising from overt neoconservative geostrategy.

Overview of structural imbalances within the U.S. economy

The US economy has acquired significant structural imbalances, including our record-high $486 billion trade account deficit (5 % of GDP), a $7 trillion dollar deficit (65% of GDP), and the recent return to annual budget deficits in the hundreds of billions over the last three years.  These imbalances are being exacerbated by the Bush administration’s ideologically driven tax cut and massive spending policies, which are creating enormous deficits for the rest of this decade.   Why is the dollar still predominant despite these significant structural imbalances?   While many Americans assume the strength of the U.S. dollar merely rests on our economic output (i.e. GDP), the ruling elites understand that the dollar’s strength is founded on its two fundamentally unique advantages relative to all other hard currencies.

The majority of Americans are not cognizant to the fact that the ‘strength’ of our current economy is founded on the dollar’s two pivotal advantages following the ’Bretton Woods Conference’ of 1944-1945.  First is the dollars role as the dominant international reserve currency, which affords the US market with its “safe harbor” international status.  The second crucial factor is the dollar’s role as the monopoly currency for global oil transactions.  While the dollar’s role as the world’s international reserve currency is well understood, the effects of “petrodollar” recycling for international oil transactions is rarely discussed.

Origins of the Petrodollar

The valuation of the US dollar was rather shaky after August 1971 when the Nixon had to “de-link” the dollar from the $35 per oz. “gold standard.”  According to Dr. David Spiro’s research on this issue, in 1973-74 the Nixon administration sought to alleviate this situation by negotiating assurances from Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia to price oil in dollars only, and to invest their surplus oil proceeds in US Treasury Bills. [11] In return the U.S. would protect the Saudi regime. These agreements created the phenomenon known as “petrodollar recycling.” The U.S. prints hundreds of billions of fiat dollars, which U.S. consumers provide to other nations via trade when we purchase their imported goods.  Hundreds of billions of these dollars then become petrodollars when used by nations to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers. Depending upon the price of oil, approximately $600 to $800 billion petrodollars are annually re-cycled’ from OPEC sales and invested back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets.

The fact that all buyers of oil must first buy dollars to pay for the oil supports the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and eliminates our currency risk for oil.  Oil priced in “petrodollars” and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency has supported the value of our currency which by normal economic logic, given America’s trillions of dollars in trade deficits over the past decade, should have much less purchasing power than it currently possesses.  An enlarged E.U. and a strong euro are challenging this arrangement.

However, as long as the dollar remains the monopoly oil transaction currency, its “storage of wealth” is theoretically derived from the simple fact that it purchases between 1.5 and 1.9 gallons of crude oil.  (Using OPEC price range of $22-$28 per barrel, and 42 gallons in a production barrel).  No other hard currency in the world can be used to directly purchase the most valuable commodity in the world – oil.   This unique geo-political agreement with Saudi Arabia has worked to our favor for the past 30 years by eliminating any fluctuation (currency risk) in our oil purchases in relation to the dollar’s valuation, raising the entire asset value of all dollar denominated assets/properties, and facilitating the Federal Reserve in creating a truly massive debt and credit expansion (or `credit bubble' in the view of some economists). In effect, global oil consumption via OPEC “petrodollar recycling” provides a subsidy to the US economy.

OPEC, the Euro, and EU enlargement

It is no secret that the Europeans created the E.U. in an effort to create a huge trading bloc and common currency that could directly compete with the large U.S. economy.  Hence, the goals of the EU include the euro becoming an alternative international reserve currency.  To facilitate that goal, the euro would have to become an alternative “storage of wealth” for oil transactions.  Obviously the EU would like their oil purchases to be priced in the euro, as that would minimize their currency risk, and stabilize their oil bill.  Moreover, in May 2004 ten additional member states are scheduled to join the European Union, which should will result in an aggregate GDP of $9.6 trillion - directly comparable to the U.S. s’ $10 trillion GDP.

Indeed, in a visit to Spain in April 2002, Mr Javad Yarjani, the Head of OPEC's Market Analysis Department, illustrated the new dynamics of the EU and the euro currency in an important speech:

“In the short-term, OPEC Member Countries (MCs), with possibly a few exceptions, are expected to continue to accept payment in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future.” [12]

Based on the details of this candid speech, momentum for OPEC to consider switching to the euro will grow once the EU expands in May 2004 to 450 million people with the inclusion of 10 additional member states.  At that point, the majority of OPEC oil exports will be purchased by the E.U. Undoubtedly, the euro currency is a significant new competitor, and appears to be the primary threat to US dollar hegemony.  The Bush administration is attempting to artificially divide the EU with verbal hand grenades such as “Old Europe” vs. ‘New Europe.”  This strategy needlessly damages US/EU relations.

Post-war Iraq

Just as I hypothesized in December 2002, after toppling Saddam regime the Bush administration quickly reverted Iraq’s oil currency transactions back to the dollar.  I suspect their goals also included quickly rebuilding Iraq’s oil production capability, initiate massive Iraqi oil production in far excess of OPEC quotas, to reduce global oil prices, and dissolve the OPEC cartel’s price controls. Not surprisingly, they have not been able to succeed in the later polices. Removing Saddam was more of a victory for dollar hegemony and Bush’s re-election campaign than a victory in the fight against terrorism.  While the neoconservatives have succeeded at some levels, we are in the very early stages of the occupation of Iraq, and the increasing attacks by the Iraqis, particularity the Shi’ites, does not inspire confidence.

On April 28, 2003, I read the first article in the mainstream US media (msnbc.com) since the autumn of 2000 that addressed some of the issues regarding Iraqi oil exports in the euro. Apparently until the U.N. sanctions were lifted; Iraq's oil was to remain under UN control in the "oil for food" program. To reiterate, the following excerpts from this forthright msnbc.com article is the only mainstream US media reference that I could locate during 2001-2003 that discussed the Iraq war and the underlying petrodollar issues. It was entitled "In Round 2, It's the Dollar versus the Euro" (implying the Iraq war was `Round 1').

“A new world is being created. Ironically, the most troublesome clash of civilizations in it may not be the one the academics expected: not Islamic fundamentalists vs. the West in the first instance, but the United States against Europe.

To oversimplify, but only slightly, it's the dollar vs. the euro.

. . . The Europeans and the United Nations want the inspections regime to resume because as long as it is in place, the U.N. "oil-for-food" program remains in effect. Not only does France benefit directly-its banks hold the deposits and its companies have been involved in the oil sales-the entire EU does as well, if for no other reason than many of the recent sales were counted not in dollars but in euros. The United Nations benefits because it has collected more than a billion dollars in fees for administering the program. As long as the 1990 sanctions remain in effect, Iraq can't "legally" sell its oil on the world market. At least, to this point, tankers won't load it without U.N. permission, because they can't get insurance for doing so.

Sometime in the next few weeks, push will come to shove. There are storage tanks full of Iraqi crude waiting in Turkish ports…. There may come a time when the smart thing to do is turn the whole Iraq situation over to the U.N. This is not that time." Meanwhile, if the rest of the world tries to block any and all Iraq oil sales, it's possible that American companies will find a way to become the customer of first and last resort.

And we'll pay in dollars. [13]

Although the author addressed this subject somewhat obliquely, his final sentence is quite candid. Indeed, my original hypothesis from December 2002 was reinforced in a Financial Times article dated June 5th 2003 which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the US imperialist, corporate-controlled, six major media conglomerates, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial -- yet overlooked -- rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales -- despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [14]

Before the war some commentators attempted to dismiss my macroeconomic analysis of the war as a “conspiracy theory,” arguing the upcoming war had nothing to do with petroeuros, and everything to do with Iraq’s vast WMD program and “fighting terrorism.”  In retrospect, the facts speak form themselves.  One of the first executive orders of the Bush administration was to push through UN Resolution 1483, which passed on May 22, 2003, establishing a joint US/UK administered "Iraqi Assistance Fund."  This provided the mechanism to quietly and quickly reconvert Iraq’s oil export sales back to the dollar.  Indeed, an argument can be made the emergence of a petroeuro was perceived by Washington as a Weapon of Mass Destruction that necessitated the Iraq war.  Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our `client state,' the Saudi regime appears increasingly threatened from civil unrest.  Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is aware of these risks. Hence, neoconservative framework entails a large and permanent US military presence in Iraq following the post-Saddam era.  The Iraq bases position the military to invade the oil-rich eastern region of Saudi Arabia in the event of a Saudi coup by an anti-western group.

The Paradox

The Bush administration probably believes that the occupation of Iraq and the installation of a large and permanent U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf region will stop other OPEC producers from even considering switching the denomination of their oil sales from dollars to euros. However, using the military to enforce dollar hegemony for oil transactions strikes me as a rather unwieldy and inappropriate strategy.

Paradoxically, for a variety of economic and political reasons, it appears that a growing number of OPEC producers in the Middle East and South America may wish to transition their oil pricing from dollars to euros.  Furthermore, we may be witnessing the regrettable emergence of a European-Russia-China geopolitical alliance in an effort to counter American Imperialism in the Persian Gulf region. Hence, it is plausible that Russia may re-denominate its oil exports in euros. [15]   These issues and the continued devaluation of the dollar expose why the neoconservative strategy is fundamentally flawed. One of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America's preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the foreseeable future.

That such a course hasn't been pursued to date bears more relation to the fact that other westernized, highly developed nations haven't any interest to undergo the great disruptions which would follow -- but it could assuredly take place in the event that the consensus view coalesces of the United States as any sort of `rogue' nation. In other words, if the dangers of American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling the international order, the industrialized nations will react with a broad movement away from the dollar.  The Bush administration and the neo-conservative movement has set out on a multiple-front course attempting to ensure this cannot take place, in brief by a graduated assertion of military hegemony atop the existent economic hegemony.

In conclusion, the structural imbalances in the U.S. economy, along with the Bush administration's flawed tax, economic and most principally their overtly Imperialist foreign polices could result in the dollar's world reserve currency status and/or oil transaction currency status being placed in jeopardy or at the very least radically diminished over the next 1 - 2 years. In the event that such a hypothesis materializes, the U.S. economy will require major restructuring in some manner to account for the reduction of either of these two pivotal advantages.  This will be an exceedingly painful process if it occurs in a disorderly manner, perhaps reminiscent of 1930’s Great Depression. The next U.S. administration will be greatly burdened in its attempts to mitigate these issues given the unfortunate deterioration of US international stature.

What is needed is a multilateral meeting of the G8 nations to reform the international monetary system. Given that future wars will become more likely over oil and the currency of oil, the author advocates that the global monetary system be reformed without delay. This would include the dollar and euro designated as equal international reserve currencies, and placed within an exchange band along with a dual-OPEC oil transaction currency standard.  Additionally, the G8 nations should also explore a future third reserve currency option regarding a yen/yuan bloc for East Asia.  A compromise on the euro/oil issues via a multilateral treaty with a gradual phase-in of a dual-OPEC transaction currency standard could minimize economic dislocations within the US   While these multilateral reforms may lower our over-consumption of energy and reduce our ability to project a massive global military presence, the benefits would include improving the quality of our lives and that of our children by reducing animosity towards the U.S. while we rebuild our alliances with the EU and the world community.  Creating balanced domestic fiscal polices along with global monetary reform is in the long-term national security interest of the United States. 

Despite the media reporting otherwise, the current wave of ‘global anti-Americanism’ is not against the American people or against American values - but against the hypocrisy of militant American Imperialism. I respectfully submit the current polices of the neoconservative movement as expressed through their PNAC documents, their manipulation of the citizenry through fear, and the application of unilateral military force is treasonous to both American Public and to the fundamental principles that founded our nation.  Regrettably, President Bush and his neo-conservative advisors have chosen to apply a military option to an economic problem that requires a multilateral treaty. History may not look kindly upon their actions.  

Saving the American Experiment

Only time will tell what will happen in the aftermath of the Iraq war and US occupation, but I confident my research will contribute to the historical record and help others understand one of the important but hidden reasons for why we conquered Iraq.   Until the U.S. agrees to negotiate a more balanced Global Monetary system and embarks on a viable National Energy Strategy, our nation will continue to pursue a hypocritical foreign policy that is incompatible with the ideas of the founding fathers regarding freedom and liberty.  The current neoconservative foreign policies are creating “blowback” and “anti-American” sentiments around the world, and deep divisions within nations that are traditionally strong U.S. allies.

In conclusion, the Iraq war was designed to 1) secure US/UK oil supplies before and after global Peak Oil with the installation of US military bases, and 2) to use this large military presence to "dissuade" other oil-producers from moving towards the euro as an oil transaction currency. These are the two crucial elements for maintaining U.S. hegemony over the world economy. Reconverting Iraq back to the petrodollar was not the critical issue, but preventing any further momentum towards a ‘petroeuro’ is a critical component of current US Geostrategy. While deceiving the American people into war, this administration sent a message to other OPEC-producers -- "You are either with us or against us."

However, in the end I predict the rules of economics and the laws of physics will prevail over the dreams of Global Empire. It will be increasingly logical for OPEC to re-denominate oil sales in euros once the EU expands in May 2004. Additionally, Peak Oil will usher in an era in which demand for oil will forever outstrip supply. The neoconservatives understand what this means -- the end of US Hyperpower, and thus the end of their dreams of a US Global Empire. The true test of US leadership and the citizenry will be acknowledging that our nation will soon endure economic hardship and the need to restructure our energy consumption based on reality.  Everyone on earth will be impacted by Peak Oil, and given that reality -- multilaterialism rather than unilateralism is the only way to create a peaceful outcome.

Quite frankly, in order to save the American Experiment and stop our slide towards an isolated and authoritarian state, we must elect an enlightened administration in 2004. It would appear that four difficult challenges await the next U.S. administration, including; 1) negotiating global monetary reform, 2) broadly re-organizing U.S. fiscal policies, 3) developing a National Energy Strategy, and 4) attempting to repair our damaged foreign relationships with the UN, EU, Russia, and the Middle East. Sadly, the next U.S. President will have to undertake these challenges from a weakened position both economically and diplomatically. I do not envy the arduous journey that awaits the 44th President of the United States.

References:

1.             Dreyfuss, Robert, ‘The Thirty Year Itch,’ Mother Jones, March/April 2003

2.             Heinberg, Richard, ‘The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrialized Society,’ New Society Publishers, 2003

3              Laherrere, Jean, “’Can we identify limits to worldwide energy resources’ Oil & Gas Journal, June 30, 2003

4.             Dreffeyes, Kenneth H., ‘Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage,’ Princeton University Press (2001)   Sample chapter can be found here: http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7121.html

5.             Block, Robert, ‘Some Muslim nations advocate dumping the dollar for the euro,’ The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2003

6.             Suskind, Ron, ‘The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill,’ Simon & Schuster, 2004

7.             Clarke, Richard, “Against All Enemies: America’s War on Terrorism.” Free Press, 2004

8.             Recknagel, Charles, "Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro," Radio Free Europe (November 1, 2000)
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp

9.             Faisal Islam, Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro,’ [UK] Guardian, February 16, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896344,00.html

10. Benson, Richard, ‘Oil, the Dollar, and US Prosperity,’ prudentbear.com, August 11, 2003 http://www.prudentbear.com/archive_comm_article.asp?category=Guest+Commentary&content_idx=25491

11.           Spiro, David E., “The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets,’ Cornell University Press, 1999

12.           The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

13.           ‘In Round 2, It’s the Dollar vs. Euro: U.S. will make Europeans pay for failing to back war on Iraq,” msnbc.com, April 23, 2003 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3068336/

14.           Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, ‘Iraq returns to the International oil market,” Financial Times, June 5, 2003 http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/FINANCIAL%20TIMES_Iraq%20returns%20to%20international%20oil%20market.htm

15.           Belton, Catherine, “Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?,’ Moscow Times. October 10, 2003 http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/10/10/001.html

Copyright © 2003 WIliam Clark - Reprinted for Fair Use Only
Coming out soon : Petrodollar Warfare - Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
New Society Publishers catalog description – Available October/November 2004

Reveals the background -- and blowback from -- the first oil currency war

8. JEFFREY BLANKFORT

A War for Israel?

[Fragment, last part (1/3) of the text: "On Wolfowitz and PNAC"]

He has been called “Wolfowitz of Arabia” in jest by the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, 70 and, with respect, “the intellectual godfather of the war…its heart and soul” by Time’s Mark Thompson. 71 If the war on Iraq is anybody’s war it is Paul Wolfowitz’s. Wolfowitz is also no stranger to Israel or to Israelis. As a teenager he lived briefly in Israel, his sister is married to an Israeli, and “he is friendly with Israel's generals and diplomats.” 72 He is also “something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative movement” and a close friend of Perle’s. 73

In 1992, as Under Secretary of Defense for policy in the Clinton administration, he supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Having objected to what he considered the premature ending of the war, his new document, contained plans for further intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism. It called for preemptive attacks and since "collective action cannot be orchestrated," the U.S. should be ready to act alone. The primary goal of U.S. policy would be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge U.S. supremacy. The document was leaked to the New York Times, which condemned it as extreme and it was supposed to have been rewritten. As we will see, the original concepts are now part of the current National Security Strategy. 74

In 1996, as noted above, the scene shifted to Israel and we had Perle, Feith and Wurmser preparing the Clean Break paper for Netanyahu when Bush Junior was four years from arriving in office. Then in September of 2002, during the buildup to the invasion, the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported that it had discovered "A secret blueprint for U.S. global domination [which] reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure regime change even before he took power in January 2001." 75 What it was describing was the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and it even had a web site which spelled out its plans until they were subsequently removed. That it was discovered by a Scottish newspaper was another telling commentary on the state of American journalism.

Founded in June of 1997, following the Clean Break by a year, part of PNAC’s plan was for the U.S. to take control of the Gulf region with overwhelming and deadly military force. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," the PNAC document explains, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." [My emphasis] 76  As information about PNAC made its way slowly into the mainstream media, ABC Nightline’s Ted Koppel could no longer avoid it. On March 5^th, he told his audience, that “Back in 1997, a group of Washington heavyweights, almost all of them neo-conservatives, formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century.

They did what former government officials and politicians frequently do when they're out of power, they began formulating a strategy, in this case, a foreign policy strategy, that might bring influence to bear on the administration then in power, headed by President Clinton. Or failing that, on a new administration that might someday come to power.

They were pushing for the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And proposing the establishment of a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, linked to a willingness to use force to protect vital American interests in the Gulf.

All of that might be of purely academic interest were it not for the fact that among the men behind that campaign were such names as, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. What was, back in 1997, merely a theory, is now, in 2003, U.S. policy. Hardly a conspiracy, the proposal was out there for anyone to see. But certainly an interesting case study of how columnists, commentators, and think-tank intellectuals can, with time and the election of a sympathetic president, change the course of American foreign policy.”(My emphasis)

There was something different about this operation, however. Politicians out of power may plot how to return to power, but this group was more than that. It had been organized and was largely being run by the Jewish neocons whose activities we have been following, plus neocon journalists and neocon think-tank members with a long history of connections to the Israeli right wing and whose faces and opinions dominate the TV screens when issues of U.S foreign policy are under discussion. And as indicated above it had the support of the leading American Jewish lobbying organizations.

Heading up PNAC was William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, the leading journal of the neocons and Robert Kagan, a columnist for the magazine as well as for the Washington Post whose columns in the Post and whose joint columns with Kristol in the Weekly Standard have maintained a steady drumbeat for Washington to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and keep to its original unilateralist position. Asked by Koppell if “part of the, larger vision that you and your colleagues had, or have to this day, is the, removal, either by force or otherwise, of the current power structure in Iran?,” Kristol replied

I think that would be great. I hope we can do it otherwise. And I think we can do it otherwise than by force. I think getting, rid of Saddam would help there. But, no, we will have to leave American troops in that region, I think in Iraq for quite a while… It's a good investment. I think it helps keep stability in the area. And it helps strengthen the forces of freedom in the area…

In February of 1998, PNAC wanted to let President Clinton and the American public know its position on Iraq, but since, despite Koppel’s statement to the contrary, the group and its plans had not yet come to the public’s attention, it used the letterhead of the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, a largely paper organization that had been put together in 1990 “to support President Bush's policy of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.” It read, in part:

Seven years later, Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. And despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to fetter out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions. To underscore the threat posed by these deadly devices, the Secretaries of State and Defense have said that these weapons could be used against our own people. And you have said that this issue is about "the challenges of the 21st Century.

Iraq's position is unacceptable. While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them -- not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.

It is clear that this danger cannot be eliminated as long as our objective is simply "containment," and the means of achieving it are limited to sanctions and exhortations… Saddam must be overpowered; he will not be brought down by a coup d'etat… 77

The letter called on the president to “recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq” (presumably incorporated in the person of their favorite, Ahmed Chalabi)…and providing it with the “logistical support to succeed.

The signatories acknowledged that:

In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior political motives. (My emphasis). We believe, on the contrary, that strong American action against Saddam is overwhelmingly in the national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must succeed… We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.

Heading the list of over 40 signatures, and were its authors, Stephen Solarz and Perle with the rest, beginning with Elliot Abrams, following alphabetically. Among the others were both Feith and Wurmser, who at the time was heading the Middle East desk at the American Enterprise Institute. It included most of the board of JINSA and Wolfowitz, as well as soon to be Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who must have become aware of the direction in which the center of power was moving and what opportunities it would provide.

For those who believe the Iraq invasion was launched in Israel’s behalf, Solarz could well compete with the Clean Break Three to be the war’s poster-boy, given his record in Congress. Representing Brooklyn in 1980, Solarz sent a newsletter to his Jewish constituents, headlined “Delivering for Israel,” in which he boasted how he was able to obtain an additional $660 million in aid for Israel under difficult circumstances.  “It is a story,” in Solarz’s own words, “of how legislative maneuvering and political persistence managed to prevail over fiscal constraints and bureaucratic resistance.” What were the “fiscal restraints?” Solarz acknowledged that it was “a time of double digit inflation, with all sorts of domestic programs facing severe cutbacks in spending.”  After describing the ins and outs of his successful maneuvering, he reminded his constituents of his devotion to Israel:

When I was first elected to Congress six years ago (1974) I deliberately sought an assignment on the Foreign Affairs Committee precisely because I wanted to be in a position to be helpful to Israel… it is only the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House, and the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate who are really in a position to make a difference where it counts—in the area of foreign aid upon which Israel is so dependent. 78

For Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, PNAC assembled a book, edited by Kristol and Kagan  which seems to have been adopted as the agenda for the Bush administration. It as entitled “Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy” and among its contributors were the now familiar names of Perle, Wolfowitz, and Abrams. 79

In his chapter on the Middle East, Abrams laid out the "peace through strength" concept and argues that U.S. military  strength and its willingness to sue it will remain "a key factor in  our ability to promote peace." He called for a pre-emptive toppling of Saddam, as did other contributors. "Strengthening our major ally in the region, Israel, should be the base of U.S. Middle East policy,” wrote Abrams, “and we should not permit the establishment of a Palestinian state that does not explicitly uphold U.S. policy in the region."

In their introductory chapter, on Regime Change, Kristol and Kagan selected Iraq, Iran, North Korea as well as China countries that needed to be confronted. They concluded that the U.S. will have to intervene abroad "even when we cannot prove that a narrowly construed 'vital interest' of the U.S. is at stake."  In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, two years earlier Kristol and Kagan had argued that “Saddam Hussein must go” and to insure “that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power.” According to Kristol and Kagan, the air strikes carried out by the Clinton administration under the “Iraq Liberation Act” were not enough to protect “our interests.” 80 Whose interests they were referring to is open to question. As the San Francisco Bay Guardian’s Camille Taiara put it, “These interests were defined nine months later,” when in another article in the Weekly Standard entitled “A Way to Oust Saddam”, Kagan cited those incentives: the protection of “the safety of Israel, of modern Arab states and of the energy resources on which the United States and its allies depend.” 81

Ten days after the attack on the World Trade Center, an event that conveniently met the description of a “Pearl Harbor like attack” that PNAC said was needed to launch “the New American Century,” the group issued an open letter to President Bush. What he needed to do, the letter said, was to take the anti-terror war beyond Afghanistan by removing Saddam Hussein, breaking ties with the Palestinian Authority, and to gear for action against Syria, Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The 41 signatories on that letter included were largely the same as those who signed the letter to Clinton three years earlier, minus those who were now in the government.

PNAC made no secret of its affinity for Israel. In a letter to Bush on April 3, 2002, he was commended for his:

strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism...no one should doubt that the U.S. and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an 'Axis of Evil.' [a term coined by Canadian Jewish neocon David Frum] Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal democratic principles - American principles - in a sea of tyranny, intolerance and hatred. As Secretary of State [sic] Donald Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq and Syria are all engaged in 'inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing' against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the U.S. over the past two decades…

…the U.S. should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens.

The letter also urged Bush to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. It had 34 signatories including the familiar neocons such as Perle, but this time there was the name of Norman Podhoretz, one of the godfathers of the movement. Also signing were Reagan appointee Ken Adelman, Kagan, Daniel Pipes, and former CIA director Woolsey. That letter came at a particularly critical moment as the Sharon government was receiving widespread international criticism for the Israeli army’s barbarous assault on the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin and its destruction of the old city of Nablus. Under pressure from US allies, Bush was compelled to tell the Israeli prime minister, “Enough is enough” and to withdraw his troops. 82 The PNAC letter, however, combined with critical columns from long time Republican mainstays, William Safire and George Will, led the president to back down and to describe Sharon as “a man of peace” despite the prime minister’s refusal to pull out his forces. 83

The last document in the neocons theoretical armor during the pre-assault period was "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." “Wolfowitz's influence has been felt most keenly in President Bush's report” on the security strategy wrote Murray Friedman in the Forward. The report which was released on September 17, 2002

in tone, specificity and gravity… echoes Wolfowitz's controversial recommendations in a 1992 "Defense Planning Guidance" draft leaked to the press and disavowed by the first Bush administration.

As Friedman admiringly describes it,

The national security strategy introduces as a primary tool and policy preemptory strikes, with international support when possible but without it when necessary. It carefully lays out the legal basis for preemption.

The document unabashedly calls for American hegemony but simultaneously has a Wilsonian flavor in seeking to make this country a resource for human freedom in the world. The document clearly pulls out all the stops on the neoconservative internationalist argument from the days when it was first formulated. 84

By then the neocons had already gone beyond putting words on paper. In the very first meeting of the Bush national-security team in January 2001 after the president took the oath of office, Wolfowitz, the newly appointed deputy secretary of Defense reportedly raised the issue of invading Iraq, and officials all the way down the line started to get the message.

In the days immediately following 9/11,as if it was preplanned, Wolfowitz quietly initiated a new operation in the Pentagon that was designated the Office of Special Plans (OSP). As exposed by Seymour Hersh, the group of policy advisers and analysts called themselves, “self-mockingly, the Cabal.” 85 Their goal was to produce “a skein of intelligence reviews that would help “to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq.” While using data gathered by other intelligence agencies they  heavily weighted information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, the  exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, now of the leading power brokers in the American-appointed “Iraqi Governing Council”.

By the Fall of 2002, the operation rivaled the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Queda. The director of the Special Plans operation is another neocon Abraham Shulsky, who Hersh describes as “a scholarly expert in the works of the political philosopher Leo Strauss.” Shulsky had spent three decades working in the government on foreign policy issues, including a stint in the early Eighties under Perle in the Reagan Administration. The overall chief of the OSP is Under-Secretary of Defense William Luti, a retired Navy captain who was also an early advocate of military action against Iraq.

Besides convincing the public that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, a critical task of the neocons was to convince the American public that there was a link between Al Queda and Saddam.  Their colleagues among the nation’s major syndicated columnists such as Safire, Will, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby, and Paul Greenberg were all too willing accomplices. By the time, the U.S. launched its invasion, more than half of the public was convinced that Saddam had been behind the attacks. Typical was the comment of the New York Times’ Safire, who frequently brags of his close friendship with Sharon. Criticizing Powell for saying that “President Bush ‘has not worked out what he might do in later stages,’”, Safire wrote, just two weeks after 9/11, “Now is the time to work out how to strike down terrorism’s boss of all bosses. “’Later’ may be a stage too late.” 86

When they weren’t writing, these longtime supporters of Israel and the government neocons became the talking heads for warmongering pro-Israel hosts of CNN, Fox News, as well as ABC, CBS and NBC. Under this onslaught the critics would eventually be submerged. Israel’s vaunted intelligence service, meanwhile, was doing its part, according to reports that appeared in the world press in December. “Israel was a "full partner" in U.S. and British intelligence failures that exaggerated former president Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,” the Washington Post’s Molly Moore reported from Jerusalem. 87    

"The failures of this war indicate weaknesses and inherent flaws within Israeli intelligence and among Israeli decision-makers," Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom wrote in an analysis for Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies.   Brom, a former deputy commander of the Israeli military's planning division accused Israeli intelligence services and political leaders of providing "an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities," raising "the possibility that the intelligence picture was manipulated."       

The report did not pull its punches. "A critical question to be answered is whether governmental bodies falsely manipulated the intelligence information in order to gain support for their decision to go to war in Iraq, while the real reasons for this decision were obfuscated or concealed." 88 (My emphasis). Did that report feed into the opinion of Israeli officials regarding the U.S. going to war?

On August 17, 2002, Fox News presented an example of the “big lie” that General Brom was referring to when it reported that: “Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons”.

Fox News also quoted Ranaan Gissin, a long time adviser to Prime Minister Sharon who told the notoriously pro-Israel network that "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give him [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction." “As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities,” Fox reported, “Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work.” The network presented no evidence presented to back up what was an apparent fabrication.

Was this a war fought by the U.S. for Israel?

On March, a week before the invasion, Chemi Shalev reported in the Forward that “Most senior strategists here believe Israel would emerge in a stronger position after a war. A changed regime in Baghdad is widely expected to create new opportunities for Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians… Israeli intelligence officials, in both the Mossad and Military Intelligence, believe a quick and decisive American victory against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would send positive shock-waves throughout the East, convincing hard-line and terrorist-supporting regimes to mend their ways for the better.” 89 A year later, those assessments have proved to be more accurate than were their assessments of Saddam’s inventory of WMDs. And they have paid off.

 “With the assault on Iraq,” wrote the distinguished historian, David Hirst, “ the U.S. was not merely adopting Israel’s long-established methods—of initiative, offense and pre-emption—it was also adopting Israel’s adversaries as its own...

To where this Israel-American, neo-conservative blueprint for the Middle East will lead is impossible to forecast. What can be said for sure is that it could easily turn out to be as calamitous in its consequences for the region, America and Israel, as it is preposterously partisan in motivation, fantastically ambitious in design and terribly risky in practice. 90

One immediate and invaluable benefit for Israel was to have the army of its primary benefactor become a fellow occupier of Arab land and to have turned to Israel for instructions on how to suppress the armed resistance to its presence. 91 The effect of this was predictable. As the Israel’s occupying forces escalated their attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, even the usual token slap on the wrist by U.S. officials was missing.

Well before the end of the year American forces were blowing up the homes of suspected “terrorists,” bombing some from the air and bulldozing others to obtain clear “fields of fire.” Their checkpoints in the Sunni area were identical to their Israeli counterparts and by the end of the year, the US was already holding more than 9,000 Iraqis in detention.  Moreover, following the pattern of the Israelis, they had set up assassination teams to target resistance leaders. 92

While the neocons were convinced that both the war and the occupation would be relatively risk free, it is likely that the Sharon and his military cadre were aware that with or without Saddam, segments of the Iraqi public would resist the occupation. Was getting the US mired down in Iraq one of their goals? Perhaps, and it seemed as the first anniversary of the war approached as well as the 2004 election season, that President Bush, at least, was beginning to have second thoughts.

 “It may take four or five months to take shape,” wrote Jim Lobe, “but a new scenario could be unfolding, a shifting balance of power within the Bush administration, a reconfiguration in the        interests of realism - and aimed at a Bush re-election victory.” 93

The first sign of what appeared to be a shift in Bush’s thinking was the appointment of James Baker, Secretary of State in his father’s administration and a long-time family friend, to be his personal envoy to the nations holding Iraq’s massive debt. Assigned to the goal of persuading them to forgive the tens of billions of dollars owed by Saddam’s regime, Baker immediately found himself sabotaged by Wolfowitz who declared that the allies that are owed most of that debt would not be permitted to bid on the US$18.6 billion in reconstruction contracts since they had opposed the US war effort.

That Wolfowitz’s policy was soon watered down was an indication that the neocons influence, at least for the moment, was waning. Ironically, being named the Jerusalem Post’s Man of the Year for 2003, 94 may have been his last hurrah.

How much Baker will become involved in other aspects of the administration’s agenda remains to be seen, but as Lobe pointed out, “the fact that he is now in the White House and dealing directly with all of Washington's major allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East on the future of Iraq, if not the entire region, places him in the thick of the administration's foreign policy, to put it mildly. From now on, very little is likely to be decided on anything that affects Iraq or US alliances without his input.” 95 If true, this is not good news for either the neocons or Israel. Like most of the officials of the first Bush administration, Baker opposed the present Gulf War, believing it would destabilize the oil-rich region, but more than that, his relations with Israel and the Israel lobby while Secretary of State were, at times, openly hostile.96

Even without the appointment of Baker, the neocons were taking nothing for granted. In January, Perle and former Bush speechwriter David Frum came out with a book, appropriately entitled, “An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror" 97 which calls for duplicating the Iraq experience, if necessary, anywhere on the globe but with a particular focus on Syria, Iran and Hizbollah which, as we have seen, just happens to match Israel’s enemies list. For good measure, they are against a Palestinian state. A press release for the book claims that it “will define the conservative point of view [they don’t like the term, neo-cons] on foreign policy for a new generation—and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond.”

The younger Bush has an affinity to Baker, who helped him secure Florida's electoral votes in 2000 following the state’s contested balloting, but he also is aware of what happened to his father in 1992 when, backed by Baker, the senior Bush boldly challenged Israel and the lobby over Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees, which many observers believe may have cost him the election.98  Given that background, the contest of wills within the Bush administration in the coming months may be at least as interesting, and, perhaps, as significant as the 2004 election itself.                                              

If the past is prologue, however, expect the lobby to come out on top.

[complete text to be published in Left Curve, april 2004. Courtesy Geoffrey Blkankfort]

Footnotes

(.../...)

70. New York Times, April 10, 2003

71. Time, December 31, 2003

72. Bill Keller, New York Times Magazine, Sep. 22, 2002

73. Ibid.

74. Carnegie Endowment for Peace

75. Glasgow Sunday Herald, Sep. 15, 2002

76. Ibid.

77. newamericancentury.org, Feb. 19,1998

78. Middle East Labor Bulletin, Vol. 3/2 Summer-Fall, 1991

79.  Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2000

80.  New York Times, Jan. 30, 1998

81. San Francisco Bay Guardian, Nov. 20, 2002

82.  Speech in the Rose Garden, April 4, 2002

83. Washington Post, April 19, 2002

84.  Forward, Dec. 13, 2002

85.  New Yorker, May 12, 2003

86. New York Times, 9/24/01

87. Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2003

88.  Ibid.

89.  Forward, March 14, 2003

90. London Observer, Sep. 21, 2003

91. Jerusalem Post, Dec. 8, 2003

92.  Guardian, Dec. 9, 2003

93.  Interpress News Service, Dec. 16, 2003

94. Jerusalem Post, Oct. 23, 2003.

95. Interpress News Service, op.cit.

96. Moshe Arens, “Broken Covenant,” Simon and Shuster, 1995.

97. David Frum and Richard Perle, “An End to Evil: How to Win the    War on Terror,” Random House, 2004

98. J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power, Addison-Wesley, 1996.

9. ED BLANCHE

Neocons at work: Israel gets its 1st slice of Iraqi pie

Some US political playmakers seem keen to help jewish state penetrate arab world

Saddam Hussein's ouster offers way around obstacles,

via business deals if necessary,for Israeli interests to be promoted

BEIRUT: Long before the American neoconservatives led by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney and others became the ideological soul of the Bush administration, their intention was to make Israel unassailable. The cataclysm of Sept. 11, 2001, allowed them to put that plan into action. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein and eliminating one of Israel's most implacable foes was a key objective. Once that was achieved, the new, US-controlled Iraq could be used to help Israel penetrate the Arab world, if not by diplomatic recognition then by other means.

So it did not come as a surprise last week when the Israeli media reported that Israel's Sonol fuel company is supplying US forces in Iraq with 25 million liters of refined fuel a month under a $70 million-$80 million contract. The contract was awarded by Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, whose dealings in Iraq under the Bush administration have stirred great controversy, not least because Cheney is its former CEO.

Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia, but occupation forces have to import refined fuel because of the constant sabotage of oil installations and pipelines and because of poor maintenance of refineries over the years, particularly during the 12 years of UN sanctions that ended once Saddam was overthrown.

The deal with Sonol, one of Israel's largest oil-product marketing firms, is the first known commercial link between Israel and Iraq since US-led forces toppled Saddam in April 2003. But there may well be others, because Israeli companies have been trying to find a way around political roadblocks that prevent them from operating in Iraq under US cover.

There is a more far-reaching element involved in Israeli efforts to build ties with Iraq, which under Saddam was one of its most vociferous enemies: reaching out to the wider Arab world as it started to do after the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians.

The Sonol deal has emerged following months of backroom lobbying by Israeli business interests in Washington with the Bush administration for access to Iraq's multi-billion-dollar reconstruction program. For political reasons, the administration and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad have excluded Israeli firms as main contractors in the vast array of projects under way in Iraq. The Israelis have accepted that. But they have been pressing hard for subcontractor deals, and the Sonol contract could be the first.

Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman, recently gave an indication that this was the Israelis' way in. There were, he said, "very few restrictions on subcontractors."

The State Department oversees the reconstruction program, but Boucher added that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have their own rules for tenders in Iraq that might involve companies with Israeli connections. Still, Israel was absent from a December 2003 list of countries eligible to participate in tenders. Israel's exclusion was to avoid antagonizing the Arab world, which is already hostile to US policy in the Middle East.

Israel's desire to exploit US control of Iraq became abundantly clear in early 2003, when Israel's finance minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, annulled a long-standing prohibition on Israeli companies trading with Iraq, opening the door for possible business following Saddam's removal.

Dozens of companies began procedures to export to Iraq. In August 2003, Israel's Export Institute organized a one-day conference in Tel Aviv on how to do business in Iraq.

Since then the Israelis have been looking for loopholes. One route is to join up with foreign companies that are acceptable to both the Americans and the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.

Jordanian and Turkish companies that have experience doing business with Iraq are favored, but firms from other countries which supported the US invasion of Iraq, such as Australia, Britain and Spain, are also being targeted.

Israeli companies, particularly in the field of agriculture, have made significant, albeit discreet, inroads into the Muslim republics of Central Asia since the Cold War ended in 1991. The corporate structures they have built there, particularly in relation to Caspian Sea oil, could also be useful when it comes to getting into Iraq by the back door. Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan in particular are closely allied with Israeli commercial interests and Israeli military intelligence.

Some time before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Jewish lobby groups in Washington, seeing the possibility of strengthening Israel's relations with the Arab world, initiated contacts with the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the umbrella organization for a variety of groups opposed to Saddam and which was backed by the Pentagon. These contacts were encouraged by the administration's neocons.

Among the key INC people they dealt with were the organization's leader, Ahmed Chalabi, and the director of the INC's Washington office, Entifadah Qanbar. They encouraged the Jewish groups to believe that once Saddam had been eliminated, good relations with Israel were possible. In that, they were recklessly optimistic.

Iraqi hostility toward Israel pre-dated Saddam by several decades and anyway it became clear once Saddam had been ousted that Chalabi and his cohorts, most of whom had lived in exile for decades, were not popular in postwar Iraq and were unlikely to hold high office. Intelligence they provided to the Americans before, and even after, the invasion proved to be deeply flawed and often dangerously misleading.

In the meantime, Israel is more tightly involved in Iraq on the security front. A delegation from Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad, reportedly visited Baghdad in August 2003 to coordinate anti-terrorist efforts with the Americans.

US forces have consulted the Israelis on counterinsurgency strategies and urban warfare, and the results of this have been that US military operations have begun to look increasingly like Israeli operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip _ hardly likely to encourage Iraqis to deal with Israel.

There have been suggestions in Israel that an old oil pipeline built during the British Mandate in Palestine, from the Kirkuk oil fields in northern Iraq to the port of Haifa on the Mediterranean, could be rebuilt, opening a new export route from Iraq to Western Europe and the US as well as providing Israel with its fuel requirements. The pipeline, which ran through Jordan, was closed in 1948 when Israel became a state. The Jordanian section was sold for scrap years ago.

Politically, reviving that oil route seems to be non-starter. It would antagonize most Iraqis and the Arab world at large. It would also become a target for saboteurs, just as Iraq's other pipelines are now. But the idea continues to be kicked around in Washington and Jerusalem.

The Middle East Economic Survey, a highly respected Cyprus-based oil industry newsletter, reported as recently as July 3, 2003, that an Israeli oil delegation had held secret talks with Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq to examine the possibility of reactivating the pipeline _ presumably if the Kurds establish an independent state that incorporates the Kirkuk oil fields which the Kurds have long claimed as theirs.

In the early 1970s, the Israelis, with CIA backing, supported Iraq's Kurds in their separatist war against the Baghdad regime, but abandoned them in 1975 when the Shah of Iran made peace with Iraq and the Kurds became a political liability. No doubt the Kurds have not forgotten that betrayal, but in the final analysis, getting a new state off the ground requires pragmatism rather than passion.

Ed Blanche, a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, is a Beirut-based journalist who has covered Middle Eastern affairs for three decades. He is a regular contributor to The Daily Star

10. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY

America's War for Global Domination

The following is the background text of Michel Chossudovsky's public lecture at the Society for the Defense of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, 10-11 December, 2003 and Humboldt University, Berlin, 12 December 2003. On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2003, Michel Chossudovsky was awarded The 2003 Human's Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM).

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history. The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001). The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter, these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas pipeline corridors.

US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people. The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices. In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.

The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea. War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market" system.

The Next Phase of the War

The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war". The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004). This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.

The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.

This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's plan to build a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland, Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.

In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building up in Turkey. So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent and China's Western frontier.

The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons

Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era. The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated quite openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they are attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.

Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb".

Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago. The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in decision-making. It is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the "defense of the American Homeland." Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be "safe for civilians". This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next phase of this war, in "conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.

In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to develop this new generation of "defensive" nuclear weapons. The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars, roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation. While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination:  "some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999."[103]

The Planning of War

The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil. In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.

The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to: "Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars". This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the World. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections.

The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)

The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"

The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda[104]. The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident." The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:  "We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." 

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:  "…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).

The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America[105]. Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established: "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event."[106]

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda. The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures. General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties."

Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government. In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

War Propaganda

In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics: “The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the world”[107].

And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests."[108] "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing."[109] Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."[110]

Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in name, the "Office's intended functions are being carried out". A number of government agencies and intelligence units -with links to the Pentagon- remain actively involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". The derogation of civil liberties - in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation" - is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists": "The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. …Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…) The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.  The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."[111]

To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states." But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda. In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks' operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda, which was then fed into the news chain. In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily basis across the news tabloids. And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:

1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.

2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined in the PNAC

What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist events are part and parcel of military planning.

Actual Terrorist Attacks

In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They are required, in the present context, to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American Homeland. The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history[112].

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."[113] There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The «intelligence asset» is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors. The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties? For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian intelligence.

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba ("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI[114]. (). What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA[115].

A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group'  (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces."[116]  The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This  "prodding of terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee of the US Congress[117]. In fact during the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives, bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army. In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001)[118].

The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And this happened barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian authorities[119]. The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA), which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)

It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda". This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist occurrences. The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA.

September 11

While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February 2003 UN address to "the sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the Islamic militant network. This relationship is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged by Washington's mainstream think tanks. Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months leading up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations. Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen[120].

Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. The investigations and research conducted in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies and intelligence reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation, rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization[121].

 The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta[122].

Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI, who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington[123].

The Antiwar Movement

A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question their right to rule. A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign. The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately through this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.

To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war. This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism" and revealing the political complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11. September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.

Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA and September 11:  "If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars." Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must also address the role of the global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly stand behind the military and political actors.

Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office.

Criminalization of the State

The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals. In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."

More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled. More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial markets. The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals. The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors, "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.

The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting world peace.

11. MICHAEL C. RUPPERT

The Bush-Cheney Drug Empire

The Bush family's involvement in drug-running is an open secret,

but Dick Cheney's direct link to a global drug pipeline through

a US construction company is less well known.

From Medellin to Moscow with Brown & Root

Halliburton Corporation's Brown & Root is one of the major components of the Bush-Cheney Drug Empire. The success of Bush Vice-Presidential running mate Richard Cheney at leading Halliburton, Inc. to a five-year, US$3.8 billion "pig-out" on federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans is only a partial indicator of what may happen, now that the Bush ticket has won the US presidential election.

A closer look at available research, including an August 2, 2000 report by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) (http://www.public-i.org/), suggests that drug money has played a role in the successes achieved by Halliburton under Cheney's tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000. This is especially true for Halliburton's most famous subsidiary, heavy construction and oil giant Brown & Root. A deeper look into history reveals that Brown & Root's past - as well as the past of Dick Cheney himself - connects to the international drug trade on more than one occasion and in more than one way.

Last June, the lead Washington, DC, attorney for a major Russian oil company connected in law enforcement reports to heroin smuggling, and also a beneficiary of US-backed loans to pay for Brown & Root contracts in Russia, held a $2.2 million fundraiser to fill the already bulging coffers of presidential candidate George W. Bush. This is not the first time that Brown & Root has been connected to illegal drugs, and the fact is that this "poster child" of American industry may also be a key player in Wall Street's efforts to maintain domination of the half-trillion-dollar-a-year global drug trade and its profits. And Dick Cheney, who has also come closer to illegal drugs than most suspect and who is also Halliburton's largest individual shareholder ($45.5 million), has a vested interest in seeing to it that Brown & Root's successes continue.

Of all the American companies dealing directly with the US military and providing cover for CIA operations, few firms can match the global presence of this giant construction powerhouse which employs 20,000 people in more than 100 countries. Through its sister companies or joint ventures, Brown & Root can build offshore oil rigs, drill wells and construct and operate everything from harbours and pipelines to highways and nuclear reactors. It can train and arm security forces and it can now also feed, supply and house armies. One key beacon of Brown & Root's overwhelming appeal to agencies like the CIA is that, as it proudly announces from its own corporate web page, it has received the contract to dismantle ageing Russian nuclear-tipped ICBMs in their silos. Furthermore, the relationships between key institutions, players and the Bushes themselves suggest that under a George "W" Administration the Bush family and its allies, using Brown & Root as the operational interface, may well be able to control the drug trade all the way from Medellín to Moscow.

Originally formed as a heavy construction company to build dams, Brown & Root grew its operations via shrewd political contributions to Senate candidate Lyndon Johnson in 1948. Expanding into the building of oil platforms, military bases, ports, nuclear facilities, harbours and tunnels, Brown & Root virtually underwrote LBJ's political career. It prospered as a result, making billions on US Government contracts during the Vietnam War. The Austin Chronicle, in an August 28, 2000 Op-Ed piece entitled "The Candidate from Brown & Root", labels Republican Cheney as the political dispenser of Brown & Root's largesse. According to political campaign records, during Cheney's five-year tenure at Halliburton the company's political contributions more than doubled to $1.2 million. Not surprisingly, most of that money went to Republican candidates.

Independent news service Newsmakingnews also describes how in 1998, with Cheney as Chairman, Halliburton spent $8.1 billion to purchase oil industry equipment and drilling supplier Dresser Industries. This made Halliburton a corporation that will have a presence in almost any future oil drilling operation anywhere in the world. And it also brought back into the family fold the company which had once (also in 1948) sent a plane to fetch the new Yale graduate George H.W. Bush to begin his career in the Texas oil business. Bush the elder's father, Prescott, served as a managing director for the firm that once owned Dresser: Brown Brothers Harriman.

Brown & Root’s Special Operations

It is clear that everywhere there is oil there is Brown & Root. But increasingly, everywhere there is war or insurrection there is Brown & Root also. From Bosnia and Kosovo to Chechnya, Rwanda, Burma, Pakistan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Mexico and Colombia, Brown & Root's traditional operations have expanded from heavy construction to include the provision of logistical support for the US military. Now, instead of US Army quartermasters, the world is likely to see Brown & Root warehouses storing and managing everything from uniforms and rations to vehicles.

Dramatic expansion of Brown & Root's operations in Colombia also suggests Bush preparations for a war-inspired feeding frenzy as a part of "Plan Colombia". This is consistent with moves by former Bush Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady to open a joint Colombian&endash;American investment partnership called Corfinsura for the financing of major construction projects with the Colombian Antioquia Syndicate, headquartered in Medellín (see FTW, June 2000).

And expectations of a ground war in Colombia may explain why Brown & Root, in a 2000 Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) filing, reported that in addition to owning more than 800,000 square feet of warehouse space in Colombia, it also leases another 122,000 square feet. According to the Brown & Root Energy Services Group filing, the only other places where the company maintains warehouse space are in Mexico (525,000 square feet) and the United States (38,000 square feet).

According to the website of Colombia's Foreign Investment Promotion Agency, Brown & Root had no presence in the country until 1997. What does Brown & Root - which according to Associated Press (AP) has made more than $2 billion supporting and supplying US troops - know about Colombia that the United States public does not? Why the need for almost a million square feet of warehouse space which can be transferred from one Brown & Root operation (energy services) to another (military support) with the stroke of a pen?

As described by AP, during the "Iran-Contra" era Congressman Dick Cheney of the House Intelligence Committee was a rabid supporter of Marine Lt Col. Oliver North. This was in spite of the fact that North had lied to Cheney in a private 1986 White House briefing. Oliver North's own diaries and subsequent investigations by the CIA Inspector-General have irrevocably tied him directly to cocaine smuggling during the 1980s and the opening of bank accounts for one firm moving four tons of cocaine a month. This, however, did not stop Cheney from actively supporting North's (unsuccessful) 1994 run for the US Senate from Virginia - just a year before he took over the reins at Brown & Root's parent company, Dallas-based Halliburton, Inc., in 1995.

As the Bush Secretary of Defense during Desert Shield/Desert Storm (1990&endash;91), Cheney also directed special operations involving Kurdish rebels in northern Iran. The Kurds' primary source of income for more than 50 years has been heroin smuggling from Afghanistan and Pakistan through Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

Having had some personal experience with Brown & Root, I noted carefully when the Los Angeles Times observed that on March 22, 1991 a group of gunmen burst into the Ankara, Turkey, offices of joint venture Vinnell, Brown & Root and assassinated retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant John Gandy.

In March 1991, tens of thousands of Kurdish refugees, long-time assets of the CIA, were being massacred by Saddam Hussein in the wake of the Gulf War. Saddam, seeking to destroy any hopes of a successful Kurdish revolt, found it easy to kill thousands of the unwanted Kurds who had fled to the Turkish border seeking sanctuary. There, Turkish security forces - trained in part by the Vinnell, Brown & Root partnership - turned thousands of Kurds back into certain death.

Today, the Vinnell Corporation (a TRW company) is one of the three pre-eminent private mercenary corporations in the world, along with the firms MPRI and DynCorp (see FTW, June 2000). It is also the dominant entity for the training of security forces throughout the Middle East.

Not surprisingly, the Turkish border regions in question were the primary transshipment points for heroin produced in Afghanistan and Pakistan, destined for the markets of Europe.

A confidential source with intelligence experience in the region subsequently told me that the Kurds "got some payback against the folks that used to help them move their drugs". He openly acknowledged that Brown & Root and the Vinnell Corporation both routinely provided NOC (non-official cover) for CIA officers. But I already knew that.

From 1994 to 1999, during US military intervention in the Balkans - where, according to The Christian Science Monitor and Jane's Intelligence Review, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) controls 70 per cent of the heroin entering Western Europe - Cheney's Brown & Root made billions of dollars supplying US troops from vast facilities in the region. Brown & Root support operations continue in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia to this day.

Dick Cheney's footprints have come closer to drugs than one might suspect. The Center for Public Integrity's August 2000 report brought them even closer. It would be correct to say that there is a direct linkage of Brown & Root facilities - often set up in remote, hazardous regions - with every drug-producing region and every drug-consuming region in the world. These coincidences, in and of themselves, do not prove complicity in the trade. Other facts, however, lead inescapably in that direction.

A direct drug link to Dick Cheney

The CPI report entitled "Cheney Led Halliburton to Feast at Federal Trough", written by veteran journalists Knut Royce and Nathaniel Heller, describes how, under five years of Cheney's leadership, Halliburton, largely through subsidiary Brown & Root, enjoyed $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer- insured loans. The loans had been granted by the Export&endash;Import Bank (EXIM) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). According to Ralph McGehee's CIA Base, both institutions are heavily infiltrated by the CIA and routinely provide NOC to its officers.

One of those loans, to Russian financial/banking conglomerate The Alfa Group of Companies, contained $292 million to pay for Brown & Root's contract to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by the Russian Tyumen Oil Company. The Alfa Group completed its 51 per cent acquisition of Tyumen Oil in what was allegedly a rigged bidding process in 1998. An official Russian Government report claims that The Alfa Group's top executives, oligarchs Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven, "allegedly participated in the transit of drugs from Southeast Asia through Russia and into Europe". These same executives, Fridman and Aven, who reportedly smuggled the heroin in connection with Russia's Solntsevo mob family, were the same ones who applied for the EXIM loans that Halliburton's lobbying later safely secured. As a result, Brown & Root's work in Alfa Tyumen oil fields could continue - and expand.

After describing how organised criminal interests in The Alfa Group had allegedly stolen the oil field by fraud, the CPI story - using official reports from the FSB (the Russian equivalent of the FBI), oil companies such as BP&endash;Amoco, former CIA and KGB officers and press accounts - then established a solid link to Alfa Tyumen and the transportation of heroin. In 1995, sacks of heroin disguised as sugar had been stolen from a rail container leased by Alfa Eko and sold in the Siberian town of Khabarovsk. A problem arose when many residents of the town became "intoxicated" or "poisoned".

The CPI story also stated: "The FSB report said that within days of the incident, Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) agents conducted raids of Alfa Eko buildings and found 'drugs and other compromising documentation'.

"Both reports claim that Alfa Bank has laundered drug funds from Russian and Colombian drug cartels.

"The FSB document claims that at the end of 1993, a top Alfa official met with Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela, the now imprisoned financial mastermind of Colombia's notorious Cali cartel, 'to conclude an agreement about the transfer of money into the Alfa Bank from offshore zones such as the Bahamas, Gibraltar and others'. The plan was to insert it back into the Russian economy through the purchase of stock in Russian companies.

"...He [the former KGB agent] reported that there was evidence 'regarding [Alfa Bank's] involvement with the money laundering of...Latin American drug cartels'."

It then becomes harder for Cheney and Halliburton to assert mere coincidence in all of this, as CPI reported that Tyumen's lead Washington attorney, James C. Langdon, Jr, at the firm of Aikin Gump, "...helped coordinate a $2.2 million fundraiser for Bush this June. He then agreed to help recruit 100 lawyers and lobbyists in the capital to raise $25,000 each for W's campaign."

The heroin mentioned in the CPI story originated in Laos, where longtime Bush allies and covert warriors Richard Armitage and retired CIA ADDO (Associate Deputy Director of Operations) Ted Shackley have been repeatedly linked to the drug trade. It then made its way across Southeast Asia to Vietnam, probably the port of Haiphong. Then the heroin was shipped to Russia's Pacific port of Vladivostok, from where it was subsequently bounced across Siberia by rail and then by truck or rail to Europe, passing through the hands of Russian Mafia leaders in Chechnya and Azerbaijan. Chechnya and Azerbaijan are hotbeds of both armed conflict and oil exploration, and Brown & Root has operations all along this route.

As described in previous issues of FTW, this long, expensive and tortuous path was hastily established after President George Bush's personal envoy Richard Armitage, holding the rank of Ambassador, had travelled to the former Soviet Union to assist it with its "economic development" in 1989. The obstacles, then, to a more direct, profitable and efficient route from Afghanistan and Pakistan through Turkey into Europe were a cohesive Yugoslavian/Serbian Government controlling the Balkans and continuing instability in the Golden Crescent of Pakistan/ Afghanistan. Also, there was no other way, using heroin from the Golden Triangle (Burma, Laos and Thailand), to deal with China and India but to go around them.

It is perhaps not by coincidence again that Cheney and Armitage share membership in the prestigious Aspen Institute, an exclusive bi-partisan research think-tank, and also in the US&endash; Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. In November 1999, in what may be a portent of things to come, Armitage played the role of Secretary of Defense in a practical exercise at the Council on Foreign Relations, of which he and Cheney are both members.

Many of the longest-serving and best Bush apparatchiks like Richard Armitage and CIA veteran Ted Shackley have heavy political baggage. Since governmental power is so evenly split after the long election as to appear contrived, it is unlikely that controversial nominees for cabinet positions like Armitage or Shackley will be placed before a 50&endash;50 Senate which is unlikely to confirm them. Armitage is more likely to appear as a quasi-official adviser in troubled European regions. This is similar to the roles he performed for George Bush in 1989 in Russia and in 1992 in Albania. Armitage's travels presaged both the Chechen and Kosovar conflicts and the rampant expansion of the drug trade through those regions.

Drug Pipeline Streamlined

The Clinton Administration took care of all that wasted travel for heroin with the 1999 destruction of Serbia and Kosovo and the installation of the KLA as a regional power. That opened a direct line from Afghanistan to Western Europe - and Brown & Root was right in the middle of that, too.

The Clinton skill at streamlining drug operations was described in detail in the April 2000 issue of FTW in a story entitled "The Democratic Party's Presidential Drug Money Pipeline". That article has since been reprinted in three countries. The essence of the drug economic lesson was that by growing opium in Colombia and by smuggling both cocaine and heroin from Colombia to New York City through the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico (a virtual straight line), traditional smuggling routes could be shortened or even eliminated. This reduced both risk and cost, increased profits and eliminated competition.

FTW suspects the hand of Medellín cartel co-founder Carlos Lehder in this process, and it is interesting to note that Lehder, released from prison under Clinton in 1995, is now active in both the Bahamas and South America. Lehder was known during the 1980s as "the genius of transportation". I can well imagine Dick Cheney, having witnessed the complete restructuring of the global drug trade in the last eight years, going to George W. and saying, "Look, I know how we can make it even better".

One thing is for certain. As quoted in the CPI article, one Halliburton vice-president noted that if the Bush&endash;Cheney ticket were elected, "the company's government contracts would obviously go through the roof".

The Dark Part

In July 1977, this writer, then a Los Angeles Police officer, struggled to make sense of a world gone haywire. In a last-ditch effort to salvage a relationship with my fiancée, Nordica Theodora D'Orsay (Teddy), a CIA contract agent, I had travelled to New Orleans to find her. On a hastily arranged vacation, secured with the blessing of my commanding officer, Captain Jesse Brewer of LAPD, I had gone on my own, unofficially, to avoid the scrutiny of LAPD's Organized Crime Intelligence Division (OCID).

Teddy had wanted me to join her operations from within the ranks of LAPD, starting in the late spring of 1976. I had refused to get involved with drugs in any way, and everything she mentioned seemed to involve either heroin or cocaine, along with the guns which she was always moving out of the country. The Director of the CIA then was George Herbert Walker Bush.

Although officially on staff at the LAPD Academy at the time, I had been unofficially lent to OCID since January when Teddy, announcing the start of a new operation planned in the fall of 1976, suddenly disappeared. She left many people, including me, baffled and twisting in the breeze. The OCID detectives had been pressuring me hard for information about her and what I knew of her activities. It was information I could not give them. Hoping against hope that I would find some way to understand her involvement with CIA, LAPD, the royal family of Iran, the Mafia and drugs, I set out alone into eight days of Dantean revelations which have determined the course of my life from that day to this.

Arriving in New Orleans in early July 1977, I found Teddy living in an apartment across the river in Gretna. Equipped with scrambler phones and night vision devices, and working from sealed communiqués delivered by navy and air force personnel from nearby Belle Chasse Naval Air Station, she was involved in something truly ugly. Teddy was arranging for large quantities of weapons to be loaded onto ships leaving for Iran. At the same time, she was working with Mafia associates of New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello to coordinate the movement of service boats which were bringing large quantities of heroin into the city. The boats arrived at Marcello-controlled docks, unmolested by even the New Orleans police she introduced me to, along with divers, military men, former Green Berets and CIA personnel. The service boats were retrieving the heroin from oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, in international waters - oil rigs built and serviced by Brown & Root.

The guns which Teddy monitored, apparently Vietnam-era surplus AK47s and M16s, were being loaded onto ships also owned or leased by Brown & Root. And more than once during the eight days I spent in New Orleans, I met and ate at restaurants with Brown & Root employees who were boarding those ships and leaving for Iran within days. Once, while leaving a bar and apparently having asked the wrong question, I was shot at in an attempt to scare me off.

Disgusted and heartbroken at witnessing my fiancée and my government smuggling drugs, I ended the relationship. Returning home to LA, I made a clean breast and reported all the activity I had seen, including the connections to Brown & Root, to LAPD intelligence officers. They promptly told me that I was crazy.

Forced out of LAPD under threat of death at the end of 1978, I made complaints to LAPD's Internal Affairs Division and to the LA office of the FBI under the command of FBI SAC Ted Gunderson. I and my attorney wrote to the politicians, the Department of Justice and the CIA, and contacted the Los Angeles Times. The FBI and the LAPD said that I was crazy.

A 1981 two-part news story in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner revealed that the FBI had taken Teddy into custody and then released her before classifying their investigation without further action. Former New Orleans Crime Commissioner Aaron Cohen told reporter Randall Sullivan that he found my description of events perfectly plausible after his 30 years of studying Louisiana's organised crime operations.

To this day, a CIA report prepared as a result of my complaint remains classified and exempt from release, pursuant to executive order of the President, in the interests of national security and because it would reveal the identities of CIA agents.

On October 26, 1981, in the basement of the West Wing of the White House, I reported on what I had seen in New Orleans to my friend and UCLA classmate, Craig Fuller. Fuller went on to become Chief of Staff to Vice- President Bush from 1981 to 1985.

In 1982, then UCLA political science professor Paul Jabber filled in many of the pieces in my quest to understand what I had seen in New Orleans. He was qualified to do so because he had served as a CIA and State Department consultant to the Carter Administration.

Paul explained that, after a 1975 treaty between the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein of Iraq, the Shah had cut off all overt military support for Kurdish rebels fighting Saddam from the north of Iraq. In exchange, the Shah had gained access to the Shatt al'Arab waterway so that he could multiply his oil exports and income. Not wanting to lose a valuable long-term asset in the Kurds, the CIA had then used Brown & Root - which operated in both countries and maintained port facilities in the Persian Gulf and near Shatt al'Arab - to rearm the Kurds. The whole operation had been financed with heroin. Paul was matter-of-fact about it.

In 1983, Paul Jabber left UCLA to become a Vice-President of Banker's Trust and Chairman of the Middle East Department of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The World’s biggest free enterprise

If one is courageous enough to seek an "operating system" which theoretically explains what FTW has just described for you, one need look no further than a fabulous two-part article published in Le Monde Diplomatique in April 2000. The stories, focusing heavily on drug capital, are titled "Crime, The World's Biggest Free Enterprise". The brilliant and penetrating words of authors Christian de Brie and Jean de Maillard do a better job of explaining the actual world economic and political situation than anything I have ever read.

De Brie writes: "By allowing capital to flow unchecked from one end of the world to the other, globalisation and abandonment of sovereignty have together fostered the explosive growth of an outlaw financial market...

"It is a coherent system closely linked to the expansion of modern capitalism and based on an association of three partners: governments, transnational corporations and mafias. Business is business: financial crime is first and foremost a market, thriving and structured, ruled by supply and demand.

"Big business complicity and political laissez faire is the only way that large-scale organised crime can launder and recycle the fabulous proceeds of its activities. And the transnationals need the support of governments and the neutrality of regulatory authorities in order to consolidate their positions, increase their profits, withstand and crush the competition, pull off the 'deal of the century' and finance their illicit operations. Politicians are directly involved and their ability to intervene depends on the backing and the funding that keep them in power. This collusion of interests is an essential part of the world economy, the oil that keeps the wheels of capitalism turning."

After confronting CIA Director John Deutch on world television on November 15, 1996, I was interviewed by the staff of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. I prepared written testimony for Senate Intelligence which I submitted, although I was never called to testify. In every one of those interviews and in my written testimony and every lecture since that time, I have told the story of Brown & Root.

In God (Gold, Oil, Drugs) we trust

Make no mistake about it. The United States is preparing for war. Events immediately following the 2000 US election debacle are ominous predictors for the Bush&endash;Cheney Administration. While not all of the cabinet posts are yet filled, the key posts of Treasury, Defense, Justice and National Security Advisor point to the most militarised oil-and-big-business-friendly administration in 35 years.

So thorough is the plan for control of the government that the son of Secretary of State (Designate) Colin Powell, in an appointment which has yet to receive much notice, has been appointed the new Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. This is the body which monitors and polices all commercial broadcasting in the United States.

With Colin Powell as Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense and Dick Cheney as Vice-President, the highest levels of the US Government now house two former Secretaries of Defense and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The new National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, while African-American, has a long track record of service to Republican administrations and also sits on the board of directors of Chevron Oil, which has recently named an oil tanker after her. Her lacklustre operational credentials indicate that she will probably serve as the designated messenger between Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney and as the African-American poster girl for coming military adventurism.

Of special interest as this story goes to press is the strongest rumour among my sources that current CIA Director George Tenet, appointed to the post by President Clinton in 1997, will remain in the new Bush Administration. Based upon this writer's study of CIA operations and history, this strongly suggests two things. Firstly, it implies that the CIA, as a non-partisan servant of Wall Street, feels that its interests have been - and will continue to be - well served by Tenet, who is well liked at Langley. Most importantly, however, it suggests that there are operations, both covert and otherwise, in motion under CIA control which are moving at a speed and with a force that will not accept a break in rhythm for a change in directors. Most critical among these would be the start of the planned conflict in Colombia.

Since the advent of the atomic bomb, the United States has always needed two kinds of enemies. On one level, it has needed a tactical enemy that it can go out and fight in the field in a shooting war. Since 1945, these enemies have been created and appeared as North Korea, North Vietnam, Grenada, El Salvador, Panama, Iraq and now Colombia. On another level, however, the US needs a strategic enemy that will justify outrageous expenditures of capital for strategic weapon systems like ICBMs, Trident submarines and "Star Wars" missile defence systems.

With the new Bush Administration already contemplating a policy change that would make Colombian rebels (as opposed to drug traffickers) the targets of US military aid, as has been reported by AP, there is no doubt where the next shooting war is going to be. And with the militarised Bush cabinet making a missile defence shield a priority, it looks as though either China or Russia will become the next big enemy of choice. In the end, profitability will decide. For the moment, the less-than-credible paper threat is from unspecified "rogue nations". We can be certain, however, that the shifting economic pressure plates around the world will reveal our next demon soon enough. Halliburton is uniquely placed to profit from either eventuality.

As it was in Vietnam, Central America and Kosovo, drugs continue to be a huge part of the financial plan for prolonged ground wars. As one cynic put it, "GOD" stands for "Gold, Oil and Drugs". We can be assured that an empire (as opposed to a republic) is emerging in the United States more quickly than many have expected. And the Bush Administration is already acting in a "godlike" manner. It is an empire that may have little need of even the pretence of democracy as American corporate fascism removes its mask in the wake of our election circus, the prostitution of our Supreme Court and the virtual destruction of American government as a servant of anything other than money, greed and power.

Sources:

* Aspen Institute, http://www.aspeninst.org/.

* Associated Press, "Study: US Could Save Cost in Balkans", October 10, 2000.

* Associated Press, "Cheney, North Relationship Probed", August 11, 2000.

* Austin Chronicle, August 28, 2000.

* "CIA Base" © 1992, Ralph McGehee.

* CIA Inspector-General, "Report of Investigation: Allegations of Connections Between CIA and the Contras in Cocaine Trafficking to the United States. Volume II: The Contra Story", Report 96-0143-IG.

* Christian Science Monitor, October 20, 1994.

* Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/.

* De Brie, Christian and Jean de Maillard, "Crime, The World's Biggest Free Enterprise", Le Monde Diplomatique, April 2000.

* Halliburton/Brown & Root, www.Halliburton.com/brs.

* Jane's Intelligence Review, February 1, 1995.

* Los Angeles Herald Examiner, October 11 & 18, 1981.

* Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1991.

* Newsmakingnews, "The Dick Cheney Data Dump", August 27, 2000, http://www.newsmakingnews.com/.

* New York Press, January 8, 2000.

* New York Times Index, http://www.nytimes.com/.

* Royce, Knut and Nathaniel Heller, "Cheney Led Halliburton to Feast at Federal Trough", Center for Public Integrity, August 2, 2000, www.public-i.org/story_01_080200.htm.

* Ruppert, Michael C., written testimony for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated October 1, 1997; see www.copvcia.com/ssci.htm, and From The Wilderness 4/99, 4/00, 6/00.

* Securities and Exchange Commission, "Edgar" Database, http://www.sec.gov/.

* Tarpley, Webster Griffin and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, DC, 1992.

* US&endash;Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce, http://www.usacc.com/.

* Vinnell Corporation, http://www.vinnell.com/.

12. ISSA G. SHIVJI

Law’s Empire and Empire’s Lawlessness:

Beyond the Anglo-American Law

Law's Empire has been irreversibly shattered by the Empire's lawlessness of which the recent invasion and occupation of Iraq was the highest and most cynical expression. The outrage created by the invasion cut across the globe as it hurt every human sensitivity. Thought was ridiculed, conscience was wounded, and traditions of humanity mocked.

There was a sense of despair and hopelessness. But human spirit is indomitable. Millions, of all ages, marched the streets in 650 cities, simultaneously, with one voice: ‘No Blood for Oil.’ In this the peoples of the world showed their common humanity bound by blood against imperial barbarism thirsty for oil.

I had originally accepted the invitation to this Conference on ‘Re-making Law in Africa’ and also one in Coimbra, Portugal on ‘Law and Justice in the XXIst Century’. After witnessing the devastating destruction in Iraq, I couldn't simply bring myself to sit and write a paper on the re-making of law and justice when all of this had been ruthlessly 'massacred' in this invasion. I declined to attend as a small, perhaps insignificant, statement of protest. Instead, from afar, I share a few thoughts with you as an expression of solidarity.

For those of us who come from Africa, the hypocrisy and the double standards of the Western Establishment are not new. We have got accustomed to it. Yet, barring intellectual sceptics and political opportunists, the admirers, nay believers, in values of Enlightenment and the virtues of Rule of Law have been many and not far between. The Nkrumahs and the Nyereres, the Mandelas and the Mondlanes were all steeped in Western liberal values and crafted the demands of their people's independence in the language of law and rights. When accused of liberalism by left students in the 1960s, the author of Socialism and Self-reliance, Julius Nyerere, quipped: ‘I am a bourgeois democrat at heart!’

The nationalist critique of the Western legal, moral and political order, which, in any case, the African leaders adopted in their countries, was from within. It was a critique, which highlighted the divergence between the ideal and the real, between theory and practice, between the desirable and the achievable. The fundamental premises of the Western legal thought and its world outlook, however, remained, by and large, unchallenged.

Some of us who adopted more radical approaches, albeit still within Western traditions, did not perhaps subscribe wholly to Thompson's thesis that the rule of law was an ‘unqualified good’. Yet we, too, saw in bourgeois law and legality, space for struggle to advance the social project of human liberation and emancipation. Law, we argued, was a terrain of struggle; that rule of law, while expressing and reinforcing the rule of the bourgeoisie, did also represent the achievement of the working classes; that even though bourgeois democracy was a limited class project, it was an advance over authoritarian orders and ought to be defended. The legal discourse, whether liberal or radical, thus remained rooted in Western values, exalting the Law's Empire.

To be sure, in my part of the world, the law faculty and students went beyond the confines of legal discourse. The sixties and seventies saw an upsurge in interdisciplinary approaches to law. We crafted new courses like ‘law and development’, read theories of imperialism and demonstrated against the war in Vietnam. Imperialism was on the defensive.

We studied history and political economy. We discovered and recorded the crimes of imperialism against our people. We came to know how our continent was depopulated and its social fabric devastated by the slave trade and then colonialism. We were enraged. We were equally enraged as we read how the industrial revolution in Britain was built on the backs of child labour and American development rose from the genocide of the indigenous 'Indian' population and the enslavement of our brothers and sisters. In disgust, we learnt that while the pundits of capitalism glorified competition, the textile houses of Lancashire conspired to have the hands of Indian craftsmen chopped off so as to destroy India's textile industry. Although all this was history, we were outraged because imperialism continued to be with us and showed its most brutal and ugly face as it napalmed Vietnam. Apartheid South Africa, with the connivance of imperialism, armed RENAMO creating havoc in the newly liberated Mozambique. American multinationals continued to rape the resources of the then Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. In much of the rest of Africa the cold war continued to be fought by the superpowers through their proxies leaving the dead, the maimed and the malnourished in its wake.

Eventually the Lilliputian Vietnam demolished, morally and militarily, giant America. David defeated Goliath. The backward Portuguese empire collapsed. We were inspired. Imperialism was demoralised. Then came the restoration.

The Berlin wall fell. Imperialism rode on the triumphalist wave to rehabilitate itself. Douglas Hurd, the then British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, heaved a sigh of relief: ‘we are slowly putting behind us a period of history when the West was unable to express a legitimate interest in the developing world without being accused of ‘neo-colonialism’.’ The moral rehabilitation of imperialism was first and foremost ideological which in turn was constructed on neo-liberal economic precepts – ‘free’ market, privatisation, liberalisation, etc - the so-called Washington consensus. Human rights, NGOs, good governance, multiparty democracy, and rule of law were all rolled together with privatisation and liberalisation, never mind that they were utterly incompatible.

The ‘new’ comeback of rule of law had little to do with the original Enlightenment values, which underlay it. This time around it came as both a farce and a tragedy. Farce because the law was not being made by the representatives of the people. International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and their consultants dictated it. Tragedy because the national sovereignty won by the colonised people was all but lost except in name, and this time around, as John Pilger says somewhere, without a gunboat in sight. But guns were never out of sight. Witness Panama. Witness Sudan. Witness Somalia and Iraq and Iraq again.

Globalisation, through the laws of privatisation and liberalisation, struck at the heart of the democratic legislative process. Then, lo! behold, came nine-eleven. Mr Bush picked up his ‘phone to receive pre-arranged messages of support from African leaders, one after another. Everyone was told to fall in line. ‘You are either with us or with terrorists’. No African leader could dare say anything even remotely close to what the Iranian leader said: ‘We're neither with you nor with the terrorists!’. Iran was promptly included in the axis of evil.

One after another, African countries enacted similar anti-terrorism statutes, contrary to their own constitutions which had provided for bill of rights. The anti-terrorist laws made no pretence of rule of law. Due process, integrity and certainty of rules, open trials, principles of natural justice, right of appeal were all dispensed with. The definitions of terrorism are so wide that these laws are worse then some of the draconian statutes legislated during the one-party authoritarian rule. Opposition to anti-terrorist law was ruthlessly suppressed. In my country, the President devoted the whole of his monthly speech reprimanding the opponents of the anti-terrorist law.

If privatisation laws stabbed the heart of the legislative process, the anti-terrorism laws tore the artery of the judicial process. The rhetoric of the rule of law was exposed to be what it was - a rhetoric. As elsewhere, the Americans are now in the saddle training our police in anti-terrorism. They will soon establish a regional school to train spies, of course, to spy on us, the people, the supposed beneficiaries of human rights, due process, and the rule of law.

This is only a beginning though. The trends are clear. On the West Coast of Africa, the American multinationals are striking roots to control oil resources while on the Eastern board, from Djibouti to, eventually, perhaps, Zanzibar, the Marines are establishing military bases. Who rules Africa today?

One could multiply examples to prove the point. But it is not necessary. The point is that the Empire's lawlessness does not lie simply in acting against the rules of law but in violating the underlying values which constitute the legitimacy of law. So what remains of the ‘majesty’ of law?

The exercise of authority (coercion) without legitimacy (consensus) is part of the definition of fascism. If Iraq demonstrates anything clearly, it is that American imperialism is tending towards fascism. And when this fascism is combined with barbarism on the scale and cynicism witnessed in Iraq, the consequences for the whole of humanity are likely to be too devastating to contemplate.

What is then the role and responsibility of the intellectual in this situation? I want to suggest a few pointers.

First, I want to suggest that the Empire's lawlessness in the sense described here can no longer be explained in terms of the divergence between the ideal and the real. It is no more a question of double standards or not matching deeds with words. Rather, the very ‘word’ is wanting. The Law and its premises, the liberal values underlying law, the Law's Empire itself needs to be interrogated and overturned. In other words, fascism is not an aberration, it is the logical consequence of imperialism, and when imperialism runs amok, you get ‘Iraq’.

Second, whatever the achievements of Western bourgeois civilisation, these are now exhausted. We are on the threshold of reconstructing a new civilisation, a more universal, a more humane, civilisation. And that cannot be done without defeating and destroying imperialism on all fronts. On the legal front, we have to re-think law and its future rather than simply talk in terms of re-making it. I do not know how, but I do know how not. We cannot continue to accept the value-system underlying the Anglo-American law as unproblematic. The very premises of law need to be interrogated. We cannot continue accepting the Western civilisation's claim to universality. Its universalization owes much to the argument of force rather than the force of argument. We have to rediscover other civilisations and weave together a new tapestry borrowing from different cultures and peoples.

Third, this can only be done if we think globally and humanly. While, for a long time to come, we may still have to act locally, there is no reason why we cannot think globally, all the time. The massive anti-war demonstrations happening simultaneously on the same day is a pointer in this direction. The anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist demonstrations at the conferences of the rich is another example of re-thinking the very basis of the Western, imperial civilisation.

Fourthly, as always, we as intellectuals have to interrogate our own commitment. We cannot simply allow ourselves to be ‘embedded’. In a message to the World Congress of Intellectuals, Albert Einstein could say:

We have learned that rational thinking does not suffice to solve the problems of our social life … We scientists, whose tragic destiny it has been to help make the methods of annihilation even more gruesome and more effective, must consider it our solemn and transcendent duty to do all in our power in preventing these weapons from being used for the brutal purpose for which they were invented. What task could possibly be more important to us? What social aim could be closer to our hearts?

Can we say the same? Before even some intellectuals as journalists embedded themselves in the military to mis-report on the war, how many more intellectuals as scientists, as advisors and consultants and spokespersons and speech-writers, were embedded in the Establishment to produce cluster bombs and in justifying and rationalising their use? And since the invasion, how many more are getting embedded in lending legitimacy to the so-called ‘reconstruction’ - read, ‘continued occupation and exploitation’.

Some 40 years ago, Georg Lukács warned his fellow intellectuals of their responsibility. It is as relevant today as it was then. Let Luckás remind us of our responsibility in the present situation and our attitude towards imperialism.

This new stage in the development of imperialism will quite probably not be called fascism. And concealed behind the new nomenclature lies a new ideological problem: the 'hungry' imperialism of the German brought forth a nihilistic cynicism, which openly broke with all traditions of humanity. The fascist tendencies arising today in the U.S.A. work with the method of a nihilistic hypocrisy. They carry out the suppression and exploitation of the masses in the name of humanity and culture.

Let us look at an example. It was necessary for Hitler, supported by Gobineau and Chamberlain, to formulate a special theory of races in order to mobilize demagogically his masses for the extermination of democracy and progress, humanism and culture. The imperialists of the U.S.A. have it easier. They need only universalize and systematize their old practices concerning the Negroes. And since these practices have up to now been 'reconcilable' with the ideology portraying the U.S.A. as a champion of democracy and humanism, there can be no reason why such a Weltanschauung of nihilist hypocrisy could not arise there, which by demagogic means, could become dominant.

Has Georg Luckás been proved right after 40 years?

It behoves upon us not to let this pass. I believe it was Eisenhower who said: What is good for General Motors is good for America. Bush is saying: What is good for America is good for the whole world. We should say: Nothing is good enough unless it is good for the entire humanity.

Issa G. Shivji is Professor of Law at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

This is a commentary published on: 30 May 2003

Citation: Shivji, I ‘Law’s Empire and Empire’s Lawlessness: Beyond the Anglo-American Law’, 2003 (1) Law, Social Justice & Global Development Journal (LGD). <http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/global/issue/2003-1/shivji.html>

13. LIEVEN DE CAUTER

“The Bloody Mystifications of the New World Order”

1. The Sovereign and bare life

Homo Sacer is a series of books about and against the new world order, the violent establishment of which we are experiencing at this very moment. The goal of the series as a whole is to expose the new world order as a state of exception. Indeed, Homo Sacer can be seen as one long commentary in line with Walter Benjamin’s thesis, which claims that the state of exception is becoming the rule. The foreword to Part I is quite clear on this point: “Now that major State structures have fallen into decline and a state of exception, as predicted by Benjamin, has become the rule, it is once more time to raise the matter of borders and the original structure of the State, and to view these issues in a new light.”  It cannot be emphasised enough that Homo Sacer is a criticism of the State. In the last paragraph, Agamben is even more explicit: “This book, which was initially intended as a response to the bloody mystification of a new world order, has been forced to examine issues –first and foremost, the sanctity of life – which were not foreseen at the outset.” The concluding lines of the introduction call for the revision of all concepts linked to the relevant social sciences – “dans l’urgence de la catastrophe” (in light of the urgency of the catastrophe). Let us review the first book and the entire series from the perspective of this hint – ultimately, what is at stake is a response to the bloody mystifications of the new world order – and from the perspective of this urgency.

            The first volume, which deals with sovereign power and bare life, is based on the distinction that the Greeks made between zoē, or life in its natural state, and bios, the qualified, cultural form of life. One pole represents ‘true’ politicised life in the polis or community, and the other stands for the factual, animal functioning of the living organism as such. One pole is the public sphere, which gives life meaning, and the other is the private sphere, interpreted here as that which does not exist for others and which bears no significance or value. Following Foucault, Agamben argues that biopolitics – that is, the intervention of authorities into citizens’ bodily, biological lives – forms the basis of modern politics. Drawing from a discerning analysis of the paradox of sovereign power in the first part of his book, Agamben concludes that, when all is said and done, sovereign power is the control of bare life: the authority over citizens’ life and death, a concept expressed in the state of exception. Hence sovereign power not only upholds the law, but also, and above all else, maintains the right to suspend the law and to declare a state of exception. (This is what the Nazis did in 1933, when they came into power, but to this day every sovereign State has the right to protect the constitution, when deemed necessary, by suspending basic rights such as freedom of speech). With this argument, Agamben reviews (from the perspective of Carl Schmitt) the core of the whole political philosophy of the West: the natural state is not a condition that precedes the social contract and the well-ordered society. It is the state of exception that lies in wait, as a potential instrument of sovereign power, at the heart of every political system and every constitution. Sovereign power, therefore, is the dark agency that generates the law and, in so doing, stands above or outside the law; it is also that to which the law returns, as it were. Sovereign power is and remains that which, as the ‘principle’ of legitimation, determines that which is a state of exception and, subsequently, whether it is necessary to repeal the law. 

            In contrast to sovereign power, which is above the law, is the exile, whose position is outside the law. And this is where, in the second part of the book, the homo sacer appears. Sacer is a name for that which is excluded from the ‘common community’ and thus has no ‘common rights’ and no significance: sacer is life that can be ended without committing murder, and that can be liquidated but not even sacrificed with dignity. Agamben shows that ‘the sacred person’ is being subjected to excommunication (an exclusion that is simultaneously an inclusion: the isolation of the exception), because he is being cast out of both human and religious legal systems. The (political) refugee is an ideal modern example of this archaic ban, a person reduced to bare life with no rights. The refugee abides in a zone where the distinction between zoē and bios, between mere life and a humane existence, has been eliminated. Illegal aliens and asylum seekers are those who can no longer claim citizenship; they have been reduced to living organisms, to bare life.

            In a third part of the book, Agamben takes a closer look at modern biopolitics. He uses the (extra)judicial structure of concentration camps as a casestudy. According to Agamben, the camp is precisely the place in which the distinction between zoē and bios, private survival and public participation, disappears. The camp exists outside the law. It is not a prison – people are imprisoned under the law and have the rights afforded a prisoner – but a sort of enclave beyond any judicial sphere. It can be compared to our enclosed asylum centres, often near airports, which are actually transit zones and not part of the national territory, given the absence of civil rights in such places. The fact that anything was possible in the camps, says Agamben, cannot be comprehended through moral indignation (aimed at Hitler’s willing executioners, for example): it is intrinsic to the nature of the camp. Since the dawn of modernity, birth has been the foundation of the nation: an individual becomes a citizen of a country through birth (natio). This process gives the nation a biopolitical basis. Before being transported to the camps, Jews were first stripped of their civil rights and, finally, of all rights: they were reduced to bare life – life that could be ‘disposed of’ without death being murder or sacrifice. 

After reflecting on the dark ‘undersides’ of justice and society, and on the boundaries of life and death, Agamben presents three bold propositions: “1. The original political relation is the ban (the state of exception as a zone within which inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion, are indistinguishable). 2. The fundamental work of sovereign power is the production of bare life as original political element and as threshold between nature and culture, between the organic and the human, between zoē and bios. 3. The camp and not the city is currently the biopolitical paradigm of the West.” These three propositions are food for thought, in the deepest sense of the expression. Reading the book changes and sharpens one’s view of the State, of human rights, of organ transplantation, of the status of outsiders (political refugees and asylum seekers) – in short, it changes one’s view of the world. Someone aptly referred to Agamben’s Homo Sacer as a contrast liquid that, having been injected into the societal body, makes things visible that were previously invisible. 

2. The State of Exception (Part II, 1)

Etat d’Exception, the second part of the cycle, is based on the conclusion that no coherent theory of the state of exception existed previously, because jurists considered such a state to be a situation outside the sphere of the law. It is indeed a paradox: the state of exception is a form of legality that can have no legal form. The state of exception is the discontinuance of legal order to preserve legality, a disintegration of the State for the purpose of defending the State. The state of exception is closely connected to civil war, because it responds to extreme domestic unrest. Nazism can be seen as a twelve-year-long state of exception, or even as a legal civil war (a potential theme for the second, or perhaps third, section of Part II). Agamben's hypothesis is the following: that “the state of exception increasingly tends to become the dominant paradigm of governing in today’s politics”. He then uses the Patriot Act and Guantanamo as examples. “The immediate biopolitical significance of the state of exception as an original structure in which the law confines the living through its own suspension appears clearly in de military order issued by the President of the United States on 13 November 2001, which permits the indefinite detention of non-nationals suspected of participation in terrorist activities.”  This order, according to Agamben, expunges the legal status of the individual and creates a “juridically ineligible and unclassifiable subject”. The Guantanamo detainees are neither prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Convention, nor defendants who fall under the jurisdiction of the American legal system. The situation of the occupants of Guantanamo can be compared only to that of the Jews in the Lager: this is bare life outside the scope of the law. With this example, Agamben combines his hypothesis of the camp as paradigm with that of the state of exception. One can presume that, in the Homo Sacer series, the hypothesis of the state of exception as a planetary paradigm will supersede that of the camp, because the former is easier than the latter to defend and to discuss in a general sense.

            ‘Martial law’ (état de siège) is another name for the state of exception. Agamben emphasises that the modern state of exception is rooted in the democratic-revolutionary tradition and not in absolutism. He quotes from the constitution that went into effect after the French Revolution (22 Frimaire of the year VIII, art. 92): “In the case of armed revolt or riots that pose a threat to the security of the State, the law can, at places and times that it determines, repeal the constitution [suspendre l'empire de la constitution].” A basic problem concerning the state of exception is the ongoing and increasing penetration of executive power into legislative power. After a long and disconcerting excursus on the “short history of the state of exception”, in which he explains not only that since World War I a state of exception characterises fascism and National Socialism, but also that elements of the state of exception are penetrating normal forms of government in America and England, Agamben closes with the following statement: “Bush is in the process of creating a situation in which necessity is the rule, and in which the distinction between peace and war (and between external war and global civil war) becomes impossible.” Seldom does Agamben express his opinions so explicitly. Indeed, the War on Terrorism can be better understood as a state of exception declared throughout the entire world and enabled by the de facto position of the United States as global sovereign: a nation openly trying to seize power by upsetting the international world order of the United Nations and by waging pre-emptive wars against so-called rogue states. 

            Here Agamben develops a genuine archaeology of the state of exception based on historical material, primarily Roman law, and commentaries, with Carl Schmitt and Benjamin as guides. He deals first with the question of whether the state of exception is a political or a juridical phenomenon, and thus whether or not it falls within the law, and then addresses the category of need or necessity, which according to political theology and the theory of law justifies the exception (‘necessity knows no law’). In mediaeval times, the exception was outside the law, while modern theories attempt to include the state of exception within the law, thereby creating a zone of indefiniteness. Thus Agamben arrives at a rather manneristic formula: force-de-loi (hyphenated and with loi crossed out): the word of the sovereign/dictator carries the force of the law precisely because the law is not in force.

            Agamben sees the modern version of the state of exception as a situation produced by modern law and the democratic State (with its roots in Roman law). With respect to what he calls “the machine of the state of exception”, Agamben comes to the following conclusion: “What we wanted to demonstrate precisely is that it has been functioning, almost without interruption, since World War I, through fascism and National Socialism, up to the present. Today the state of exception has reached its broadest level of planetary development. As a result, the normative aspect of law can be forgotten and contradicted with impunity by governmental force that repudiates international law externally and creates a permanent state of exception internally, while still claiming to enforce the law.” Without naming names, Agamben clearly addresses the Bush Administration with respect to the illegal war against and the occupation of Iraq, as well as to the Patriot Act, which suspends numerous civil rights. With this in mind, we can sharpen our interpretation of the text: Homo Sacer is a project that opposes the new American imperial world order, which it sees as the most dangerous instigator of the planetary state of exception. As a whole, of course, the series is much more, thanks to its finely detailed microanalyses and the comprehensive nature of the focal points towards which the entire movement of the author’s thinking is directed.

            What Agamben is trying to unravel is our new political condition. According to a crystal-clear formulation recorded in his philosophical diary notes, Dans cet exil, which conclude Moyens sans Fins, the current political condition can be understood only as total confusion of the political and the private: “Life in a state of exception that has become the rule means that the distinction between our biological body and our political body disappears, that experiences once defined as political are unexpectedly diverted to our biological body and that private experiences suddenly appear outside us, as a political body. We have had to get used to thinking and writing within this confusion of bodies and places, of inside and outside, of what is mute and what has language, of what is slave and what is free, of what is need and what is desire. This means, I must admit, experiencing absolute powerlessness and repeatedly being confronted with loneliness and silence precisely where we had expected fellowship and language. . . . Today, however, it is from this uncertain terrain, this dark zone of indifference, that we must find the way back to another type of politics, another body, another language. Under no circumstances would I wish to abandon this blurred distinction between public and private, biological body and political body, zoē and bios. . . . Only politics stemming from this awareness can hold my interest.” 

3. A key to resistance?

A hypothesis to be derived from Agamben’s books is that the Bush Administration has declared a planetary state of exception. Clearly, declaring a state of exception in instance after instance is at the heart of America’s new national-emergency policy: many prisoners of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been detained at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), a site chosen for its location outside American territory. Consequently, the Bush Administration claims that American legislation on the treatment of prisoners is not applicable in such cases. (America’s conduct at Guantanamo has already been the focus of rebuke by various human-rights organisations.) The aforementioned doctrine of ‘pre-emptive attack’, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, rejection of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Patriot Act that suspends many basic civil rights (searching private homes without search warrants is once again possible), the post-9/11 deportation of thousands of immigrants who had lived in the United States for years, the total neglect of the poor and the unemployed (many left to fend for themselves in ghettos such as Skid Row in L.A.) and, last but not least, the refusal to participate in the International Criminal Court in The Hague (a decision reinforced by The Hague Invasion Act, which allows the United States to use military force to free American citizens detained by the ICC), and the privitisation of War via the boom of the paramilitary industry since the war in Iraq – all this: a highly alarming constellation of major and minor facts that ranges from micropolitical violations of civil rights (searches without search warrants) to macropolitical violations of international law (pre-emptive attacks on what America labels potentially dangerous ‘rogue States’) – all this clearly shows that American exceptionalism is slipping into a state of exception that includes the United States itself. 

Perhaps the Homo Sacer series would gain in clarity if one volume would delve more concretely into the present, into matters all too briefly laid out in the preceding paragraph with regard to America’s imperial policy of the exception. Particularly in need of further development and more concrete consideration as the series continues are relations among the State, individual (vassal) States and America’s new policy of imperialism (which has bowled over international law, as well as civil and human rights – completely in line with Agamben’s prediction of a planetary state of exception, traceable to his intuitive thinking of 1993; that is, shortly after the first Gulf War, as the elder Bush was establishing the new world order). New relationships, the new contours of State powers and, above all, post-state-socialist (neo-imperial?) forms of power and force receive too little attention in de Homo Sacer series – perhaps the research is still in progress, and future volumes will catch up with current events bit by bit. On the other hand, Agamben is a philosopher, not a journalist or a historian. His task is not to write political chronicles, but to provide us with tools for concrete political analysis and criticism. And it is here that the series fulfils its promise. In a certain sense, Agamben’s work has predicted the present-day situation. His rather oracular expression from 1995, “the bloody mystifications of the new world order”, has become crystal-clear only recently: today the term ‘bloody’ is certainly not a stylistic slip of the tongue or a far-fetched metaphor, and ‘mystification’ has taken on unexpected meanings and reached new heights – countless books and websites feature the ‘web of lies’ that has been spun around the illegal invasion of Iraq. Because Agamben continually points to the link that connects, on the one hand, the rise of biopolitics, the emergence of bare life as an increasingly extreme fusion of private and public, and the confusion between biological bodies and political bodies; and, on the other hand, a planetary state of exception that is no longer deniable, it goes without saying that this series is becoming his magnum opus (it will be six to seven books in all). It is already one of the more important philosophical contributions to beginning insights into the political, military and, consequently, terrorist catastrophes that we have experienced and are experiencing. For this reason, the series is an essential object of study for all who wish to understand what is happening in the world, on both micropolitical and macropolitical levels. Ultimately, perhaps, the series will also contain a strategy, no matter how philosophical or messianic, for warding off the disaster that surrounds us from all sides and renders us powerless; a key to resistance.

D. APPENDICES : post scripts on a possible future

1. PAUL MC GEOUGH AND BARRY YEOMAN

The Privatisation of War

Mercenaries flock to fill vacuum

By Paul McGeough (The Age, AUS)

Private security operators now make up the third largest armed force in Iraq. When the doors open at Level 5 of the Palestine Hotel, there's a spit-and-polished Gurkha pointing a high-powered gun into the lift. The whole floor and another above it have been taken by Kellogg Brown & Root, the construction wing of Halliburton, one of the biggest US firms working in Iraq. And though the linguists of occupation don't allow the word "mercenary", the Gurkha is part of a 15,000-strong private security operation that is the third biggest armed force in Iraq. Their numbers - and salaries as high as $US1000 ($A1300) a day – attest to the danger of this Arab version of Dodge City.

But when they signed up, few would have anticipated the terrible butchery of four colleagues whose bodies were dismembered and dragged through the streets of the western city of Fallujah on Wednesday. Television footage of the scene - heavily edited before going to air worldwide - showed their corpses being kicked and stoned before being broken up with blows from steel rods. At least two of them were strung up on a bridge and parts of the other bodies were stuck on poles and paraded around town. The barbarity at Fallujah provoked outrage in Washington and elsewhere - but did little to change US rhetoric on the pacification of post-war Iraq.

The ranks of the private armies in Iraq are growing so rapidly that US and British defence officials are at a loss to know how to counter offers to the best of their Special Operations and SAS staff. In the mayhem, Baghdad has been carved into a series of Western security bubbles. There is the Green Zone, American proconsul Paul Bremer's sprawling bunker for which the Pentagon is about to let a $100 million privatised security contract; foreign embassies are grouping and fortifying; and western business and the foreign media have all but withdrawn behind concrete, wire and guns.

Pity the poor Iraqis. They're outside the walls and at the other end of the guns, unprotected from bombers and criminals who have run amok, robbing and kidnapping in a security vacuum in which it is nigh on impossible for a naive new Iraqi police force to control.  And it's not just the foreigners - South Africans, who know they are breaking their country's laws on mercenary activity; skilled Gurkhas and Fijians who can't resist the dollars; or the Chileans who trained under General Pinochet - who are involved.

Beneath all of that is a dubious layer of Iraqi-run security – hundreds of local firms that have the capacity to become clan-based militias if, as some expect, security worsens after the June 30 hand-back of sovereignty to an Iraqi administration. This is what happens: An Iraqi working with a new foreign media or business sees the opening, recruits 30 or 50 family and friends to whom he gives guns and the ubiquitous baseball cap and then he bids for the security contract.

Australia is doing its bit for the privatised army. Sydney-based AKE Asia-Pacific has teams on the ground and though Australian troops ride shotgun for Australian diplomats in Baghdad, protection for the rest of the small, non-military Australian contingent has been subcontracted to Control Risk Group, whose 1100-strong private army of former British SAS, Nepalese and Fijian soldiers, also guards 500 British civil servants working here. It's a huge drain on the reconstruction budget.

The Fallujah deaths bring the US civilian toll in Iraq to at least 33. The military toll is three short of 600. The March toll - 50 US troops and a dozen civilians of varying nationalities - made it the second worst month of the occupation.  But despite that, US spokesman Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt refused to allow his optimism to be dented by Wednesday's killings – which including the death of five US soldiers in a separate attack near Fallujah.  "Despite an uptick in localised engagements, the overall Iraqi area of operations remains relatively stable with negligible impact on the coalition's ability to continue progress in governance, economic development and restoration of essential services," he said.

We have been confronted with such appalling acts of barbarity before. Remember Mogadishu in 1993 - when Bill Clinton cut and ran from Somalia after the carnage that inspired the Hollywood block-buster Black Hawk Down? And the lynching of two Israeli soldiers by a Palestinian mob in Ramallah in September 2000?  First the Americans wanted to blame the remnants of the Saddam regime and then it was associates of al-Qaeda. But it was ordinary Iraqis wielding the steel rods at Fallujah and in broad daylight.

Need an Army? Just Pick Up the Phone

By Barry Yeoman

04/02/04 "New York Times" DURHAM, N.C. -- The murderous attack on four American civilians in Falluja, Iraq, brought home gruesome images of charred bodies dangling from a bridge over the Euphrates River. It also introduced Americans to a company few had heard of: Blackwater USA, which was providing security for food delivery convoys when its employees were ambushed.

Blackwater, which operates from a 5,200-acre training ground in the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina, is a private military firm that provides an array of services once performed solely by military personnel. The company trains soldiers in counterterrorism and urban warfare. It also provides the American government with soldiers for hire: former Green Berets, Army Rangers and Navy Seals. In February it started training former Chilean commandos — some of whom served under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet — for future service in Iraq.

Business is booming at Blackwater, and the company is hardly alone. Private contractors are an invisible but growing part of how war is now fought. Some 10,000 of them are serving in Iraq — one private worker for every 10 soldiers — more than the number of soldiers from Britain, America's largest coalition partner. Some are supplied by well-known corporations like Halliburton. But for the most part, the private military industry is dominated by more obscure businesses with names that seem designed to tell as little as possible about what the company does.

Nor is their presence limited to Iraq. In recent years, soldiers-for-profit have served in Liberia, Pakistan, Rwanda and Bosnia. They have guarded Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, and built the military detention facilities holding Al Qaeda suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They have been an essential part of the American war on drugs in Latin America. Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution, who wrote a book on the private military industry, says it brings in about $100 billion a year worldwide.

The industry rose to prominence under President George H.W. Bush — Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, received a $9 million contract to study supplementing military efforts after the Persian Gulf war. The Clinton administration sent more work to contractors, but it is under the current president, a strong believer in government privatization, that things started booming. Gary Jackson, the president of Blackwater, envisions a day when any country faced with peacekeeping duties will simply call him and place an order. "I would like to have the largest, most professional private army in the world," he told me.

This raises some obvious questions. Shouldn't war be a government function? Why rely on the private sector for our national defense, even if it is largely a supporting role? Part of the reason is practical: since the end of the cold war, the United States military has been shrinking, from 2.1 million in 1989 to 1.4 million today. Supporters of privatization argue that there simply aren't enough soldiers to provide a robust presence around the world, and that by drafting private contractors to fix helicopters, train recruits and cook dinner, the government frees up bona fide soldiers to fight the enemy. (Of course, in the field, the line between combatant and noncombatant roles grow fuzzier, particularly because many of the private soldiers are armed.) Private contractors are supposed to be cheaper, too, but their cost effectiveness has not been proved.

Low manpower and cost savings aren't the only reasons these companies appeal to the Pentagon. For one, substituting contactors for soldiers offers the government a way to avoid unpopular military forays. According to Myles Frechette, who was President Bill Clinton's ambassador to Colombia, private companies performed jobs in Latin America that would have been politically unpalatable for the armed forces. After all, if the government were shipping home soldiers' corpses from the coca fields, the public outcry would be tremendous. However, more than 20 private contractors have been killed in Colombia alone since 1998, and their deaths have barely registered.

This points to the biggest problem with the outsourcing of war: there is far less accountability to the American public and to international law than if real troops were performing the tasks. In the 1990's, several employees of one company, DynCorp, were implicated in a sex-trafficking scandal in Bosnia involving girls as young as 12. Had these men been soldiers, they would have faced court-martial proceedings. As private workers, they were simply put on the next plane back to America.

Think about it: a private military firm might decide to pack its own bags for any number of reasons, leaving American soldiers and equipment vulnerable to enemy attack. If the military really can't fight wars without contractors, it must at least come up with ironclad policies on what to do if the private soldiers break local laws or leave American forces in the lurch.

What happened in Falluja was a tragedy, no matter what uniform the slain men wore. Private contractors are viewed by Iraqis as part of the occupation, yet they lack the military and political backing of our combat troops. So far, the Pentagon has failed to prove it can take responsibility for either the actions or the safety of its private-sector soldiers.

2. ROBERT COOPER : A European Counterpart to PNAC ?

Civilise or die

We can no longer afford to ignore weak or aggressive states.

Regime change is necessary

Robert Cooper

Thursday October 23, 2003

The Guardian

At his trial for an anarchist bomb outrage, the Texas IRS employee Albert Parsons declared: "Dynamite makes all men equal, and therefore makes them free." As it turned out, dynamite did nothing of the kind. But its successors may come closer to fulfilling the anarchist's dream. Nuclear weapons have a unique capacity for destruction and biological weapons may soon be capable of killing people in great numbers. Neither will make men free - rather the reverse - but they may make men equal. For the first time since the middle ages, individuals or groups will possess destructive power that puts them on equal terms with the state.

The same process that has brought the technology of destruction has also brought the emancipation of thought and of lives. And the process of modernisation that brings these things itself provides tension and conflict; 19th-century nationalism, the cultural revolution, fascism and communism and Islamic extremism are all responses to modernisation. Al-Qaida is both a reaction to modernism and a product of it: not just because it uses the internet or dreams of acquiring nuclear weapons, but because the belief itself that one can save the holy places from the infidel and overthrow governments by one's own actions is a part of the modern consciousness.

Put these two trends together - access for individuals to powerful weapons and the liberation of the individual from loyalty to church, state or tradition - and we have the possibility that the state's monopoly on force may be under threat. This will not (I hope) come within our lifetime, but eventually the logic of technology and society will assert itself. We must ask ourselves what we should do.

The most successful foreign policy strategy in living memory went under the name of containment. The essence of George Kennan's original concept was that you should defend yourself and wait for political change. Kennan, an American diplomat who served in Moscow for three decades, saw the cold war essentially as a political struggle - and he was right. It was a choice between two political systems, and in the end the choice was made through political rather than military means. The military battles of the cold war, all outside Europe, were not a great success for either side. Vietnam, the Horn of Africa, Korea, Nicaragua and Afghanistan were all left in a miserable condition. So we waited, according to Kennan's prescription (though 10 years longer than his guess).

"I would rather wait 30 years for the defeat of the Kremlin to be brought about by the exasperatingly slow devices of diplomacy than to see us submit to the test of arms a difference so little susceptible to any clear and happy settlement by those means."

Waiting for change was an appropriate strategy for the conflict between communism and capitalism, because each side believed that the other's system was doomed to collapse. It was relatively easy to believe political competition between two systems that were distant relatives - communism is as much a child of the enlightenment as liberal capitalism. It is less easy to understand today's enemies and be confident they will come to see the world as we do; and much less easy to know how we might defend ourselves against nuclear-armed enemies, especially if they are terrorists, not states.

It is no use waiting while terrorists prepare an attack. And if governments wait while unstable or aggressive states acquire WMD, they may find that their options for dealing with the arsenals or their owners have disappeared. The only way we shall feel secure is in a world of well-run countries governed by law at home and obeying international rules abroad. The risks from small groups of fanatics will not go away, but we will have more chance of managing them. We could live with countries not obeying the rules when that meant no more than a small war or a small outrage, but not when they concern the fundamentals of security. The domestic governance of foreign countries has now become a matter of our own security.

The world we are accustomed to - where every state minds its own business and others have no right to interfere - began to disappear with air travel, the internet, global television. With weapons of mass destruction it is gone forever. Multipolar deterrence in the Middle East would not be stable (the subcontinent is already a worry on its own). And the more such weapons proliferate, the greater the risk that terrorists will acquire them. Our only defence against such a world is the spread of civilisation.

Thus we should all be in favour of regime change. The only question is how to achieve it. Military intervention costs lives and money, and regimes imposed from the outside rarely last. The US's 19-year occupation of Haiti left little in the way of working constitutional structures. The regimes imposed by the Soviet Union at the end of the second world war disappeared when the Soviet armies went home. There are exceptions; Hashemite rule in Jordan survived the departure of British forces (though it did not do so in Iraq). But these are not many. If regime change by force is to be made secure, it will end by becoming empire.

One of the features about the 20th century was the disappearance of empire. Norway became independent in 1905; the first world war destroyed the Ottoman and Habsburg empires; America dismantled its empire in the interwar years; the second world war led to the dissolution of the British and French empires; and with the end of the cold war the Soviet empire also joined the bonfire of history.

The end of empire left many problems. Imperial powers bequeathed the nation-state system to their colonies, but it has not worked well in either Africa or the Middle East. On September 11 2001, we understood that failed states, like WMD, could represent a mortal danger. If states cannot govern themselves, it is not safe to allow them to become a haven for terrorists or criminals. Here, also, empire seems to be the obvious choice.

The difficulty is that empire does not work today. A century of emancipation, of national liberation movements and self-determination cannot be reversed. Empire has become illegitimate. But if containment does not work and empire is unacceptable, what is the alternative?

On Europe's borders, a massive effort has been made to prevent Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia from becoming failed states. If this works it will not be because a solution has been imposed by force, but because the Bosnians and others want to be part of a greater European structure.

The EU can in some respects be likened to an empire; it is a structure that sets standards of internal governance but in return offers its members a share in the decision-making, a place in the commonwealth. Across central Europe, countries have rewritten constitutions and changed laws to conform to European standards. This is a kind of regime change, but it is chosen, legitimate. This represents the spread of civilisation and good governance in lasting form.

This is not to say that the only way to deal with terrorism is to extend the EU into the Middle East. Can we imagine a regional structure in the Middle East with security guarantees from the US or Nato, and assistance and market access in the EU, traded against guarantees of good governance? There are a thousand objections: suspicion of the west in general and the US in particular is such that no one in the region would take the idea seriously. But what else might stop the conflict in Palestine for good? Would anyone have the vision to try?

It is not dynamite, nor even the fall of tyrants, that makes men free, but "good laws and good armies" (to quote Machiavelli). Foreign governments can impose neither, though they can assist in both, but only at a price. That price is high in time, risk, money and commitment. But it may be the price of our own security.

The New liberal Imperialism

Sunday April 7, 2002

In 1989 the political systems of three centuries came to an end in Europe: the balance-of-power and the imperial urge. That year marked not just the end of the Cold War, but also, and more significantly, the end of a state system in Europe which dated from the Thirty Years War. September 11 showed us one of the implications of the change.

To understand the present, we must first understand the past, for the past is still with us. International order used to be based either on hegemony or on balance. Hegemony came first. In the ancient world, order meant empire. Those within the empire had order, culture and civilisation. Outside it lay barbarians, chaos and disorder. The image of peace and order through a single hegemonic power centre has remained strong ever since. Empires, however, are ill-designed for promoting change. Holding the empire together - and it is the essence of empires that they are diverse - usually requires an authoritarian political style; innovation, especially in society and politics, would lead to instability. Historically, empires have generally been static.

In Europe, a middle way was found between the stasis of chaos and the stasis of empire, namely the small state. The small state succeeded in establishing sovereignty, but only within a geographically limited jurisdiction. Thus domestic order was purchased at the price of international anarchy. The competition between the small states of Europe was a source of progress, but the system was also constantly threatened by a relapse into chaos on one side and by the hegemony of a single power on the other. The solution to this was the balance-of-power, a system of counter-balancing alliances which became seen as the condition of liberty in Europe. Coalitions were successfully put together to thwart the hegemonic ambitions firstly of Spain, then of France, and finally of Germany.

But the balance-of-power system too had an inherent instability, the ever-present risk of war, and it was this that eventually caused it to collapse. German unification in 1871 created a state too powerful to be balanced by any European alliance; technological changes raised the costs of war to an unbearable level; and the development of mass society and democratic politics, rendered impossible the amoral calculating mindset necessary to make the balance of power system function. Nevertheless, in the absence of any obvious alternative it persisted, and what emerged in 1945 was not so much a new system as the culmination of the old one. The old multi-lateral balance-of-power in Europe became a bilateral balance of terror worldwide, a final simplification of the balance of power. But it was not built to last. The balance of power never suited the more universalistic, moralist spirit of the late twentieth century.

The second half of the twentieth Century has seen not just the end of the balance of power but also the waning of the imperial urge: in some degree the two go together. A world that started the century divided among European empires finishes it with all or almost all of them gone: the Ottoman, German, Austrian, French , British and finally Soviet Empires are now no more than a memory. This leaves us with two new types of state: first there are now states - often former colonies - where in some sense the state has almost ceased to exist a 'premodern' zone where the state has failed and a Hobbesian war of all against all is underway (countries such as Somalia and, until recently, Afghanistan). Second, there are the post imperial, postmodern states who no longer think of security primarily in terms of conquest. And thirdly, of course there remain the traditional "modern" states who behave as states always have, following Machiavellian principles and raison d'ètat (one thinks of countries such as India, Pakistan and China).

The postmodern system in which we Europeans live does not rely on balance; nor does it emphasise sovereignty or the separation of domestic and foreign affairs. The European Union has become a highly developed system for mutual interference in each other's domestic affairs, right down to beer and sausages. The CFE Treaty, under which parties to the treaty have to notify the location of their heavy weapons and allow inspections, subjects areas close to the core of sovereignty to international constraints. It is important to realise what an extraordinary revolution this is. It mirrors the paradox of the nuclear age, that in order to defend yourself, you had to be prepared to destroy yourself. The shared interest of European countries in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe has proved enough to overcome the normal strategic logic of distrust and concealment. Mutual vulnerability has become mutual transparency.

The main characteristics of the postmodern world are as follows:

· The breaking down of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs.

· Mutual interference in (traditional) domestic affairs and mutual surveillance.

· The rejection of force for resolving disputes and the consequent codification of self-enforced rules of behaviour.

· The growing irrelevance of borders: this has come about both through the changing role of the state, but also through missiles, motor cars and satellites.

· Security is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.

The conception of an International Criminal Court is a striking example of the postmodern breakdown of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs. In the postmodern world, raison d'ètat and the amorality of Machiavelli's theories of statecraft, which defined international relations in the modern era, have been replaced by a moral consciousness that applies to international relations as well as to domestic affairs: hence the renewed interest in what constitutes a just war.

While such a system does deal with the problems that made the balance-of-power unworkable, it does not entail the demise of the nation state. While economy, law-making and defence may be increasingly embedded in international frameworks, and the borders of territory may be less important, identity and democratic institutions remain primarily national. Thus traditional states will remain the fundamental unit of international relations for the foreseeable future, even though some of them may have ceased to behave in traditional ways.

What is the origin of this basic change in the state system? The fundamental point is that "the world's grown honest". A large number of the most powerful states no longer want to fight or conquer. It is this that gives rise to both the pre-modern and postmodern worlds. Imperialism in the traditional sense is dead, at least among the Western powers.

If this is true, it follows that we should not think of the EU or even NATO as the root cause of the half century of peace we have enjoyed in Western Europe. The basic fact is that Western European countries no longer want to fight each other. NATO and the EU have, nevertheless, played an important role in reinforcing and sustaining this position. NATO's most valuable contribution has been the openness it has created. NATO was, and is a massive intra-western confidence-building measure. It was NATO and the EU that provided the framework within which Germany could be reunited without posing a threat to the rest of Europe as its original unification had in 1871. Both give rise to thousands of meetings of ministers and officials, so that all those concerned with decisions involving war and peace know each other well. Compared with the past, this represents a quality and stability of political relations never known before.

The EU is the most developed example of a postmodern system. It represents security through transparency, and transparency through interdependence. The EU is more a transnational than a supra-national system, a voluntary association of states rather than the subordination of states to a central power. The dream of a European state is one left from a previous age. It rests on the assumption that nation states are fundamentally dangerous and that the only way to tame the anarchy of nations is to impose hegemony on them. But if the nation-state is a problem then the super-state is certainly not a solution.

European states are not the only members of the postmodern world. Outside Europe, Canada is certainly a postmodern state; Japan is by inclination a postmodern state, but its location prevents it developing more fully in this direction. The USA is the more doubtful case since it is not clear that the US government or Congress accepts either the necessity or desirability of interdependence, or its corollaries of openness, mutual surveillance and mutual interference, to the same extent as most European governments now do. Elsewhere, what in Europe has become a reality is in many other parts of the world an aspiration. ASEAN, NAFTA, MERCOSUR and even OAU suggest at least the desire for a postmodern environment, and though this wish is unlikely to be realised quickly, imitation is undoubtedly easier than invention.

Within the postmodern world, there are no security threats in the traditional sense; that is to say, its members do not consider invading each other. Whereas in the modern world , following Clausewitz' dictum war is an instrument of policy in the postmodern world it is a sign of policy failure. But while the members of the postmodern world may not represent a danger to one another, both the modern and pre-modern zones pose threats.

The threat from the modern world is the most familiar. Here, the classical state system, from which the postmodern world has only recently emerged, remains intact, and continues to operate by the principles of empire and the supremacy of national interest. If there is to be stability it will come from a balance among the aggressive forces. It is notable how few are the areas of the world where such a balance exists. And how sharp the risk is that in some areas there may soon be a nuclear element in the equation.

The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era - force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle. In the prolonged period of peace in Europe, there has been a temptation to neglect our defences, both physical and psychological. This represents one of the great dangers of the postmodern state.

The challenge posed by the pre-modern world is a new one. The pre-modern world is a world of failed states. Here the state no longer fulfils Weber's criterion of having the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Either it has lost the legitimacy or it has lost the monopoly of the use of force; often the two go together. Examples of total collapse are relatively rare, but the number of countries at risk grows all the time. Some areas of the former Soviet Union are candidates, including Chechnya. All of the world's major drug-producing areas are part of the pre-modern world. Until recently there was no real sovereign authority in Afghanistan; nor is there in upcountry Burma or in some parts of South America, where drug barons threaten the state's monopoly on force. All over Africa countries are at risk. No area of the world is without its dangerous cases. In such areas chaos is the norm and war is a way of life. In so far as there is a government it operates in a way similar to an organised crime syndicate.

The premodern state may be too weak even to secure its home territory, let alone pose a threat internationally, but it can provide a base for non-state actors who may represent a danger to the postmodern world. If non-state actors, notably drug, crime, or terrorist syndicates take to using premodern bases for attacks on the more orderly parts of the world, then the organised states may eventually have to respond. If they become too dangerous for established states to tolerate, it is possible to imagine a defensive imperialism. It is not going too far to view the West's response to Afghanistan in this light.

How should we deal with the pre-modern chaos? To become involved in a zone of chaos is risky; if the intervention is prolonged it may become unsustainable in public opinion; if the intervention is unsuccessful it may be damaging to the government that ordered it. But the risks of letting countries rot, as the West did Afghanistan, may be even greater.

What form should intervention take? The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one most employed in the past is colonisation. But colonisation is unacceptable to postmodern states (and, as it happens, to some modern states too). It is precisely because of the death of imperialism that we are seeing the emergence of the pre-modern world. Empire and imperialism are words that have become a form of abuse in the postmodern world. Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment. In the 1950s, South Korea had a lower GNP per head than Zambia: the one has achieved membership of the global economy, the other has not.

All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth - all of this seems eminently desirable.

What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.

Postmodern imperialism takes two forms. First there is the voluntary imperialism of the global economy. This is usually operated by an international consortium through International Financial Institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank - it is characteristic of the new imperialism that it is multilateral. These institutions provide help to states wishing to find their way back into the global economy and into the virtuous circle of investment and prosperity. In return they make demands which, they hope, address the political and economic failures that have contributed to the original need for assistance. Aid theology today increasingly emphasises governance. If states wish to benefit, they must open themselves up to the interference of international organisations and foreign states (just as, for different reasons, the postmodern world has also opened itself up.)

The second form of postmodern imperialism might be called the imperialism of neighbours. Instability in your neighbourhood poses threats which no state can ignore. Misgovernment, ethnic violence and crime in the Balkans poses a threat to Europe. The response has been to create something like a voluntary UN protectorate in Bosnia and Kosovo. It is no surprise that in both cases the High Representative is European. Europe provides most of the aid that keeps Bosnia and Kosovo running and most of the soldiers (though the US presence is an indispensable stabilising factor). In a further unprecedented move, the EU has offered unilateral free-market access to all the countries of the former Yugoslavia for all products including most agricultural produce. It is not just soldiers that come from the international community; it is police, judges, prison officers, central bankers and others. Elections are organised and monitored by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Local police are financed and trained by the UN. As auxiliaries to this effort - in many areas indispensable to it - are over a hundred NGOs.

One additional point needs to be made. It is dangerous if a neighbouring state is taken over in some way by organised or disorganised crime - which is what state collapse usually amounts to. But Usama bin Laden has now demonstrated for those who had not already realised, that today all the world is, potentially at least, our neighbour.

The Balkans are a special case. Elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe the EU is engaged in a programme which will eventually lead to massive enlargement. In the past empires have imposed their laws and systems of government; in this case no one is imposing anything. Instead, a voluntary movement of self-imposition is taking place. While you are a candidate for EU membership you have to accept what is given - a whole mass of laws and regulations - as subject countries once did. But the prize is that once you are inside you will have a voice in the commonwealth. If this process is a kind of voluntary imperialism, the end state might be describes as a cooperative empire. 'Commonwealth' might indeed not be a bad name.

The postmodern EU offers a vision of cooperative empire, a common liberty and a common security without the ethnic domination and centralised absolutism to which past empires have been subject, but also without the ethnic exclusiveness that is the hallmark of the nation state - inappropriate in an era without borders and unworkable in regions such as the Balkans. A cooperative empire might be the domestic political framework that best matches the altered substance of the postmodern state: a framework in which each has a share in the government, in which no single country dominates and in which the governing principles are not ethnic but legal. The lightest of touches will be required from the centre; the 'imperial bureaucracy' must be under control, accountable, and the servant, not the master, of the commonwealth. Such an institution must be as dedicated to liberty and democracy as its constituent parts. Like Rome, this commonwealth would provide its citizens with some of its laws, some coins and the occasional road.

That perhaps is the vision. Can it be realised? Only time will tell. The question is how much time there may be. In the modern world the secret race to acquire nuclear weapons goes on. In the premodern world the interests of organised crime - including international terrorism - grow greater and faster than the state. There may not be much time left.

· Robert Cooper is a senior serving British diplomat, and writes in a personal capacity. This article is published as The post-modern state in the new collection Reordering the World: the long term implications of September 11, published by The Foreign Policy Centre.

Senior British diplomat Robert Cooper has helped to shape British Prime Minister Tony Blair's calls for a new internationalism and a new doctrine of humanitarian intervention which would place limits on state sovereignty. This article contains the full text of Cooper's essay on "the postmodern state", written in a personal capacity, an extract from which appears in the print edition of The Observer today. Cooper's call for a new liberal imperialism and admission of the need for double standards in foreign policy have outraged the left but the essay offers a rare and candid unofficial insight into the thinking behind British strategy on Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond

---

[1] For further information on PNAC, see www.newamericancentury.org ; an excellent file on PNAC was compiled by moveon.org, see also www.pnac.info. This platform text and more links are available on our website www.brusselstribunal.org

[2] Key concept in “Joint Vision 2020”, the blueprint for the U.S. military for the next decades, defined as the ability of U.S. forces to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations. 

[3] William Kristol and Robert Kagan : Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy – Foreign Affairs July/August 1996.

[4] Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer (Paris 1997) clearly suggests that the New World Order is based on this sovereignty, being the power to declare a state of exception.

[5] Derrida alludes to his reflection on Kant and his idea of a ‘Völkerbund’ (alliance of peoples) in Voyous [Rogues], pp. 118-25.

[6] See, for example, Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol, The War Over Iraq (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002), pp. 112-25.

[7] William Kristol and Robert Kagan, “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 1976, online at: http://www.ceip.org/people/kagfaff.htm

[8] Kristol and Kagan, “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.”

[9] Kristol and Kagan, “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.”

[10] These questions are paraphrased formulations by the author of the longer questions found in the Brussels Tribunal introductory documents.

[11]“Project for the New American Century: Complete Listing of PNAC Signatories,” Right Web Analysis, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), online at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php.

[12] “PNACers in the George W. Bush Administration,” Right Web Analysis, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), online at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/gwb-pnac.php.

[13] Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy (Progressive Policy Institute, October 2003), online at: www.ppionline.org/specials/security_strategy.

[14] The Progressive Policy Institute is a project of the Third Way Foundation, which is a nonprofit educational institute enjoying a 501(c) (3) tax status with the Internal Revenue Service.

[15] Progressive Internationalism, p. 19.

[16] See COLLON Michel, Monopoly. L’OTAN à la conquête du monde, Anvers, EPO, 2000, p.92.

[17] Washington Post, 1999, April 13th

[18] New York Times, 1999 March 28th

[19] CHESNAIS François and SERFATI Claude, « La guerre, Wall Street et les industries d’armement », in

BOVY Yannick and DELCOURT Barbara, Que nos valeurs sont universelles et que la guerre est jolie, Cuesmes, Editions du Cerisier, 1999, pp. 173-174.

[20] See NOCTIUMMES Tania and PAGE Jean-Pierre, « La croisade de Georges Bush Junior », in 

L’Empire en guerre, Paris-Anvers, Le Temps des Cerises/EPO, 2000, p.180.

[21] CHESNAIS François and SERFATI Claude, op.cit. p. 174.

[22] ROUBOS Aris, « Une géoéconomie de guerre », article published on the GRIP website on June 10th, 2001

[23] See ROUBOS Aris, idem

[24] For more information on this subject, see MAMPAEY Luc, « Paix des marchés, permanence de la guerre », in PEETERS Anne and STOKKINK Denis, Mondialisation. Comprendre pour agir, Bruxelles, GRIP/Editions Complexe, 2002, pp. 100-121.

[25] ROUBOS Aris, idem.

[26] We can mention as an example William J. Perry (Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997, administrateur de Boeing et United Technologies), Bill Richardson (Secretary of Energy from 1998 to 2001, former president of Richardson Trade Group) and Togo D. West Jr. (Secretary of Veterans from 1998 to 2001, former vice-president of Northrop Corporation). For more information on the links between the republicans, the democrats and business, see Geoffrey Geuens, Tous pouvoirs confondus. Etat, capital et médias à l’ère de la mondialisation, Anvers, EPO, 2003.  

[27] The information mentioned below mainly come from our personal researches on the subject, from the website Http://rightweb.irc-online.org and from the PNAC’s website.

[28] See on the « Réseau Voltaire »’s website : “Une guerre juteuse pour Lockheed Martin”,2003, 7th of February

[29] NOCTIUMMES Tania and PAGE Jean-Pierre, « La croisade de Georges Bush junior », in L’Empire en

guerre, Paris-Anvers, Le Temps des Cerises/EPO, 2001, p.183.

[30] BERKOVITZ Bill, “Witchhunt in South Florida, Pro-Palestinian Professor Is first Casualty of Post-9/11

Conservative Correctness”, Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation (CRM), www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BER112A.html, 2001, 13th of December, quoted in CHOSSUDOVSKY Michel, Guerre et Mondialisation. A qui profite le 11 septembre ?, Paris, Le Serpent à Plumes, 2002, p.21.

* Work for the VI Meeting of Economists, the Economists´ National Association of Cuba, the Latin American Association of Economists, La Habana, Cuba, February 2004. A preliminary version was presented in the round-table “ Political and Ideological characterization of Bush´s government”, organized by La Jornada-Casa Lamm, Mexico, 21^st of July, 2003.

[31] Coordinator of the Programme “The World Today” of the Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Sciences and Humanities, of the National Autonomous University of México (UNAM). he is professor in the Political Science´s Faculty, member of the National System of Researchers and Prize winner of the National University 2000. He is the author of, among others, La  Compra-Venta de México, Plaza & Janés, 2002 and more recently with Gian Carlo Delgado, Banco Mundial y Desnacionalización Integral en México, Ceiich-UNAM, 2003.

[32] To see more details, consult newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. To contrast this unilateral and military historical view, consult the reflection about the role and power´s projection of the USA in the XXI Century offered by Nicholas Guyatt, Another American Century? Zed Books, London 2000.

[33] This “revolution in military affairs” means the inner use, in military planning, of the communication progress, satellite systems, security and electronic´s interception mechanisms of the “enemy”, and the full incorporation of new weapons of high technology in the military planning

[34] Consult, John Saxe-Fernández “Globalización del Terrorismo y Guerra”, Memoria, December 2001; Michel Chossudovsky, “ La aventura Geopolítico-militar de Bush”, Eseconomia, Nueva época, N. 3, I.P.N, Spring 2003, pp 21-25. , War and Globalization, Siglo XXI, 2002; James Cockcroft, “The American imperialist strategy”, Memory, July, 2003.

[35] A good criticism to this “neoconservative” politic is offered, from the “conservative” point of view by Clyde Prestowitz, Rogue Nation, Basic Books, New York, 2003

[36] For a detailed description of the clandestines operations, including the use of death squad, genocide and the systematic infringement of Human Rights during Reagan´s government, (in Central America, Middle Orient and some other regions), consult Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, the costs and consequences of American Empire. Metropolitan Books, New York, 2000.

[37] On this matter, consult the detailed study of Gian Carlo Delgado, “Geopolítica Imperial y Recursos Naturales”, Memoria, Mayo 2003 pp 35-39.

[38] I talked about this item in Proyecciones Hemisféricas de la Pax Americana, Amorrortu, Buenos Aires, 1975

[39] The Atlantic Monthly, July-August 2003 p.78.

[40] James Harding, “Preaching the converted”, Financial Times, January the 4^th 2003. Quoted by Mariano Aguirre, “La ideología Neoimperial”, in Mariano Aguirre and Phyllis Bennis, La ideología Neoimperial, Icaria, Barcelona, 2003. p 22.

[41] Ibidem

[42] Howard Fineman, “Bush and God”, Newsweek, 10-3-2003, quoted by Aguirre, op quoted p.24.

[43] Arguments and expositions and central examples about the structural foundations of the American new right which were said here, were developed in John Saxe-Fernández, “Los Fundamentos de la Derechización en los Estados Unidos” in Agustín Cueva, coordinator, Tiempos Conservadores. America Latina en la Derechización de Occidente, Editorial El Conejo, Quito Ecuador, 1987

[44] Horowitz, I.L, Ideology and Utopia in the United Status, 1956-1976, Oxford University Press, London 1977 p.133.

[45] John H. Bunzel, Anti-Politics in America, Vintage Books, New York, 1970.

[46] Anyway, it has to be remarked that the differences in the content and the evolution between the German right-wing phenomenon and the American one are significant.

[47] Robert Welch, The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, Belmont, Mass, 1958 p 111.

[48] Daniel Bell, The Radical Right, Doubleday, New York, 1963, p 2.

[49] John Saxe-Fernández, “Los Fundamentos de la Derechización de Estados Unidos”, op quoted p 68 and next. This is a item dealt also by the point of view of Samir Amin, “La ideología Estadounidense”, Memoria, July 2003, p 5-9.

[50] Another American Century?, op quoted p 135-136.

[51] Ibid p 136

[52] To remember, that, among other records, Clinton marginalize UN and his General Secretary Boustros-Ghali in the negotiation´s process in Bosnia´s conflict, and then, they carried out air attacks, by the NATO in this and other conflicts (Kosovo), while the air attacks against Irak in the fire “places”- arbitrarily set by Washington and London- went on with Clinton and afterwards it was significantly increased with Bush.

[53] Jules  Henry, On Sham, Vulnerability and Other Forms of Selfdestruction. Vintage, New York 1967, p 187.

[54] For an excellent analysis, consult Gore Vidal, “El Último Imperio”, El País Semanal, December the 14^th 1997, p 56-88

[55] “The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui”, New York Times, July the 28^th 2003, p A16.

[56] Consult, James Petras, ‘Imperio con Imperialismo ‘, Estudios Latinoamericanos, N.16, July-December 2001 p 9-29. Other time I would explain in detail the economical aspects, here just mentioned because of  space limits.

[57] John Saxe-Fernández y Omar Nuñez, “Globalización e Imperialismo: la transferencia de antecedentes de America Latina”, in J. Saxe-Fernández, J. Petras et al, Globalización, Imperialismo y Clase Social, Lúmen-Humanitas, Buenos aires-Mexico, 2001, p 87-165.

[58] “Dirty Business: Mr Bush Put US Credibility on the Line”, Guardian, March 3, 2001, p 21, quoted in Prestowitz, op quoted p 2.

[59] Ulrich Beck, ‘The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity’, British Journal of Sociology, 51:1. p. 83.

[60] Jürgen Habermas, ‘What Does the Felling of the Monument Mean?’, http://slash.autonomedia.org/analysis/03/05/12/1342259.shtm  This is a translation of “Was bedeutet der Denkmalsturz?” in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 April 2003, p. 33.

[61] On egalitarian universalism, see Habermas, ‘What Does the Felling of the Monument Mean?’  Here we develop the distinction between an imperialist liberal nationalism and cosmopolitanism that Habermas has proposed and apply it to the liberal hawks’ analysis. See ibid., and Habermas, ‘Letter to America’, The Nation 16 December 2002 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021216&s=habermas .

[62] See Jean Bethke Elstain, Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American power in a Violent World, New York: Basic Books, 2003; Paul Berman, Terror and Liberalism, New York: WW Norton, 2003; and more generally, Kate Zernike, ‘Liberals for War: Some of the Intellectual Left’s Longtime Doves Taking on Role of Hawks,’ New York Times, 14 March 2003, and George Packer, “The Liberal Quandary over Iraq,” The New York Times Magazine, 8 December 2002.

[63] See especially Michael Ignatieff, ‘The Burden’, The New York Times Magazine, 5 January 2003 and ‘I am Iraq’, The New York Times Magazine, 23 March 2003.

[64] Ignatieff, ‘The Burden’, p. 24.

[65] Ignatieff, ‘Friends Disunited’, the Guardian, 24 March 2003, emphasis added.

[66]  Ignatieff, ‘The Burden’, p. 26.

[67] Ignatieff, ‘I am Iraq’.

[68] Ignatieff, ‘Friends Disunited’.

[69] ‘A Debate on American Power and the Crisis in Iraq’, moderated by Steve Wasserman, with: Christopher Hitchens, Michael Ignatieff, Mark Danner, and Robert Scheer. Broadcast on Radio Nation, March 19-25 2003, http://archive.webactive.com/radionation/rn20030319.html (accessed June 10, 2003). 

[70] See Michael Ignatieff, ‘Time to Walk the Walk’, National Post, 14 February, 2003; and the quotation of him in Zernike, ‘Liberals for War’.

[71] Michael Ignatieff, ‘A Bungling UN Undermines Itself’, The New York Times, 15 May 2000. 

[72] Michael Ignatieff, ‘Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Terrorism’, Social Research, 69-4: p. 1145, 2002.

[73] This was the term Doris Buss coined to characterize  the hawks’ position at a Carleton University Anti-War Roundtable on 24 March 2003.

[74] Ignatieff, ‘Time to Walk the Walk’.

[75] Michael Ignatieff, ‘Barbarians at the Gate?’, The New York Review of Books, 49-3, 28 February 2002.

[76] Ignatieff, ‘The Burden’, p. 50.

[77]  Ignatieff, ‘The Burden’, p. 24.

[78] Ignatieff, ‘The Burden’, p. 50, emphasis added.  Note as well how this analysis of ‘frontier zones’ echoes that of the neo-conservative Thomas Barnett of the Naval War College who emphasizes the dangers to the US of countries that are ‘disconnected’ from economic globalization and the need to address this ‘gap’.  See Thomas P.M. Barnett, ‘The Pentagon’s New Map: It Explains Why We’re Going to War and Why We’ll Keep Going to War’, Esquire, March 2003. http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrules/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm Also see, Jim Lobe, ‘Pentagon Moving Swiftly to Become ‘GloboCop’ Inter Press Service, 11 June 2003.

[79] Ignatieff, ‘The Burden’, p. 54.

[80] Michael Ignatieff, ‘Mission Possible’, The New York Review of Books, 19 December 2002.

[81] Simon Jeffrey ‘The War May have Killed 10,000 Civilians, Researchers Say’, the Guardian, 13 June 2003.

[82] David Usborne, ‘WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz’, the Independent, 30 May 2003.  Also see Paul Krugman who suggested in the New York Times that if the claim that Saddam ‘posed an immanent threat …was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history….’ ‘Standard Operating Procedure’, New York Times, 3 June 2003.  The only surprising thing about Senator Robert Byrd’s argument that ‘[w]e were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein’s direct threat to our freedoms’ is how few in Congress seem to have been scandalized. ‘The Truth Will Emerge’ http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003may/2.html 

[83] John O’Farrell, ‘Hans off the UN’, the Guardian, Friday June 13, 2003.

[84] Helena Smith, ‘Blix: I was Smeared by the Pentagon’, the Guardian, 11 June 2003.

[85] Habermas, ‘What does the Felling of the Monument Mean?’ para. 36.

[86]  For a brilliant, and narrower articulation of this idea as a basic moral right to justification see Rainer Forst, ‘The Basic Right to Justification: Toward a Constructivist Conception of Human Rights’, Constellations 6, no. 1 (1999): 35-60 and for an extension to transnationalism see Forst, ‘Towards a Critical Theory of Transnational Justice’, in Global Justice, edited by Thomas W. Pogge, 169-87. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.

[87] Habermas, ‘What does the Felling of the Monument Mean?’ para. 41, emphasis added.

[88] Ignatieff, ‘The Burden’, p. 53.

[89] On this see, Amy Bartholomew “Human Rights and Post-Imperialism” 9 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review (forthcoming 2003) and “Toward a Deliberative Legitimation of Human Rights” 6 Warwick-Sussex Papers in Social Theory. (2001).

[90] Habermas, ‘What Does the Felling of the Monument Mean?’, para. 43.

[91] Habermas, ‘What Does the Felling of the Monument Mean?’, para 47.

[92] See International Commission of Jurists, ‘Iraq – This War Must be Conducted Lawfully’

http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2774&lang=en (accessed June 9, 2003). 

Also see The Center for Economic and Social Rights Emergency Campaign on Iraq, ‘Tearing up the Rules: The Illegality of Invading Iraq’, March 2003.  www.cesr.org/iraq/docs/tearinguptherules.pdf  (accessed May 31, 2003), Michael Ratner, ‘War Crime Not Self-Defense: The Unlawful War Against Iraq’, http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/print_page.asp?ObjID=BMreedARu7&Content=107 (accessed June 12, 2003) and  Phyliss Bennis, ‘Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis: The World’s Response, the UN and International Law’, pamphlet of the Institute for Policy Studies, January 2003.

[93] Ignatieff, ‘Friends Disunited’.

[94] Ignatieff, ‘Barbarians at the Gate?’.

[95] Ignatieff, ‘Time to Walk the Walk’.

[96] Habermas, ‘What Does the Felling of the Monument Mean?’, para. 10.

[97] Ibid., para. 8.  Habermas addresses his view of the differences between NATO intervention in Kosovo and the 1991 Gulf war, both of which he supported, and the US’s most recent war against Iraq, of which he is deeply critical, in ‘Letter to America’. On Kosovo, also see  Jurgen Habermas, ‘Bestiality and Humanity: A War on the Border between Legality and Morality’ Constellations 6, no. 3, 1999.

[98] Chandler cites Louis Henkin on this point, ‘International Justice’, p. 59.

[99] Quoted in Danilo Zolo, Invoking Humanity: War, Law and Global Order. London, Continuum Press, 2002, p. 67.

[100] Ignatieff, ‘Barbarians at the Gate?’, p. 6.

[101]  Habermas, ‘What Does the Felling of the Monument Mean?’, para. 34. We borrow the characterization of this as ‘empire’s law’ from Trevor Purvis’s comments at the Carleton University Anti-War Roundtable on 24 March 2003.

[102] Eric Hobsbawm, ‘America’s Imperial Delusion’, the Guardian, 14 June 2003.

[103] www.umrc.net

[104] See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html

[105] See “General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution”, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html

[106] Idib

[107] Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002

[108] Air Force Magazine, January 2003

[109] Adubato, op. cit.

[110] Ibid

[111] National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

[112] See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003

[113] See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” and Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html

[114] See Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002

[115] For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html

[116] William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002

[117] See US Congress, 16 January 1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html

[118] See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html

[119] See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit

[120] For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

[121] For further details, see Centre for Research on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003

[122] See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.

[123] Ibid

archived: 16 - 22 Jan, 2005 Back Next

                        ROB STEIN
“Alliance For Democracy”

Junkie: TPJ reader GARY “BATTS” PELPHREY found the answer to TPJ’s question, “Who is Ron Stein.”  The answer, it was actually Rob Stein and the organization that he helped form is Alliance For Democracy.   

Follow this hyperlink to the Alliance For Democracy website – Alliance For Democracy AFD has some wonderful material posted on its website. 

It appears that Rob Stein will be working with George Soros and others to build the “intellectual infrastructure” of the progressive movement: 

But behind the scenes, prominent progressive billionaires are gearing up to counteract what some progressives see as the organized and almost total vertical integration of the Republican Party.

Infamous billionaire financier George Soros, who donated $18 million to the Democratic cause for the 2004 election, gathered with Herb and Marion Sandler and Peter Lewis in San Francisco last month to discuss the steps forward, the Financial Times reported Wednesday. It was a group whose activities have been documented over the past year, including a major gathering this August at the Aspen Institute in Colorado where, the New Yorker magazine said, they met with liberal leaders to discuss the future of the progressive movement.

The group gained major publicity through a cover story in The New York Times magazine and in the New Yorker in the months ahead of the election. But, the Financial Times reported, despite disappointing returns Nov. 2, this group of plutocrats was not to be deterred.

The meeting involved a plan for "joint investment to build intellectual infrastructure," one participant told the Times. Democratic strategist Rob Stein, who currently is starting up the progressive Democracy Alliance, in 2002 created a PowerPoint presentation that he said demonstrated that since the 1970s wealthy conservatives had poured some $2.5 billion to $3 billion into an ideological war, building up conservative think tanks, developing a new language of conservative ideas, and grooming the next generation.

Despite the losses, the Times reported, Soros, Lewis and the Sandlers vowed to continue building a comparable infrastructure. – Washington Times

GARY “BATTS” PELPHREY has written some thoughtful comments about AFD that appear in Junkies Speak today. 

_____________________________________________

CHAIRMAN DEAN

TPJ recommends Gov. Howard Dean for Chairman of the National Democratic Party.  Gov. Dean formally announced his candidacy this week. 

In two paragraphs, Dean captured the intellectual and philosophical differences that distinguish the Democratic and Republican Party and the battle for the future of America: 

"That word 'values' has lately become a code word for appeasement of the right-wing fringe," Dr. Dean said. "But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values."

“We cannot let that happen," he said, adding, "Our party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our party - and the vast majority of Americans - together." – New York Times

In his announcement Dean stressed that the Democratic Party must organize.  Gov. Dean has the experience in creating the organization that the Democratic Party needs: 

I also have experience building and managing a local party organization. My career started as Democratic Party chair in Chittenden County, Vermont. I then ran successful campaigns: for state legislature, lieutenant governor and then governor. In my 11-year tenure as governor, I balanced the state's budget every year.

I served as chair of both the National Governors' Association and the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA). And as chair of the DGA, I helped recruit nearly 20 governors that won—even in states like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi.

All of these experiences have only reaffirmed what I know to be true. There is only one party that speaks to the hopes and dreams of all Americans. It is the party you have already given so much to. It is the Democratic Party.

We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe. – Blog For America (contains Gov. Dean’s entire announcement)

Dean is also largely responsible for the revolution in the use of the internet as a political tool. As Sen. Kerry’s campaign subsequently proved, the internet can and must become a tool for not only organization but fundraising.  Democrats nationally and locally have to expand its “web presence.”  Gov. Dean is perfect for the assignment. 

Gov. Dean, or the personal ultimately selected as Chairman, faces enormous challenges. Progressive and moderate forces within the Party are approaching open warfare over “direction” of the Party.  It is, in TPJ’s estimation, an exercise in self emulation.  Neither “wing” of the Democratic Party can win without the other. In order to be successful, both “wings” must fashion the compromises that will be necessary to rebuild the Party. 

Dean is actually the right person to help bridge the “wings.”  Progressives should recall that the NRA endorsed Gov. Dean. Specifically: 

"I'm from a rural state and I understand that the gun issue in rural states is different than the gun issue in urban states," Dean said in Iowa in July. "My attitude is let California and New York have as much gun control as they want, but just don't make a law that applies equally to Vermont and Wyoming and Montana."

Dean does oppose the legislation that would make the gun industry immune from victims' lawsuits, according to Ron Weich, a senior policy analyst for the Dean campaign.

NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre said it's mixed messages like that that make him uneasy about Dean. He acknowledged Dean seems more in line with NRA policy than, say U.S. Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and John Kerry, D-Mass. – Burlington Free Press

Gov. Dean has also demonstrated the practical political skills to bridge another “wedge” issue – same sex marriage.  In Vermont, Gov. Dean endorsed civil unions rather than “gay marriage.”  Gov. Dean writes of the experience: 

In the spring of 2000, Vermont became the first state to recognize same-sex partnerships and to make sure that every right outlined in Vermont's Constitution and laws applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual Vermonters. Every right but one. Gay and lesbian Vermonters do not have the right to call their unions marriage. The fallout was the least civil public debate in the state in over a century. Respectable church leaders railed against homosexuals and not-so-respectable ones vowed to oust any legislator who voted for the bill. Five Republican members of the House lost their seats in primaries. In the general election, Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 14 years. My own race, for a sixth term, was the most difficult in my career.

Four years later, we wonder what the fuss was all about. The intensity of anger and hate has disappeared, replaced by an understanding that equal rights for groups previously denied them has no negative effect on those of us who have always enjoyed those rights. -- Slate

In short, Dean demonstrates an acute understanding that Democrats span a broad spectrum of views that must be accommodated.   

Ultimately, being the Party’s Chairman is about winning elections.  In the South, TPJ’s home, the NDP has abandoned the effort.  TPJ has covered the devastation that has resulted in – The South Rises Again.  Dean delivered a powerful message that should appeal to every Southern Democrat, “Show Up.” 

Dean is the best candidate.  

RON STEIN?

Junkie:  Who is Ron Stein (at least we believe the name is spelled correctly) and what is “The Democracy Alliance.”?  TPJ has reason to believe that Ron Stein was associated with the Clinton administration.  Stein is thought to have graduated from Antioch College in 1966 and George Washington Law School in 1970.  Google searches turn up no real leads. 

Stein’s identity is important.  He appeared in Seattle, Washington recently and delivered a speech on behalf of a new group of progressive Democrats called “The Democracy Alliance.”   A TPJ source who is known to have impeccable credentials forwarded an email from an individual who attended the meeting in Seattle and wrote of the Stein’s presentation. 

The account of the presentation is outstanding.  TPJ would not normally publish the account without being able to identify the speaker precisely.  However, the presentation warrants publication.  The email that was forwarded has been edited for publication. 

_______________ 

Stein was in Seattle making a presentation to high finance, progressives who might be interested in  making donations to the organization that he calls "The Democracy Alliance, Investing in the Future." 

Part I

Stein began by telling us about the Conservative Movement - Institutional Infrastructure. The institutional infrastructure is outside of the political life of the nation and runs day in and day out, 24/7 no matter which Party is in office. Its life depends on what goes on outside of politics per se. It denigrates progressive values on all levels.  

It consists of three parts: 

              1.)     Republican politics. This is the RNC, the state and county Republican organizations and so forth.
              2.)     Conservative Mass Media Distribution - Think Tanks
              3.)     Conservative Message Machine 

The Conservative Dominance oversees all public discourse and runs on two parallels: 

Part II: Economic and Foreign Policies

It consists of: 

               1.)     Neo Conservatives
               2.)     Libertarians
               3.) Traditional conservatives - Rockefeller Republicans.

Their interests are Foreign policy, Taxes, Health Care, Social Security, Tort reform and others. They achieve their support by building alliances between cultural and political issues and focusing on wedge issues: 

              1.)     pro guns
              2.)     gay marriage
              3.)     stem cell research  [Stein may have added abortion]  

The consequence is an inexorable growth of Conservatives during the Republican ascendancy: 1980-2004. Had Kerry won the Presidency, this machinery would have been down his throat and made governing for him ever more difficult than it was for Bill Clinton for whom it was darned difficult. 

Part III: "The Conservative Message Machine"

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Conservatives, looking at the political picture realized that they had been out of power for a long time. They looked at the riots which were bringing large, prestigious universities to their knees, as well as large cities having parts of them being burned down. They looked at Ralph Nader’s consumer issues and laws that were being enacted.  They realized that they believed that Capitalism itself was under attack. They crafted strategy that would build a society that would be for free enterprise. 

The author who crafted the Republican strategy was Lewis F. Powell, who, within a month was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon. He served as a moderate Justice for his term. What he told the Conservatives in his "Powell Manifesto: A Confidential Memorandum" was that they needed to "attack liberals everywhere." And, so they did.  

In twenty-seven years, they developed sixty organizations. Here is the Mission Statement of the Heritage Foundation, one of the better known, and most prestigious Think Tanks. (By the way, it has an annual budget of $35,000,000 and $90,000,000 in the bank.  

" . . . to formulate and promote Conservative public policies based on the principle of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American Values and a strong national defense." Most of the mission statements of the other fifty-nine are similar to this one. 

Some of the issues that they address: Pre-emption, Iraq, Tort reform, No Child Left Behind.  They drive US Foreign policy. They have $400,000,000 a year in about eighty organizations collectively, each of which is a 501.C3. You can read their agendas in several publications, including "Weekly Standard," "National Review," and about six more publications.  

Some of the groups that help promote the Conservative Message Machine are: 

            Townhall.com;
            Ann Coulter.org;
            The Washington Times;
            The Wall Street Journal;
            Eagle Publications;
            Radio America;
            Cal Thomas Commentary;
            The Rush Limbaugh Show;
            Oliver North's Common Sense;
            Scarborough Country MSNBC;
            Fox TV News;
            Pat Robertson's 700 Club; and
            Virtual Production Center. 

Remember Frank Luntz who was on NOW with Bill Moyers? He is a part of a Republican Brain Trust and has written a "bible" that is provided to each of the above single issue groups. It explains how to frame their message. If they don't quite know which words to use, they refer to this bible.  

Many states have a State-Based Policy Network of Message Makers.  (State based Think Tanks.)  

The Leadership Institute was founded in 1979, founded in Arlington, Virginia. They train political candidates on values, leadership, and use of the media. They use one-day workshops, three-day workshops, week-long, they have fellowships. Some 35,000 Conservatives leaders have been trained in the Conservative movement and are in leadership positions all over the nation today. 

Part IV: The Money Tree

Nine families essentially provide the money for most of what goes on. Not the entire $400, 000,000, but enough seed money that they are able to generate what is needed. 

The figures from 2002: 

Scaife Family, $305 M
John M. Olin, $55 M
Bradley Foundation, $496 M
Koch Family,  $52 M
Smith Richardson, $435 M
Earhart, $ 52 M 

Part V: The Philanthropy Roundtable

He spoke about the people involved: “Investment Bankers:" Grover Norquist, Paul Weyrich, Michael Grebe, James Piereson, and Irving Kristol. They use the Counsel for National Policy, The Wednesday Morning Group, the Library Court Group, and the Capital Research Table. They appear to be parts of the various Think Tanks. 

These folks are loyal to their message, they are organized, they know each other and are have bonded with one another. The largest fissure in this group is stem cell research and Iraq. And, in terms of the public, these are huge issues that can be exploited. 

Part VI: The Core values of Conservatives

The traditional conservatives tend to be the moderate wing on their policies. Examples are Guillani, Christine Todd Whitman, and "Arnold" - all  want to be in power so they shut up about abortions and stem cell research. 

Libertarians want to cut government and get it out of everywhere possible. 

Neoconservatives are pretty much just focused on foreign policy.   

Religious Right - not much can be done to change them or to even begin to dialogue with them. 

Far right - gun owners who are all working together for power. 

Part VII:  Questions

Stein stopped his presentation and took some questions.  

One person asked how could this well organized, seemingly intelligent group of people, stand behind a idiot as George Bush. His reply was, "You have to understand. George Bush is a vessel. He is their idiot." 

Someone asked how was corporate money donated. He explained that for the most part corporations do not give very much to the Think Tanks. They will give $50,000 or so, but they will give it to both the Republicans and the Democrats. The mass of corporate money today is going into two battles: Social Security and electoral campaigns. 

Second, so what are Democrats going to do?  Stein’s response was progressives are just getting started raising the money to do somewhat the same thing around progressive values. They want to have several Air Americas on the air in many markets. Progressive donors are forming alliances to form and finance infrastructures. Stein stressed we must work together.  

Junkie:  Ok readers, go to work.  Who is Stein and what is “The Democracy Alliance”?

THE NEW WORLD ORDER: CONSPIRACY THEORY, OR CONSPIRACY FACT?

The New World Order is no longer a conspiracy theory; it is an established fact.     The "New World Order" has been a prominent conspiracy theory for decades^[^1]. Here and now, as the new millennium dawns, the New World Order has become a globally recognised political concept,^[^2] and as such it can no longer be regarded simply as a theory.     Mankind is now literally entering a new age, the Age of Aquarius, according to the ancient zodiacal calendar which is as old as human civilisation.^[3] Aquarius is associated by astrologers with brotherhood, or fraternity, which is the cornerstone of Freemasonry.

The previous zodiacal age was that of Pisces. The zodiacal symbol of Pisces, the fish, is also an important Christian symbol, and it is noteworthy that the age of Pisces coincided with the age of Christianity. During the previous age dates were written with the suffix "A.D." which stands for "Anno Domini" or "Year of Our Lord" denoting the era of Christ. Alternatively, dates were denoted "B.C." - "Before Christ".     In 2002 AD, as the Age of Pisces was giving way to the new age of Aquarius, the decision was officially taken to replace the BC/AD date referencing system with the new CE/BCE references which stand for "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era".^[4] What better way for the New Secular Order to proclaim the begginning of its reign than to secularise the way in which dates are recorded, replacing the Christian dating system of the old Order with a new, secular system for the for the Aquarian age?     Consider the official Great Seal of the Unites States of America^[^5], which is most commonly seen on the back of the one the dollar bill^[6] - probably the world's most familiar banknote. On the US Great Seal, beneath the ancient Pyramid, is the Latin inscription: "Novus Ordo Seclorum". The official translation of this motto is "A New Order of the Ages". The Latin word "Novus" means "New", and "Ordo" means "Order". The Latin word "Seclorum" and its English equivalent "Secular" both share the same three alternative definitions: (1) "Secular" - without religion; (2) "Worldly" - of this world; and (3) "From century to century" - or from age to age. Thus, the motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum" has three different but equally valid translations: New Secular Order New World Order New Order of the Ages     The different meanings of Novus Ordo Seclorum are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are synergistic. The alternative translations are all as pertinent today as they were "at the beginning of the new American era in 1776." Let this be a testament the wisdom of the men who chose these words, for they demonstrate the esoteric power of language and the written Word.     If secret societies are able to display such esoteric and Masonic symbolism so prominently for us all to see, then perhaps this is indeed the age of Freemasonry. Amen.     Amen-Ra.

REFERENCES, NOTES & FURTHER READING
1.	The NWO conspiracy theory that "everyone is talking about as we draw closer to the year 2000", BBC Radio 5, Conspiracy programme, October 1998.
2.a.	U.S. President, George Bush (Snr) called for "a New World Order", ABC News, January 1991.
2.b.	U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair's, "push for New World Order", BBC News, October 2001.
2.c.	U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, "set out his vision for a New World Order", BBC News, October 2001.
2.d.	U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and "new, globalised world order", BBC News, January 2002.
2.e.	U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, calls for New World Order, Evening Standard newspaper, January 2002.
2.f.	U.S. President Bush (Snr) "proclaimed the beginning of 'a new world order', according to the website for washington executives.
2.g.	President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, announced in 1999: "We will make our due contribution to the construction of a new world order", BBC News, 25 June 1999.
2.h.	CBC News website talks about President Bush, globalisation, and "a new world order".
2.i.	Experts discuss "Bioterrorism in the New World Order", University of California official website.
2.j.	ABC News website politics section mentions that "New World Order" arrived during office of U.S. President, George Bush (Snr).
2.k.	A. R. Epperson, 1990. The New World Order. USA: Publius Press, Inc.
2.l.	W. Still, 1990. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Louisiana, USA: Huntingdon House Publishers.
2.m.	W. F. Jasper, et al. , 1992. The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order. USA: American Opinion Books.
3.	Knight et al., 2001. Uriel's Machine: Uncovering the Secrets of Stonehenge, Noah's Flood and the Dawn of Civilization. USA: Fair Winds Press.
4.a.	Evening Standard (UK), "AD and BC become CE/BCE", 19 February 2002.     In what could be seen as their greatest victory to date, politically correct campaigners have succeeded in getting schools to scrap the Christian calendar.     Breaking with centuries of tradition, the terms "BC" and "AD" are to be replaced with a system known as the Common Era. The two dating schemes are identical and both use the birth of Christ as their starting points, but the secular version does not acknowledge this.     The Latin term Anno Domini, meaning in the year of our Lord, becomes Common Era, or CE, and Before Christ becomes Before the Common Era, or BCE.     The term "common" refers to the fact that the Christian calendar is the most frequently used around the world. The move has sparked outrage among Church leaders. The Rev Rod Thomas of Reform, the Church of England's evangelical network, said: "What they are attempting to do is educate children into believing there is a way of measuring our calendar that takes its dates from an event, the significance of which, they are trying to deny.     "The whole of the Western calendar has been based on BC and AD. To change that for no good reason is to do a disservice to our youngsters."     Colin Hart, from the Christian Institute, said: "This is ridiculous. Between three and four per cent of people in Britain are of a non-Christian faith. This is about white liberals imposing political correctness in schools to ensure children are cut off from the past, for fear of upsetting someone.     "Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to offend the vast majority."     Panels comprising teachers, councillors and religious representatives advise councils in England and Wales on religious education syllabuses.     But defending the change, a spokesman for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority said: "It's not a question of one way is wrong and one is right, more a question of which is most commonly used.     "CE/BCE is becoming an industry standard among historians.     "Pupils have to be able to recognise these terms when they come across them."
4.b.	Daily Telegraph (UK), "History has to be rewritten as school bans BC and AD", 13 December 2002.     ... Church officials are also upset by the change. David Guest, communications officer for the Diocese of Chichester, said: "BC and AD have been used for centuries and have not upset people. They do have Christian significance but they have historical significance as well. We would be disappointed if these new terms became the norm."
4.c.	Sunday Times (UK), "The Lord isn't PC in the year 2000CE", front-page, 23 January 2000.     "THE Home Office has raised the prospect of scrapping the phrase Anno Domini (AD) in favour of the politically correct Common Era. Outraged churchmen are already mustering to frustrate the advocates of change, led by academics and civil servants..."
4.c.	The New American (US), "The New World Religion", Vol. 18, No. 19, 23 Sep 2002.     Presented to the world as a mystical revelation, the UN Earth Charter is actually a diabolical blueprint for global government.     "My hope is that this charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount,' that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century and beyond."     - Mikhail Gorbachev     Millions of Americans were justifiably shocked and outraged over the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' notorious ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. "Can our courts really have sunk this low?" people asked. "How can little Johnny and Suzie violate the Constitution by uttering the words 'under God' while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school?"     Yet that is what the Court said in its June 26th decision. This ruling was a continuation of an ongoing subversive campaign aimed at expunging all mention of God and all Christian symbols from the public sphere. Judicial activists have ordered our students not to invoke the Almighty's name in prayer on school property. Posting the Ten Commandments on classroom walls is also supposedly a major no-no. Traditional Christmas carols with religious themes are out, as are Nativity scenes. Christmas and Easter vacations have been de-Christianized to, respectively, winter and spring breaks. Many textbooks have dropped the traditional "Christocentric" dating system of B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini, In the Year of Our Lord) in favor of B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era).
5.	U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing - The Great Seal.
6.	U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing - The One Dollar Bill (pictures).

AMERICA'S HIDDEN AGENDA

AMERICA'S HIDDEN AGENDA

The US government has a hidden agenda -  a conspiracy to establish an American empire and rule the world.

The elite men in control are now so certain of their absolute power that they no longer conceal their plan for the New World Order.

The insiders behind US government policy, including Vice-President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,^{[1, 2]} have openly declared their bold vision for "American world leadership", a "global leadership" controlled by the White House.


NEW WORLD ORDER

Every intelligent adult on the planet should read the material published by The Project for the New American Century.^[3] These documents reveal the true factors shaping the world, at this time, for all to see. The PNAC is literally an "organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership".^[4]

The PNAC, which helps the US President decide official policy, openly speaks of America's "new order", which is also referred to as the "New World Order".^[5]  The New World Order is heralded by the Latin motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum," meaning "a New Order of the Ages," which is enscribed on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States and printed on the back of every one-dollar-bill.^[6]

PNAC calls upon Americans throughout the world to "embrace the cause of American leadership" as the US government creates "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles".^[7]

The events of September 11th are being used to manipulate public emotion, using people's grief, anger, and fear, to guarantee American support for the NWO, and "to launch a new era of American internationalism."^[8]


OLD EUROPE

The PNAC is openly unfriendly toward Europe. They admit that the Bush administration "was hostile to the new Europe" from the beginning. The organisation boasts: "American leaders should realize that they are hardly constrained at all, that Europe is not really capable of constraining the United States" because "Americans are powerful enough that they need not fear Europeans". America has realised that "Europe has been militarily weak for a long time, but until fairly recently its weakness had been obscured."

The organisation for the new American era bluntly criticises the pursuit of peace by European nations as "weakness". They give the American people full credit for constructing the new Europe after World War II, acknowledging that "the Europe of today is very much the product of American foreign policy". But the almighty US government has no further need for its old European allies.

    "Can the United States handle the rest of the world
    without much help from Europe? The answer is that
    it already does."

The British Council, a think-tank closely linked to the UK government's Foreign Policy Centre, is calling for the British government to retaliate and give the US government a "bloody nose".^[9]

CONFLICT ON THE HORIZON

Each step in the US government's agenda causes increasing friction between the New World embodied by America and "old Europe".^{[10, 11]} In America's eyes, the reason why Europeans disapproves of American aggression against other nations is because: "Europe’s military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power."

    "Given that the United States is unlikely to reduce
    its power and that Europe is unlikely to increase
    more than marginally its own power or the will to
    use what power it has, the future seems certain to
    be one of increased transatlantic tension."

Despite diverging policy, PNAC appreciates that Europe is essential to the events that will unfold during this century. Because America has become so powerful, "Europe must amass power, but for no other reason than to save the world".

As transatlantic tensions continue to escalate conflict is inevitable, and only the strongest side can prevail.


SOURCES

[1] Project for the New American Century, "Statement of Principles", 3 June, 1997.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[2] The Observer (UK), "Two men driving Bush into war", 23 February 2003.
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,901066,00.html

[3] Project for the New American Century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org

[4] Project for the New American Century, "About PNAC".
http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

[5] Project for the New American Century, "Indonesia and Democracy", 7 June 2000.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/indonesia-060700.htm

[6] US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, One Dollar Bill.
http://www.bep.treas.gov/document.cfm/18/120
http://www.bep.treas.gov/document.cfm/5/43/135
http://www.theinsider.org/news/dollar_bill_great_seal.jpg

[7] Project for the New American Century, "Power and Weakness", June 2002.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-052002.htm

[8] Project for the New American Century, "Commit for the Long Run", 29 January 2002.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-012902.htm

[9] BBC News, "UK 'should bloody US noses'", 26 February 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2798671.stm

[10] BBC News, "Outrage at 'old Europe' remarks", 23 January 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2687403.stm

[11] BBC News, "Congress lashes out at 'old Europe'", 12 February 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2753669.stm

Conspiracy theories pertaining to the 9/11 attacks

See also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth Movement

Many conspiracy theories have been presented concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks, many of them claiming that President George W. Bush and/or individuals in his administration knew about the attacks beforehand and purposefully allowed them to occur because the attacks would generate public support for militarization, expansion of the police state, and other intrusive foreign and domestic policies by which they would benefit.

Proponents point to the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank that argues for increased American global leadership, whose former members include ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and several other key Bush administration figures. An 1990 report from the group stated that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" would be needed to budge public opinion in their favor. David Ray Griffin, in "The New Pearl Harbor", p. 2004, questions this idea as it relates to the Bush 43 government and September 11 (Vancouver Indymedia article), as does film-maker Alex Jones in "911: the Road to Tyranny" (Internet Archive item).

Proponents of this theory also note Bush’s ties to Saudi Arabia, the nation of origin for 15 of the 19 hijackers, the fact that all but one of the videotapes of the attack on the Pentagon have been confiscated, rumors that several dignitaries were told not to fly that day, and Bush’s initial opposition to a commission to investigate the attacks.

On December 1, 2003, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean told National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm “The most interesting theory that I've heard so far — which is nothing more than a theory, I can't think — it can't be proved — is that [President Bush] was warned ahead of time [about the 9/11 attacks] by the Saudis.” Although he never stated he believed such a theory, Dean was widely criticized for his comments. Critics accuse him, notably, of spreading disinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories for partisan political purposes.

In response to some of the least creditable theories about the attacks Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission said that "One reason you tend to doubt conspiracy theories when you've worked in government is because you know government is not nearly competent enough to carry off elaborate theories. It's a banal explanation, but imagine how efficient it would need to be." [8]
This response does not, however, acknowledge the theorized global government.

The BBC News website posted two stories, stating that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Link here and here Although BBC sources later recanted such claims, some suspect this is due to government cover-up.[9]