Hurricane Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans is a tragedy of colossal proportions for all Americans. Words are insufficient to portray what went wrong, but clearly this is the time to evaluate, to scrutinize, to peek under the cover of the structure of FEMA that after the 9/11 disaster was rolled into a newly created Hydra-headed bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We may never get another chance and the demand must come from the people because on September 14, exactly 20 days after Governor Blanco declared a State of Emergency in Louisiana and requested help from the federal government, the Senate Republican majority voted down a measure calling for an independent commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina. [1].

President Bush states that he plans to investigate and oversee what "went wrong" with the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. He must not be permitted to do this any more than he should have been allowed to stop every effort to have an independent investigation of the 911 disaster. An independent counsel and commission with full grand jury/subpoena authority are needed. More importantly, if one can still be found in this country; the independent counsel must be removed from both political and corporate connections. We may have to go to British MP George Galloway to find such a person but someone must expose the lickspittles of this administration and remove the curtain covering the Wizard of Oz.

With our current politicized judicial system there are few independent counsels left with the stature of Lawrence Walsh who exposed the Reagan-Bush administration's Iran-Contra operatives. Walsh's efforts came to naught when then President George H. W. Bush pardoned six of the key figures and the Democratic-controlled Congress allowed him to get away with it. Several Iran-Contra operatives have returned to the current administration in prominent policy-making positions of power. [2]

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

FEMA was created by a series of executive orders that were issued by the president. It was conceived and constructed by Executive Order 12148 during the Carter administration to respond to nuclear attack. The reasoning behind its formation was for a system to be in place to coordinate governmental functions in the event that Washington, DC, was attacked. FEMA, with no congressional oversight, has grown into a governmental leviathan akin to a monstrous sea creature. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refers to FEMA as a "bureaucratic black hole that spends money without the slightest accountability" [3]

Following FEMA's inadequate response to Hurricane Andrew that hit Florida in 1992, Congress examined the agency and reported that only a small proportion (about 12 percent) of its budget was actually going for disaster recovery and relief. Calls by Congress to make the agency responsive to emergency-disaster regional needs were addressed by the Clinton administration.

FEMA took on both accountability and visibility and recovered from its former stigma of an agency for political paybacks. It became a model agency that attracted professionals in disaster recovery such as Director James Lee Witt. By contrast, Bush's appointee, Joe Albaugh, a Texas political operative was at the helm on September 11, 2001 when the next major disaster struck the United States. [4]

Intense criticism of FEMA emerged following its response to the 9–11 disaster. In the aftermath restructuring, FEMA lost cabinet status and was folded into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The primary mandate for FEMA became protection from terrorist attack rather than protection and relief for citizens following natural disasters.

According to medical rescue team reports, Cipro to treat Anthrax and supplies designed for use against chemical attack were in the first shipment from FEMA to arrive at the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, field hospital because this response was mandated by the new standardized emergency protocol. [5]

The media portray FEMA as a bungling and inept emergency management agency and they may be partially correct given its current structure and leadership. But not withstanding the agency's poor response to Katrina, the umbrella agency Department of Homeland Security needs special scrutiny before this tragedy is swept under the rug. In fact, the federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Katrina was Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. According to the National Response Plan, the federal government's blueprint for how agencies will handle major national disasters or terrorist incidents, the secretary of DHS was charged with that responsibility by President Bush in 2003. [6]

Homeland Security Fails Tests Along the Way and Bombs with Katrina

The media ridiculed Homeland Security's first director, Tom Ridge, for spending a year in planning the system designed to protect our nation and then coming up with color coding for disaster alerts, along with timely advice to prepare our homes with plastic sheets and duct tape in the event of biochemical or biological attacks. Crayolas are still used to alert the people that trouble is afoot in our land, but no amount of prose, color-coding or duct tape can shut off the horror we've just witnessed in New Orleans with FEMA directly obstructing relief efforts by groups and individuals who were trying to rescue people and save lives.

Tom Ridge got out just in time. Michael Brown was not so lucky. He has now resigned from FEMA with enough bad publicity that he may find the job market rather tight. His replacement, David Paulison, is the person responsible for the duct tape and plastic solution to biological, chemical or radiological attacks issued by DHS in 2003. President Bush has promised him the full support of the federal government as he comes up to speed. I await Jon Stewart's commentary on this appointment.

So far there has been little scrutiny of Michael Chertoff, the new security czar who holds dual citizenship (Israel and the United States). Most of the media directed their attention and blame on Michael Brown, who as FEMA's director was clearly ill prepared to handle the job. Brown believes he has been scapegoated by the media and, in part, I agree. This debacle is much larger than merely placing political appointees in positions for which they are unqualified.

The Bush administration's response to 9–11 (instill fear—declare a war on terror—create a bigger and more cumbersome leviathan) has left us as a nation bloated and weakened in hope. We will not survive this assault unless a majority of citizens demand that their elected representative examine and change the structure that paralyzed New Orleans and much of Louisiana in September 2005. Congress must be coerced to do their job of oversight and the Senate forced to do its job by mandating an independent commission to investigate how and why the system failed. This will not happen unless we ask the right questions and demand answers. We lose the big picture if we look at job performance and credentials of individuals without understanding the structure in which these people have been placed.

The response of Congress to date has been to pour $52 billion into FEMA. Congressman Ron Paul reported that the original $10 billion authorized by Congress, which the Republican leadership would not permit any debate on, was spent in a matter of days. [3]

Remember the first rule of science and organizations: Structure determines function. FEMA has been allowed to function as a political burrow for various administrations to conduct business away from scrutiny or oversight. Its major purpose has not been fulfilled if that function is to assist areas and persons afflicted by monstrous disasters.

Most of us, like the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana, expected that when they declared a state disaster emergency Friday, August 26, and called for help it would be forthcoming. This was a false assumption that many of us made as we waited for help to arrive to aid the disaster area. Each day Americans and the world faced a new visual horror.

For those who watched the Tim Russert program on September 4, a full 10 days into the disaster, in which Aaron Broussard, the president of Jefferson Parish emotionally described FEMA officials blocking help from arriving and then recounting the death by drowning of his associate's mother in a nursing home, we recoiled from this reality. Many of us wept along with Broussard. This happened in our country, in this century under the watch of George Bush.

Changing of the Guard is Mere Window Dressing

Changing personnel is not the answer to FEMA's problem. The American people need to demand that the structure of FEMA and Homeland Security be carefully examined by an independent commission that is willing to go back to the drawing board and demand that the structure fit the needs of the United States in the 21st Century.

The old U.S. Post Office model of political cronyism will destroy us as surely as it destroyed New Orleans. President Bush has used the FEMA mechanism to funnel what is known in political circles as "walking around money." Large sums of "hurricane relief" money were dispersed in Florida prior to the November 2004 election allegedly to buy votes in a state that was critical for Bush to carry. [7] This is "walking around money" in its most blatant form.

One need only examine each of the 10 regional FEMA districts for an education on its structure, function and personnel. [8] If we examine only two, Regions VI and X, the problems are evident for disasters waiting to happen or as in the case of Region VI, the disaster has already occurred. FEMA Region VI includes Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas.

Region VI Acting Director Gary Jones' official resumé lists 41 years of government experience. He holds a bachelor's degree in education from the University of Arkansas and a master's degree from Tulane University. (The years those degrees were awarded are not available.) He has served as acting director on four other separate occasions. Is this political cronyism? Only an independent investigation could determine why the leadership in Region VI failed so miserably in Louisiana and New Orleans.

The case for political cronyism is abundantly clear in Region X an area responsible for Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. John Pennington was appointed as FEMA regional director in December 2001. He was promoted by former Republican Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn who chaired the 2000 Washington State Committee to Elect Bush president. Dunn called Pennington "a natural" after reviewing his work on that political committee. Mr. Pennington holds a BS degree from California Coast University, a correspondence school, which at the time that Pennington obtained his degree was nonaccredited.

With our present framework in governmental practice, Dr. Lawrence Peter's Principle has played itself out from the level of the president downward. An old Yiddish proverb states that the fish stinks from the head. Not to put too fine a point on the state of the union, but there is a smell emitting from New Orleans that should cause Americans to either purchase gas masks or decide to clean up the garbage in DC and beyond.

Homeland Security and FEMA have failed a massive systems test, and in the language of No child left behind, failure will no longer be tolerated. To members of the House and Senate, the message is clear. Fix the structure or you will lose your jobs! We cannot wait for the next disaster to find out that the U.S. Cavalry is a no-show charade directed by incompetents placed into a Hydra-headed bureaucracy by a president addicted to cronyism. It is a false premise to believe that the United States can be fully protected from either natural or manmade disasters. But can we at least have an adequate response to disaster to minimize damage? --posted September 23, 2005

[1] Jordan, Lara Jakes (September 14, 2005) Senate Kills Bid for Katrina Commission. Associated Press

[2] Kornbluh, Peter (May 7, 2001). Bush's Contra Buddies.

[3 ] Ron Paul (September 12, 2005). Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk.

[4] Benjamin, Mark (September 17, 2005). The Crony who prospered. Salon.com

[5] Burger, Julian & Campbell, Duncan, (September 3, 2005). Why did help take so long to arrive? The Guardian UK.

[6] Landry, J.S., Young, A. & McCaffrey, S. (September 13, 2005). Chertoff delayed federal response memo shows. Knight Ridder.

[7] O'Matz, Megan & Kestin, Sally (March 23, 2005) State Records show Bush re-election concerns played part in FEMA Aid. Sun Sentinel.com

[8] http://fema.gov/regions/index/shtm

Cindy Sheehan: On the Road to Jericho, On the Road to Crawford

By Sara S. DeHart

August 20, 2005— Two Thursdays ago, George W. Bush emerged from the Crawford, Texas, White House, a former pig farm, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at his side to present a carefully scripted response to Cindy Sheehan's public dissent against the Iraqi war that was dutifully reported in the Washington Post as news. The script expressed sympathy, but it lacked what Cindy Sheehan has, authenticity.

Why do Bush's words "I grieve for every death" sound false and contrived? Or when he says, "It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one," I do not take him at his word. When he says, "I understand the anguish that some [not all] feel about the death that takes place," It sounds like another lie.

According to Sheehan, Bush bounced into the room on the occasion of her first audience with him shortly after her son Casey was killed saying, "Who are we honorin' today?" This doesn't sound like a man capable of real grief. Perhaps if Laura or the twins were among the "fallen" he would shed a genuine tear, but there is growing public doubt that he has the capacity for genuine sympathy, empathy or grief.

Even his use of the term "fallen" for killed speaks to his lack of genuine emotion.

Cindy Sheehan does not ask for Bush's faux sympathy, she demands the impossible—the truth. She knows, along with the rest of the world, that her demands will not be met because those afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are incapable of truth or empathy. [1]

Dr. Justin Frank, a psychiatrist, wrote in 2004, "If one of my patients said one thing and did another, I would want to know why. If I found that he often used words that hid their true meaning, and affected a persona that obscured the nature of his actions, I would grow more concerned. If he presented an inflexible worldview characterized by an over-simplified distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, allies and enemies, I would question his ability to grasp reality. And if his actions revealed an unacknowledged—even sadistic—indifference to human suffering, wrapped in pious claims of compassion, I would worry about the safety of the people whose lives he touched." [2]

There is other evidence of Bush's narcissistic disorder that is in plain public view, though it is not widely reported by corporate media. When Bush announced in March 2003 that he had ordered the initiation of the Iraqi war and just moments before was caught on camera, pumping his arm saying, "Feels good, feels good," the media buried the item after a brief report.

I've often wondered if he continues to feel good about his illegal war or if some remnant of conscience allows him to even think about the number of dead and wounded he has inflicted upon the world. If the coffins were lined up and he was forced to view them, they would spread as far as the eye could see. [3] My guess is that Bush's hard wiring is missing even a remnant of either conscience or genuine empathy. That is why his statement to the press was both strained and pathetic. With Condi at his side, he could muster one more lie, but to actually speak directly to Cindy Sheehan would be interpreted as blinking first, and not being resolute.

Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas was quoted by Alan Freeman as saying, "For him [Bush], meeting this woman face to face would be blinking. His whole game is to be confident and appear never to doubt and never to waiver. It's his idea of determination." [4]

The lady (Cindy not Condi) is something, isn't she? Even the Houston Chronicle is critical of Bush for not walking out of his air-conditioned palace to meet her standing in the ditch on the Road to Crawford. I recall his 2001 Inaugural speech, which included the lines:

"And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side."

Evidently that does not include Cindy Sheehan standing in the ditch on the road leading to the summer White House at Crawford, Texas. Instead Bush has sent the Rabid Right's attack dogs (O'Reilly, Drudge, Limbaugh, and Frum) to lead the charge. He cannot even do that job without surrogates. O'Reilly went so far as to call her act of dissent, "near treason." David Frum, the neocon "axis of evil" ghost writer, called Sheehan an "anti-war crazy." [5]

Interesting perspective isn't it? O'Reilly apparently views outing Valarie Plame, an undercover CIA agent, as patriotic but questioning Bush's lies about the reasons he declared war on Iraq, treason.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Secretaries of War and State Rumsfeld and Rice met with Bush at the Crawford White House. Other than attending a Republican fund raising event at a neighboring "ranch," little concrete news has come from those meetings. Were Condi and Rumsfeld with Bush and Laura as they sped by Cindy Sheehan's protest site? No one knows for sure because there are no leaks coming from that conclave. The one news report from the Washington Post merely stated that "Vice President Dick Cheney and top-rung advisors, including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice will come [to Crawford] casual for serious talks ranging from ongoing violence in Iraq to anti-American sentiment abroad, especially in the Middle East." The topic of ongoing saber rattling against Iran was not mentioned in the Post article. [6]

Bush watchers are nervous though; his poll numbers are going down and a four-star general was precipitously removed from his command on specific orders by Rumsfeld, and presumably Bush. The last time Bush's poll numbers dropped dangerously low we were hit by the 9/11 attacks. Catastrophic events have a way of raising a president's poll numbers. His current poll ratings for handling the war now stand at 38 percent with an overall approval rating of 42 percent. This does not reflect a vote of confidence and must be worrisome for his compatriots who must stand for election in 2006 or for Bush who wants his legacy as a war president.

With Cheney on record saying that another 9/11 event will result in "taking out Iran," the United States and the world can only wait to see what the Middle East and world looks like by the end of September 2005. To quote former CIA Official Philip Giraldi, the Pentagon, "under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office was drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11 type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan mandates a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." [7]

We have a president who does not have the wisdom to step outside his conclave to meet with Cindy Sheehan, an act that would have deflated one woman's stand, so do not expect him to have the wisdom (or appropriate advisors) to deal with Iran. The propaganda began in force earlier this week with "leaked" documents about Iran's threat to Middle Eastern peace.

To reiterate Dr. Justin Frank's concern, "if his actions revealed an unacknowledged–even sadistic—indifference to human suffering, wrapped in pious claims of compassion, I would worry about the safety of the people whose lives he touched." [2]

I join Dr Frank. I am worried, and perhaps corporate media should be worried too. The chaos of World War III may not sell cable subscriptions or newspapers. It is more likely that the entire civilized world would be reduced to rubble. But the world will forever note that Bush did not blink, nor did he stop on the road to Crawford to offer truth to Cindy Sheehan.

1. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. DSM-IV

2. Frank, Justin, M.D. (2004). "Bush on the Couch" History News Network, September 13, 2004.

3. "Casualties in Iraq: The Human Cost of Occupation." Antiwar.com, August 1, 2005.

4. Freeman, Alan. "Bush forced to confront the protest of a grieving mother . . . but he still won't meet her." Globe and Mail, August 12, 2005.

5. Amr, Ahmid. "Plaming Cindy Sheehan."DissidentVoice.org. August 10, 2005.

6. Riechmann, Deb. "Bush, Defense, Foreign Policy Teams to Meet." Washington Post, August 11, 2005.

7. Engelhardt, Tom and Schwartz, Michael, "Iranian Ironies." LewRockwell.com August 10, 2005.

By Sara DeHart

Senator Joseph Lieberman says he is "surprised and disappointed" by the White House pull-out of the 9/11 Independent Commission "just hours after Congressional Republicans and Democrats announced that they had agreed on the terms of an independent commission to investigate the September 11, 2001 attacks." (David Firestone, NYT, 10/11/02).

Why are you surprised, Joe? Why did you think this time would be different from the last? Don't you remember Bush's tax cut to bolster the economy? Haven't you been paying attention to the economy? In case you haven't noticed, the economy has tanked. Americans are hurting; they've lost their health insurance; they can't pay their mortgages. And you voted to give the Texas cartel the right to wage war on Iraq.

We tried to tell you that this affair was going to lead to tragedy. Senators Byrd and Jeffords tried to warn you in the chambers of the Senate. The people listened, Joe, why didn't you?

"But he promised!" Joe wailed.

What did he promise, Joe? True love? A key to the executive bathroom? A battered and torn Constitution?

Didn't your mother ever warn you about men like this? And in the Oval Office, no less! Come clean, what did he offer you? There is a term for services sold for a fee, Joe. Surely, you didn't buy into that again. Why didn't you listen to our warnings?

"He promised, and Dick promised and Colin promised that if I just did this, just this once it would all work out. He-they-said, 'I needed to do IT to preserve freedom for A-MUR-AH-CAH'."

Joe, I know that they promised lots of things to you and to others. Why just today I read that Iraqi dissidents and the Arab League are dismayed with Bush's plan to establish a MacArthur-like government in Iraq.

Hamid al-Bayati, a representative of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq stated from Cairo, "This is not what we were told. We were told by American officials that they want a broad-based Iraqi government…with no direct American role."

So it is not just you who has been seduced. The Texas Cartel has taken in lots of people. Did you ever see The Best little Whore House in Texas? Great movie, Joe.

"But he promised…he did…he promised and he gave me my own nickname. I am Little Joe…just like that cowboy on the Ponderosa…that's how he remembers me. Now he won't even answer my telephone calls."

You have to remember that there is nothing personal in this. It is all just "bidness." But remember, Joe, while Americans are forgiving of many things, a tanked economy and humping in the Oval Office are more troublesome. When democracy and the economy are traded like players on a baseball team, watch out!

Oh, I know that some Americans think those little infringements to civil rights are OK, just so long as their civil rights are not trampled. But when they've lost their jobs, lost their health insurance and can't pay their rent or mortgage, they pay attention.

There are lots of us out here paying attention, Joe. We notice all kinds of things. And remember, you'll be up for re-election in 2006, just after the Bush cartel comes up again. Think about it, Joe.

"You are either with us or against us." Do you really want to continue this affair? There are lots of us out here, Joe, and if our votes are erased by the computers in November 2002, expect to hear from us. Americans can and do go to the streets when elected and non-elected representatives do not heed our messages.

And just to remind you, Joe, the messages are very clear. First, pre-emptive war with Iraq is not playing well in the streets, here or around the world. Second, the people want real answers about 9/11; a whitewash won't do. Third, the economy has tanked and a war with Iraq will make things worse. Wall Street has spoken and come November, the people will too.

And a Final note, Joe, right now the news media make us sound like we are in the minority, that what we think doesn't count. Do you remember Bush's comment to a voter, "Who cares what you think?"

But remember this, Joe; we believe that American democracy is worth fighting for. Regardless of the vote in the Congress and Senate, we do not believe that democracy is dead.

We have the voices of Senators Byrd and Jeffords with us on this one. They will be heard, and so will we. --10.15.02

Illustration by Jim Kirwan

By dehart.ss@verizon.net>Sara DeHart

Sometime back, Kent Southard published a letter on Bush Watch from a reader who regularly met with a group of 40-something, affluent, white males who were "very pleased with Mr. Bush and the way he was running the country."

I've long puzzled over segments of the ill-informed American electorate and now believe that I may have a partial explanation for their behavior. This group probably reads and is regularly influenced by the Opinion Journal published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Between the 40-something white males who receive their information from the WSJ, and half of the rest of the population who get their information from Fox News, we have a big problem in the United States. It is known as the great mass of misinformed and ill-informed citizens.

Our problem in the United States is not just the 50 percent who don't vote, but the 50 percent who do vote with only the shakiest idea of what they are voting for, or what a Republican, Democratic or Green vote means in 2002. If you doubt these words, just check the reader response to Michael Ledeen's article in the WSJ Online Opinion.

As part of my penance for the Bush administration, I now regularly beam into the WSJ and, at least, check the headlines and brief summaries. The September 4th edition ran Michael Ledeen's article "The War Won't End in Baghdad." It clearly combines the genius of both George Orwell and Joseph Goebbels.

Ledeen is proposing that we "also topple terror states in Tehran and Damascus and reform the one in Riyadh." Ledeen wants the United States to cleanse "Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia" of their terrorist Al Qaeda connections. This is quite an undertaking, even for an administration dedicated to never wanting to be weaned from its oil teat.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Bush the First said, "This will not stand," and began amassing troops for Desert Storm. The United States had the support of the rest of the world, even Arab countries. Who will stand with Bush the Second in 2002 in his grab for control of the Middle East's oil supply?

My guess is that it will be the 40-something, affluent white American males. But will they mount their camels and ride off into the desert to do their patriotic duty? Not in this life. They will be glued to their TV sets watching "smart bombs" destroy a civilization. Then they will congratulate themselves that they don't know anyone who has to place his or her body in harm's way. They will wave their flags, spout their rhetoric, drive their fuel-hungry vehicles, and be appalled by protesters who march in the streets.

If another act of terror replicating September 11 occurs, they will wrap themselves even tighter in the American flag and beat their war drums even louder, shouting "bomb them back into the stone age." They will glue themselves to their television sets, but never question whether they or the Bushes are a major part of the world's problem with terrorism.

Perhaps those who say "American Democracy is dead" are correct. Perhaps my voice and protests are meaningless in the present environment. Perhaps there is no hope for America. But like that small group of German protesters who fought Hitler in the 1930s, we have to stand and be counted while we still are able to stand and have a voice. If the Bush administration continues on its present course of replicating Hitler's path to corporate totalitarianism, we don't have much time to turn the tide. --Sept. 15, 2002

Sara DeHart, a freelance writer and democracy activist, lives in the Seattle, Washington.

Also posted at http://www.YellowTimes.org.

On July 22, 2002, the New York Times ran Patrick Tyler's article, "Europeans Split with U.S. Over Need for Iraq Attack" in the International section. Mr. Tyler's premise, that it is "American talk of overthrowing Saddam Hussein by military force that is raising alarms in European governments," is only partially correct.

It is true that European governments are alarmed, but let there be no mistake about who is talking about overthrowing Saddam Hussein - it is not the American people, it is George W. Bush and the hawkish members of his administration. These people, also known as Chicken Hawks because they managed to excuse themselves from active duty in the Vietnam War, do not speak for the American people.>p> Retired Army General Fred Woemer asks the question: "Are we involved in a preliminary psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do something to justify an attack?" And of course we know the answer. Mr. Bush and his band of Chicken Hawks are obsessed about Iraq and falling opinion polls. Mr. Bush wants war just as his father did when his poll numbers dropped.

And how did Bush the First seduce Saddam into an act that led to Desert Storm? George Herbert Walker Bush sent a special message to Saddam prior to his march into Kuwait. April Glaspie, then ambassador to Iraq, delivered a message from the President of the United States. According to the Iraqi transcript from the meeting, her exact words were "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The U.S. government questions the accuracy of the Iraqi transcript, but it refuses to release Glaspie's own transcript of that meeting.

Within eight days Saddam crossed over the border into Kuwait only to have Bush the First say "This will not stand." And with those words Bush began amassing troops for Desert Storm.

Will the American people and the world be led into another war by the Bush family? According to French sources reported by Pat Buchanan (TownHall.com, 7/22/02) Saddam has decided to let the U.S. land the first blow. Since Bush the Second has authorized not only occupation of the country but also Saddam's assassination, Iraq may use all the weapons in Baghdad's arsenal.

During the 2000 election campaign, Al Gore warned the country about the dangers of "oil men setting national policy." We are learning what that prophetic statement means.

The Bush the Second administration is following policies also used by the Third Reich. Every time things get a little too warm for them they take a page from Hermann Goering's book on mass manipulation. As Goering stated during his trial before the Nuremburg judges:

Why, of course the people don't want war...but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

Remember, it will not be the sons and daughters of the Chicken Hawks who will fight this war. It will be, as it always is, the sons and daughters of middle and lower income families, those whom this administration has denied a voice and a vote. --Sept. 7, 2002

Sara DeHart, a freelance writer and democracy activist, lives in the Seattle, Washington area of the United States.

Also posted at http://www.YellowTimes.org.