It's Obama

After a great deal of hand-wringing and soul-searching, I have decided to vote for Barack Obama for the nomination. In fact, since I will not be home on Super Tuesday, I already did so and mailed in my absentee ballot last week. I feel extremely comfortable with my choice, and I wanted to set out some of my reasoning here.

1. Electability: I have always viewed this factor as the most important consideration. But before I talk about why I feel that Obama is more electable than Clinton, I want to say a few words about my philosophy of voting, and why I place so much importance on the issue of electability.
There is, of course, the negative reason for considering electability, namely, the fact that a Republican victory is just too awful to consider. While McCain often gets portrayed in the media as a "moderate", that is far from true. He has always been staunchly anti-abortion, and I have every reason to believe that his Supreme Court nominees would be no more acceptable than Bush's. Indeed, in his desire to kow-tow to the religious right, I suspect that McCain would bend over backwards to make sure that his judicial nominees are as reactionary as possible. And, McCain's views on foreign policy are even more frightening than his positions on social issues. He has consistently aligned himself with the worst of the neo-conservatives, a group that I consider to be among the most dangerous people in the world. It is not an accident that Lieberman signed on to McCain's campaign as a very enthusiastic supporter at an early date, and it is even more telling that the neo-cons' original candidate of choice, Giuliani, jumped to McCain at the earliest opportunity. The candidate whose idea of humming a happy tune is to sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" simply cannot become President.
There is another, more positive reason why I think it is appropriate to treat electability as the principal consideration in deciding how to vote in a primary election. As Democrats, we are members of a kind of "club", a political organization called the Democratic Party. Voting is not just an exercise in self-expression, where we each vote for the candidate most consistent with our individual, subjective preferences. When we vote in a primary, we owe a responsibility to our "club", the Democratic Party, to try to select the candidate who will have the best chance of making our party victorious in the general election. In the old days, party insiders exercised that function within the confines of smoke-filled rooms. Today, we exercise that function in primary elections (or caucuses). But the purpose is the same - to select the strongest candidate for our Party.
In a general election against McCain, I believe that Obama will be a stronger candidate than Clinton. The one person who has helped me to see this over the past few weeks is none other than Bill Clinton. Clinton has reminded us that while Americans overwhelmingly supported the substantive accomplishments of his Presidency, there was a lot to dislike about him personally. He treated the Presidency as a personal plaything, and he caused unnecessary damage to the Democratic Party in the process. It took us 12 years to regain control of Congress - and I do blame him for having lost it in the first place. During this campaign, he has acted like a big baby who wants his favorite toy back, and is outraged that an upstart like Obama might prevent him from having it. In the general election, Bill Clinton will be an enormous albatross around Hillary's neck.
By contrast, Obama can make the Democratic case against McCain in ways that will simply be unavailable to Clinton. Obama can claim the benefits of the substantive achievements of Clinton's policies, without being burdened by Bill Clinton's personal baggage. Obama can credibly make the case that he is a true outsider, filled with new ideas untainted by the all of the crap inside of the Beltway. And his life story is that of a genuine idealist. Obama achieved a status which truly is the ultimate accomplishment of any law school graduate: the Presidency of the Harvard Law Review. That Obama chose to use that status not for personal gain but in order to fulfill a life of community service is virtually unprecedented. Obama really is - both in his words and in his actions - an inspiration to us all.
The general election is likely to be taking place during some very bad economic times. Clinton would be able to make strong economic appeals during the general election based upon the track-record of her husband's Presidency. But I believe that all Democrats will look very strong on economic issues when voters consider the Katrina-like condition of the American economy that the Bush Administration has created. Obama's mastery of economics - to describe him as a quick study is an understatement - will leave McCain in the dust, leaving him with nothing to do but to recite the meaningless Republican nostrums (cut taxes for the rich, less regulation, small government) that have created our current mess. Americans aren't going to buy it. In contrast, Obama will describe, with his unmatched eloquence, a Democratic program that makes sense to Americans: universal health care, relief for college tuitions, responsible fiscal policies, a fair tax system, and reform of the international monetary system. I feel very good about the outcome of that election.
It's also worth noting that Obama presents many original economic proposals, often challenging many aspects of liberal orthodoxy. His principal economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a Professor at the University of Chicago. While Goolsbee is far from being a Friedmanesque free-marketeer, he has often been willing to question traditional liberal thinking on issues such as trade and taxes. Another principal economic adviser is Karen Korbluh. Ms. Kornbluh was a deputy to Treasury Secretary Rubin during the Clinton Administration, and has become well-known for her writings on the "Mommy Track", advocating in favor of major improvements in child-care and parental leave policies in order to eliminate structural disparities in the economic status of men and women. Perhaps the most telling testament to Obama's qualifications to provide leadership on the subject of the economy is the fact that his candidacy has recently been endorsed by former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker - the first time Volcker has ever taken a position in support of a candidate during the primary elections.


2. Iraq: Unlike many people, I have been willing to cut Clinton some slack on the issue of Iraq. It is quite obvious to me why Senator Clinton voted in favor of authorizing the war; it is the same reason why Senators Kerry and Edwards voted the same way. They all thought that it would be political suicide to vote otherwise. Realistically, it is difficult to fault that assessment. The Democratic Party was desperately seeking to avoid being tarred as "soft on terrorism", and Bush deliberately scheduled the vote on the authorization of military force in Iraq in October 2002, shortly before the mid-term elections, in order to put maximum pressure on Congressional Democrats. The war was enormously popular at the time, and had the war turned out to be the "cakewalk" that was predicted by Rumsfeld and virtually the entirety of the punditocracy, anyone who had opposed the war would have been irrevocably written off as a fool, and possibly a traitorous one at that.
If Barack Obama had been a U.S. Senator rather than an Illinois State Senator at the time, how would he have voted? Would he have been as courageous as he was, or would he have succumbed to expediency as Senators Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and many others did? Obviously, we can never know, but I do believe that Obama's wise and prescient rejection of Iraq War fever back in 2003 is a consideration weighing heavily in his favor.
I remember going to the antiwar demonstration in New York City on Saturday, February 15, 2003 when we were penned in like cattle because we dared to dissent. I remember thinking: Where are the Democrats? There were hardly any political figures, at any level of government, who were willing to speak out against the insanity of Bush's war. The fact that Obama was one of the few who was willing to do so, for me, has earned him a level of respect that I can't ignore.
What I also admire is the way in which Obama opposed the war. When I first read his now-famous antiwar speech from October 2002, I felt as though I could have written it myself, because it expressed everything I was thinking. His statement - I am not opposed to all wars, just dumb wars - is so right! It encapsulates perfectly exactly the kind of thinking we will desperately need from our next President. The fact is, that international terrorism does present a serious danger to our country (I am a New Yorker, and I watched the towers fall). Isolationism is not an option. There is genocide taking place throughout the world, and America is going to be forced to take action, possibly including military action, to stop it, lest we be confronted with the creation of breeding grounds for the production of even more terrorists who will bring down scores of future 9-11s upon us.
Obama understands that world better than any American political figure I know of. It is not surprising that he has chosen Samantha Power, someone whom I admire greatly for her extensive writings on genocide, as one of his closest foreign policy advisers. It may be a cliche, but I believe that Obama is the person who can best establish an American foreign policy for the 21st Century.
Again, the contrast to McCain will be stark. Many Americans will undoubtedly choose McCain for his military experience, and we can count on the Republicans to do everything in their power to instill a fear of terrorism. The voters who might be moved by such appeals would probably vote for neither Clinton nor Obama. But the voters who are looking for something else, the ones who are seeking a President who can take the lead in establishing a new and better role for America in the world, have found precisely that leader in Barack Obama.
Notably, many younger military officers have expressed enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy. They are on the front lines, and they have first-hand experience with the debacle of Bush's policies. I recently saw Bono speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and he recounted a conversation he had had with a Marine officer. The officer noted that he was willing to give his life for a good cause, but he did not want to die simply because many people in the world hate Americans. He noted that America has the world's highest-priced military hardware stationed in the Mediterranean, but nevertheless, we cannot compete with Hezbollah because they are building schools. This is precisely the message that Obama has been articulating.


3. Race : I have often expressed the concern that American racism will make Obama unelectable. When I have raised that concern, Obama supporters have usually shouted me down, even to the point of accusing me of being a racist myself. At first, I thought they were being ostriches, burying their heads in the sand and denying the reality of American racism. But I have tried to step back and think about this - have my own baby boomer origins in America's past warped my judgment and clouded my perceptions?
I have finally come to an understanding of what Obama and his supporters are doing on this subject - they just don't talk about race. What Obama is telling us is that if we speak as though race does not matter, and we think as though race does not matter, and we act as though race does not matter, then guess what: race will not matter. Is this just Tinkerbellish thinking? Perhaps, but I don't think so.
What Obama is doing here is not only morally right, it is tactically wise. After all, what is there to say about race that could possibly make any difference? For those who might be inclined to vote in favor of Obama because of race, anything he might say is irrelevant. And for those who might be inclined to vote against Obama because of race, anything that might be said is also irrelevant. So Obama is right: let's just take race out of the equation altogether.
In any evolutionary process, there is a specific point in time when change actually happens. The Roman Empire may have been in decline for centuries, but there was a specific date when Rome was sacked and the Empire fell. Similarly, America has been in the process of evolving away from its racist origins for centuries. There will inevitably be a specific moment when America changes from being a racist society to being a society in which race does not matter. Obama is telling us that that moment is now. I am willing to take the leap of faith that he is right.


4. Relax : Ultimately, what made this decision very difficult for me is the fact that I truly believe that we have two great candidates. I very much admire Hillary Clinton, for her intellect, her remarkable grasp of policy issues, and most important of all, for the fact that she has chosen to use her talents to promote what is fundamentally a progressive agenda. Just as Obama has convinced me that racism has no place at all in our political discourse - even as a subject of concern - so too has Clinton made it clear that the days of sexism are over. If she does earn our nomination, I will support her enthusiastically. She will make a great President.
And let's not be afraid of McCain. Even the Republicans aren't really crazy about him. A few months ago, he was being written off as a dinosaur. And for good reason - he has nothing to offer America except failed policies and a discredited and dangerous view of the world.
I honestly do feel as though I am looking at the future when I look at Obama, and I like what I see. I think I am going to change the name of this blog after this post. Let's all put the nightmare of George Bush's Presidency in the past. Let's build something better. I look forward to celebrating Barack Obama's inauguration next January.

Rep. Rush Holt and the House Intelligence Committee

Now that the Democrats have gained control of Congress, I am overwhelmed by only one thought: Don't Blow It! A very dangerous opportunity to blow it seems to be looming on the horizon already. Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be confronted with the problem of choosing the new Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

It has been widely reported in the press that Speaker Pelosi intends not to appoint Rep. Jane Harman of California, who had been the ranking Democrat on the Committee, to the position of Chair. While the media has generally spun this as some sort of "cat fight" between two California female representatives, there are in fact good substantive reasons to oppose Rep. Harman's appointment as Chair of this very sensitive Committee. Rep. Harman has generally supported the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, and it is known that she frequently clashed with Rep. Pelosi over policy issues when they both served on the Intelligence Committee. Moreover, there is a general feeling in the Democratic Party that Rep. Harman gave inappropriate cover to the Bush Administration's illegal warrantless electronic surveillance program, as she appears to have been one of the only Democrats in Congress who was generally briefed about the program at an early stage, but she raised no objections notwithstanding the clear-cut illegality of the program (see "September 11, 2001: A Day That Will Long Live In Infamy"). Thus, there are good reasons for concluding that choosing Rep. Harman as the new Chair of the House Intelligence Committee will not send the message that the Democratic Congress intends to forge a new, independent path over the next two years.

Because of the sensitivity of the post, selection of the Chair of the Intelligence Committee is not governed by the rules of seniority that normally dictate selection of Committee Chairs. After Rep. Harman, the next ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida. In the past, Rep. Hastings had been a Federal Judge who was indicted for conspiring to receive a bribe in exchage for giving a lenient sentence to an organized crime defendant. While Judge Hastings was found not guilty by a jury at the criminal trial, he was subsequently impeached by a House of Representatives then controlled by the Democratic Party, and convicted by the Senate. Thus, Rep. Hastings stands as one of only seventeen Federal Judges in over 200 years who has been impeached and removed from office. Thereafer, Hastings was elected to Congress, and constitutionally, an elected Representative cannot be removed from office. While Rep. Hastings has maintained that the evidence against him was fabricated (even though the evidence included taped conversations and damning testimony from the Judge's own law clerk), it would be extremely difficult for the Democratic Party today to ignore the significance of Judge Hastings' impeachment. The Democratic House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment (the vote was 413 to 4), and the vote was supported by such progressive stalwarts as Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Charles Rangel, and most importantly, by Rep. Nancy Pelosi herself.

In short, the choice of Rep. Hastings to Chair the House Intelligence Committee would, at the very least, be a public relations disaster for the new Democratic Congress. Indeed, given the serious questions that can legitimately be raised about Rep. Hastings' integrity, there are extremely sound reasons for concluding that elevating him to Chair of this Committee not only looks bad, it is bad.

Fortunately, there is a third possibility. As recently advanced by David Corn, Washington Editor of The Nation, Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey is the ideal choice to serve as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. See "Pelosi's Next Big Problem", in The Nation, www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames (Nov. 21, 2006). Rep. Holt is a Ph.D. physicist who has taught at Swarthmore and Princeton. Most importantly, Rep. Holt has served in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and he is a recognized international expert on the subjects of nuclear proliferation and problems associated with maintaining the security of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and in other nuclear nations such as Pakistan that may be subject to political instability. Rep. Holt's stance on the crucial issues of the day is picture perfect. He opposed the Iraq War from the outset and he voted against legislation giving Bush authority to commence the war. He has persistently spoken out against Bush Administration practices relating to detention and torture.

Most significantly, Rep. Holt has been in the forefront of the critique of the Bush Administration's warrantless electronic surveillance program. In particular, I would commend a reading of a letter dated December 22, 2005 that Rep. Holt sent to Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency ("NSA"), which is reproduced on Rep. Holt's Congressional website. Rep. Holt had long been suspicious that the Bush Administration was violating the law in connection with electronic surveillance, but he had been assured by NSA officials that "whenever the NSA intentionally targets a 'U.S. person' for surveillance, the agency must obtain an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ["FISA"] Court." However, when the New York Times reported in December 2005 that the NSA was in fact conducting electronic surveillance of "U.S. persons" without obtaining orders from the FISA Court, Rep. Holt responded angrily, vehemently, and publicly in his letter to the NSA's Alexander:

"Were your responses given in a spirit of full cooperation and disclosure with a member of NSA's principal Congressional oversight committee? They were not. Your responses make a mockery of Congressional oversight. At the time it did not seem necessary to remind you that a principal grievance that required that Congress wrest power from the despot George III was that 'he has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civilian power.' Let me be clear: I vehemently reject the notion that the President as Commander in Chief, or in any other capacity, had then or has now the legal or Constitutional authority to order you or any other intelligence agency to conduct such surveillance of Americans outside the bounds of the FISA statute."

When I first read Rep. Holt's letter to the NSA on this subject, my reaction can be summed up in one word: Wow! Here is somebody in Congress who really gets it. This is what Congressional oversight is supposed to be all about, and Congressional oversight, more than anything else, is what this country desperately needs from its new Democratic Congress over the next two years.

So here is my question to incoming Speaker Pelosi: Why not the best? The selection of the next Chair of the House Intelligence Committee need not be an occasion to cause all Democrats to wince. On the contrary, Speaker Pelosi can send a loud and clear message to the country that she is not going to carry on business as usual. She is going to pick the best person for the job. The new Chair of the House Intelligence Committee should be a Representative who is not only willing to kick ass, but whose knowledge and expertise enable him to understand precisely whose ass ought to be kicked and where to apply the boot.

I urge everyone to write to Speaker Pelosi and your individual Representative in support of Rep. Rush Holt's selection as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

The Need For A New Congress

I recently read a great book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a reporter from the Washington Post. The book is a first-hand report about the utter chaos in Iraq in the days following the invasion, and the complete lack of preparation displayed by the Coalition Provisional Authority ("CPA") under the "leadership" (using the term very loosely) of Bush's Viceroy, L. Paul Bremer III. If every voter read this book, the Democrats would enjoy a clean sweep in the upcoming Congressional elections.

There is one particular audience to whom I would recommend this book - those who supported the Iraq War and who sincerely believe that an attempt to democratize the Middle East is a noble cause. This book makes it clear that the Bush Administration completely trashed that cause. There was no serious effort to re-build Iraq. The reconstruction efforts - which have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars - were mired in political cronyism, incompetence, and corruption. The book recounts how experienced career soldiers and State Department Middle Eastern specialists were removed from their jobs and replaced by Republican Party hacks. Prospective employees of the CPA were questioned about their voting habits, their loyalty to Bush, and their opinions about Roe v. Wade. The job of reconstructing the Baghdad stock exchange was given to a politically-connected 24-year old with no experience in finance. Accounts of such seemingly limitless outrages abound.

The book also offers a glimpse into some of the rampant waste and corruption being perpetrated in Iraq by government contractors. Aside from such well-known profiteers as Bechtel and Halliburton, the book describes the activities of some lesser known fraudsters who have been feasting at the trough in Iraq. One case is that of the company with the unlikely name of Custer Battles that was given the contract to provide security for the Baghdad Airport. The company had no prior experience in doing such security, and several companies that did have experience made it known that they could not even have calculated a bid for a contract to provide such services given the chaotic state of affairs in Baghdad. Lack of experience, however, presented no obstacle to Custer Battles, whose principals had connections in the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Republican Party (as well as right-wing media circles such as Fox News), and it got the contract from the CPA to provide airport security. Ultimately, Custer Battles' abilities turned out to have nothing to do with providing security services and everything to do with fraudulent billing practices. A former employee brought a whistleblower lawsuit against the company, and a jury in Federal Court in Virginia returned a $3 million verdict for fraud against the company. A retired General testified at the trial that the company's billing practices were the worst he had ever seen in his thirty years in the Army. The Judge in the lawsuit later vacated the verdict, not because of lack of evidence of fraud but only because the victim of the fraud was the CPA, which does not technically qualify as the type of Federal Government agency to which the civil whistleblower statute applies. There are, however, numerous Federal criminal statutes that could apply to the case. The Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Department, however, has apparently shown little interest in pursuing the case.

This is precisely why we need new blood in Congress. How can anything possibly be accomplished in Iraq if the money spent supposedly for reconstruction is actually being poured down a rat-hole of incompetence and corruption. If nothing else, a Democratic Congress can at least be counted upon to ask the one question that no Republican has yet had the guts to ask: What the hell is going on over there?

There are many, many reasons to vote Democratic on Tuesday. Reason Number One is the crying need for accountability in Iraq.

De-Coding The Foley Scandal

Here's the $64 question about the Foley scandal: Why? What was so important about this degenerate that presumably savvy politicians like Hastert went out on a limb to protect him?

A possible clue: Look at the timing. It has now been widely reported that Republican Arizona Congressman Rep. Jim Kolbe was told by a former page about Foley's practice of sending inappropriate (at best) emails to pages. Kolbe supposedly confronted Foley about this and took unspecified "corrective action." He also passed on the information to others in the leadership of the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, but exactly who was informed is somewhat unclear. The logical person who would have been informed about all of this was Republican New York Congressman Sue Kelly, who was then in charge of overseeing the page program. Kelly is now embroiled in a tough reelection fight in her Hudson Valley district. The bottom line of all of this is that nothing got done about Foley.

Now here's the interesting thing: this all happened some time in 2000. What else was going on in 2000? Seems to me that there was the small matter of a Presidential election going on at the time. And the GOP was making Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky the centerpiece of the campaign. How do you suppose it would have looked if a prominent GOP Congressman (at the time, Foley was the Deputy Whip and a major fund-raiser for the GOP) was revealed as a sexual predator? What would have happened to the GOP "family values" campaign then? Can there be any doubt why the information about Foley wound up firmly ensonced under the big Republican Congressional rug?

Foley proved to be a critically-important operative for the GOP during the contested 2000 election. Foley's district includes Palm Beach, site of the notorious "butterfly ballot." Throughout the post-election battles, Foley was an important spokesman for the GOP, regularly appearing on news shows, defending the Palm Beach officials who had created the absurd ballot. In fact, on November 18, 2000, less than 2 weeks after the election, Foley delivered the weekly national radio broadcast on behalf of the GOP, attacking the Democrats as outsiders and sore losers who were supposedly pursuing bogus legal challenges in order to undermine what Foley proclaimed to be Bush's "legitimate victory" in Florida. The rest is the sad history we know all too well.

Of course, Foley's predatory behavior did not end in 2000; nor did the efforts of the GOP leadership to cover up for him. The reason for the Republican Party's protection of Foley is obvious. George Bush literally owed his Presidency to Foley.

I don't have any illusions about any politicians. But I just don't understand how these people can live with themselves.

Please Read This

Please go to www.dailykos.com and read the diary entry entitled "Emily Perez Is Dead." I really can't say anything that isn't said right there. After reading it, I defy anyone to write an essay explaining why Hugo Chavez was wrong.

Naderites In The Twilight Zone

I was watching a really good rerun of The Twilight Zone a couple of nights ago. It starts out peacefully enough with a shot of an innocent-looking young woman dressed in white riding a white horse on a trail at the bottom of a hillside. Suddenly, an ominous figure appears at the top of the hill -- a woman dressed in black riding a black horse. The demonic-looking woman in black comes charging down the hill, wildly chasing the young woman and screaming her name. The young woman rides away in terror.

As it turns out, the crazed woman in black is actually the young woman herself, twenty or so years in the future. She has come back in time to warn her younger self not to go through with a decidedly wrong marriage, which will ultimately ruin her life. Since the young woman rode away, she could never hear the warning.

After watching the show, I couldn't help but wondering if those who voted for Nader back in 2000 feel like the woman in this episode of The Twilight Zone. Do you suppose they ever look back regretfully at their younger selves spouting the claim that there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore? Do you think they'd like to go back in time like the woman on the black horse, and warn themselves that if Bush were elected, six years later the principal issues before Congress would be Bush's claim that he has the right to engage in torture, and to establish secret tribunals that have the power to convict and even execute suspected "terrorists" on the basis of undisclosed and incontestable "evidence"?

Of course, time as we know it runs only in one direction. As Rod Serling sagely pointed out at the end of the episode, warnings from the future can never be heeded because they can never be received. That is why we should all be a little more careful what we do with our votes in the here and now.

Talk To The Mouse

Daily Kos, the DNC, and various other engines of the progressive blogosphere have been doing yeoman's work to organize protests to ABC and its parent company Disney against the planned "miniseries" about the "Path To 9/11". I have joined in those protests, and I urge all readers to do so. It seems as though there really is a chance of convincing ABC to pull this bit of propaganda. Scholastic Magazine has already been persuaded to withdraw its plan to distribute the program to high schools as a supposed "history lesson" about 9/11. Apparently, somebody at Scholastic actually understood that history lessons are supposed to have some vague relationship to events that in fact happened.

What is really scary are some of the facts that are now coming to light about the production of this "miniseries", and the connections it has to right-wing organizations. This appears to be a very deliberate piece of political propaganda, carefully timed to influence the upcoming election. It has previously been reported that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has been lauded by Rush Limbaugh as a "good friend." Nowrasteh has also been affiliated with right-wing guru David Horowitz, avowed scourge of supposed left-wing bias in Hollywood and academia. However, it gets worse. It also appears that the director of the "miniseries", David L. Cunningham, is the son of Christian fundamentalist preacher Loren Cunningham. Cunningham is the founder of an organization called "Youth With A Mission" (YWAM), a highly-organized Christian fundamentalist operation that some observers have criticized as having cult-like tendencies. The publishing arm of YWAM publishes books by, among other right-wing fundamentalists, James Dobson, the head of "Focus on the Family," the far-right organization that is closely affiliated with Republican politicians (including Bush), and that has been in forefront of the drive to outlaw gay marriage and to push the Supreme Court to the far right. YWAM also operates something called the "University of the Nations" (UofN), a training ground for fundamentalist preachers. Director Cunningham is himself a graduate of UofN. UofN, in turn, operates something called "The Film Institute" (TFI), which has the stated purpose of training Christian filmmakers who will be able to infiltrate Hollywood in order to influence the predominant ideological viewpoint of American-made films.

According to a post that appeared some time ago on a website of two members of TFI, Mike and Krista Harris, TFI was involved in the financing of what was described as a "doozy" of a project, a film about the lead-up to 9/11. The post describes the film as the "Untitled History Project." According to IMDB (Internet Movie Data Base), the working title for ABC's 9/11 "miniseries" was "Untitled History Project" (UHP), and ABC itself has identified the producer of the "miniseries" as "UHP Productions, Ltd." Notably, the posting on the Harris website concerning the connection between UHP and TFI disappeared at around the time that the controversy over the ABC "miniseries" first arose. However, the post can still be read on Google.

To read more about all of this, check out Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and Democratic Underground. David Cunningham's connections to YWAM and UofN can be found in his biography appearing in Wikipedia.

There are many other things about this "miniseries" that are highly disturbing. Apparently, certain scenes were shot on location at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. I have never heard of film crews being allowed anywhere near Langley. In addition, it has been widely reported that ABC distributed advance copies of the miniseries to right-wing bloggers and right-wing media outlets, but withheld them from progressive bloggers and from people who might just have something to say about the accuracy of the program, such as President Clinton, Secretary Albright, Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, etc. The "consultant" to the "miniseries" is former N.J. Governor Kean, whose son is currently locked in a hotly-contested Senate race. Since the devastation of 9/11 resonates with particular power in New Jersey, Governor Kean's little boy could certainly be expected to reap significant political benefits from a TV "miniseries" that essentially says that 9/11 was the fault of the Democratic Party. When Governor Kean was recently asked if he felt that President Clinton was entitled to an apology because of the undisputed inaccuracies in the "miniseries", Governor Kean responded that he saw no need to apologize to President Clinton because, after all, President Clinton had campaigned against his son.

What is taking shape here is pretty ugly. We have a Christian fundamentalist director who has been trained to "infiltrate" Hollywood working with a screenwriter who is a "good friend" of Rush Limbaugh and protege of David Horowitz, apparently being funded by a production company with ties to a Christian fundamentalist organization (thus far concealed), making a "miniseries" that deliberately misrepresents the facts in order to place Democratic President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright in a light bordering on treason, being given "legitimacy" by the stamp of approval of a Republican politician whose son is running for the Senate, possibly getting assistance from the Government itself (the CIA filming), and getting promotion by means of selective distribution through right-wing blogs and media outlets. All of this is being timed to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11, which the Republicans have repeatedly used as little more than a convenient campaign prop, as they will undoubtedly do again this year.

I can't imagine why Bush would have any interest in fighting to promote democracy in Iraq because he sure doesn't seem interested in having much of it over here.

Talk to the mouse - tell Disney and ABC that this is intolerable. If they let this propaganda air, they will pay through the nose.