Don’t even get me started on your vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

I cast a ballot for you in November, but I just can’t share in this moment of collective euphoria over your election.

So, if your transition team really wants feedback on “where President-Elect Obama should lead this country,” here’s a Top Five list:

1. Dump the Bush Doctrine and don’t start more wars

You’ve made it clear that the US has to “take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights” and you’ve argued for “more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.”

What exactly does that mean?

Take troops out of Iraq and shove them into Afghanistan? Further destabilize Pakistan?

The whole idea of preemptive war (a.k.a. the Bush Doctrine) has no place in a civilized society and must be laid to rest, along with those sacrificed in Bush’s military adventurism these past eight years.

Yet your approach to preemptive war, Mr. Obama, is nuanced at best.

During the January 2008 Democratic presidential debate, you said that if the US had “actionable intelligence” and Pakistan didn’t “take on Al Qaida in their territory,” then “I would strike.” You added, “And that’s the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn’t that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn’t.”

No, the flaw of the Bush Doctrine is that it’s just plain wrong. We’ve learned that the hard way.

2. Ditch the warmongers

What’s with all of the hawks in your new administration?

You presented yourself as a peace candidate and then chose Joe Biden as your VP. Yes, he brought in the white male vote, but he also backed the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just last month Biden warned that if you were elected, there would be “an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” He said that you would make some “incredibly tough decisions” that could alienate the Democratic base, because if decisions are “popular, they’re probably not sound.”

In other words, a popular decision, one that the majority of the people wants, is probably not a good decision. Democracy to Biden…

And then there’s Robert Gates, widely rumored to be staying on as your Defense Secretary. Questions about Gates’ role in Iran-Contra, not to mention his skewing of intelligence about Russia, still linger.

But especially disturbing is his recent push for beefing up the US nuclear arsenal: “As long as other nations have or seek nuclear weapons – and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends – then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena, or with weapons of mass destruction, could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response.”

Let’s get this straight: if other nations are even imagined to “seek” nuclear weapons, that “could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response” from the US.

Obama, you’ve often insisted on taking “no options off the table” in dealing with Iran. How does Gates’ proposal for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons factor in there?

While we’re on the topic of warmongers in your midst… Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff? Yet another hawk, hell-bent on Iran and enamored with nuclear weapons.

And now we’ve got Clinton as Secretary of State.

Why is it that none of the 23 senators and 133 House Reps who voted against the war in Iraq are even on a short-list for these critical posts?

3. Close Guantanamo – and the whole system of secret prisons

Shutting down Gitmo is said to be a priority for your new administration. Terrific.

But what about Bagram? What about the other CIA “black site” secret prisons set up in Afghanistan, Thailand, Eastern Europe and elsewhere? What about the CIA torture flights? Will those end too?

Closing Gitmo also raises questions over how “high value” defendants will be handled. Your administration is reportedly considering setting up an alternative court system to deal with sensitive cases. But what safeguards will be in place to be sure that this new system won’t degenerate into kangaroo courts, like Bush’s military commissions?

It’s a disturbing signal that you’ve appointed John Brennan, who has supported extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping, to help review intelligence agencies for your administration. As former CIA and State Department analyst Mel Goodman noted, Brennan “sat there at [former CIA Director George] Tenet’s knee when they passed judgment on torture and abuse, on extraordinary renditions, on black sites, on secret prisons. He was part of all of that decision making.”

And this is who will help lead us out of this mess?

You’ve criticized the use of torture, yet reportedly will not bring criminal charges against those who authorized or conducted torture during the Bush years. Your administration doesn’t see it as politically expedient, and Bush might give “preemptive” pardons anyway.

But can we really end this dark chapter in our nation’s history without even an investigation? A Truth Commission, perhaps? Providing blanket immunity to all low-level and senior government officials won’t prevent possible war crimes from happening again. Quite the opposite.

4. Expose Bush & Co., and ditch the national surveillance state

Speaking of war crimes, how about Bush, Cheney and the rest? You’ll soon be given access to Bush-era secret orders and opinions authorizing everything from surveillance to detention. You’ll no doubt rescind many, to great fanfare, but what about sharing this evidence of Bush-year excesses with the public?

Yes, Bush could file a lawsuit and invoke executive privilege, but it’s worth the fight. The only other option is shielding Bush & Co., similar to how you will reportedly shield those government officials involved in torture. But the public deserves to know. And if Bush administration officials violated the law, they should be prosecuted.

Now, back to your vote for both the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 2006 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendment in 2008. These and other rollbacks in domestic civil liberties under Bush are inexcusable and must be addressed. We’ll be waiting for you to do that.

5. Choose Main Street (not Wall Street)

Just this month you promised Americans that they can “turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.”

Yet, as Bloomberg notes, “almost half the people” on your Transition Economic Advisory Board “have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both.”

This includes, for example, Anne Mulcahy and Richard Parsons, both of whom were Fannie Mae directors when the company fudged accounting rules. Ditto for another of your team members, William Daley.

Mulcahy and Parsons additionally held executive posts when their companies (Xerox Corp. and Time Warner Inc., respectively) got busted for accounting fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Also on your team is Robert Rubin, who as Bloomberg notes, was “chairman of Citigroup Inc.’s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own. He was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford Motor Co., which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for Citigroup-style bailout cash.”

The list of questionable appointees to your Transitional Economic Advisory Board goes on and on, begging the question: Is this really the best you could come up with? How about Joseph Stiglitz, Sheila Bair, Nouriel Roubini or James K. Galbraith, for starters? Someone who represents labor?

Meanwhile, we’re stuck with this nasty bailout bill – which you voted for.

Others, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), realized the bill’s problems and voted against it. Feingold said that the Wall Street bailout legislation, “fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn’t do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess.”

Feingold was right.

In short, Mr. President-elect, you promised “Change we can believe in,” but across the board it’s looking a lot more like “Business as usual.”

Toxic economy

Take the Fed’s recent $30 billion bailout of Bear Sterns. Why throw taxpayer dollars at a company with massive amounts of “toxic waste” on its books, created largely through reckless behavior chasing short-term profits?

Reigning in Wall Street would make more sense. Force investment banks to disclose off-balance-sheet risks and put aside substantial reserves, at minimum.

But no, the Fed instead hands Wall Street taxpayer dollars. Moral hazard be damned.

Bear Sterns won’t be the only bailout — the precedent has been set. We are looking at the start of a wealth transfer from normal Americans to large and unaccountable financial institutions.

And the cancer is spreading. In the same way that subprime mortgages have become toxic for major investment banks, the U.S. dollar has become toxic for overseas creditors.

The greenback has been falling against the euro and other currencies since 2002 and is widely expected to plummet further this year. Doesn’t help that the Fed stopped releasing M3 money supply data in March 2006, making it impossible to tell how many dollars are being dumped on the global market.

The Bush administration’s irresponsible fiscal policies have led central banks abroad to see “coupling” with the US as a moral hazard. It’s no surprise that, for example, Japan’s war chest of treasury securities fell $40 billion from January 2007 to January 2008.

Bottom line, the U.S. public’s lack of trust in Bush’s economic policy (if he even has one) is shared by global creditors.

And that leaves just one area of influence for this administration: war, war and more war.

All roads lead to Tehran

In the past two weeks, the White House approach to Iran has become increasingly schizophrenic. While Bush gave two radio interviews emphasizing the possibility for a US-Iran reconciliation, Cheney crisscrossed the Middle East pushing for war.

Maybe they’re playing good cop/bad cop. Or else Cheney’s taking matters into his own hands.

As The Global News Service of the Jewish People (JTA) observed, a U.S. strike on Iran is unlikely unless, “the Democratic presidential candidates appear to be far ahead of their Republican rival and Bush senses a ‘now or never’ strike option.” Since even that scenario may be doubtful, “the Israelis are hoping that the hard-line Cheney will push the envelope — a role he reportedly played vis-a-vis the U.S. invasion of Iraq. One official said Cheney is seen as ‘a significant player’ who could influence ’serious issues that cannot wait.’”

Meanwhile, the Jerusalem-based site DEBKA reported that “at the last minute” before Cheney’s recent visit, the White House asked Israel to prepare for “exhaustive and lengthy discussions on Iran.” As a result, “ministers were convened to decide which of Israel’s military plans of action were to be presented to Cheney.”

DEBKA also noted: “The vice president’s choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again. America will need the cooperation of all four — Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey — to mount a military attack on Iran.”

Intriguingly, Cheney’s visit to the Middle East coincided with a U.S. nuclear submarine crossing the Suez Canal to join the massive Navy fleet already stationed in the Persian Gulf.

As the Russian news service, RIA Novosti, reported this weekend, “the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.” RIA quoted a high-ranking official as saying: “The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran.”

Here we go again

True to form, Cheney made numerous unfounded allegations against Iran during his Middle East trip. Contrary to U.S. intelligence reports, for example, he declared that Tehran is “heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels.”

Interesting coincidence that the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni just wrapped up a U.S. speaking tour beating the same war drum.

In a phone call to Barack Obama, for example, Livni stressed that “there is a direct connection between terror and Iran” which requires the “firm steadfastness of the international community against terror and against Iran.” Obama reportedly reassured her that Iran will not have nuclear weapons.

Just last week General David Petraeus claimed that Iran was behind a rocket attack against the US-controlled Green Zone in Iraq. Petraeus insisted that the rockets “were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made” and that Iran’s actions were “in complete violation of promises made by President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts.”

We’ve been down this road of trumped up allegations before.

So what happens after November 2008?

It’s obvious that McCain would be a foreign policy disaster. His “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” performance speaks for itself, as does his claim that it “is fine with me” if the US stays in Iraq for 100 more years.

He’s also dangerously uninformed. Just weeks ago, McCain told reporters that Iranian operatives were “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” He said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

Small problem: Shia Iran does not support Sunni al-Qaeda. You’d think that after five years of war in Iraq McCain would have figured that out. Only when Sen. Joseph Lieberman quietly corrected him did McCain say: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.” Whatever.

McCain will keep the US at war indefinitely.

So why, for the first time in 14 years, are defense contractors throwing their money behind the Democrats? Since 2000, for example, they’ve given roughly 63% of their election contributions to Republicans, but in the 2008 election cycle, a full 52% of defense industry funding has gone to the Dems.

Maybe it’s because Clinton and Obama can also be expected to keep defense contractors happy. Both speak of peace but have repeatedly voted to fund war. Both have plans for limited troop withdrawal once in office but neither has strongly argued against keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come. Neither has fought to stop construction of the gigantic US embassy in Baghdad or to scale back the heavily-fortified Green Zone.

Perhaps more importantly, both Clinton and Obama have said that all options (code language for nuclear weapons) must be on the table for dealing with Iran.

Shadow economy, shadow government

So who would profit from broader-based war? Weapons manufacturers for one. In fiscal 2006 alone the Pentagon was involved in arms sales agreements of $21 billion. And from 2001 to 2005, the US provided developing nations with 2,099 surface-to-air missiles plus ten “major surface combatants,” including aircraft carriers and destroyers.

Of course, taxpayers fund the bulk of many of these weapons agreements, through direct corporate subsidies or foreign military aid linked to weapons purchases. Yet defense industry profits remain private. Another wealth transfer.

Having apparently done quite nicely in Iraq, Big Oil could also profit from further unrest. The Iraqi government is soon expected to sign “technical support” contracts with five major oil companies (BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Total and Chevron). Iraq will not only pay the five up to $2.5 billion to increase oil production but also fast-track them for bidding on future oil contracts. The oil majors might be hoping to pull off a similar coup when the smoke eventually clears in Iran, or at minimum, to scuttle the proposed Iran-Russia gas cartel.

The Republicans would clearly benefit from a wider war come November. McCain could flash his military credentials and emphasis would be taken off issues most likely to garner Democrats votes, such as the economy.

While the American people have no stomach for further conflict, it’s debatable if their opinion even matters any more. In the same way that Wall Street’s shadow economy is now sticking US taxpayers for billions in bailouts, the shadow government is setting us up for war.

No one really knows, for example, what Cheney is cooking up or what new justification for an attack on Iran will be thrown at us next. False flag perhaps?

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans against “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power” from the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower said: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Now is the time for an alert and knowledgeable citizenry to take action.

Now is the time to dump the hero worship and ask very tough questions of our presidential candidates. Some basics include:

- Will you commit to never using the so-called bunker-buster or any other kind of nuclear weapon against Iran? Will you take that option “off the table” right now?

- Will you insist on a full briefing to the US public and congressional approval before any attack on Iran?

- When will you stop funding the war in Iraq? In Afghanistan?

- When will you bring all troops home? Will you commit to removing Blackwater and other private security companies too?

Now is also the time to ask a very tough question of ourselves. If there is some kind of attack on US interests and the administration insists Iran did it, yet supplies little in the way of viable proof, will we take action? If so, why wait?

Action Ideas

1. Have Fallon testify before Congress

Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Central Command, left his job recently over differences with the White House regarding an attack on Iran. As CODEPINK notes: “The Bush Administration will not let Admiral Fallon testify before Congress in April; it only wants Congress to hear the voice of General Petraeus, the ‘feel good’ military man who says the surge is working. This is a travesty. Congress needs the perspective that Fallon’s deep and reasoned knowledge of the situation in the Middle East brings. During a time when military endeavors in both Afghanistan and Iraq have failed miserably, we can’t afford to let our President start a third catastrophe in Iran.”

Call Senator Biden (202-224-4651) or email the Foreign Relations Committee today to urge them to have Fallon testify.

2. Learn more about Iraq Town Halls and make your voice heard.

Democrats.com has an important initiative called Iraq Town Halls: “In April, Congress will vote to give George Bush another $102 billion blank check for Iraq — unless we finally persuade our Representatives to Just Say No. One of the best ways to persuade a Representative is to hold a Town Hall Meeting and fill the hall with people who care and are willing to speak passionately. That gets their attention!”

3. Impeach Cheney

Do you think Cheney should be impeached? The People’s Email Network has made it easy for you to take action. The one-click form on their site “will send your personal message to all your members of Congress, with your vote on the question ‘Should Vice President Cheney be impeached?’ At the same time it will send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper, if that option is selected below.”

While you’re at The People’s Email Network site, consider creating your own issue action petition. It costs nothing and enables you to start your own movement using their dedicated submission server.

4. Find out if there are WMD facilities in your area

Weapons manufacturers have had a bonanza under Bush, and often the public isn’t aware that a domestic WMD lab is nearby.

Curious about where the nation’s nuclear weapons plants are located? Then check out the Federation of American Scientists at: “Where the Bombs Are”

Is a university or military facility in your area involved in biological weapons research? One resource to help you locate biodefense projects is Project Sunshine’s “Map of High Containment and Other Facilities of the US Biodefense Program,” under “Biodefense” on the Project Sunshine site.

If your group would like to conduct its own PR-generating “inspection” of a domestic WMD facility, check out the Citizen Weapons Inspection Teams site for materials, pointers and a 5-page Citizen Inspection Team Event Checklist, covering everything from budgeting resources to issuing a declaration.

5. Put the media to work

Progressive Democrats of America has put together a terrific resource to help you contact the media with your comments, complaints and suggestions.

The operation is just the latest example of the Defense Department’s long history of using service members and civilians as human test subjects, often without their consent or awareness.

Gas chambers in Maryland

Wray C. Forrest learned about the US military’s human-testing program the hard way. In 1973, the Army sent then 23-year-old Forrest to its Edgewood Arsenal chemical-research center in Maryland, promising patriotic service and a four-day work week.

Instead, he became one of roughly 6,720 soldiers used as Edgewood Arsenal test subjects between 1950-1975.

Forrest was given a new identity at Edgewood: Research Subject #6692. He says, “That was the number assigned to me … similar to the numbers assigned to the Jews in the concentration/death camps in Germany during WWII.”

The US military tested heart drugs on Forrest, which he says were administered by IV and various types of injections. Forrest was also exposed to “contaminated drinking water, food, and various ground contaminates that permeate Edgewood Arsenal. BZ [a chemical incapacitating agent], napalm, mustard agents, and any number of other contaminates in the ground and drinking water there, from previous testing done there by the military.”

A total of 254 different chemicals were researched on soldiers at Edgewood, and Forrest notes, “We were never informed as to exactly what we were being given. We also did not sign any informed consent prior to the testing. This was a direct violation of the Geneva Convention rules for the use of humans in chemical and drug experiments/research.”

The Edgewood Arsenal facility played a role in WWII human subject testing as well. Roughly 4,000 US soldiers were used as human guinea pigs in chemical research which often took place in gas chambers.

US Navy member Nat Schnurman, for example, was sent to an Edgewood gas chamber six times one week in 1942. As The Detroit Free Press reported: “On his last visit, a blend of mustard gas and lewisite was piped in. Schnurman was overcome with toxins, vomited into his mask and begged for release. The request was denied. His next memory is of coming to on a snowbank outside the chamber.”

A pattern of abuse and neglect

If the sagas of Forrest and Schnurman were isolated, they would represent a disgraceful yet closed chapter of US military history. Unfortunately, the Pentagon’s human-testing program has extended far beyond Edgewood Arsenal.

Human Experimentation, a 1994 report from the congressional General Accounting Office (GAO), lays out the Defense Department’s sordid history in detail.

Between 1949 and 1969, for example, the Army sprayed bacterial tracers or simulants on unsuspecting populations in hundreds of biological warfare tests. According to the GAO: “Some of the tests involved spraying large areas, such as the cities of St. Louis and San Francisco, and others involved spraying more focused areas, such as the New York City subway system and Washington National Airport.”

No coherent attempt was made to warn those affected or to offer follow-up medical care.

Between 1952-1975, the CIA tested LSD and other psychochemical agents on “an undetermined number of people without their knowledge or consent.”

No coherent attempt was made to offer follow-up information or care.

Over 235 atmospheric nuclear tests and experiments were conducted on roughly 210,000 personnel affiliated to the US Defense Department from 1945-1962. A further 199,000 “were exposed to radiation through work.”

No coherent attempt was made to warn those affected or to offer follow-up medical care.

One of the best known examples of US military human-testing is Project 112, whereby the Pentagon used biological/chemical agents on 5,842 service members in secret trials conducted over a ten-year period (1962-73).

Project 112, and the affiliated Project SHAD, tested everything from Sarin nerve agent to an E. coli simulant aboard Navy ships and in land trials. Tests were conducted in six states (Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Utah) Canada and Britain and often without the consent or awareness of those exposed.

Only in 2003, after crucial documents slowly became declassified, did the veterans’ health complaints start to be acknowledged. By then, over 750 Project 112 veterans were already dead.

The Veterans’ Administration still had not notified more than 40% of those used in Project 112/SHAD human testing by 2004. The Defense Department was blamed for foot-dragging in identifying the potentially affected service members and civilians.

The battle to receive care

Wray Forrest knows firsthand about fighting official neglect and denial over human-testing. When his health started to deteriorate, Forrest was forbidden to get medical support: “We could not tell what we were exposed to due to the classification of the project, nor could we seek medical help due to the alleged non-disclosure papers we signed.”

Forrest was discharged from the military in 1982 for health reasons (deemed “unsuitable for service”). He was still unable to talk to anyone about Edgewood Arsenal, so kept his “agreed silence, and took what the military dished out calling me, UNSUITABLE.”

In July 2006, the Veterans’ Administration (VA) released a document on health care eligibility listing Edgewood Arsenal survivors as a Category 6 disability rating, which meant that affected veterans would be eligible for clinical evaluation and “necessary treatment of conditions related to exposure without copays.” But when Forrest called the VA to seek help, he was told that the publication was an error and in fact Edgewood Arsenal veterans have no VA health care eligibility.

“How sweet, they have killed us, buried us, and now they want us to go away,” he concluded.

Forrest is not the only veteran subjected to human-testing who has fought to receive care. Even in well-documented and recent cases, compensation is elusive.

In December 2007, for example, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the widows of five veterans who died after being enrolled in fraudulent drug studies at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, NY.

Stratton had been plagued by allegations of research violations from the early 1990s. Then in 1999, the facility hired Paul Kornak to be its Research Coordinator, despite the fact that Kornak had forged his credentials, falsified his college transcript and been arrested in Pennsylvania years earlier for related fraud. Apparently, background checks for health professionals were minimal at Stratton VA Medical Center.

From 1999-2003, Kornak falsified veterans’ medical records at Stratton, inappropriately enrolling them in studies for drug marketability. In 2001, for example, Stratton tested a powerful three-drug chemotherapy combination on Carl M. Steubing, a 78-year-old Battle of the Bulge veteran, despite his previous bout with cancer and poor kidney function.

Steubing died in early 2002. His widow still wonders if the fraudulent human-test studies at Stratton cost her husband his life.

In court, the five widows’ lawyer argued that Stratton “committed every kind of research ethics violation imaginable,” adding “when you use individuals, humans, as guinea pigs, you do them harm.”

The US government responded by saying there was no way to prove the veterans had experienced pain or died early as a result of the corrupt drug experiments.

Case closed.

Open-air testing

If veterans with solid proof of having been used as test subjects cannot receive compensation, the possibilities are minuscule for service members and civilians used in trials without their consent or awareness.

Open-air testing of chemical and biological (CB) agents is one such case.

After 6,000 sheep died following the apparent release of a nerve agent at an Army facility in Utah in 1969, open-air testing was officially said to have ended in the US.

But the Defense Department’s April 2007 report to Congress on “Chemical and Biological Defense” strongly suggests an imminent resumption.

According to Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, at least three passages of the Pentagon’s 2007 report indicate a planned continuance of open-air testing. While one section of the document, for example, mentions the use of “live-CB-agent full system test chambers,” another passage (page 67) reads:

“More than thirty years have passed since outdoor live agent chemical tests were banned in the United States, and the last outdoor test with live chemical agent was performed, so much of the infrastructure for the field testing of chemical detectors no longer exists or is seriously outdated. The currently budgeted improvements in the T&E infrastructure will greatly enhance both the developmental and operational field testing of full systems, with better simulated representation of threats and characterization of system response.”

As Dr. Boyle notes, both “test chambers” and “field testing” are mentioned in the report.

In addition, the passage says that improvements in the T&E (testing and evaluation) infrastructure and “better simulated representation of threats” are going to be carried out using “full systems” rather than simulants.

Dr. Boyle says, “It is clear they will be engaging in ‘Field Trials’ (not in test chambers) of ‘full systems,’ which means ‘live CB agents,’ not simulants.”

Another troublesome passage from the Defense Department’s April 2007 report (page 65) is:

“Current shortfalls lie in the full systems and platform test chambers and supporting instrumentation and fixtures. These test fixtures must be able to introduce and adequately control live CB agent challenges and provide a range of environmental and challenge conditions to simulate evolving threats, while performing end-to-end systems operations of CBD equipment.”

Dr. Boyle points out that the passage says “full systems” rather than “simulants,” and it makes a distinction between “test fixtures” and “test chambers.” He adds that talking about “‘a range of environmental and challenge conditions’ in a test chamber” is nonsensical. “A test chamber does not have a ‘range of environmental and challenge conditions.’”

“What they are talking about here,” Dr. Boyle concludes, “is testing live CB (chemical and biological) agents in Field Tests — open-air testing, where there will be a ‘range of environmental and challenge conditions’ to confront, test and verify.”

Gassing Crystal City

In May 2007, just one month after the Defense Department’s controversial report to Congress, the Pentagon quietly announced it would release “a dust simulating a biological attack in the Pentagon South Parking Lot.” The stated purpose was to study “the subsequent clean-up of roadways, people and equipment after the release.”

The announcement cryptically described the “dust” as containing “a harmless inert bacterium found in soil, water and air.”

Kirt P. Love, Director of the Desert Storm Battle Registry (DSBR), a Gulf War veterans’ group dealing with the exposures of the 1991 conflict, repeatedly phoned the Pentagon to clarify exactly what “dust” would be used in the imminent open-air test.

He soon found, however, that “the departments involved were not communicating with each other … only the people who handled the agent knew anything.”

Love described the situation as “disquieting” and said, “I thought this was very unfair to the Pentagon Police and other innocent bystanders who didn’t need to be kept in the dark about this. How could they conduct an open air test of a microbe and not tell people what it was up front?”

Eventually, Love’s phone calls paid off. A Pentagon representative told him the substance to be tested was Bacillus subtilis, which intriguingly, was also used during the US military’s Project SHAD human testing in the 1960s-70s.

The Pentagon’s announcement was correct in saying that Bacillus subtilis is found in soil. It failed to mention, however, that the bacterium has been linked to pulmonary disease and irreversible lung damage.

The Defense Department quietly carried out its Bacillus subtilis release in early June 2007. A Pentagon spokesperson would not confirm if the roughly 50 test subjects and numerous bystanders had been informed about the possible health risks.

And the open air tests continue.

In the next few days, the Pentagon is slated to release perfluorocarbon tracers and sulfur hexafluoride in Crystal City, Virginia.

Dubbed “Urban Shield: Crystal City Urban Transport Study,” the operation will test the effectiveness of the city’s chemical sensors, and according to The Examiner newspaper, “ the data will help the Pentagon and Arlington shape their lockdown policies for chemical and biological attacks or accidents.” Lockdown policies.

According to a Pentagon press release from late February 2008, the study “will involve releasing a colorless, odorless, tasteless, and inert tracer gas that poses no health or safety hazards to people or the environment.”

But it’s not quite that simple. Sulfur hexafluoride is a suspected respiratory toxicant; as such, exposure in certain amounts may be harmful for those with asthma, emphysema and other respiratory issues. It also is a suspected neurotoxicant, with potential untold consequences for the nervous systems of those vulnerable.

That part is left out of the Pentagon’s press release.

Crystal City is one of the “urban villages” of Arlington County, Virginia. It features upscale offices and residential areas — in other words a lot of civilians. You would think that if the Pentagon is releasing suspected toxicants into such a compressed urban area there would be more warning about potential health risks.

Yet repeated phone calls to the Pentagon yesterday yielded no results. The Force Protection Agency seemed unaware of the upcoming test and the press office was of no help either. No one could – or would – answer basic questions such as how many people could be exposed in the open-air test, if any attempt had been made to brief citizens on potential health risks or if there would be any medical follow-up provided.

Perfectly legal

The Pentagon’s laissez faire approach to these open-air tests raises questions about the possibilities for further testing on the general US population.

There is a tricky clause in Chapter 32/Title 50 of the United States Code (the aggregation of US general and permanent laws). Specifically, Section 1520a lists the following cases in which the Secretary of Defense can conduct a chemical or biological agent test or experiment on humans if informed consent has been obtained:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

In other words, there are many circumstances under which the Secretary of Defense can test chemical or biological agents on human beings, but at least informed consent has to be obtained in advance.

Or does it? Section 1515, another part of Chapter 32, is entitled “Suspension; Presidential authorization” and says:

After November 19, 1969, the operation of this chapter, or any portion thereof, may be suspended by the President during the period of any war declared by Congress and during the period of any national emergency declared by Congress or by the President.

Essentially, if the President or Congress decides that we are at war, then the Secretary of Defense does not need anybody’s consent to test chemical or biological agents on human beings. Gives one pause during these days of a perpetual “war on terror.”

Ominously, in June 2007, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell gained White House approval to update a 1981 presidential order on how US spy agencies operate. Potentially up for review in the highly secretive overhaul, referred to as Order 12333, is the topic of human experimentation.

A surge in US WMD spending

The Bush administration has quietly channeled tens of billions of dollars into chemical and biological weapons. Bush’s 2007 budget, for example, earmarked almost $2 billion for biodefense research and development via the National Institutes of Health alone.

Research aims are often dubious. In October 2005, for example, US scientists resurrected the 1918 Spanish flu, a virus which had killed almost 50 million people. And a virologist in St. Louis has been working on a more lethal form of mousepox (related to smallpox) just to try stopping the virus once it has been created.

Since the R&D is top secret and oversight limited, the public is rarely aware of escalating dangers. As of August 2007, for example, biological weapons laboratories across the country had reported 36 lost shipments and accidents for that year, almost double the number for all of 2004.

In addition to challenging international non-proliferation agreements and risking a global arms race, the Bush administration’s surge in chemical and biological weapons spending raises questions over what deadly weapons may have been tested on populations abroad. And what may be tested domestically, with or without the public’s consent.

For Wray Forrest, the battle for government accountability continues: “On September 29, 2006, Congress passed a bill that will inform veterans exactly what they were exposed to, within the next two or three years. I can just see it now: They visit my grave site and post it on my tomb stone, in order to inform me of what I was exposed to and just what exposure caused me to die.”

If we cut the Pentagon budget 15%, $75 billion will go into a universal pre-kindergarten program so our children ages 3, 4 and 5 will have access to full-time day care and more money would go into elementary and secondary education. Our college-age students need to know that with a Kucinich administration they’re guaranteed a two- or four-year college, tuition free, and it’ll be paid for by the government investing in our young people. That’s the kind of approach I’ll take to education.

– Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Oct 30, 2007, Democratic debate at Drexel University

In a Gallup poll released on December 10 2007, Education scored a respectable #12 for the issues determining Americans’ choice of president in 2008. Education even scored above Terrorism, Environmental Issues, Employment Issues and World Peace.

So it’s no wonder that Democratic presidential candidates have aggressively criticized No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Bush administration’s disastrous excuse for an education policy.

Obama said the law was “demoralizing our teachers” and Clinton promised to “do everything I can as senator, but if we don’t get it done, then as president, to end the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind.” Of the law’s emphasis on standardized testing, Edwards told Iowans, “You don’t make a hog fatter by weighing it.”

But only one presidential candidate has connected the dots from Baghdad to our nation’s classrooms: Dennis Kucinich. In calling for 15% of the Pentagon’s budget to fund education instead, Kucinich stands alone in promising books, not Army boots, to the nation’s youth.

Doing the math on Bush’s education disaster is easy. Opinions may differ about the merits of NCLB, but on one point there is little disagreement – it hasn’t been funded properly.

Soon after signing NCLB into law in early January 2002, Bush released his 2003 education budget which not only cut 40 educational programs but also came up short on funding his own program.

As of 2004, Bush had allocated NCLB $27 billion less than Congress authorized, with programs for disadvantaged students underfunded by a full $7.2 billion. Things just got worse from there.

For FY 2005, Bush’s budget underfunded NCLB by $9.4 billion, and other crucial partner programs were cut altogether. Among those on the 2005 chopping block: Even Start (reading program for poor families), Javits Gifted and Talented Program (for gifted students who are minorities, disabled or who speak limited English), Dropout Prevention, Foreign Language Assistance, and Arts in Education. All in all, the Bush administration’s 2005 budget proposed cutting $1.4 billion from the education budget and axing 38 federal education programs.

Bush’s proposed FY 2006 budget was even more extreme, underfunding NCLB by a full $12 billion, or roughly 33% of its authorized amount. Also slashed were programs for disadvantaged students and those with special needs.

The FY 2007 proposed budget similarly underfunded NCLB by over $15 billion and eliminated numerous critical educational programs.

Factoring in the $14.8 billion underfunding slated for 2008 in Bush’s budget request, NCLB is left with a cumulative funding gap of $70.9 billion.

How can schools be held accountable for failing to reach NCLB goals if the federal government isn’t held accountable for meeting its funding promises?

Meanwhile, the states have faced a one-two budgetary punch as the weak economy has driven down tax revenues yet simultaneously increased demand for social services. All of this has led to across-the-board cuts in education, combined with increased pressure to shell out money on standardized tests.

Doesn’t help that the costs for war have simultaneously skyrocketed. Just last week, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) estimated that the US presence in Iraq was costing almost $15 billion per month. 15 billion dollars per month.

Connecting the dots here is simple, but most Democratic candidates are avoiding the elephant in the classroom. They criticize NCLB and promise more educational funding but don’t say where that money will come from.

Voters know better. In the December 2007 Gallup poll, respondents listed the War in Iraq as the most important issue determining Americans’ choice of president in 2008. It’s worth noting that Kucinich is the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against the Iraq war authorization in 2002 and every war-funding measure since then.

He also is the only Democratic Presidential candidate directly linking war spending to education funding.

The Des Moines Register (which used a ridiculous technicality to exclude Kucinich from their presidential debates) is predicting that first-time voters could determine the winner of Thursday’s Iowa Democratic caucus.

Obama is aiming for younger caucus-goers.

Clinton is targeting women.

Both demographic groups should take another look at Kucinich, and his plan to put the nation’s youth in college, not in Baghdad.

On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world, and that it does not value life … Now we are engaged in a fight against evil and tyranny to preserve and protect life.
– George W. Bush in 2002, linking abortion rights with terrorism, as he declared the 29th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to be “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.”

Bush has used his Oval Office years to limit reproductive freedom and stack critical posts with right-wingers bent on rolling back the clock.

And now it appears yet another reactionary Bush appointee is on track to get a lifetime position as a federal judge…

Bush nominated Wyoming lawyer and former state representative Richard Honaker to the US District Court back in March, but the reproductive rights group NARAL believes he may soon get a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Honacker authored a 1991 bill which would have outlawed most abortions and has said that abortion is “wrong, and no one should have the right to do what is wrong.”

If the nomination goes through, Honacker will stay on the bench long after Bush is out of office, and he’ll join a growing list of appointees eager to regulate your sexuality.

A Top Ten list, so far…

1. Patricia Funderburk Ware

In 2001, Bush named abstinence-only proponent Patricia Funderburk Ware to be Executive Director of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA). Ware’s qualifications for the job of promoting “effective prevention of HIV disease” included criticizing condom use and lobbying against HIV/AIDS being in the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Two years later, Ware recommended that a controversial character named Jerry Thacker join the PACHA panel. Thacker has called AIDS a “gay plague” and homosexuality a “deathstyle.” Amid public protest, Thacker soon withdrew his nomination and Ware left her PACHA post.

2. Tom Coburn

Bush nominated then-Rep. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to be PACHA co-chair in 2003. Coburn supports mandatory reporting to public authorities of the names of those testing positive for HIV/AIDS.

He favors “the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life.”

According to Coburn, the gay community “has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power … That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.’

Who else would you want advising the Bush administration on AIDS?

3. David Hager

Hager was one of three religious conservatives that Bush put on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in 2002 and only public outcry prevented him from becoming its chairperson. Critics argued that in his gynecology practice, Hager had refused to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women and had recommended Scripture readings to alleviate headaches and premenstrual syndrome.

A memo which Hager wrote helped persuade the FDA to overrule its own advisory panel in 2004, thus preventing the emergency contraceptive “Plan B” from being made more easily available. Critics assailed the FDA’s decision as ignoring scientific evidence, but in Hager’s assessment: “Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good.”

A downright criminal side of Hager emerged when his former wife went public with the fact that he had been emotionally, physically and sexually abusive during their 32-year marriage, forcibly sodomizing her on a regular basis. As Hager’s ex-wife told The Nation magazine in May 2005, “it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible.”

Hager left the FDA committee soon after The Nation article was published.

4. & 5. Lester Crawford and Norris Alderson

As Acting Commissioner of the FDA, Lester Crawford was notorious for blocking over-the-counter access to emergency contraception (EC).

Democratic senators initially halted Crawford’s confirmation to head the FDA, but gave approval in June 2005 after he promised to take action on EC by September 1, 2005. Once sworn in, however, Crawford stalled yet again, despite the FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee’s having voted 23 to 4 in favor of making EC available over-the-counter.

Dr. Susan Wood, the well-respected head of the FDA Women’s Health Office, soon resigned in protest — and that’s when things got really bizarre. Weeks after Wood stepped down, the FDA Women’s Health Office sent out a mass email announcing that she would be replaced by Dr. Norris Alderson, who was duly listed on the FDA site as: “Acting Director, Office of Women’s Health, Associate Commissioner for Science.”

One small problem. Alderson is a veterinarian.

The administration appointed an animal doctor to be in charge of women’s health. Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

After predictable outcry, the FDA tried to pretend that Alderson had never been appointed in the first place. Recipients of the initial mass emailing, of course, knew otherwise.

To make things even weirder, Crawford himself suddenly resigned as head of the FDA in September 2005 (just months after having been confirmed), amid allegations of not having properly disclosed his financial holdings to the Senate.

In August 2006, the FDA finally approved making the EC “Plan B” available over-the counter to consumers 18 years and older.

6. John G. Roberts

Progressives balked in September 2005 when Bush put forward far-right extremist John G. Roberts to head the US Supreme Court. In Robert’s illustrious career, he had fought against minority voting rights, argued against women’s educational rights, and tried to limit the rights of women prisoners. A legal brief Roberts contributed to said that Roe vs. Wade was “wrongly decided and should be overruled.”

Roberts became Chief Justice within weeks of his nomination, and as expected, has dragged the Supreme Court to the right. In the past two years, for example, the Roberts’ court upheld the constitutionality of a federal anti-abortion law (the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act) and decreased public school students’ rights to free speech.

7. Samuel Alito

In January 2006, the stridently anti-choice Samuel Alito was sworn in to the US Supreme Court. Alito had previously argued that the strip-search of a mother and ten-year old girl without a warrant was constitutional and that women should be required to tell their husbands before getting an abortion.

Alito stated in a 1985 application to be Deputy Assistant Attorney General: “I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion.” For good measure, he added, “I am and always have been a conservative.”

Alito replaced the moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the nation’s high court. The obvious shift to the right caused by the addition of Roberts and Alito led Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to observe: “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.”

8. Paul Bonicelli

In October 2005, Paul Bonicelli was appointed as Deputy Assistant Administrator for the US international development agency’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA). Bonicelli’s main prior claim to fame was being Dean of Academic Affairs at the fundamentalist Patrick Henry College, where the Student Honor Code mandates: “I will reserve sexual activity for the sanctity of marriage.” Patrick Henry College also has a 10-part Statement of Faith which says that hell is a place where “all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.”

Bonicelli’s current office at DCHA is responsible for: ‘’strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights; promoting more genuine and competitive elections and political processes; increasing development of a politically active civil society; and implementing a more transparent and accountable governance.”

In other words, a guy who thinks that non-believers “shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity” has been put in charge of promoting human rights across the world.

9. Eric Keroak

In 2006, Bush tapped Eric Keroack to be Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs at the Health and Human Services Department. Keroack opposes contraception, has described premarital sex as “modern germ warfare,” and espouses the bizarre, unscientific belief that casual sex depletes “bonding” hormones. He was previously medical director of a Christian pregnancy counseling service which described contraception as “demeaning to women.”

And that’s who the Bush administration chose to oversee the distribution of $283 million in family planning funds for the nation.

Keroack resigned in March 2007, after state Medicaid officials began taking action against his private medical practice.

10. Susan Orr

Keroack was replaced by Susan Orr, who had been “Senior Director for Marriage and Families” at the anti-gay, anti-reproductive rights Family Research Council. In her prior career, Orr had opposed the emergency contraception RU-486 and gushed that Bush was “pro-life … in his heart” for withholding funds from international family planning groups which even discussed abortion.

Orr has claimed that contraception is “not a medical necessity.” Yet she now is in charge of facilitating access to both contraception and sex education for low-income families across the nation.

—–

While presidential candidate George W. Bush insisted that he would put “competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy,” his judicial and other appointments have proven otherwise. And these appointees will not leave office when Bush does.

Take Action

1. Oppose the nomination of Richard Honaker

NARAL Pro-Choice America has made it easy for you to urge your Senators not to support a lifetime judgeship for Richard Honaker. Check it out here:

2. Learn more about reproductive rights

How does your state stack up when it comes to reproductive rights? NARAL Pro-Choice America has a quick and easy way to find out via its “In Your State” index. For example, if you choose Wyoming, you’ll find that the legislature is considering two anti-choice bills including one requiring women to receive a “state-mandated lecture, which may include medically inaccurate information, prior to obtaining abortion services and prohibits abortion unless women wait an additional 24 hours after receiving lecture.” If you choose Tennessee, you will also find four separate anti-choice bills, including one “proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict low-income women’s access to abortion.” The site also lets you to see your Congress members’ reproductive rights voting records. Definitely worth a visit.

* “Bush in the Bedroom” is partially excerpted from The Progressives’ Handbook: Get the Facts and Make a Difference Now.

Overlapping Agendas

Things haven’t always been tense between Bush and Benedict. They share similar views regarding abortion, gay marriage, and other hot-button conservative issues. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (as Benedict was known before becoming Pope in April 2005) even helped Bush secure the White House for a second term.

Specifically, after Bush visited the Vatican in June 2004, complaining that “Not all the American bishops are with me,” Ratzinger sent a letter to US bishops, ordering them to refuse Communion to “a Catholic politician … consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” – a thinly-veiled reference to John Kerry. Ratzinger added that any person even voting for this Catholic politician “would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion.” Probably no surprise, then, that Bush increased his margin among Catholics by 6% from 2000 to 2004.

In an interesting twist, Ratzinger also partnered with George W. Bush’s brother Neil in a foundation “to promote ecumenical understanding and publish original religious texts” in 1999. Oddly enough, business credit reports listed the foundation as a “management trust for purposes other than education, religion, charity or research,” leaving the true nature of the Neil Bush/Cardinal Ratzinger venture unclear.

In 2005, Ratzinger was named as a defendant in a U.S. lawsuit suit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual abuse of minors. At the center of the controversy was a May 2001 confidential letter he had sent Catholic bishops across the world ordering them to keep evidence of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy secret until 10 years after the child had reached adult status.

Soon after becoming Pope, however, Ratzinger was dismissed from the case. A US federal judge decided the lawsuit would be “incompatible with the United States’ foreign policy interests.”

Disagreements Multiply

On many contentious issues since then, Pope Benedict XVI has disagreed with the Bush administration’s policies, but only politely and indirectly. For example, Benedict has spoken in favor of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is often at loggerheads with Bush administration foreign policy.

Similarly, Benedict’s Vatican has taken a firm stance against global warming, even acquiring a carbon offset forest to make the Vatican the “first entirely carbon neutral sovereign state.” He has called for greater international co-operation to fight ozone depletion, yet he has not overtly criticized White House foot-dragging in that area.

The gloves came off, however, regarding the war in Iraq. In a May 2003 interview, Ratzinger said, “There was not sufficient reasons to unleash a war in Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’”

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was similarly contentious for former Pope John Paul II, who sent a special envoy to the White House in March 2003 in an effort to prevent an attack. The papal envoy’s pleas fell on deaf ears.

Vatican criticisms of the Bush administration’s military intervention in Iraq have continued unabated. French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, told an Italian magazine in August 2007, “The facts speak for themselves. Alienating the international community (with the U.S. push for war) was a mistake.” Tauran, who has referred to the invasion and occupation as a “crime against peace,” also said that Christians in Iraq “paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship” of Saddam Hussein.

Rice Rebuffed

As such, it is perhaps unsurprising that Benedict failed to honor Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s urgent request for a private meeting last month. The Italian periodical Corriere della Sera reported that Rice was hoping to capitalize on the Pope’s moral authority by having a papal audience focused on the Middle East. Instead, Rice was told that Benedict was on holiday and had to settle for a telephone conversation with a lower Vatican official.

The ongoing tensions between Bush and Benedict over Iraq put America’s over 75 million Roman Catholics in a tricky position for 2008. By supporting candidates hawkish on the Bush administration’s Iraq policies, are they defying the Pope and the Catholic Church?

For its part, the powerful United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has taken a firm stance against the US presence in Iraq. A July 2007 letter to House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), USCCB noted, “The current situation in Iraq is unacceptable and unsustainable,
as is the policy and political stalemate among decision makers in Washington … our nation must have the moral courage to change course in Iraq.”

Dissent is swelling up from the grassroots as well. In August 2007, an alliance of religious groups calling itself Catholics for an End to War collected 10,000 signatures for an online petition “urging leaders to commit to a responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops.” Sister Simone Campbell of the national Catholic social justice lobby NETWORK said, “Church leaders and individual Catholics have opposed U.S. policy in Iraq since before the war began,” adding that the petition “lets thousands of Catholics unite to speak out even more strongly for an end to the violence and occupation.”

In other words, being dovish on Iraq might help the next Democratic presidential contender win Roman Catholic votes. Whether the current front-runners qualify for that distinction, however, is another matter.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

– George W Bush

Much in the same way that US investors were “steered” into rip-off mortgage loans, the entire country has been “steered” into an economic crisis. The question is how to get out of it.

In the subprime loan scandal, unscrupulous brokers conned home buyers with poor credit histories into deals designed to profit lenders and bleed borrowers. Contract “teasers” hid ballooning monthly payments while a lack of regulation allowed the scam to continue unabated. Millions more Americans now face losing their homes.

The Bush administration similarly used promises of cakewalks and increased security to con the US public into wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. US taxpayers have spent over $450 billion on Iraq alone, while Bush/Cheney cronies continue making a killing from military contracts. Meanwhile, global security has degenerated and over 4,100 US service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with an untold number of coalition troops, contractors and civilians.

Bush’s military adventurism, not to mention his administration’s exorbitant tax cuts for the wealthy, gutted the surplus of $128 billion Clinton handed him in 2001 into a deficit of well over $200 billion today. And Bush has simultaneously increased the national debt by over $3 trillion (to roughly $9 trillion ), effectively nailing each and every US citizen with a bill for almost $30,000.

While heavy borrowing from Asia has mopped up some stateside red ink, there’s an inherent threat: China, for example, has an estimated $900 billion in US bonds and can increasingly call the shots on the US economy and foreign policy.

Just weeks ago, Beijing warned that if the Bush administration pushed for a revaluation of the Chinese currency, then Beijing would sell dollars, thereby threatening the greenback’s reserve currency status. Washington backed down. It had little other option.

In other words, the US itself has become as vulnerable to its lenders as any other subprime borrower.

Overall, the US debt situation looks so dire that the non-partisan Government Accountability Office Comptroller recently warned, “ America is on a path toward an explosion of debt. And that indebtedness threatens our country’s, our children’s, and our grandchildren’s futures. With the looming retirement of the baby boomers, spiraling health care costs, plummeting savings rates, and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks.”

Financial analysts say credit markets are facing a Minsky moment – the inevitable downward spiral when over-leveraged investors have to sell valued assets just to pay back their loans. Some analysts have even coined a new term, suggesting we are in a “Minsky meltdown” – the prelude to a wider market crash.

But it looks more like a “Minsky massacre,” not an unavoidable economic downturn but rather a coldly-calculated hit, with the intention of transferring wealth from the lower and middle classes to an unaccountable few at the top.

Bottom line, this economic downturn isn’t hurting everyone. Select brokers and lenders made a fortune off the backs of subprime borrowers, and now that the related hedge funds are collapsing, well-leveraged private equity firms can buy assets at fire-sale prices.

And as Jim Hightower recently noted, a “hands-off regulatory ideology” is complicit: “There are no less than five financial agencies at the federal level that could have protected people, yet the subprime surge was allowed to proceed …. The Federal Reserve Board, for example, has direct authority under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act to ‘prohibit acts or practices in connection with mortgage loans that the board finds to be unfair, deceptive or … associated with abusive lending practices, or that are otherwise not in the interest of the borrower.’ The Fed simply ignored this law.”

The US has been down this road before. The Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of the late 1980s was also characterized by loose lending requirements, lax regulation, obscene profits for the few – and US taxpayers left holding the bag for $125 billion.

Ironically, the Bush family was involved in that scandal too, with Bush Jr.’s brother Neil serving on the board of the disgraced Silverado Savings and Loan, which went bust and stuck US taxpayers with a $1.3 billion debt. Regulators accused Neil of “multiple conflicts of interest” but he never did jail time – thanks at least in part to the S&L bail out engineered by his father, Bush Sr., who happened to be President at the time.

Just as in the S&L crisis, the poor and middle class have borne the brunt of the current subprime disaster, an especially nasty fact given the nation’s huge wealth gap. As Inequality.org points out, “The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation’s private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. The top one percent also owns 36.9 percent of all corporate stock.”

It’s probably no coincidence that terms associated with both corporate and developing country indebtedness are being used to discuss the US subprime meltdown (payment defaults, vulture funds, distressed debt, etc). Perhaps the US hasn’t reached banana republic status yet, but the increasing wealth gap, not to mention ballooning budget deficits, low capital spending and reliance on foreign capital are disturbing signs.

Doesn’t help either that the Federal Reserve stopped releasing M3 money-supply data in 2006. M3 data (covering Eurodollars, repurchase agreements and large-denomination time deposits) is critical in determining how fast the Fed is printing money, which in turn impacts inflation.

So, what further fallout from the subprime scandal can be expected? Millions more Americans will lose their homes, and as The New York Times recently reported, “for the first time since federal housing agencies began keeping statistics in 1950,” the median price of homes in the US will fall.

Ratings agencies, such as Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, will take some heat for their role in the scandal, but the Bush administration will focus on bailing out predatory lenders rather than helping Americans keep their homes. Congress and most presidential candidates will protect financial services campaign donors by not pursuing true reform.

Meanwhile, Asia and Europe will continue “decoupling” from increasingly volatile US markets, threatening the dollar’s reserve currency status even more. Fresh off its recent war games with China and four Central Asian republics, Russia will more actively confront the US on the world stage. The Bush administration will move closer to a war with Iran.

Of course, these dire predictions don’t have to materialize – we can regroup and fight back. One avenue is by urging Congress members to take action, such as changing foreclosure rules to protect homeowners and supporting Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act (H.R. 2895). Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) push to have the Fed start releasing M3 data again (H.R.4892 ) is also urgent.

At the very least, we must frame the Bush administration’s war-making as a direct threat to the US economy, not to mention national security, and just like maxed out home buyers, confront our nation’s culture of debt.

Action Tips:

1. For online videos about the subprime issue and “Money as Debt,” visit Brasscheck TV.
2. Check out two groups working on affordable US housing: the Community Land Trust (“to encourage affordable resident ownership of housing and local control of land and other resources”) and the National Housing Trust Fund (“a dedicated source of funding for the production, preservation and rehabilitation of 1.5 million affordable homes in 10 years”).
3. Learn more about “America’s growing economic divide” at
Inequality.org.
4. Concerned about predatory lending? So is The Center for Responsible Lending (“a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and policy organization dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices”).

Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives’ Handbook series. For a video of this article or to contact Heather, visit www.HeatherWokusch.com.

…the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
– Benjamin Franklin, 1787

They say that if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water it will immediately jump out, but that if you raise the pot’s heat gradually, the frog won’t react.

The US public has been on a slow boil since 2001. This administration’s rollbacks have been so consistent and so egregious that it’s no surprise many Americans feel apathetic.

And that begs the question: What exactly would it take to get the US public spurred into action?

Sentient World Simulation (SWS) may have an answer. It’s a computer-based project designed to “generate alternative futures” and no surprise, the US Defense Department is actively involved.

According to one of the project’s developers, Purdue University professor Alok Chaturvedi, “SWS will consist of a synthetic environment that mirrors the real world in all it key aspects — Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information, and Infrastructure.” The goal is to copy each person on earth into the SWS parallel universe, and then see how they respond to external events such as natural disasters or political upheavals.

The concept paper Chaturvedi co-authored additionally notes, “SWS provides an environment for testing Psychological Operations (PSYOP),” to help the military “develop and test multiple courses of action to anticipate and shape behaviors of adversaries, neutrals, and partners.”

To anticipate and shape behaviors of adversaries, neutrals, and partners.

Blurring the lines between military and civilian Psychological Operations is nothing new. In 1989, US forces in Panama blasted Guns N’ Roses’ “Welcome to the Jungle” into the Vatican Embassy during negotiations for the handover of General Manuel Noriega, and from 1998-1999, US military PSYOP personnel interned at both CNN and NPR.

More recently, a 2003 Pentagon document called Information Operations Roadmap detailed the US military’s approach to exploiting information in order to “keep pace with warfighter needs and support defense transformation.” Personally approved by former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the document was declassified in 2006 and covers everything from the Pentagon’s plans for Computer Network Attack (”We Must Fight the Net”) to beefing up the use of Psychological Operations (”We Must Improve PSYOP”) to manipulating information through means including: “Radio/ TV/Print/ Web media designed to directly modify behavior and distributed in theater supporting military endeavors in semi or non-permissive environment.”

While The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 forbids US propaganda intended for foreign audiences from being used domestically, Information Operations Roadmap acknowledges that “information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa.”

The 2003 Pentagon document adds, “the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices.”

Perhaps that’s why a top US general ordered public affairs to be joined with combat PSYOP into one “strategic communications office” in Iraq in the summer of 2004.

Domestically, it doesn’t help that SWS and other developments in military Psychological Operations are accompanied by rollbacks in the right to dissent and bipartisan support of government surveillance of American citizens.

Makes you wish our cyberspace clones could tell us how best to fight the Matrix.

At the very least, we must become more vigilant about the ongoing use of military PSYOP and misinformation; the Pat Tillman case is a perfect example. Holding the Defense Department and media accountable for every mislead regarding the Bush administration’s military adventurism is more important than ever.

Action Ideas:

1. For a great database on the Bush Administration’s misleads about Iraq, see Rep. Henry A. Waxman’s, “Iraq on the Record.”

2. One Defense Department group particularly especially interested in these topics is The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Its Information Exploitation Office, for example, is focused on “shaping the battlespace before conflict” and its site is filled with snappy computer graphics reminiscent of militaristic video games. Taxpayer dollars hard at work.

3. For media watchdog groups, check out Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting and Media Matters for America.

4. Had enough? E-mail, call or write the White House, Congress or state and local government here.

On July 17th, The White House quietly announced an Executive Order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.” Among other developments, it gives Bush the power to “block” the property of people in the US found to “pose a significant risk of committing” an act of violence which might undermine “political reform in Iraq.”

The terms “significant threat” and “act of violence” are unclear. If you attend a demonstration against Bush’s definition of “political reform in Iraq” would that count? How about writing an angry letter to the editor?

The vague language also includes outlawing “the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.” What if you donate to an anti-war group which, outside of your knowledge, has been blacklisted by the government? Does that mean that your property can be “blocked”?

Similar to the Patriot Act, the potential implications are staggering.

2. Market meltdown

Economic fallout from the subprime mortgage market collapse has extended further, with prominent investment company Bear Stearns admitting last week that two of its hedge funds, once valued at $1.6 billion, are now of “very little value.”

Meanwhile, the prestigious Bank for International Settlements released a statement warning that the global economy could be facing a Great Depression, and that the dollar in particular “remains vulnerable to a sudden loss of private sector confidence.”

Fasten your seatbelts.

3. Escalating US military operations in Pakistan

Following 911, the Bush administration propped up Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally in the “war on terror,” spending billions of dollars on Pakistan’s military while ignoring Musharraf’s support for the Taliban. Those days might be over. Just last week, the White House announced US military forces could be deployed to strike “actionable targets” in the country — with or without Musharraf’s permission.

The Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” in 2001 if it didn’t deal with the Taliban, but Musharraf has so far been able to convince the US that if his administration falls, then Pakistan will be ruled by Islamists. As a former CIA officer recently told National Public Radio, “I’ve heard Gen. Musharraf … tell American presidents that if you don’t support me, the next person will be the ‘bearded ones’.”

But Musharraf faces growing domestic opposition for his strong-arm tactics, and while last week’s brutal storming of the Lal Masjid Mosque in Islamabad may have won bonus points in Washington, it only served to further alienate the Pakistani people.

In other words, US military action in Pakistan will most likely destabilize the Musharraf government, and may in fact push Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal into the hands of a government of “bearded ones.”

4. Loose nukes

It was recently reported that the US had quietly removed 130 of its nuclear warheads from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. That still leaves over 350 US warheads across Europe, but the question remains: what happened to the Ramstein nukes? The Pentagon and German Defense Ministry aren’t talking, and it can’t necessarily be assumed that the warheads have been destroyed. Shuffled to some different country with less stringent weapons controls or hidden away for use in future conflicts perhaps — who knows.

Meanwhile, in late June, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to fund by $66 million the production of even more nuclear warheads.

5. VP Arnie?

Schwarzenegger visited his hometown of Graz, Austria in late June, ostensibly to attend the birthday party of a friend. The warm welcome he received was quite a change from two years ago, when tensions flared with town elders over his position on the death penalty and failure to stop an execution in California. The war of words escalated until Schwarzenegger requested that Graz remove his name from a local sports stadium, and in a move reminiscent of high school crushes, he returned a ring which city officials had given him.

This time around, however, Schwarzenegger was conciliatory and local politicians clamored for photo ops — effectively sweeping bad blood under the carpet. How convenient, and how necessary, for Schwarzenegger and any ambitions he may have for 2008.

6. Cutting off Iraq’s water supply

For years, the Turkish government has tried to get international funding to build a dam across the Tigris River. The potential impact on villagers and the environment has stalled the project, and both Iraq and Syria have expressed concern that the proposed Ilisu dam could give Turkey power over their water supply.

European entities considering funding the project have received strong public pressure to back out, and if they do, China appears only too happy to step in and help build the dam.

Meanwhile, an estimated 250,000 Turkish troops are amassed near Northern Iraq and just this week, the Prime Minister of Turkey threatened to invade the country.

Long story short, Turkey and China are increasingly likely to assume a major role in both Iraq and Syria. Doesn’t bode well for the Bush’s administration’s plans.

7. GPS losing its way

The US monopoly over satellite navigation systems appears to be drawing to a close. The Global Positioning System (GPS) has enabled civilians to find their destinations and the military to coordinate troop movements and detect nuclear detonations, but the US system will soon face international competition. Global Navigation Satellite Systems are being developed by Europe, China and India while a Russian system may be operational as early as 2009 — another challenge to US hegemony on the international stage.

8. New Russian arms race?

This month, Russia pulled out of the Treaty for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, established in 1990 to reduce the number of conventional weapons (such as tanks and combat aircraft) in Europe. Russia’s move signals the latest salvo in a power struggle between European leaders and Russian President Putin, who is dead set against the establishment of new US military bases and anti-missile systems in eastern Europe and central Asia. But if Russia is not convinced to rejoin the arms Treaty, then by the end of the year it can establish weapons arsenals without NATO inspections and Putin may begin pulling out of other international arms agreements, as Bush has done. Could be the start of a new global arms race.

9. Murdoch’s megalomania

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has his sights on Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal and Barron’s, among others, and owner of stock market indicators such as the Dow Jones industrial average. Murdoch’s News Corp already controls an outrageous number of newspapers, magazines, TV networks, cable channels and film studios across the world and as Business Week observed in 2004: Murdoch “is not shy about using his media outlets to pursue agendas, whether they’re politically conservative causes or his own business interests.”

For example, the UK’s Guardian pointed out that every single one of Murdoch’s 175 newspapers across the globe parroted his pro-war views before the invasion of Iraq.

News Corp offered $5 billion for Dow Jones, the board of directors gave its approval and as early as next week a final decision will be reached. If successful, Murdoch’s power in the US will expand even further.

10. “Bring it on” Iran

The Senate recently voted 97-0 in favor of hawk Joe Lieberman’s Amendment effectively blaming Iran for complicity in the death of American soldiers; it’s worth noting that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sided with Lieberman on the vote. Meanwhile, a third US aircraft carrier is on its way towards Iran and the UK’s Guardian quoted a “well-placed Washington source” as saying “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”

So the drumbeat of impending doom continues, along with warnings of upcoming false flag events — a new Gulf of Tonkin or 911 — timed before Congress votes on Defense Appropriations in September.

Stay tuned…

The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany.
– George W. Bush, May 2006

There’s an unexpected front in the Bush administration’s “war on terror” — Germany. And the roughly 68,000 US troops stationed across the country often find themselves in the center of controversy over US foreign policy.

Take Agustín Aguayo, a Mexican-American conscientious objector (CO) formerly based in Bavaria. Aguayo unsuccessfully applied for CO status before deploying in 2004, and citing non-violence, even refused to carry a loaded weapon during his year as a combat medic in Iraq.

In late 2005, Aguayo appealed to a US Federal court on grounds that his CO status had been wrongfully denied, and after his bid was rejected, fled Germany rather than redeploy to Iraq in September 2006. Before surrendering to military authorities in California less than a month later, Aguayo held a press conference stating, “I have come to believe that it is wrong to destroy life, that it is wrong to use war, that it is immoral, and I can no longer go down that path.”

Aguayo was promptly sent back to Germany and thrown in the brig. His case became something of a national cause célèbre, with prominent German newspapers reporting his eventual court martial and conviction for desertion.

Other US troops in Germany seeking early discharge have been luckier, and many can thank the Bammental-based Military Counseling Network (MCN). In fact, all seven of the conscientious objector applicants the MCN supported through the application process in 2006 ended up receiving Honorable discharges.

One was former US Army Specialist Kyle D. Huwer, who served for one and a half years before, as he puts it, “I finally came to my senses and realized that what I was doing was wrong.”

Another was former US Army Private Clifton F. Hicks, who served from the summer of 2003 to late 2005. Hicks says, “I joined to defend the people of the United States, and when I found our Army was not doing that, and that I was in fact being used to further the goals of evil men, I began to question my involvement in such an organization.”

For some troops in Germany, going AWOL (absent without leave) seems the only option, such as “John,” who took a stateside leave earlier this year and never returned.

Even John’s family does not know where he is now, and it could be for the best. His parents are avid Bush-supporters; his uncle works for a weapons manufacturer and his stepfather for an oil company.

The only person John has fleeting contact with is his girlfriend, “Sarah,” doing her best to cope with his absence. Sarah had lived in Germany with John and is frustrated with life back in the US: “Watching the news here really makes me angry, people are so detached from reality. They increase the troop deployments from 12 to 15 months, and no one besides the military families recognizes it. They are sending back national guard people for multiple deployments, no one recognizes it. You hardly hear anything about what that puts on the families, emotionally and financially. I’m deeply mad and sad about that at the same time.”

Initially gung-ho about enlisting, John said second thoughts arose when he was repairing a phone hookup in Baghdad and spotted “Abu Ghraib” on a faulty fiberoptic cable. He felt part of something wrong: “I didn’t directly have blood on my hands, but I was part of it.”

John granted an exclusive interview for this article, and spoke about becoming disenchanted with the military. Of his year in Baghdad: “It was not what I was expecting at all. There are people in Iraq making HUGE sums of money profiting over poorly supervised and ill-run government contracts. When you hear about the cost of the war in Iraq, it’s this kind of thing that’s doing it, not the body armor, having to pay the soldiers a couple of meager extra bucks, or armoring the humvees. It’s paying KBR $90 for every time I turn in my laundry while paying poor Pakistani and Filipino workers who work long hours with no days off for years at a time (and handling thousands of bags of laundry) $15 a day.”

John’s unit returned to Germany in mid-2006, but he says, “We were treated like dirt still, and being late in the morning was a serious thing because they were afraid of people killing themselves overnight.”

After a few months out of Iraq, John felt “a tantalizing taste of freedom and what life should be like, not what life in the army is.” Rather than deploying to Afghanistan later this year, he approached the Military Counseling Network and decided to go AWOL.

While MCN counsels US troops on a range of early discharge possibilities, case manager Tim Huber says that conscientious objection and hardship are currently the most prevalent choices: “These two discharges reflect an expansive array of problems with the military, including problems with the morality of the current war in Iraq, family issues, a dismissive attitude on the military’s part towards post-traumatic stress disorder, and a general fed-upedness towards rotational deployments with no end in sight.”

Huber and MCN Director Michael J. Sharp face a daunting workload. Since the beginning of this year, they have handled roughly ten new soldier cases every month — a 30% increase over the numbers averaged in 2006.

Of course, the majority of US troops in Germany are not seeking early discharge. The military has become a way of life, and that can present challenges when they eventually return home and look for civilian work.

That’s where Sudie Nolan-Cassimatis comes in, a vibrant woman who teaches job-application skills to retiring service members. As part of the Department of Labor’s Transition Assistance Program, Nolan-Cassimatis travels across Germany to different military bases each week, coaching classes of 10-50 on the finer points of entering the US job market. Basics such as writing résumés and answering interview questions are covered in the course, but as Nolan-Cassimatis observes, “these things seem very straightforward to those of us who have never been in uniform, but don’t seem at all straightforward to folks who have spent their careers in the military.”

She’s clearly dedicated to her work: “Mostly, I am amazed and touched each week at the stories I hear from soldiers. Many of them have been deployed twice or more, even the soldiers who are only 22 years old, and they have a resilient spirit. They’ve given up multiple years of their lives. Many of them have kids that they’ve been away from for years at a time. I think it’s only fair that they get a shot at a job on the outside.”

Nolan-Cassimatis knows firsthand about having a loved one serving in a war zone. Her husband Dimitri is currently in Baghdad working as a Squadron Surgeon.

Before deploying, Dimitri Cassimatis was a cardiologist at the sprawling Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) in southwestern Germany. It is the largest American hospital outside of the US and the first stop for medical and psychiatric evacuees out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

C-17 cargo planes drop off the wounded day and night, and LRMC’s staff of 2,200 can handle 1000 beds in an emergency. A typical day at LRMC sees nine new acute cases.

On a recent visit to the facility, the Iraq war’s toll on US troops was brutally evident. A 23-year-old soldier, physically shattered and facing blindness, was among many battling for life in the Intensive Care Unit. Couldn’t even see the newly-earned purple heart pinned to his pillow.

In the next ward, a fresh-faced young woman whose neck had been crushed during a bad fall. A 19-year-old nearby contemplating life with just one leg. Relentless stories of IED (improvised explosive device) attacks and sniper assaults; youth putting a brave face on lives torn apart and innocence lost.

The wounded at LRMC may be under the radar for most Germans, but debate continues over whether the US military presence there ultimately perpetuates the Bush administration’s wars.

Just last week, a group of Iraq veterans and German peace activists demonstrated outside Katterbach Army Airfield in Bavaria, trying to convince active-duty soldiers preparing for a 15-month deployment to reconsider. As Adam Kokesh, a 25-year-old member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper, “There is no military solution for Iraq. An army can only destroy.” Kokesh and other US veterans were also trying to raise awareness about the struggle of those in the Bavarian town of Ansbach working to resist the expansion of a US military base there.

Advocates point out that Americans have lived peacefully in the country for decades, supporting the economy, contributing to communities and befriending locals.

But as Lori Hurlebaus of Courage to Resist notes, “Even if the German military was not involved in the invasion of Iraq, there is a military conducting a war of aggression from German soil.”

Action ideas:
1. Read more about Agustín Aguayo’s case and check out the site’s great links. Aguayo returned to California in May for a whirlwind speaking tour; invite him to speak in your city via the site.
2. Learn more about war resisters at Courage to Resist.
3. Read more about early discharge possibilities at the Military Counseling Network.
4. Check out Iraq Veterans Against the War founded in 2004 “to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent.” Adam Kokesh and another IVAW member, Liam Madden, are being pressured by the Marines for their antiwar activities. Learn more and take action at the IVAW site.
5. Visit Veterans for Commonsense, which aims “to raise the unique and powerful voices of veterans so that our military, veterans, freedom, and national security are protected and enhanced, for ourselves and for future generations.”

For a videocast version of this article, click here.

A classic example occurred when US forces destroyed a chemical munitions dump in Khamisiyah, Iraq in March 1991. The US Defense Department (DoD) initially denied the dangers but backtracked in 1997 after a UN Special Commission investigation proved that sarin gas had been released during the demolition.

Sarin is a deadly chemical weapon estimated to be over 500 times as toxic as cyanide. Non-lethal doses can create permanent neurological damage and symptoms such as loss of memory, paralysis, seizures and respiratory problems. Turns out that over eight metric tons of sarin were released during the Khamisiyah demolitions.

Previous research has linked sarin with brain cancer, and Freedom of Information Act requests indicate the Pentagon knew that up to 300,000 Desert Storm troops may have suffered from sarin exposure. Yet veterans seeking support were often told that their symptoms had no physical basis.

Just last week, a scientific study using Pentagon data showed a direct correlation” between sarin exposure in Gulf War vets and brain damage. Symptoms were found to be exacerbated by the use of bug repellant and a nerve-agent antidote given to roughly 250,000 troops during the Gulf War.

Yet it is doubtful if even now, over 16 years after the Khamisiyah disaster, the DoD will finally face the issue of US-troop sarin exposure.

One obvious reason is money. If the DoD admitted to withholding critical information connected to their medical illnesses, tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of Gulf War veterans could potentially become eligible for compensation.

Second, acknowledging the sarin issue could raise further questions about the Pentagon’s 2003 admission of having tested biological/chemical agents on 5,842 service members from 1962-73. In operations called Project 112 and Project SHAD, the Defense Department tested weapons capabilities on troops in six states (Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Utah), Canada and Britain. Many veterans of those operations were not informed for decades and are still fighting for compensation and recognition.

Third, an admission of guilt would weaken the DoD’s credibility regarding controversial programs today. For example, the anthrax vaccine is mandatory for military personnel and civilians deploying to “high-threat” areas across the globe, including Iraq and Afghanistan, despite being linked to serious illnesses and even death among US service members. Quite conveniently, the quarterly analysis of medical care data for vaccinated service members was ended in 2002.

So as we honor our service members and veterans this Memorial Day, we must acknowledge the continuing battle many face to receive compensation for exposure to chemical/biological weapons long ago and to avoid potentially harmful vaccines today. Our troops deserve better.

— Martin Luther King, Jr., 1967

Agustín Aguayo might not be a household name, but his struggle pierces the core of the US anti-war movement.

Aguayo, a 35-year-old Mexican-American from Los Angeles, joined the Army in 2003 yet soon realized he couldn’t take part in violence. He applied for conscientious objector (CO) status in February 2004 but was sent to Iraq anyway, where he refused to load his weapon even while on guard duty and patrols.

In an exclusive interview this week, Aguayo explained: “I was determined that I would not hurt/injure others in any way, no matter what the consequences.” He added, “I actually believe that this action of not loading my weapon kept me sane. It brought me great sadness to know some soldiers I knew had shot at people, and some soldiers I knew were hurt by the actions of others. It was so absurd.”

The Army rejected Aguayo’s bid for CO discharge during his year in Iraq, so he filed a habeas corpus after returning to a base in Germany, stating: “My conscientious objection applies to all forms and aspects of the war. An Officer once explained to me how in his view the Army was like a huge machine made of many parts that all work together to achieve the desired outcome. I know this is true. If the desired outcome is killing, I cannot be part of the ‘machine.’”

Aguayo said he still carried guilt from his 2004-2005 deployment, where he was expected to “patch-up, treat and help countless soldiers for ‘sick call’ in order to facilitate their prompt return to combatant duties.” He maintains, “I helped them get physically better and be able to go out and do the very thing I am against — kill. This is something my conscience will not allow me to do.”

The habeas corpus was denied in August 2006, and a week later, Aguayo was ordered back to Iraq.

Risking court martial and imprisonment, Aguayo went AWOL (absent without leave) on Sept. 1, 2006, surrendering to Military Police the next day. Rather than facing legal action, however, Aguayo was told he would be sent to Iraq even if it meant carrying him on the plane forcibly.

That’s when Aguayo fled to California. But less than a month later, he once again turned himself in, stating, “I have come to believe that it is wrong to destroy life, that it is wrong to use war, that it is immoral, and I can no longer go down that path.”

Aguayo was promptly sent back to Germany and thrown in the brig.

The saga of Agustín Aguayo has critical and wide-reaching implications. His change of heart regarding military service is mirrored in a growing anti-war sentiment across the US. And his legal woes set a precedent for other troops facing similar conflicts about deployment.

As Aguayo’s wife Helga observed after his court martial, “Fear is what motivates the Army. Fear was the prosecution’s recurring theme. I know they fear others will follow.”

In early March 2007, Aguayo was convicted of desertion and missing movement. He was reduced to the lowest rank possible, stripped of pay and benefits and sentenced to eight months.

With good conduct time, Aguayo was released last week, but he’s still not free. According to Helga, who has tirelessly defended “Augie” during his ordeal, “He’s under the custody of his rear-detachment unit in Germany, the same people that threatened using handcuffs and shackles to take him by force onto the plane. The same people that told me in front of our daughters that he could be put to death because he was a deserter. The circumstances are not ideal, to say the least.”

She adds, “We still do not know when they will release him under administrative, voluntary, or involuntary leave. We have to wait to see if the Commanding General will approve it, and even if it is approved he will still be in the military for the next 12-24 months active duty. Essentially, he is still property of the Army and since he is still in the Army, he has to obey Army Regulations. During this time he could potentially be charged with anything else and I always fear they will try to redeploy him to Iraq.”

As for Aguayo, he has no regrets. He looks back on his imprisonment as “a special time of reflection” and believes that in refusing to redeploy to Iraq, “I was finally true to myself.”

Aguayo insists, “It would have been devastating for me to go against my conscience. There comes a moment in one’s life when one realizes which are the morals one will do anything for, and nothing can change after this experience. We all have a conscience, it is part of what makes us human, its a beautiful gift. Unfortunately, over time we don’t listen to this inner voice, we abuse it and we lose our humanity.”

From Baghdad to the brig, Agustín Aguayo has been a powerful symbol for the anti-war movement. His three-year fight against the war “machine” is a lesson for us all.

Action ideas:
1. Read more about the Agustín Aguayo’s case and contribute to his Political and Legal Defense Fund.
2. Sponsor/coordinate a stop in your city for Agustín’s Victory Tour.
3. Write Agustín a letter of support at aguayodefense@aol.com
4. Learn more about early discharge possibilities at the Military Counselling Network.
5. Read more about Agustín and other war resisters at Courage to Resist.
Check out the great links at AguayoDefense.org.