YOU CAN TELL WHEN THERE'S AN ELECTION LOOMING !!

IF IRAQ WON THE WAR

"BIG MISTAKE" GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ -- FORMER PRESIDENT GERALD FORD [Washington Post, December 29, 2006] GEORGE BUSH, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney "made a big mistake" in going to war in Iraq, the former US president Gerald Ford believed. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said in July 2004, a little more than a year after Bush had launched the invasion, supported and carried out by Rumsfeld and Cheney, prominent veterans of the Ford administration. Cheney, the Vice-President, was Ford's White House chief of staff; Rumsfeld, defence secretary at the time of the invasion, served as Ford's chief of staff and Pentagon chief. The interview with Ford, who died on Boxing Day, was embargoed until his death. "Rumsfeld and Cheney and the President made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do." Ford "very strongly" disagreed with Bush's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. Ford, who presided over the bitter end of the Vietnam War, took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict to spread democracy. "Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," he said, referring to Bush's assertion that the US has a "duty to free people." But he was sceptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation No.1, of what's in our national interest. And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security." In 2004 and in a second interview the following year Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with Cheney and Rumsfeld, but expressed concern about the policies they had pursued in more recent years. "He was an excellent chief of staff. First class," he said. "But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious" as Vice-President. He said the view of the former secretary of state Colin Powell that Cheney developed a "fever" about the threat of terrorism and Iraq was "probably true." Ford said he would not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and would have worked harder to find an alternative. "I don't think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly," he said, "I don't think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximised our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer." Gerald Ford had faced his own military crisis -- not a war he started, like Bush, but one he had to work out how to end. In many ways those decisions framed his short presidency -- in the difficult calculations about how to pull out of Vietnam and the challenging players who shaped policy on the war. Most challenging of all, he recalled, was Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state and national security adviser, and had what Ford said was "the thinnest skin of any public figure I ever knew. I think he was a super secretary of state, but Henry in his mind never made a mistake, so whatever policies there were that he implemented, in retrospect he would defend." In 1975 Ford relieved Kissinger of his national security job. Ford saw his dual roles as a conflict of interest that impaired the proper airing of policy debates. "They were supposed to check on one another." That year Ford also sacked the defence secretary James Schlesinger and replaced him with Rumsfeld, who was then Ford's White House chief of staff. Ford used that decision to tell Kissinger: "I'm making a change at the secretary of defence, and I expect you to be a team player and work with me on this." Kissinger was not happy. But Ford made the changes, elevating the deputy national security adviser Brent Scowcroft to take Kissinger's White House post. Throughout all this, Ford said, he kept his White House chief of staff in the dark. "I didn't consult with Rumsfeld. And, knowing Don, he probably resented the fact that I didn't get his advice." In the end it was the legacy of Vietnam that troubled Ford. After Saigon fell in 1975 and the US evacuated, Ford was often labelled the only US president to lose a war. The label always rankled. "I was mad as hell, to be honest with you, but I never publicly admitted it."

***********************************************************************************************

AL GORE WARNS AGAINST GOING NUCLEAR [SMH, November 21, 2006] Australia will take a step closer to a nuclear future today, but the former US vice-president, Al Gore, has some advice: don't. A task force led by the former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski will release a report that is expected to be broadly in favour of a domestic nuclear power industry. In an interview with the Herald yesterday, Mr Gore said it would be too expensive and would threaten the world's safety through possible weapons proliferation. "Early in my career I was enthusiastic about nuclear power. I'm not now," the climate campaigner said in Sydney. "I'm not an automatic opponent to any nuclear power plants [but] I think that a realistic view is that they will play only a small and limited role. The reason why they're likely to play only a limited role is mainly economic." The Switkowski task force is believed to argue that nuclear power could be economically viable in Australia in about 15 years, but it is not expected to make a specific recommendation to go ahead. The Prime Minister, John Howard, has advocated nuclear power as cleaner fuel in the fight against global warming. Mr Gore said the long-term problems of storing nuclear waste, potential accidents and securing reactors could possibly be overcome. "But that leaves the proliferation issue," he said. In the case of Iran and North Korea, he said nuclear scientists worked by day on energy issues and then "you make them work at night on weapons". "What will you do? Spread thousands and thousands of reactors in Papua New Guinea and Libya and Sudan? If this were the option of choice the world would become more dangerous." The Switkowski taskforce has been commissioned by Mr Howard to investigate whether nuclear power would become economically viable in the long term. It was also asked to consider the potential for enrichment, uranium dumps and proliferation risks. Labor's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, said it would not be surprising if a task force made up of nuclear advocates came out in favour. But he said it should answer the hard questions: where nuclear reactors and dumps would go. A recent Herald poll found only 17 per cent of Australians nominated nuclear power as a solution for global warming. Energy experts have warned it could be viable only if heavily subsidised by the Government, so it could compete with coal. They say it would rely on what price was set on carbon pollution, and on the Federal Government overcoming state and public opposition. And still, construction could take 10 years. And according to the research principal at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, Chris Riedy, it could take seven years for the reactor to break even on its energy consumption - that is, to produce enough electricity free of greenhouse gas to make up for the coal-fired power expended to dig up the uranium for fuel and to build the reactor. "So you would not make any dent in carbon emissions for at least 17 years," he said.

THE DEMOCRATS WON -- SO WHAT? By Ann Coulter in “Human Events,” [November 08, 2006] History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated. So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet. Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three. Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards. Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas! But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont). In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year. * In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate. * In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate. * In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate. * In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats. * Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office. But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party. During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heart throb, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House. Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.) So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was. In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy. The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia." The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs. [Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for “HUMAN EVENTS” and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," and most recently, "Godless." ]

US and UK Governments Fabricated Information To Justify Invasion Of Iraq [Global Policy Forum] The US and UK government fabricated information to justify their military strike on Iraq. US congressional and UK parliamentary investigations look into the false information circulated by the Bush and Blair governments, especially concerning weapons of mass destruction. This section covers the controversies and changing reasons put forward in Washington and London to justify the war. Read detailed reports from a variety of sources: HERE Read more stories from Global Policy Forum: HERE ____________________________________________________________________________________

GULLIBLE AMERICANS FOOLED BY BUSH PROPAGANDA on RIGHT-WING MEDIA By Paul Craig Roberts, July 4, 2006 Americans who get their propaganda from Fox "News" or are told what to think by right-wing talk radio hosts are outraged at news reports that US troops planned and carried out the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman. They are not outraged that the troops committed the deed; they are outraged that the media reported it. These "conservatives," who proudly wear their patriotism on their sleeves, dismiss the reports of the incident as a Big Lie floated by "the anti-American liberal media" in order to demoralize Americans and reduce public support for the war. Playing to this audience, Col. Jeffrey Snow, a US brigade commander in Baghdad, told AFP News that news coverage could cause the US to lose the war. In other words, what we are doing in Iraq cannot stand the light of day, so reporters must not report or the word will get out. Many Bush supporters believe that truth is not on our side and must be suppressed. Yet, they support a war that is too shameful to report. I have made it clear in my columns that Bush supporters are not true conservatives. They are brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler’s enthusiastic supporters. And they are just as resistant to facts. It was not the "liberal media" but the investigating US military officials who told the Associated Press that the rape and murder of the young woman and her family appeared "totally premeditated," that the soldiers noticed the woman on their patrols and studied her and her family for a week before separating the woman from her family and raping her. After having their way with her, the soldiers murdered her and tried to burn her body with a flammable liquid in order to cover up their foul deed. The soldiers’ coverup attempt also involved the murder of other members of the murdered rape victim’s family, including a child. The criminals were turned in by other US soldiers who knew of the monstrous crime. According to the Associated Press (USA Today, June 30, 2006), one of the soldiers has admitted his role in the rape and murder. The soldiers cannot be said to be guilty until they are tried and found guilty. However, the US military usually attempts a cover-up of such incidents and only admits to the facts after the press gets hold of them. This time, however, the investigating officials themselves gave the story to the Associated Press. Many Americans are so unsophisticated that they refuse to believe anything bad about their country. They regard acceptance of unpalatable truths as disloyalty. This failure of American character is why Bush has been able to get away with transgressions that scream out for his impeachment and trial as a war criminal. The premeditated rape and murders are just the latest in the long line of horrific war crimes from Abu Ghraib to Haditha. Bush supporters are still in denial about each incident. It is amazing that Bush supporters think we have a John Wayne military when, according to news reports, recruitment problems have resulted in the military accepting felons, drug users, thugs, low IQ high school dropouts, and illegal Mexicans promised green cards for signing up. Apparently, the same people who make America’s streets unsafe for Americans make Iraqi streets unsafe for Iraqis. In response to the declining caliber of new recruits, some of our best troops are refusing to re-enlist. Several have written to me that “the Army has left them." Whoever put out that propagandistic slogan, "support the troops," and the ribbon decals was a master propagandist. "Support the troops" means to deny the reality of the war and the behavior of the troops. To this day the Bush regime and the neocon nazis have not told us the reason for their invasion of Iraq, the destruction of its towns and infrastructure, and the slaughter of its citizens. Every reason Bush has given has proved to be a lie. There is no more reason for US troops to be shooting up Iraq than to be shooting up Canada, Scotland, Holland, Spain, Taiwan, Florida, Virginia or California. We are killing Iraqis for no other reason than that they resist our invasion and occupation of their country. It is proof of the collapse of American morals and the fallen character of the American people that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress refuse to rein in the Bush regime and to hold it responsible for its monstrous crimes. America has become a land of evil. The rest of the world hates and despises us. And we are going to pay a terrible price for it. Bush’s belief that our superpower status makes us immune to the opinion of others goes beyond hubris into insanity. [Dr. Roberts send him mail is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is the co-author of “The Tyranny of Good Intentions.”

The HISTORY of AUSTRALIA according to JOHN WINSTON HOWARD By IAN WEST, MLC What would John Howard's History of Australia look and sound like? It's important we get to know Howard's History, so that we won't be doomed to repeat it. Firstly, school children would need to warm up their voices - "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi." Repeat 100 times. Then we're right to go... Early in 1770, the east coast of Australia came into being, through intelligent design, just as James Cook sailed over the horizon on behalf of the British Admiralty. In 1788 Arthur Phillip raises the Union Jack in Sydney Cove, toasts the royal family and starts a housing boom. The use of convict labour is a shining example of an early deregulated Australian labour market. In 1790 a soul-less man known as Bennelong spears Phillip, despite the goodly works and constructive approach taken by Europeans towards Aboriginals. In 1808 one of the colony's leading entrepreneurs John Macarthur struggles for de-regulation of the corporate sector but gets arrested by Governor Bligh, who in turn is overthrown by some alcoholic soldiers and workers, who are appropriately crushed by Governor Macquarie a year later. In 1810 Lachlan Macquarie sets about planning Hyde Park, the Royal Botanic Gardens and The Domain, which have pleasing fences and statues of great men. In 1813 Blaxland, Wentworth and Lawson single-handedly discover the interior of Australia. In 1817 Australia's first bank opens and in 1834 NSW sensibly adopts English law governing borrowing and interest rates. In 1851 gold is discovered in Bathurst, then Ballarat and Bendigo, and in 1854 entrepeneurs wage struggle for deregulation of the corporate sector. However the whole thing goes a bit too far, and some people get a few weird ideas about independence. But they get their what-for during Eureka Stockade. In 1856 the Australian economy suffers a huge blow with the introduction of an 8 hour day. The sky falls in. Things become so bad, men are forced to grow long flowing beards. Despite this, in the same year, the British Parliament gives the Australian colony the gift of democracy. To ensure good sense prevails, only free white men with property can vote. In 1872 the telegraph is linked between England and Australia so we can stay in touch. The telegraph system is later proven to be inefficient as it's publicly owned. In 1882 the Ashes are given to Australia by England, providing years of good, clean, enjoyable cricket. Repeat, "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!" In 1894 some white women are given the vote. Janette approves, belatedly. Also, Sir Robert Menzies is born. In 1896 Australia wins its first Olympic Gold. Repeat, "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!" In 1899 there's a Glorious War in South Africa, and we're on our way to becoming a nation. "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!" In 1901 Australia is given the gift of Federation by the English, who are very charitable and understanding towards others. History shows this. In 1906 England gives us Papua New Guinea, which is nice. We give it back in 1975, because it costs too much to run. In 1907 the entire future of Australia is thrown into doubt when Justice Higgins brings down a decision for workers to be paid a wage they can live on. The sky falls in again. From 1914-18 we have the Great War. Lots of people get hurt. Lots of important people can't make the war as they're home studying law. We've grown up and are a nation at last. In 1925 compulsory voting is foolishly introduced. What were they thinking? In 1927 prima donna Dame Nellie Melba greets the Duke and Duchess of York with a rendition of "God Save the Queen" on the steps of the new Parliament House in Canberra. Three cheers, "Hoorah! Hoorah! Hoorah!" In 1929 people with secure incomes grow rich as prices fall. Through their own personal failings, up to 30% of wage earners are out of work. In 1932 the Sydney Harbour Bridge opens, allowing people in North Sydney to visit the Botanical Gardens anytime they wish. In 1932-33 the "bodyline" series is held. It was a legitimate use of the rules - business is business. It was only a couple of bruises and people should get over it and move forward. In 1939 our second Glorious War is held. We defend ourselves in Singapore and Papua New Guinea, and get to meet General Douglas Macarthur. He moves to Brisbane in 1942 and commandeers our troops and the war from there. Also, Sir Robert Menzies becomes Prime Minister for the first time. He couldn't make it to our first Glorious War because he had to stay home. So he decides to visit England to help run the second one and gives the Prime Ministership to someone else. In 1945 the Downer family announces they have single-handedly won the Second World War. From 1949 to 1966, Sir Robert Menzies is elected and Golden Age begins. First white picket fence built. In 1950 the threat to our way of life is seemingly no greater -- the Communists are amongst us. Sir Robert Menzies introduces the Communist Party Dissolution Act. In 1951, the people vote against Sir Robert Menzies' referendum on Communism. It shows you can't trust average people to manage their affairs, they need Tories to do it for them. And it provides me a helpful lesson for defeating those Republicans 50 years later. In 1956 Television arrives -- good, clean, black and white TV. Sensibly, the first transmission is by Packer's channel 9. Also, Melbourne hosts the Olympics (although I thought London put together a better bid). In 1958 Sir Robert Menzies promises to investigate using decimal currency, and 5 years later agrees. In 1962, the threat of Communism is ever so real. Australia could be the next domino. Sir Robert Menzies sends Australians to help the South Vietnamese organise. In 1964, all males over the age of 20 must register for national service. The threat of Communism at this point is very real, so conscription is okay in these circumstances. Nobody likes Governments telling them what to do, unless of course it's a Conservative Government. In 1965, the takeover of South Vietnam would be "a direct military threat to Australia," not to mention property values, so Sir Robert sends another 1500 Australians over. He can't go himself, and neither can many other people I know. In 1967 I start going to protests, protesting against protesters protesting against the Glorious War against Communism. I grow my first eyebrow! In 1968 we win the Vietnam War! Dad's service station is saved from the Commies! I grow my second eyebrow! In 1967 we start counting Aboriginals. Tough job though, the buggers are hard to find. In 1970, I leave home and move in with Janette. 1972 to 1975 didn't really happen. I'm fairly certain we won the Vietnam War. Thank goodness for the Governor General in November 1975, when sense prevails and the Queen's representative sacks the Government (which I'm pretty sure was full of Communists). In 1977 World Series Cricket started. Bit of a tough one this, I prefer 5 day tests, but it was Kerry's idea, so couldn't really say that much. 1983 to 1996 didn't really happen either. Country gripped by socialist demagogues. In 1996 good sense prevails and I'm elected Prime Minister of Australia. Janette and I get to live in two taxpayer-funded houses so our kids can go to school (although they've since left). I make good friends with a woman called Pauline. In 2000 I introduce the GST, which is a nice flat tax, and everyone can understand it. In 2001, the Tampa arrived and saved my arse. In 2003 I defend Australia from more destitute boat people and Arabs. Australia's a lot safer now. In 2004 I decide who comes to the country and on what terms. Repeat "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!" Also, I get to do whatever I want from now on, as long as "Dubya" agrees. In 2005 my Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, decides it really wants me (maybe I could become Emperor?), and I re-regulate the Australian labour market in my own image. In 2006 I've got to do everything myself. And no-one told me about that wheat thing either.

BUSH, A TYRANT, WILL SEND AMERICA BANKRUPT [Interview with Tony Jones, ABC Lateline] TONY JONES: The foreword to Gore Vidal's latest book, Inventing a Nation, is penned by an Australian politician. The writer is none other than New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, a lifetime enthusiast for American history and longtime friend of Gore Vidal. Springing to his mate's defence, Mr Carr says that blundering neocons and ultra-nationalists have tried to impugn his patriotism. But Carr, too, has differences with the man he calls "a lonely genius". Bob Carr paints Gore Vidal as a committed isolationist who believes that projecting American power will always make a situation worse. The vehicle for Vidal's latest assault on the Bush administration is a tract devoted to examining the lives and motives of America's founding fathers. His treatise appears to be that today's America and its foreign policy would be unrecognisable to them and betrays many of their ideals. I spoke to Gore Vidal in California earlier today. TONY JONES: Gore Vidal, thank you for joining us. GORE VIDAL (WRITER AND HISTORIAN): Well, thank you for inviting me. TONY JONES: Now, your inspiration for writing this book came from a question President Kennedy put to you at Hiannas back in 1961. Could you start by recalling that conversation for us? GORE VIDAL: We were sitting out overlooking the cold Atlantic Sea in the Kennedy compound - they have about four or five white-frame houses on the beach - and we were playing backgammon, and as usual I was winning and as usual he was swearing, and then he said, "You know, your Uncle Lefty was here a day or two ago, and he said, 'Why is it that the United States, this little backward agrarian country with 3 million people, should have produced, in the 18th century, three of the great intellectual geniuses of the 18th century: Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson?'" Needless to say, I did not provide him with a satisfactory answer, because I still don't have one, other than it was a throw of the dice, as so many things are in life, and a throw of the dice it was that we had three exceptional men, and when it came to inventing a nation, I started to think about them, so I decided to put together a book in which you can actually hear the real conversations that went on, preserved in letters and diaries and so on, between the founders, James Madison in particular, the great friend of Jefferson - he is called the father of our constitution - and you hear the other voices of the very wise Benjamin Franklin, who didn't much care for the handiwork of the Constitutional Convention, which was held in 1789. TONY JONES: Could I just pick you up there? You mentioned one of those exceptional men was Benjamin Franklin, and as you say, he seems to have been rather pessimistic about the constitution and, indeed, the future of the republic. Tell us why and what he actually said when he signed off on the constitution. GORE VIDAL: He said, "Well, I say 'yes' to this constitution, with all its faults. We need good governance for a while, and this constitution will assure us of good governance for a number of years." Then he said, "This constitution will fail, as others have before it, and that will be due to the corruption of the people, for whom in the end only despotism will serve." This was a famous speech in its day. I went through a dozen high school history books of the United States. Part of the speech is given; what I just quoted is never quoted. So that was the first "nay" vote to the constitution, which I think most thoughtful people - the good thing about it is the Bill of Rights, which guarantees us freedom of speech and so on. The bad things are the powers given to the President, which have now been absolutely inflated out of control, where the President is almost a permanent dictator with the power to declare pre-emptive war any time he likes. Now, George Washington would be out of his mind, and he was the first President. He didn't want powers to say, "I think terrorists might be livin' over there. I think we better hit Denmark. Denmark's a good place to hit. We'll hit 'em because there could be terrorists there." This is the rationale of the so-called Bush doctrine, and it is insane. TONY JONES: If I could just interrupt you there again. Looking at the dark prophecy of Benjamin Franklin is where you book verges off into suggesting that America has actually already moved towards despotism. It's a pretty longbow, though, isn't it? GORE VIDAL: Well, of course. We've visited despotism many times before - never to the extent that we have now. We've never before gone in on two countries which had done us no harm, were friendly to the United States -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- and knocked them to bits. We spent a lot of money on the armaments to do that, and now we're spending a big fortune, through the Vice President's company, Halliburton, to repair what we just knocked down. So two sets of money have been burnt up in destroying two countries which had done us no harm and were in no position to do us any harm, despite the numerous lies told about weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any in Iraq, and presumably nobody said that about Afghanistan, and now they're starting to mutter about Iran. This is where what I call isolationism -- which Bob Carr and I did not finish talking about the other day on the radio -- this is where we come in, which is: you do not interfere in a predatory way in the affairs of sovereign nations because you think they might one day get atomic weapons and blow us up in the night. We ascribe to everybody else our own motives. Why should they do it? What would be the motivation? What's the provocation? So we, the isolationists, are the peacekeepers and, I thought, should be properly valued. TONY JONES: Isolationism is a bit of a moveable feast, though. I mean, American power was used to defeat Hitler and imperial Japan and, more recently, for example, to force Slobodan Milosevic out of power in Serbia. Do you see a use for American power against despotism? GORE VIDAL: I don't think arbitrarily or pre-emptively -- which is the key adverb here -- no, I don't. I think in union, as we behaved in the Balkans -- that was essentially a coalition of nations, United Nations amongst others -- yes, of course; we belong to a certain world. Listen, remember, when you hear the word "isolationist" said by an American right-wing politician, he's sneering: "And they say they believe in a flat Earth and no relations with foreign countries because we're protected by two oceans." Nonsense. That was true 200 years ago, but in today's misuse of the word, it simply means those who object to our forcing ourselves upon other countries; going into the Middle East not to bring liberty and justice to the Iraqis - we didn't even know who they were, we don't even know where the country is, most Americans; we're there for the oilfields. TONY JONES: Let's leap forward to the latest or the last State of the Union address and President Bush, in a way, rewriting the guiding principles of foreign policy. In his recent address, he said the ultimate goal now was to end tyranny in the world. Tell us what you make of that. GORE VIDAL: I think he believes that we can eliminate tyranny everywhere on earth if we allow it in our own country first. We will then provide a model. He is a tyrant, as much as he can be under our system, and our system in many ways is crumbling, so it's open season on the republic that Benjamin Franklin feared for. TONY JONES: Despotism, though, and tyranny implies a suppression of dissent. I mean, there's no bar to open dissent in the United States; just simply whether you can get on to the corporate media. GORE VIDAL: Well, isn't that -- that is how it's controlled. The great networks are owned by the great corporations. Sometimes a corporation -- why, there's a native of your country who's come to join us who's buying up all sorts of radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, in a conglomerate, which was not allowed under our laws, but somehow they've all been bent, and doing very well with it. That is how you control what the people know. It's beyond anything Orwell dreamed of. TONY JONES: Isn't it the case, though, that fewer and fewer people in fact are actually getting their information from the corporate-owned media? GORE VIDAL: Where do you think they're getting it? TONY JONES: That's a very good question. I mean, partly from the Internet, but they seem to be drawing information from all sorts of areas now. Is the power of the corporate media waning, do you think? GORE VIDAL: It's absolute. Is its credibility waning? Yes, of course it is. Prime-time television is nothing but propaganda, and almost everything said contradicts itself, because they don't bother to sound logical in what they say. They say the message very loud. That is what the people around Bush have discovered: you repeat the lie, and if people look slightly doubtful, you repeat it again more loudly, and you go on and on. Bush went on for about three years getting ready for the Iraq war, saying that Osama bin Laden, responsible for the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, was working hand in glove with Saddam Hussein, who was equally guilty; therefore, we were going to remove Saddam Hussein, because he was so vicious. Well, he would have been very vicious had he been responsible for any of the attacks on the United States, but he wasn't. TONY JONES: Let me ask you this, though, if I can: when you see the majority of people in Iraq, particularly the Kurds and the Shi'ites, expressing their will for the first time in an election and beginning to form a government in much the same way that the founding fathers formed a government in the United States, does it not give you some pause as to whether perhaps that is the right thing? GORE VIDAL: Well, the founding fathers did not form the government of the Republic of the United States while occupied by France. We did it on our own, having invited the British to go home, which they had done. So it's not comparable at all. We are an invading power. We have fixed an election, which I think in due course, the press will say, "Well, I guess we got that one wrong, too. It was corrupt", and so on. I notice that today's press, Shalabi -- who has been totally discredited; he was a refugee to the United States, in various troubles around the world for banking and so on -- but he's back and he's standing up and they say he's going to be the next Prime Minister. Well, if he is, they're going to have a revolution. What are we doing interfering -- we with our disastrous elections in the last 20, 30 years, what are we doing prescribing elections in a country and a culture that we know nothing about? This is beyond hubris; this is just crazy time. TONY JONES: It's true, though, that neoconservatives might point out that one of the principals in your book, Thomas Jefferson, observed just before his own death -- and you quote these observations at the end of your book -- talking about his Declaration of Independence, he says, "May it be to the world what I believe it will be: the signal of arousing men to burst their chains." Now, based on those kind of comments, he might well have endorsed a war to bring democratic principles to another country. GORE VIDAL: Well, he never showed any sign of wanting to do any such thing. He was not one for foreign wars. He was rather opposed to having a standing army. Most of the founders didn't want a standing army, on the sensible ground that we would use it, and we'd use it for dark ends, like stealing other people's property, as we did in Mexico, as we did in the war against Spain, which we picked in order to grab not only Cuba and Puerto Rico but, more importantly, the Philippines, which made us a Pacific power. TONY JONES: We were talking about dissenting voices a short time ago and the importance of dissent. Can I just ask your thoughts on the passing of one of the great dissenters of recent American history, Arthur Miller, a man brave enough in his day to stand against the despotism of Senator McCarthy. GORE VIDAL: We always have these treacherous figures in society who are there to denounce others as traitors, heretics - all sort of false religious language they use. No, Arthur Miller had the virtue of being an honest man, not easily intimidated. It came naturally to him to write plays about those like himself or perhaps like the way he would have wanted to be. None of us is as brave as he wants to be, but some get closer to it than others. TONY JONES: Is there the like of Arthur Miller in today's America? GORE VIDAL: No. There are voices that speak out, writers that write out. The problem is, the media will not let them on. People ask me, "If you end up with such boring candidates as Mr Kerry and Mr Bush -- are there no Americans in public life who might be more useful, more representative of the people, the best elements of our nature?" I say, "Yes, there are, but the New York Times will not report their speeches. Television will not let them on unless they're surrounded by eight neoconservatives who all talk at once and shout and howl." It's like a menagerie. There is no political debate because it's not allowed; it's not commercial television. So the result is there are many great voices -- if I may paraphrase Grey -- that are muted across the land. They are there. TONY JONES: Gore Vidal, finally, can I ask you to engage in prophecy just for a moment? Look down the track. Four more years of George Bush. What will America and what will the world look like, in your opinion? GORE VIDAL: Well, an unholy mess. The dollar declines in value. There is no way that you can up it. There's nothing you can do. The wars will continue. There will be an attempt made in Iran and Syria, other places that look exciting. The United States will go broke; it's as simple as that. That's what ended the British Empire. One of the reasons we got into World War I was that in 1914, under the Asquith Government, the government fecklessly ran out of money, and here they were, supposed to be fighting the central powers, Germany and so on. The same thing is happening to us. We don't have the money to pay the debts. Now, great nations that are rich in a sense don't go bankrupt the way individuals do, 'cause you can't put a valuation on them, but you can certainly show lack of confidence in their currency if it goes down, down, down, which it is now doing, and interest rates go up, up, up. As the interest rates go up, then we have the problem of inflation, which will give social insecurity to everybody, because the price of bread will suddenly get very high, which it has never been in the United States since the early '30s. So I would say that, in the long run, the world will be saved American despotism by the coming bankruptcy of the country. Now, that will have awful fallout for everybody. I don't even want to look into that crystal ball. TONY JONES: Gore Vidal, I think you are living proof, however, that dissent is still living in the United States.

WHAT WIPED OUT THE DINOSAURS? By MAXWELL EDISON [Denver, Colorado, USA] It was a vast right-wing conspiracy, and I have it from a reliable source. As we all know, the right-wing is in the pockets of big oil. And as we also know, because we learned this as kids, oil comes from dead dinosaurs. Both of those things are undeniable fact, right? Okay, so where does big-oil get all that oil? Bingo! From dead dinosaurs! And Dick Cheney is the master-mind behind it all, that's for sure. After all, there's only one company with the wherewithal to kill all the dinosaurs on the planet, and that's ..... you guessed it ..... Halliburton. And we all know about Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton, don't we? And who was a big political contributor the right-wing candidates -- including Dick Cheney? Of course, it was Halliburton! And we also have heard, from equally reliable sources, that the PROOF of this conspiracy was discovered in the deserts of Iraq in 2001. But Cheney and Halliburton had to keep the lid on it, and the invasion of Iraq is really a cover-up for the REAL mission. And the weapons of mass destruction claim was just a ploy ...... and get this ...... to cover-up the REAL weapon of mass destruction used to kill all the dinosaurs! You don't think it's a coincidence, do you, that ....... oil .......Iraq (with all those oil fields) ....... Dick Cheney ....... Halliburton ........ and a weapon of mass extinction ....... BINGO! You got it! There ya' go. Oh, and my "reliable source"? That would be MoveOn.org