(To America in the age of Ashcroft)

We live in the land of comfort,
too soft and satisfied to
understand the subtle threats that
chip away slowly
at the stony foundations of our love.
The tiny pinpricks of mistrust –
the wary eyes, are you listening there
on the other line or is this
phone tapped, is my e-mail being read?
I check your letters, read your notes,
read the messages you’ve sent
out into the vast wired grid of
knowledge – nothing is sacred
any longer, no bit of privacy too
important to breech.
I look over my shoulder, into
your eyes, wonder if it’s
you or me who’s crossed this line,
or maybe Gary next door or
Sid across the street.
How can I be sure?

I love the smell of quagmire in the morning. My, but it takes you back, doesn't it? The only thing left to say is that there is "light at the end of the tunnel." But everything else has already begun to play itself out. We have even seen the resurrection of that Orwellian mantra "winning the peace." If I had been just a few years older in the Vietnam era, the deja-vu might kill me.

As it is, I have to rely on crazy resources, like history, to feel the eerie similarities coming into focus. No real sense carpet-bombing the desert, so that's out-no trees to hide in. Napalm made a surprising rebound, though. They lied about it for months (gasp!) of course, but its comeback was all but assured given the recycled cast of characters. I'm beginning to think the only reason we haven't heard more about "Iraqization (Iraqicization... Iraqation...?) is that it's so much harder to spell than Vietnamization. The hubris of the Best and the Brightest is back with a vengeance, though-recast as The Most Dangerous Men on Earth.

Your site is almost as good as the Sunday funnies.  The sad part is there appears to be more truth in the Sunday funnies then on your web site.  Don't give up yet, just try a little harder.

When I hear pundits warn that Iraq is becoming a “quagmire,” I wince.

     “Quagmire” is a word made famous during the Vietnam War. The current conflict in Iraq comes out of a very different history, but there are some chilling parallels. One of them has scarcely been mentioned: These days, the editorial positions of major U.S. newspapers have an echo like a dirge.

     Of course, the nation’s mainstream press does not speak with a monolithic editorial voice. At one end of the limited spectrum, the strident and influential Wall Street Journal cannot abide any doubts. Its editorials explain, tirelessly, that the war was Good and the occupation is Good -- and those who doubt are fools and knaves. (LBJ called such dissenters “Nervous Nellies.”)

     The Journal editorial writers fervently promote what used to be called the domino theory. The day after the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad blew up last month, the paper closed its gung-ho editorial by touting a quote from Centcom commander Gen. John Abizaid: “If we can’t be successful here, then we won’t be successful in the global war on terror.

During the Cold War, the CIA, in the words of long-time agent Ralph McGehee, practiced the art of "deadly deceits." Throughout the Third World, the secret spy agency engaged in covert operations, blatant acts of economic destabilization and wanton acts of mass violence.

In the 1970s, Idaho Senator Frank Church's investigatory committee established that the CIA also engaged in so-called "benign" operations including rigging elections. The agency used the term "demonstration elections" - elections that are superficially democratic but the results manipulated by the CIA.