What Newt Gingrich is trying to say is that Islam, like all religions, has to be responsible for its biggest assholes.

— Senior Religion Correspondant John Oliver regarding Gingrich’s comments likening the organizers of Park 51 community center to “Nazis” putting a “sign next to the Holocaust museum.”

                          

Crossposted from Care2.com ~ Originally published 29 July 2010

President Barack Obama took to the Rose Garden July 19 to urge Congress to pass legislation extending unemployment benefits.  Obama had some harsh words for Republicans regarding their filibuster of the measure, and the minority’s curious advocacy for the failed economic policies of the Bush administration.

From Obama’s remarks (full transcript/video):

I have to say, after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people who didn’t have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn’t offer relief to middle-class Americans like Jim or Leslie or Denise, who really need help.

Thankfully, the Senate cleared the Republican’s procedural bloc the following day, and jobless benefits will soon be restored for 2.5 million jobless Americans.

It’s a win for the Democrats and for the administration, but a temporary one, and if they’re smart, they will continue to feature the tone and content of Obama’s Rose Garden speech.  They should keep the spotlight on Republicans and what has emerged as their economic platform:  Extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 — an initiative which would deprive the government’s balance sheet of $678 billion over the next ten years — while simultaneously screaming about the perils of the budget deficit.

The hypocrisy is apparent; but, more importantly, when Republican lawmakers publicly defend these policies they put their insincerity on display along with their flippant disregard for the facts.  Read on for examples of both.

Falsehood #1 – Republican Politicians Are Worried About the Deficit

Keep in mind that the budget deficit ranks as a top concern for both Democrats and Republicans when either finds themselves in the minority.  However, the present field of GOP officeholders and hopefuls has brought an unprecedented level of disingenuousness to this time honored political tradition.

Matt Yglesias made it plain within his fourth installment of “Conservatives Don’t Care About The Deficit.”

…there are zero historical examples of conservatives mobilizing to make the deficit smaller. What is true is that most conservatives oppose increases in non-military spending when those increases are proposed by Democratic presidents. A minority of conservatives are more consistent opponents of increases in non-military spending. But the key element of conservative fiscal policy is that tax revenue as a percent of GDP should be made as low as possible. This isn’t a goal they pursue that stands in some kind of balance with concern about the deficit, it’s the only goal they pursue…

Barry Ritholtz offered some particularly stinging commentary regarding “these new deficit chickenhawks” within his July 13 post.  Ritholtz raises an important question:  would those preaching austerity to the Obama administration have said the same to Reagan?

The current president, who obviously has very different priorities than RR, is in many ways following his path: Huge deficits, tax cuts targeted to his electoral base, allowing policies of his predecessor to expire.

I find it terribly amusing that some conservatives have latched onto the deficit as their key issue, when they took the idea of deficit spending to great new heights! Whether you are looking at the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, reining in the deficit was clearly of no concern. (Forget speechifying, I refer to actual policies).

Having already weighed in on conservatives’ misplaced reverence for Reaganomics, I won’t bother with it here.

Bush’s economic policies, however, were largely emulative of Reagan’s, and are doubly relevant.   First, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have contributed greatly to America’s budgetary woes.  Second, “the new deficit chickenhawks” have flatly misrepresented the economic impact Bush tax cuts in order to rail against Obama, whose administration is tasked with cleaning up Bush’s mess.

Falsehood #2 – Bush Tax Cuts Increased Revenue, Paid For Themselves:

This particular falsehood is exhibited in various forms.  Perhaps the most vivid of these comes from Fox Business Channel; the Republican propaganda outfit’s “Largest Tax Hike Ever” countdown clock is representative of the GOP’s argument that the Bush tax cuts should be extended.  But this is generally in line with the rest of Fox’s “news” products:  Flashy, yet fictional.  More significant are the claims which have recently spewed from the politicians, themselves.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) articulated the argument June 11, claiming that unemployment benefits are a “necessary evil” which must be paid for by cutting spending or raising taxes.  When asked the following day how an extension of the Bush tax cuts should be paid for, Kyl responded, “My view, and I think most of the people in my party don’t believe that you should ever have to offset a tax cut …”

That this is a commonly held belief among Republicans was confirmed by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell during a July 13 press conference (via TPMDC, emphasis added):

“That’s been the majority Republican view for some time,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. “That there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

Not so, says economist and Times columnist Paul Krugman.  Justifiably dismayed by McConnell’s assertions, Krugman published a couple of relevant blog posts –  “Invincible Ignorance,” July 13 and “Carter, Reagan, Revenue,” July 15 — dispelling the ‘tax cuts increase revenue’ claim.

Following the Bush tax cuts, Krugman explains, there was a predictable drop in government revenue which regained its ascent as the economy grew.  After bottoming out, revenue never caught up to what had been the projections had the tax cuts not been enacted.

Krugman’s blog posts culminated in his Friday Times column, “Redo that Voodoo,” invoking the phrase coined by George H.W. Bush while campaigning against Reagan for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination:

Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit, even before the [housing] crash.

But we’re talking about voodoo economics here, so perhaps it’s not surprising that belief in the magical powers of tax cuts is a zombie doctrine: no matter how many times you kill it with facts, it just keeps coming back. And despite repeated failure in practice, it is more than ever, the official view of the G.O.P.

Krugman stresses that our present economic predicament, while serious, is not yet a crisis, thanks, in part, to “the perception that the deficit is manageable has helped keep U.S. borrowing costs low.”  Should Republicans make significant electoral gains in 2010, and should they attempt to put their talking points into practice, Krugman warns, a fiscal crisis is exactly what we’ll have.

I’ve included a relevant clip from the Rachel Maddow Show below, but if you’re interested in reading more about the history of voodoo, supply side, trickle down, or whatever you want to call it, economics, here are a few solid links:

• Hale “Bonddad” Stewart, “The Stupidity and Hypocrisy of the Austerity Movement,” fivethirtyeight.com, 18 July 2010. - Stewart provides a brief history of both, the deficit and the austerity movement, and concludes, among other things, that the GOP’s deficit alarmism is purely political.
• Mike Kimmel, “Presidents, the Tax Burden, and Economic Growth,” presimetrics.com, 13 June 2010 – Kimmel provides a dispassionate, data driven analysis of how the tax policies of Democrats and Republicans have impacted economic growth.  Kimmel’s results may surprise you.
• Thom Hartmann, “Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years,” CommonDreams.org, 26 January 2009 - When Paul Krugman mentioned, “flirting with crisis was arguably part of the [Republican] plan,” this is what he was talking about.  Hartmann traces the history of the supply-side, “starve the beast” Republican strategy to just after Barry Goldwater’s failed 1964 presidential run.  As I noted in a relevant post from last year:

“Two Santa Clause” theory, Hartmann explains, was constructed as a means to consolidate Republican power.  Briefly stated, its adherents reasoned that Republicans could cut taxes, increase spending, and increase government revenue in the process.  If successful, the only way Democrats could counter would be to argue for higher taxes, effectively ‘shooting a Santa Clause.’

                          

Only 13 percent of you all out there think I’m doing a good job. So [expletive] all of you.

That’s right!  Blago told me and all of my fellow Illinoisans to go f#ck ourselves.  I still can’t believe I voted for that douchebag – (sigh) – twice.

That said, the walking, talking embarrassment that is Blago was still preferable to the alternative.

                          

These hearings have become highly partisan affairs over the past 30 years, and given the recent closed-ranks posture of the Republican opposition, we can expect all the sharp-edged political weapons to be deployed against the nominee. The chief weapon will be the claim that Supreme Court justices should interpret the Constitution as it was written, not impose their political or personal convictions on the semi-sacred text. Woe to the nominee who has left a paper trail that deviates from the original intentions of the Founders, or what a hostile Senate interrogator defines those intentions to be.

The RNC, for their part, telegraphed their Party’s intentions for the hearings in advance.  As noted at The Hill, May 10, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would focus on Kagan’s DADT position at Harvard, and her 1993 speech before the Texas Law Review in honor of Justice Thurgood Marshall.

… She quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.”

Marshall cited in particular the definition in the original Constitution to slaves as representing three-fifths of “free Persons” when counting the nation’s population. That reference was rendered moot after the Civil War with the ratification of the 13th and 14th amendments abolishing slavery and granting full citizenship to all people born in the U.S.

True to form, the GOP contingent led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) proceeded to frame Marshall as a “liberal activist” –   the same Justice Marshall whose work on behalf of the NAACP in 1954 helped facilitate the end of segregation, later serving as U.S. Solicitor General, elevated to the Supreme Court during the LBJ administration.

Interestingly, when asked later, Senators Sessions, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) were unable to list a single instance of “judicial activism” perpetrated by Marshall.  But their strategy wasn’t about making a sustainable legal argument; rather, Republican criticism of Marshall turned out to be yet another sounding of the dog whistle intended for their base who, apparently, lament the outcome of Brown v. Board of Education – Stay classy, GOP!

Fortunately Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was on hand to set the record straight on two counts.  Watch the below clip, snipped by firedoglake.com, as Franken elevates the term “judicial activist” out of the meaningless context in which it is so often used, successfully defending Marshall’s legacy in the process.

Within his assessment of the “Judiciary Committee Winners and Losers,” Harper’s Contributing Editor and legal expert Scott Horton highlighted Franken’s performance:

…I applaud Al Franken. Not only did he provide an alternative point of interest during slow points with his skillful doodling, Franken also proved himself an astute student of the Republicans. For years, they have used confirmation hearings to take their digs at their least favorite judges and judicial policies. Franken has responded in kind, taking a deep look at the Roberts court’s strange biases in favor of business and against labor and its innate hostility to business regulation. Who are those “activist judges” that Sessions complained about? Franken makes a persuasive case that they’re precisely the judges Sessions is so wild about: John Roberts, Sam Alito, Nino Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

                          

In his June 23 “Special Comment” regarding Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s comments to Rolling Stone – over which, McChrystal reportedly intends to tender his resignation — the host of MSNBC‘s Countdown posited that President Obama should reject it:

…Sir, you should take General McChrystal’s resignation, and fold it up, and put it in your top drawer, and tell him that that is where it will remain, and that as of now you are not accepting it. Correct.

He tenders his resignation. You tell him to get back to Afghanistan because he’s not getting out of this morass he helped create, and tell him to make sure we get the surge troops withdrawn on time or faster if he can. And then, Sir, you sit back and watch the political world’s collective jaw drop.

Olbermann then lays down some history of presidents past and how they reacted when Generals Behave(d) Badly.

Uncertain if Obama should/will heed the advice, but Olbermann makes a persuasive argument.  Watch:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update via PoliticusUSA – President Obama Relieves General McChrystal of His Post:

McChrystal arrived at White House ready to tender his resignation Wednesday at 10:00 AM. At 1:15 PM, MSNBC announced that President Obama relieved General McChrystal of the Afghanistan war which McChrystal was commanding. MSNBC is reporting that General Petraeus has been chosen to replace General McChrystal as commander of the Afghanistan forces… (Read More)

                          

“Counting President Obama, he last eight presidents have gone on television and promised to move America towards an energy-independent future.”

Stewart’s hilarious, yet sad, commentary should serve as a reminder to us all:  Presidents can only lend rhetorical weight to the nation’s goals.  Without support from the electorate, they’re just words.

                          

From the transcript:

[T]he stuff that did not work back then is the same stuff that hasn’t worked now.  Same busted blowout preventer, same ineffective berm, same underwater plumes, same toxic dispersants, same failed containment domes, same junk shot, same top kill – it’s all the same technology.

The Ixtoc well, which couldn’t be plugged for nine months, was in roughly 200 feet of water.  Now, in 2010, we’re using the same exact techniques to try to plug a well that leaking in 5,000 feet of water…

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It’s worth noting that lessons of the Ixtoc I disaster – the largest oil spill in history – haven’t been lost on everyone.  Canada, for example, requires oil drillers to demonstrate their ability to drill relief wells “in the same season as the original well…” according to a source cited by NPR.

Incidentally, the NPR post also illustrates that BP “sought to ease Canada’s policy” within a month of the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf.  According to a June 4 Vancouver Sun post, BP’s lobbying effort was effective as the relatively modest precautionary language is absent from newly released regulatory policy.

As it stands, the recent “top hat” mechanism deployed by BP captures some of the oil flowing into the Gulf.  Their relief wells — two are being drilled because, as was the case with the Ixtoc I, initial efforts aren’t always successful — slowed by a lack of preparedness, won’t reach the necessary depth until August.

Related Reading:

• Reuters, May 24 – BP’s Gulf battle echoes monster ’79 Mexico oil spill

And, unrelated to the Ixtoc, but here’s some spot on satire, if you fancy it:

• The Onion, June 7 – Massive flow of bullshit continues to gush from BP Headquarters

                          

by: H.P. Albarelli & Jeffrey Kaye

———————————————————-

In a superb op-ed, written by Leonard S. Rubenstein and Stephen N. Xenakis, published recently in the New York Times (Doctors Without Morals, March 1, 2010, p. A23), the issue of holding physicians and psychologists accountable for their ethical breaches in participating in the conduct of torture is expertly raised, along with a well-needed call for investigations into such violations and violators. Rubenstein and Xenakis wrote: “[Despite overwhelming evidence] no agency – not the Pentagon, the CIA, state licensing boards or professional medical societies – has initiated any action to investigate, much less discipline, these individuals. They have ignored the gross and appalling violations by medical personnel. This is an unconscionable disservice to the thousands of ethical doctors and psychologists in the country’s service. It is not too late to begin investigations. They should start now.”

Rubenstein and Xenakis are absolutely correct in their call for action now, as they are in their accounting of what has gone on historically the past ten years with torture at Guantanamo and elsewhere. However, their op-ed says nothing about the decades preceding the terrible events of 9-11. An examination of these well-hidden, past torture activities might serve well in shedding light on the causes for reluctance and inaction in holding torturers and their professional cohorts responsible.

Operation Dormouse

Contemporary torture’s earliest, deepest and most influential roots are found in the CIA’s Artichoke Project. Indeed, it is Project Artichoke that encapsulates the CIA’s real traveling road show of horrors and atrocities, not MK/ULTRA which, although responsible for its own acts of mindless cruelty, pales in comparison.

That MK/ULTRA received, and continues to receive, the lion’s share of the media’s attention and public outrage over CIA mind control programs was a deliberately planned outcome on the part of the Agency. This outcome was the central objective of a never before revealed covert operation launched in 1975 and informally code-named Dormouse.

Dormouse, operated out of the CIA’s Security Research branch, had its genesis in the 1975 Rockefeller Commission report and in the subsequent Congressional hearings into CIA illegal activities chaired by Senators Frank Church and Teddy Kennedy. Following the initial revelation of Frank Olson’s alleged “suicide” by the Rockefeller Commission, a number of high-level meetings occurred between President Gerald Ford’s White House and CIA General Counsel Lawrence Houston.

Houston, who had served the Agency as its doyen general counsel for over 25 years, secretly huddled on at least two occasions in June 1975 with Ford’s chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld, and his chief assistant, Richard Cheney. Houston impressed upon both men that any prolonged and intense media scrutiny of Project Artichoke would lead to opening a Pandora’s box of legal, institutional, international and public relations problems that could destroy the CIA.

Houston explained that the Agency’s MK/ULTRA program was far less problematic for the CIA because it had been a research-based program that initiated 153 contracts to colleges, universities and research institutions nationwide. These contractors, all stalwart and prestigious institutions like Harvard, Columbia, and Tulane Universities, could serve as viable buffers to any harsh outside attacks.

Houston stressed that deliberate exposure of the MK/ULTRA program by essentially offering it to the press would serve to placate the brewing feeding frenzy over so-called mind control projects, and would divert any investigative attempts into the multi-faceted Artichoke Project.

Houston additionally explained to Rumsfeld and Cheney that, along with the release of MK/ULTRA details to the media, the names of a few former CIA employees, such as Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, would also be released to the press. Incredibly, when the subject of possible federal prosecutions of CIA officials for capital crimes and felonies, such as murder and drug trafficking, came up in their discussion, Houston informed Rumsfeld and Cheney that there was little cause for concern.

Explained the Agency’s General Counsel, since early 1954, following the death of Army biochemist Frank Olson, a secret agreement between the CIA and the U.S. Department of Justice had been put in place whereby the violation of “criminal statutes” by CIA personnel would not result in Department of Justice prosecutions, if “highly classified and complex covert operations” were threatened with exposure. The agreement had been struck between Houston and Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers in February 1954, not long after Frank Olson’s death, and still remained solidly in place.

Lastly, and worth noting here, was a brief adjunct discussion between Houston, Rumsfeld, and Cheney regarding related concerns about records on former Nazi scientists who had been secretly imported into the United States in the early Fifties by the State Department and Army, as part of Project Paperclip. These German scientists performed highly-classified research at the Army’s Fort Detrick and Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, some of which involved field operations in Europe.

Without doubt, as the extant record clearly reveals, the CIA’s Dormouse Operation, as expressed by Houston, was remarkably effective. Information released on the Agency’s MK/ULTRA program more than sated the media’s curiosity for mind control details, and even a few random Artichoke Program citations in a couple released documents failed to draw any concerted examination by anyone in the press. For example: documents revealing that Dr. Frank Olson had been part of the CIA’s ongoing “Artichoke Conference” were near completely overlooked. Within a few short months, Artichoke was widely believed by the media and public to be but a small, innocuous project that had been replaced by the MK/ULTRA behemoth. Still today, numerous publications state that Artichoke was absorbed and replaced by MK/ULTRA, when actually Artichoke operated independently for nearly 17 years beyond the dawn of MK/ULTRA.

What Was Project Artichoke?

The CIA initiated Project Artichoke in August 1951 at the direction of CIA director Walter Bedell Smith and the Agency’s Scientific Intelligence Director, Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell. The code name “Artichoke” was selected with sardonic humor from the street appendage given to New York City gangster Ciro Terranova, who was referred to as “the Artichoke King.”

Following a brief period of bureaucratic infighting over which CIA department would have jurisdiction over Artichoke, it was decided that the project would be overseen by the Agency’s Security Research Staff, headed by Paul F. Gaynor, a former Army Brigadier General, who had extensive experience in wartime interrogations.

Gaynor was notorious among CIA officials for having his staff maintain a systematic file on every homosexual, and suspected homosexual, among the ranks of Federal employees, as well as those who worked and served on Washington’s Capitol Hill. Gaynor’s secret listing eventually grew to include the names of employees and elected officials at State government levels, and the siblings and relatives of those on Capitol Hill.

In early January 1953, State Department employee John C. Montgomery, who handled considerable classified material, hanged himself in his Georgetown townhouse after learning of his addition to Gaynor’s list. In 1954, U.S. Senator Lester C. Hunt (D-WY) killed himself in his senate office after he was threatened by Republicans, using information provided by Gaynor’s staff, to publicly expose his son’s homosexuality. By the early 1960s, according to one former Agency employee, “It was pretty much routine to consult Gaynor’s ‘fag file’ when conducting background or clearance checks on individuals.”

Gaynor’s veiled and more despicable activities also extended to racist matters, a fixation he seemed to share with many of the CIA’s early leaders, as well as with some of the Pentagon’s early ranking officials. According to one former CIA official, Gaynor was once informally cautioned by Allen Dulles concerning his overt support of former Congressman Hamilton Fish III, a strident Nazi sympathizer, and for associating, along with fellow CIA official Morse Allen, with John B. Trevor Jr., an ardent racist, anti-Semite, pro-Nazi, who called for amnesty for Nazi war criminals. Before the CIA was formed, Gaynor was also associated with Trevor’s father, John B. Trevor Sr., a Harvard-educated attorney who worked with Army intelligence and who once strongly advocated arming a group of citizens with 6,000 rifles and machine guns to put down an anticipated Jewish uprising in Manhattan that only took shape in Trevor’s twisted mind.

In 1997, former CIA Technical Services chief, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, who had been born into a Jewish family, said, “Throughout the 1950s, and for some time beyond, the Agency was less than a welcoming place for Jews and racial minorities. Those who were actually ever hired or involved in operations learned rather quickly to keep their heads down when certain matters were discussed or rallied round.”

Here it should be emphasized that inevitably lurking within, near, and around all of the CIA’s early mind-control experiments was a strong element of racism that generally manifested itself through the Agency’s principle objective of establishing control over the perceived “weaker” and “less intelligent” segments of society. That the CIA’s initial mind control activities show a close kinship with many prominent characters within the racist and anti-immigration eugenics movement is no coincidence. Thus comprised was the central leadership of the CIA’s Project Artichoke.

Here it is important to note that the Artichoke Project originated from the CIA’s short-lived Project Bluebird, which operated for about two years, 1949 through summer 1951, and concentrated its efforts on former American POWs returned from the Korean War. These servicemen were placed in several Army hospitals, including Valley Forge Hospital, Pennsylvania and the Walter Reed facility in Washington, D.C.  There the former POWs were subjected to various behavioral modification programs, including the use of experimental drugs, special interrogation methods, all for what the CIA deemed “offensive objectives.”  Joining the CIA in Project Bluebird was the Army, Navy, and Air Force (the FBI declined to participate in the project).

Reads one April 1951 Bluebird Project report: “The Navy’s research efforts in regards to Bluebird objectives had actually begun in 1947 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. There, according to the Navy’s Bluebird designees, J.H. Alberti and Lt. Cmdr. Hardenburg, extensive experiments had been conducted using both drugs and medical aids (polygraph machines, surgical means, hypnotism). Besides Bethesda hospital, the Office of Naval Research conducted a project in partnership with the University of Indiana which in essence [was] a search for valid indications of deception other than the mechanical indicators now being used.”

CIA interest in exotic and abusive methods of detecting deception continues to the present day. In July 2003, the CIA, the Rand Corporation and the American Psychological Association conducted a series of workshops on detecting deception. One of these workshops considered the use of truth drugs (“pharmacological agents are known to affect apparent truth-telling behavior”) and the use of sensory overloads. The workshop asked its classified participants, “How might we overload the system or overwhelm the senses and see how it affects deceptive behaviors?”

Perhaps one of the best examples of this was the treatment of “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla, who by the time he entered a U.S. courtroom had suffered tremendously, and irreversibly, from the abuses of deliberately induced sensory and systems overload.

In early summer of 1951, just weeks before Bluebird was renamed Artichoke, officials within the CIA’s Security Office – working in tandem with cleared scientists from Camp Detrick’s Special Operations Division, who in turn worked closely with a select group of scientists from a number of other Army installations, including Edgewood Arsenal – began a series of ultra-secret experiments with LSD, mescaline, peyote, and a synthesized substance, sometimes nicknamed “Smasher,” which combined an “LSD-like drug with pharmaceutical amphetamines and other enhancers.”

This substance was used in a number of highly classified field experiments, at least four of which were conducted outside the United States. While details of these experiments are sketchy, former Fort Detrick biochemists report, “None of the field experiments produced the type of results desired,” and as a result, “ranking Army Chemical Corps officials elected to focus LSD and other drug experiments on more narrowly defined groups, as well as individuals.” Chief among the field experiments that failed in the “desired results” category were the horrifying events that took place in Pont St. Esprit, France in 1951. There in a small, peaceful village one early summer morning nearly 700 people went stark raving mad with 4 people killing themselves. (This incident is detailed in my book, “A TERRIBLE MISTAKE: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments“) This experimental focus remained in place when Project Artichoke was initiated.

At its inception, the Artichoke Project needed a steady supply of experimental subjects. Wrote CIA Security Research chief Paul Gaynor in a never before revealed February 1953 memo: “It is imperative that we move forward more aggressively on identifying and securing a reliable, ready group, or groups, of human research subjects for ongoing Artichoke experimentation. There can be no delays in this extremely important work.”

Other CIA reports reveal that the CIA’s Security Research Staff was not sitting idly by while awaiting the securing of ready groups of human subjects. Teams of Agency officials and contract physicians were traveling frequently to locations in Europe where, in the isolation of CIA safe houses, enhanced interrogations and behavior modification experiments were being conducted on various defectors, double-agents, and kidnapped foreign agents.

Reads a November 1956 Artichoke report that could have easily been written today at Guantanamo, Cuba: “The team physician administered a suppository containing a small amount of heroin to the subject so as to increase subject’s pain threshold.” The physician referred to in this report, a well-known Washington, D.C. psychologist, made over 90 Artichoke-related trips abroad.

In September 1953, Artichoke Project director Morse Allen, a former Naval intelligence officer and State Department employee, hand-carried a two-page memorandum to Paul Gaynor. The memo bears the subject: “Artichoke Research Program.” It reads in part: “[T]here are some four thousand (4,000) American military men who are serving court martial sentences in the federal prisons at the present time. These men are scattered through the federal institutions according to their age – some being at reformatories, others at prisons. It is administratively possible that the sentences of these men can be reduced by direction of the Adjutant General’s office. Therefore, if these men should be wanted for work on a dangerous research project, it might be possible to motivate their interest by promising that recommendations would be made to the Adjutant General’s office to have their sentences appropriately reduced if they co-operated in the experimentation. Also many offenses of military men were committed in circumstances which might tend to lessen the feeling of guilt on the part of the individual and such cases might reveal interesting information.”

Allen next suggested that federal prisons “that have hospital setups with doctors on the permanent staff” be used for experiments. Wrote Allen, “Such things as the size of the institution and current population would have to be considered but it is a fact that the federal prisons are not overcrowded as is the case with many state prisons, thus it would be much easier to obtain working space in a federal institution.” Artichoke teams secretly working in the prisons could be passed off as “coming from nearby universities or research institutions,” explained Allen. About a week later, Allen amended his September memo to include “federal hospitals and institutions under the control of the [U.S.] Public Health Service.”

Wrote Allen, “There are a large number of USPHS-controlled facilities that can be used for experiments, these in addition to the facilities recommended in the earlier memorandum bearing the same subject.”

Gaynor promptly approved Allen’s recommendations, ordering their immediate implementation. Within a few weeks, progress reports concerning the conduct of experiments at three federal prisons, as well as a reformatory in Bordentown, New Jersey, were submitted to Gaynor. Experiments were also conducted at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington, D.C., a Veterans Administration hospital in Detroit, Michigan, and at the Federal Narcotics Farm in Lexington, Kentucky. Experiments at the Narcotics Farm, somewhat romanticized in some current publications, were specifically targeted at African-American inmates, who were considered by the program’s director to be inferior to white inmates at the facility.

When the newly created U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was created just weeks later with Nelson A. Rockefeller as Under-Secretary, the CIA found it remarkably easy to gain HEW’s approval for use of Federal medical facilities as fronts for covert drug and interrogation experiments using unwitting human subjects. Inevitably, nearly all those unwitting experimental subjects chosen for HEW-sponsored projects were African-Americans and persons from immigrant groups and what one Agency document referred to as the “lower classes.”

A central Artichoke objective, according to one CIA document, centered on: “The problem exists of ascertaining whether effective and practical techniques exist, or could be developed, which could be utilized to render an individual subservient to an imposed will or control, thereby posing a potential threat to National Security.” [Italics added]

The same document explained that the Agency also wanted to put the same techniques to their own effective uses in the field offensively. Reads the document: “We need to also explore the ‘subtle’ means of making an individual say or do things he would normally not consider through the use of covertly administered drugs, ‘Black Psychiatry’*, hypnosis, and brain damaging processes. Dr. Chadwell feels these processes may be tried but they are ‘elaborate, impractical and unnecessary.’”[Italics added. Dr. Chadwell was H. Marshall Chadwell, the CIA's director of Scientific Intelligence.]

A subsequent April 1954 Artichoke Conference meeting, attended by Frank Olson’s Fort Detrick superior, Col. Vincent Ruwet, explored the real nitty-gritty of Artichoke experimentation. Noted a CIA report on the meeting, “It was also recognized [by conference participants] that if Morse Allen and his group could produce bodies and if certain very rough, primitive, and ultimate tests could be carried out then a more accurate prediction could be made in connection with the ultimate goal of the group which is the running of selected foreign nationals back into Europe for specific work for this Agency.”

CIA Security Research chief Paul Gaynor, attending the same Artichoke Conference meeting, reminded the gathered Agency and Fort Detrick officials, “All individuals can be broken under mental and physical assaults and by such techniques as denying sleep, exhaustion, persuasion, starvation, pain, humiliation, and sickness.”

Added Gaynor, “The capacity to endure assaults of all kinds varies in individuals. We need to teach the Artichoke techniques to medical officers in the field… we also need to combine these techniques with the work carried on at Edgewood Arsenal and at Camp Dietrich [sic] …and the special use of ergots, as well as Lysergic Acid. Experiments with new ideas, for example the hypo-spray instrument (owned by the E.R. Squibb Company) using criminals and the criminally insane, have been very successful.”

An italicized and revealing note at the end of the Artichoke meeting report reads: “Morse Allen and Paul Gaynor emphasized the fact that this type of work must not be overwhelmed and overburdened in a maze of statistics, technical reports and learned academic experimentation since previous experiences along these lines clearly indicate that when this appears the end results are almost always negative.” Reportedly, much of these very same statements and thinking are contained in a number of the training manuals used today by CIA and Army interrogators.

Project Artichoke Operational Overseas

Beginning in January 1954, following a series of experimental field assignments, the CIA began to systematically dispatch special assignment Artichoke Teams from the U.S. to locations throughout Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia, and the Philippines. Team assignments were given by special “EYES ONLY” cables with each assigned a tracking number. By 1961 the numbers had reached as high as 257 specific assignments. Nearly all of these assignments would fall under today’s definition of “enhanced interrogations.”

Through a number of Project Artichoke documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, we are able to obtain glimpses into those activities and techniques employed by the dispatched teams, which appear to have been at least a dozen in number.

A February 6, 1954 team report, delivered to CIA headquarters by “Diplomatic Courier,” provides partial insight into one seemingly unique Artichoke field assignment in Europe. The report states: “These two subjects [foreign agents] are disposal problems, one because of his lack of ability to carry out a mission and the other because he cannot get along with the chief agent of the project. Both have extensive information concerning (other) assets and thus are security risks wherever they are disposed of. Anything that can be done in the Artichoke field to lessen the security risk will be helpful since the men must be disposed of even at maximum security risk. The urgency of consideration of this case is due to the fact that one of the men is already somewhat stir crazy and has tried to escape twice.”

Another field report reads: “Subject was given a sedative suppository to increase his resistance to pain, this in order to intensify his ordeal midway through the planned session.” Another reads in part: “This A [Artichoke] session involved four subjects all of whom present serious disposal problems after results are produced.”

Domestic Artichoke Operations

In February 1954, with over 65 Artichoke Team visits to sites in Europe and the Far East having already occurred, Paul Gaynor decided to open a new Artichoke Project front. This front would be located within America’s borders despite the fact that many people in the nation’s capital believed that the CIA’s founding charter forbade the organization from conducting domestic operations.  In numerous ways, this new front gave initial shape and direction for the CIA’s still-to-come “rendition” activities that we witness today.

Gaynor outlined this in a memo sent to the Agency’s Technical Services Division, explaining that Artichoke officials were about to embark on creating “a mechanism within the United States which will be a ways and means of contacting alien citizens in the United States” whereby they could be “branded as alien threats and removed from the United States as ‘undesirable aliens.’” The objective of establishing this mechanism was to facilitate “legal entree” for the contacted aliens so that they might, following careful “screening and testing,” conduct covert missions in targeted foreign countries.

Gaynor’s memo continued, stating the best technique for “contacting these people” was through the use of “sympathetic fake left-wing organizations” secretly established by the CIA. Remarkably, the memo went on stating the best process established by Artichoke officials for identifying those aliens to use involved “selection, screening, indoctrination and ultimately hypnosis.” However, states the memo, “the sixty-four dollar question is can individuals be commanded under hypnosis to do things they would not otherwise do because of morals, training, ethics, etc.”

Earlier, in March 1952, Security Research officials along with CIA Scientific Intelligence Branch researchers had made a concerted decision to pursue hypnotism toward the principle objective that, “Two hundred trained [CIA] operators, trained in the United States, could develop [and command] a unique, dangerous army of hypnotically controlled agents” who would carry out any instructions they were given without reservations. Several years later, CIA officials would describe the abilities of this “unique, dangerous army” as “mildly hair-raising.”

Artichoke Evolves into Assassination Project

Perhaps it was inevitable that Project Artichoke would eventually develop an “executive action” or assassination component. The CIA had been seriously contemplating such a capacity since its founding. In 1952, one Artichoke official wrote: “Let’s get into the technology of assassination, figure most effective ways to kill – like Empress Agrippina – do you want your people to be able to get out of the room? Do you want it traced?”

Other hard evidence of the CIA’s leanings toward assassination as a feature of policy and operations is yet another memorandum by the Agency’s Security Office and Artichoke official Morse Allen. Wrote Allen about Martin Luther King in 1965: “It is [redacted]‘s belief that somehow or other Martin Luther King must be removed from the leadership of the Negro movement, and his removal must come from within and not from without. [Redacted] feels that somehow in the Negro movement, at the top, there must be a Negro leader who is ‘clean’ who could step into the vacuum and chaos if Martin Luther King were exposed or assassinated.”

Rewriting History and Creating Disinformation

In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some groups and writers to deliberately disown and downplay the horrors of Project Artichoke. Perhaps the finest recent example of this is an article written by Charles S. Viar of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Intelligence Studies, a private group. Viar’s article entitled PANDORA’S BOX: MKULTRA and the Weaponization of the Human Psyche is posted on the center’s web site.

Viar, who claims to have been a student of James Jesus Angleton in 1986 and 1987, and an expert on intelligence affairs, erroneously claims in his article that the Artichoke Project and its techniques had been “developed and successfully refined by the Soviets, Nazi, and Western intelligence services between 1920 and 1973.”  This rewriting of history appears as nothing short of an amazing effort to distort the truth; as is well established by the CIA’s own records, the term Artichoke was never applied to any program or techniques prior to 1952, when the Agency first employed the project codename.

Viar also appears to buy into and promote the cover story invented by Cheney and Rumsfeld in 1975 that Project Artichoke was, in 1953, replaced by MK/ULTRA. Additionally, he buys into the “unwitting” dosing of Frank Olson as “part of an MKULTRA experiment,” this despite that Olson was a member of the CIA’s Artichoke Conference and never worked with MK/ULTRA projects. Viar then remarkably writes, “There is no evidence that either the CIA or the US military operationalized Artichoke,” a statement that is shattered to pieces by the numerous Artichoke operational reports and records filed by both the CIA and army from 1954 through to at least 1970. If this is not enough, Viar then states that it was “the Soviets” who “shared Artichoke with their Arab allies,” and then equates Project Artichoke to “suicide bombers” and “Al Qaeda.” Lastly, Viar also writes that the CIA’s delving into parapsychology matters is near completely overlooked by historians, despite the ample writings and exposure of the Agency’s MK/ULTRA subprojects, which extensively dealt with ESP and other parapsychology matters.

Project Artichoke Today

With today’s media reports concerning the CIA and Department of Defense black sites cropping up all over the world map, and with horrifying reports concerning alleged “suicides” at US-operated compounds holding “enemy combatants” that make Frank Olson’s suicide-turned-murder case look like a stroll through atrocity park, readers should be ever mindful that the roots of the CIA’s secret mind control and enhanced interrogation programs are firmly planted in the soil of Project Artichoke.

Over the past months, new secret black sites prisons have been discovered at Guantanamo Naval Base and at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. The Guantanamo site has been linked to the deaths of three prisoners in 2006, while Bagram secret prison, said to be run by the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been the subject of investigations by the New York Times, Washington Post, and BBC, exposing widespread use of beatings, isolation, sleep deprivation, and other techniques derived from Appendix M of the 2006 Army Field Manual. This portion of the manual outlines abusive forms of interrogation reserved only for captives that supposedly don’t warrant prisoner-of-war status.

Interest in the use of drugs and mind control techniques in military research and operations persists to the present day. A November 2006 instruction from the Secretary of the Navy (3900.39D) informs that the Undersecretary for the Navy would heretofore be the “Approval Authority for research involving: (a) Severe or unusual intrusions, either physical or psychological, on human subjects (such as consciousness-altering drugs or mind-control techniques).”**

A public presentation of the new policy at the Defense Department Training Day in Washington, D.C. on November 14, 2006, only 16 days after the new policy was released, deleted the parenthetical remarks on drugs and “mind control,” but left intact the instruction two paragraphs later that the Undersecretary also be responsible for research of, “Potentially or inherently controversial topics (such as those likely to attract significant media coverage or that might invite challenge by interest groups.)”

Like a modern day Ministry of Truth, U.S. government agencies and their partners are busy trying to erase the evidence of their crimes, whether from sixty years ago, or six. Most recently, the American Psychological Association (APA) has changed the web pages that describe their 2003 workshop conducted with the CIA and the Rand Corporation on deception. One webpage has dropped the link to another page that described the workshops investigation of sensory overload and truth drugs. The descriptive page on workshops has been scrubbed entirely, and is only available through the use of web archives sites. Worth noting is that throughout the 1950s and 1960s the APA worked quite closely with both the CIA and Army on mind control projects, many of which completely crossed ethical lines, as well as the APA’s Code of Ethics, into areas described by many observers as sheer madness.

Attempts to prevent judicial review of the rendition and torture programs are moreover an official position of President Obama’s administration. On May 12, the administration filed a brief to the Supreme Court about whether to hear an appeal from Maher Arar in his lawsuit against former Attorney General Ashcroft and other Bush administration figures. Arar was kidnapped from New York’s JFK Airport and rendered secretly to Syria, where he was tortured for almost a year. His suit was dismissed by a federal circuit appeals court. Now, President Obama’s Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, has pronounced the administration’s position that further deliberations on Mr. Arar’s suit are “unwarranted.” The former Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, who was involved in U.S. decision-making on the case, is now a nominee for the Supreme Court.

Finally, the release last year of the CIA’s 2004 Inspector General report on the “enhanced interrogation” program revealed an operation that with its use of doctors as control agents, its reliance on methods of psychological and physiological torture, and the experimental nature of the program, led Physicians for Human Rights to release a white paper that concluded that “possible human experimentation” was taking place, and emphasized the urgent need for a thorough investigation.

—

*According to one former CIA official: “‘Black Psychiatry’ refers to psychiatric methods used by trained and licensed physicians on subjects. These methods may not be in the best interest of the subject’s mental well-being and health.” The same official remarked, “There was no shortage of or problems recruiting psychologists in the 1950s and 1960s who would willfully, and sometimes enthusiastically, practice ‘Black Psychiatry.’” The various methods of ‘Black Psychiatry’ were provided in a training setting in the 1950s through to at least the 1970s at the CIA’s Butler Health Center facility in Rhode Island, where many physicians, including Dr. Robert Hyde, worked for the Agency. The Butler Center also served as the CIA’s central site for exposing its own officials and agents to the effects of LSD and other drugs.

** Recent reports concerning the CIA and Army have both organizations experimenting on a selected basis with a new mind altering drug whose effects are described as “incredibly mind altering yet at the same time allowing subjects to adhere to a sufficient sense of sanity thus allowing better opportunity for truth inducing techniques…” The drug, described by one former intelligence official as “ETX,” is said to last for “about 48-hours.”

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Support Truthout’s work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!

                          

Forget Confederate History Month, April is now ‘Nuclear Nonproliferation Month.’  Wrapping up his administration’s Nuclear Security Summit on Tuesday, President Barack Obama efforts seem to have paid off with all 47 attending delegations reaching an agreement to tighten controls on nuclear materials.

Several nations agreed to dispose of weapons-grade uranium, end plutonium production, tighten port security and other voluntary steps. All participants endorsed Obama’s call to secure vulnerable nuclear materials in four years, and agreed to seek further cooperation even as they stopped short of any enforceable international agreement.

News of the international agreement comes on the heels of a flurry of nuclear nonproliferation activity from the Obama administration.  The most notable accomplishment came last week with the April 8 signing of the START treaty between the U.S. and Russia.  Despite Sarah Palin’s childish assessment of the arms reduction commitment, proper experts have declared the cuts to be ‘modest and real.’

Internationally, these commitments will be viewed as significant, if not historic.  The domestic reaction is another matter.  It remains uncertain whether an international success will register with American voters whose focus, at present, is acutely attuned to internal issues.

The Republicans, for their part, have been predictably dismissive.  Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), quoted in The Washington Post, said, “The summit’s purported accomplishment is a nonbinding communiqué that largely restates current policy and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”

Kyl is technically correct.  The agreement is voluntary.  Its success or failure will be determined by the ensuing actions of the signatories.  As Obama told the press following the summit’s conclusion, “We are relying on good will.”  Kyl, though, is missing the point, vastly underestimating the Summit’s significance.

Raising (much needed) Awareness is Progress

The significance of Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit can’t be measured by the communiqué, alone.  In the grand scheme of things, simply drawing attention to the inherent threat represented by loose nuclear material makes the president’s efforts worthwhile.

It’s hugely important for the international community to treat the threat with the proper urgency.  The main reason for this is explained in a April 13 post from Peter Grier at The Christian Science Monitor (emphasis added):

…how much loose nuke material is out there? A lot. The nations of the world together have about 1.6 million kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and about 500,000 kilograms of plutonium, according to data compiled by Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Security.

Simple division shows the magnitude of the threat this stuff portends. It takes only about 25 kilograms of HEU or eight kilograms of plutonium to make a crude nuclear bomb.

Fissile material is held at hundreds of locations, with varying levels of security…

Worldwide, many of these locations need better security. Would it be difficult for terrorists to break in and get their hands on fissile material? Not difficult enough.

Indeed, recent incidents indicate that securing this material is a problem that can’t be overstated.

“In 2007, for instance,” Grier writes, “a group of eight people broke into South Africa’s Pelindaba nuclear reactor and research center. “  The Pelindaba facility was previously considered a prime example of how the security of nuclear material should be conducted.

Abandoning Belligerence of the Bush Years

Time will tell whether or not the nonbinding agreement lives up to its intentions.  Immediately obvious, however, is the administration’s rejection of the diplomatic belligerence characteristic of the Bush/Cheney years.

The Bush administration’s exercise of nuclear diplomacy amounted to figuratively poking other nations with a stick, actually seeking to expand potential justifications for the use of nuclear weapons.  Further, Bush had no problem turning that stick on his own constituents,  beating fear into the American populace during the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

Perhaps Obama’s critics are nostalgic for Bush’s counterproductive approach.  Personally, I find Obama’s efforts refreshing, and since he’s having to deal with a number of nuclear messes left by his predecessor — Iran’s nuke pursuits and North Korea’s half-assed, yet dangerous, nuclear program, to name a couple — a more pragmatic approach is certainly justified.

Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, put it much more eloquently in his April 13 Politico post:

Obama has now showed two essential strengths. First, he can deliver what he promised in September 2009, when he chaired a special Security Council session. Second, his team understands the difference between approaches that have strategic depth and can move global players into new positions versus those that are vapidly bilateral and uncompelling to either party.

By inspiring international cooperation toward lowering the potential for non-state actors to acquire nuclear material, then, Obama is potentially setting the table for increased cooperation in persuading Iran relent its nuclear ambitions.  The president is further isolating Iran without the rattling of sabers.  Quite the opposite, in fact, and though the prospects for eliminating nuke related threats are far from certain, they’re remarkably better than they were before Obama took office.

Crossposted from Care2.com ~ Originally published 15 April 2010

—————————–

Related on PiP: NSArchive ~ ‘Prague Treaty Cuts Are Modest, Real’

                          

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

                          

From The National Security Archive, GWU – 8 April 2010

By:  Thomas Blanton and William Burr

Gorbachev and Reagan at one of their one-on-one sessions at Hofdi House during the Reykjavik summit, October 1986. During these meetings, Reagan and Gorbachev discussed proposals for the abolition of nuclear weapons. U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock is seated to Reagan's left. (Source: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library)

Washington, D.C., April 8, 2010 – The new START Treaty signed today in Prague represents “real” but “modest” cuts in strategic nuclear forces comparable to some Cold War alternatives but still higher than the most far-reaching proposals considered by Presidents Reagan and Carter, according to documents posted today by the National Security Archive. The documents show that the Prague cuts reach levels lower than than the Carter administration’s “deep cuts” SALT II proposal in 1977 and very close to the “finite deterrence” numbers contemplated by Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke in the late 1950s. Yet the Prague cuts do not reach the far lower numbers of nuclear weapons recommended by former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, or initially considered by President Jimmy Carter, or the zero nuclear forces in 10 years proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

The Prague Treaty represents the first time in this century that U.S. and Russian heads of state have agreed to a schedule of specific cuts of strategic nuclear force levels, but they are only a small down payment on President Obama’s pledge to use the power of the presidency to move the nuclear weapons states toward abolition. In light of the historical record, the Prague Treaty levels are still significantly higher than what some Cold War presidents and top officials thought was even possible. While President Ronald Reagan proposed going down to zero by 1996, his initial target, a 50 percent cut of strategic warheads and delivery systems, would have left the U.S. arsenal with thousands of strategic warheads and almost a thousand strategic delivery systems as of 1991. President Jimmy Carter also saw nuclear abolition as a desirable goal, but the first SALT II proposal he presented to the Soviet leadership in 1977 would have left both sides with around 2,000 strategic delivery systems, far more than what is currently being considered.

The Prague Treaty levels are in the range of what at least one Cold War military leader thought was conceivable.  During the late 1950s, Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke developed a concept of a “finite deterrent” force of 45 Polaris submarines, with 720 submarine-launched ballistic missiles [SLBMs], of which 400, or 55 percent, would be on patrol (“on station”). Burke made interesting and compelling arguments for strategic forces dominated by Polaris submarines and the numbers he had in mind are close to U.S. force levels in the Prague Treaty.

Chart: From Finite Deterrence to Zero -- Force Level Alternatives during the Cold War

The Prague Treaty numbers are significantly higher than what other Cold War statesmen thought possible or worth looking into. In 1964, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara posited a force of 400 strategic warheads (one megaton)  as enough for the basic “assured destruction” deterrence mission, Years later, McNamara revisited this number when he wrote than “less than five hundred” was enough for deterrence. In 1977, when Jimmy Carter became president he contemplated the possibility of massive cuts bringing U.S. and Soviet strategic forces down to 200-250 strategic delivery systems. Even after Secretary of Defense Harold Brown questioned whether such low numbers were compatible with U.S. security, Carter remained interested in missile force levels of a “few hundred,” although his preferences could not be translated into negotiating positions.

The United States and Russia have some distance to go in order to match the low numbers–200-250 missiles, 400-500 strategic warheads–proposed during the Cold War.  And even those numbers are far from abolition, although much closer than the thousands of missile and nuclear warheads deployed during the height of the arms race. The documents suggest that the process of moving toward zero will be a prolonged and complex one necessarily involving arms control negotiations with other nuclear states, such as China, France, India, and Pakistan, as well as the enactment of other measures, such as the fissile materials production cut-off and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Read the NSArchive post and the original documents–> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb311/index.htm

                          

In a profound display of hubris, the Texas Board of Education voted March 12 to, among other things, demote Thomas Jefferson.  The author of the Declaration of Independence, Founding Father, and the third President of the United States was removed from the state’s public school social studies curriculum in favor of religious philosopher John Calvin.  If the intentions of the Texas BOE aren’t already apparent, you need only to look at the board’s ideological makeup to understand their goals.

At present, the Texas BOE is dominated by a bloc of right-wing, fundamentalist Christian Republicans.  In the broader historical context, deftly imparted by Washington Monthly editor Mariah Blake, the “ultra-conservative” faction represents a sizable constituency in Texas.  Further, it’s a constituency which has sought to influence Texas’ educational priorities for decades.

Within her Washington Monthly article, “Revisionaries,” Blake imparts the history of the ideological struggle over Texas’ educational priorities, explaining that the conservative religious political effort, begun in earnest in 1994, became reality in 2006:

After the 2006 election, Republicans claimed ten of fifteen board seats. Seven were held by the ultra-conservatives, and one by a close ally, giving them an effective majority…  Then in 2007 Governor Rick Perry appointed Don McLeroy, a suburban dentist and longstanding bloc member, as board chairman. This passing of the gavel gave the faction unprecedented power just as the board was gearing up for the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting standards for every subject.

Blake mentions later that McLeroy was prevented from assuming the chairmanship by the state legislature.  As she recounts her meeting with McLeroy in his home, it is not difficult to understand why:

“I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” [McLeroy] declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles…”

This gets to the crux of why McLeroy and his like-minded board members removed Jefferson from the social studies curriculum.  As much as the board’s “ultra-conservative” bloc would like you to believe that America is a “Christian nation founded on Christian principles,” they can’t get around Jefferson’s 1802 articulation of the separation of church and state:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State….

The above Jefferson quote is from the president’s letter in reply to Danbury Baptist Association, Jan. 1, 1802.  It was a letter of reassurance to the Baptist Association, which expressed its concerns about religious freedom to the new president shortly after he took office.

Interestingly, the conservative members of the Texas BOE betrayed their sensitivity to this inconvenient history in July 2009.  During a required review of the social studies curriculum, a panel of six “experts” was solicited to offer their assessments.  Two of those “experts,” nominated by the board’s conservative bloc, were already known  to support the discredited pseudo-historical argument, often employed to brush Jefferson aside.*

Flash forward to March 12, 2010 when, during the curriculum amendment process, the Texas BOE actually voted to remove Jefferson from their social studies textbook standards, the board’s conservatives doubled down on their historical indifference.  Hours after the Jefferson vote, a moderate board member offered an amendment seeking to preserve the Founders’ intentions. The below text is from the Texas Freedom Network’s (TFN) live-blog of the March 12 amendment debate:

12:28 – Board member Mavis Knight offers the following amendment: “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state.

12:32 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state in America. And she’s off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion. She calls this amendment “not historically accurate.”

12:35 – Knight’s amendment fails on a straight party-line vote, 5-10. Republicans vote no, Democrats vote yes.

12:38 – Let the word go out here: The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.

Please feel free to include your thoughts on this matter in the comments section below.  Personally, I feel that the TFN bloggers’ sentiment in that last entry was incredibly apt.  The only thing I would add is that I find it tragically ironic that the founding concept intended to protect religious freedom could undergo such a religiously motivated attack.  Then, again, this isn’t just about religion, is it?  The Texas BOE’s actions, in my opinion, are a purposeful effort to superimpose their present religious AND political world-views onto the past.

*Chris Rodda, “The Department of Defense – Bringing Historical Revisionism to a High School Near You.” 13 May 2007 – Here you will find the text of both, Jefferson’s and Danbury Baptist Association’s letters mentioned above.  While placing the letters in their appropriate historical context, the author dismantles many of the conservative myths about the documents and Jefferson’s intentions.  It’s worth noting that one of the revisionists Rhoda takes issue with is David Baker, whom happens to be one of the “experts” tapped by the Texas BOE for its July 2009 curriculum review.  Much has been made of the implications of the board’s revisionism being exacerbated by Texas’ influence on textbook publishers, and rightfully so.  However, as Rodda indicates within her must-read post, revisionist history in public school textbooks is an ongoing problem.

Crossposted from Care2.com ~ Originally published March 17, 2010

                          

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Think Progress reports that Virginia isn’t the only state harboring nostalgia for the Confederacy —  Both Mississippi And Georgia Have Confederate History Proclamations Without Any Mention of Slavery.

                          

The right is rewriting history.

The most ballyhooed effort is under way in Texas, where conservatives have pushed the state school board to rewrite guidelines, downplaying Thomas Jefferson in one high school course, playing up such conservatives as Phyllis Schlafly and the Heritage Foundation and challenging the idea that the Founding Fathers wanted to separate church and state.

The effort reaches far beyond one state, however.

In articles and speeches, on radio and TV, conservatives are working to redefine major turning points and influential figures in American history, often to slam liberals, promote Republicans and reinforce their positions in today’s politics.

The Jamestown settlers? Socialists. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton? Ill-informed professors made up all that bunk about him advocating a strong central government.

Theodore Roosevelt? Another socialist. Franklin D. Roosevelt? Not only did he not end the Great Depression, he also created it.

Joe McCarthy? Liberals lied about him. He was a hero.

Some conservatives say it’s a long-overdue swing of the pendulum after years of liberal efforts to define history on their terms in classrooms and in popular culture.

“We are adding balance,” Texas school board member Don McLeroy said. “History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.”

The effort in Texas and nationwide is controversial, however, even among many conservatives. McLeroy was defeated in a recent primary after he led the campaign for a more conservative version of history, a defeat that the National Review, a leading conservative organ, called “sensible.”

While even some conservative intellectuals say that some of the revisionist history is simply wrong, at the core, the effort reflects the ever-changing view of history, which is always subject to revision thanks to new information or new ways of looking at things, and often is viewed through a political lens.

“History in the popular world is always a political football,” said Alan Brinkley, a historian at Columbia University. “The right is unusually mobilized at the moment.”

“Part of the tide of history is that it’s contested terrain,” said Fritz Fischer, a historian at the University of Northern Colorado and the chairman of the National Council for History Education. “We should always be arguing and questioning what happened in the past.”

It’s not just historians who contest history, however. It’s also politicians and pundits.

The left has done it.

Fischer cited the case of controversial former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, whose essay claiming that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the fruit of illegal U.S. policies became a cause celebre. Fischer said Churchill “ignored a lot of evidence and made some up to promulgate a particular political belief.”

Now, it’s the right.

“There’s clearly a political impetus behind this that connects to the issues of today,” Fischer said, such as labeling President Barack Obama a socialist. “But when history is ignored to do it, that can be dangerous.”

Here are five recent examples of new conservative versions of history:

JAMESTOWN

Reaching for an example of how bad socialism can be, former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said recently that the people who settled Jamestown, Va., in 1607 were socialists and that their ideology doomed them.

“Jamestown colony, when it was first founded as a socialist venture, dang near failed with everybody dead and dying in the snow,” he said in a speech March 15 at the National Press Club.

It was a good, strong story, helping Armey, a former economics professor, illustrate the dangers of socialism, the same ideology that he and other conservatives say is at the core of Obama’s agenda.

It was not, however, true.

The Jamestown settlement was a capitalist venture financed by the Virginia Company of London — a joint stock corporation — to make a profit. The colony nearly foundered owing to a harsh winter, brackish water and lack of food, but reinforcements enabled it to survive. It was never socialistic. In fact, in 1619, Jamestown planters imported the first African slaves to the 13 colonies that later formed the United States.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

At the same event, Armey urged people to read the Federalist Papers as a guide to the sentiments of the tea party movement.

“The small-government conservative movement, which includes people who call themselves the tea party patriots and so forth, is about the principles of liberty as embodied in the Constitution, the understanding of which is fleshed out if you read things like the Federalist Papers,” Armey said.

Others such as Democrats and the news media, “people here who do not cherish America the way we do,” don’t understand because “they did not read the Federalist Papers,” he said.

A member of the audience asked Armey how the Federalist Papers could be such a tea party manifesto when they were written largely by Alexander Hamilton, who the questioner said “was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government.”

Armey ridiculed the very suggestion.

“Widely regarded by whom?” he asked. “Today’s modern, ill-informed political science professors? . . . I just doubt that was the case, in fact, about Hamilton.”

Hamilton, however, was an unapologetic advocate of a strong central government, one that plays an active role in the economy and is led by a president named for life and thus beyond the emotions of the people. Hamilton also pushed for excise taxes and customs duties to pay down federal debt.

In fact, Ian Finseth said in a history written for the University of Virginia, others at the constitutional convention “thought his proposals went too far in strengthening the central government.”

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Theodore Roosevelt was long an icon of the Republican Party, a dynamic leader who ushered in the Progressive era, busting trusts, regulating robber barons, building the Panama Canal and sending the U.S. fleet around the world announcing ascendant American power.

Fox TV commentator Glenn Beck, however, says that Roosevelt was a socialist whose legacy is destroying America. It started, Beck said, with Roosevelt’s admonition to the wealthy of his day to spend their riches for the good of society.

“We judge no man a fortune in civil life if it’s honorably obtained and well spent,” Roosevelt said, according to Beck. “It’s not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it only to be gained so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”

Actually, Roosevelt said, “We GRUDGE no man a fortune … if it’s honorably obtained and well USED.” But either way, Beck saw the threat.

“Oh? Well, thank you,” Beck said with scorn during his keynote speech to the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. The presidential suggestion that the wealthy of the Gilded Age should contribute to the good of society was a clear danger that must be condemned, Beck said.

“Is this what the Republican Party stands for? Well, you should ask members of the Republican Party, because this is not our founders’ idea of America. And this is the cancer that’s eating at America. It is big government; it’s a socialist utopia,” Beck said.

“And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot coexist. … You must eradicate it. It cannot coexist.”

There’s no doubt that Roosevelt was a domestic policy liberal by today’s standards. In a 1910 speech in Kansas, he acknowledged that his “New Nationalism” meant “far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had.”

The 26th president insisted, however, that he wanted the government to guarantee opportunity, not a handout.

“The fundamental thing to do for every man is to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare,” he said.

“Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. … Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try to carry him; but if he is a worthy man, try your best to see that he gets a chance to show the worth that is in him.”

In his autobiography three years later, Roosevelt went on to dismiss the tenets of socialism as taught by Karl Marx as “an exploded theory.”

“Too many thoroughly well-meaning men and women in the America of today glibly repeat and accept,” he wrote, “various assumptions and speculations by Marx and others which by the lapse of time and by actual experiment have been shown to possess not one shred of value.”

In addition, Roosevelt didn’t advocate government ownership of the means of production, the definition of socialism.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

It’s long been debated how well Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal government programs countered the Great Depression, but now a prominent conservative has introduced the idea that Roosevelt CAUSED the Depression.

“FDR took office in the midst of a recession,” Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. “He decided to choose massive government spending and the creation of monstrous bureaucracies. Do we detect a Democrat pattern here in all of this? He took what was a manageable recession and turned it into a 10-year depression.”

A year before, Bachmann went to the House floor to blame FDR and what she called the “Hoot-Smalley” tariffs for creating the Depression.

“The recession that FDR had to deal with wasn’t as bad as the recession (President Calvin) Coolidge had to deal with in the early ’20s,” she said.

Coolidge cut taxes and created the roaring ’20s, Bachmann said.

“FDR applied just the opposite formula: the Hoot-Smalley act, which was a tremendous burden on tariff restrictions. And of course trade barriers and the regulatory burden and of course tax barriers.

“That’s what we saw happen under FDR. That took a recession and blew it into a full-scale depression. The American people suffered for almost 10 years under that kind of thinking.”

The truth? Historians agree that tariffs hurt trade and worsened the depression.

However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — not Hoot-Smalley — was proposed by two Republicans, Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon. A Republican House and a Republican Senate approved it. President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, signed it into law.

The facts also show that the country was in something far worse than a “manageable recession” in March 1933 when Roosevelt took office.

Stocks had lost 90 percent of their value since the crash of 1929. Thousands of banks had failed. Unemployment reached an all-time high of 24.9 percent just before Roosevelt was inaugurated.

JOE MCCARTHY

Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., burst onto the national stage in the early 1950s with accusations that he had a list of names of known Communists in the federal government. He didn’t name them, was censured by the Senate eventually and his name became synonymous with witch hunts — McCarthyism.

Now, the end of the Cold War has opened up spy files and identified many Communist spies who operated inside the government during the era. Some conservatives argue that this proves not only that McCarthy was right, but also that he was a hero and that he was smeared by liberals, the news media and historians.

“Almost everything about McCarthy in current history books is a lie and will have to be revised,” conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly said.

“Liberals had to destroy McCarthy because he exposed the entire liberal establishment as having sheltered Soviet spies,” conservative commentator Ann Coulter said in one interview.

“The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times,” she said in another. “Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. … If the Internet, talk radio and Fox News had been around in McCarthy’s day, my book wouldn’t be the first time most people would be hearing the truth about ‘McCarthyism.’ ”

Yet even some prominent conservatives say that McCarthy’s defenders go too far, and that even from a conservative perspective, McCarthy was no hero and damaged the country.

“A dangerous movement has been growing among conservative writers to vindicate the late Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and his campaign to expose Soviet spies in the U.S. government,” Ronald Kessler wrote for the conservative Web site Newsmax.com.

“The FBI agents who were actually chasing those spies have told me that McCarthy hurt their efforts because he trumped up charges, unfairly besmirched honorable Americans and gave hunting spies a bad name.”

Kessler said the release of secret Cold War files under the Venona Project confirmed that there were Soviet spies in the U.S. government.

“The problem was that the people McCarthy tarnished as Communists or Communist sympathizers were not the real spies,” Kessler wrote.

“The cause of anti-communism, which united millions of Americans and which gained the support of Democrats, Republicans and independents, was undermined by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin,” wrote William Bennett, who was the conservative secretary of education under President Ronald Reagan.

“McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love,” Bennett wrote in his book “America: The Last Best Hope.”

“Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honorable cause of anti-communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institutions.”

Read more and watch the accompanying video –> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/01/91478/some-conservatives-rewrite-history.html#ixzz0k39I7YMr

                          

Now that the Democrats have successfully passed reform, DeMint has taken to pushing back the goal posts, telling Face the Nation‘s Bob Schieffer that the true test of the GOP’s cynical strategy will come with the results of the 2010 midterm elections.

Stephen, of course, has some fun with DeMint’s assessment:

                          

I gather from the numerous previews and reviews, “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight,” is around 600 pages of Rove taking whacks at his critics, attempting to spin the Bush administration’s legacy out of pit for which it is destined. If you’re curious about Rove’s memoir, but you’re not in the market for a new doorstop, here are a few places to look:

• Stephen Levingston, book reviewer for The Washington Post, writes, “Rove has fashioned a portrait of the Bush presidency that aims to shape history in his boss’s favor.”
• Also at WaPo, Dana Milbank offers “… what he learned from Karl Rove’s book” within a Q&A chat with readers.
• The Huffington Post features “The 13 Must-Read Passages From ‘Courage And Consequence’” along with a slide show presentation of relevant material.
• The Daily Beast narrows it down to the “10 best revelations” within Rove’s book, sans the slideshow.

All of the above mention a couple of assertions made by Rove which demand further scrutiny.

Rove posits that his biggest regret from the Bush years was that he didn’t push back harder on accusations suggesting Bush misled the nation into war with Iraq. Further, Rove maintains the tired conservative meme, proclaiming an intelligence community consensus on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as proof of Bush’s honesty.

You can almost hear the incredulous sigh from David Corn — Washington Bureau Chief for Mother Jones and author/coauthor of two books on the subject – as he writes:

Here we go again: Did Bush grease the way to war with lies?..

Let’s cut to the bottom line: prior to the Iraq war, US intelligence generally produced faulty information overstating Saddam Hussein’s WMD capabilities, which were actually nonexistent. But Bush and his crew purposefully and callously overstated these overstatements—and made dramatic and untrue assertions unconnected to the flawed intelligence—in order to whip up popular support for the invasion of Iraq.

Corn suggests checking out Mother Jones‘ extensive timeline of “the false Bush administration assertions. I would add that Sam Smith’s “The revision thing,” originally published by Harper’s Magazine in Oct. 2003, should be required reading for anyone considering Rove’s, or any other Bush lackey’s memoir broaching this topic. Smith’s treatment is remarkable for its being composed entirely from false statements made by Bush administration officials.

Rove also attempts to spin away Bush administration statements connecting al Qaida and Saddam Hussein.

From “Courage and Consequence”:

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee 2004 report.

But, Rove is leaving out some important information.

From Media Matters Research (emphasis added):

Rove is presumably referring to a June 5, 2008, Senate Intelligence Committee report examining government officials’ pre-war statements about Iraq. (…) Rove is correct that the committee found that some Bush claims — specifically, “[s]tatements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda” — were substantiated by the intelligence at the time. But the committee also concluded that Bush’s allegations suggesting “that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership” were “not substantiated by the intelligence”; and that Bush’s statements indicating Saddam was prepared to give WMD to terrorists were “contradicted by available intelligence.”

Should you decide to subject yourself to “Courage and Consequence,” keep in mind that Karl Rove was, and is, in essence, a BS artist. This designation is implied in Bush’s nickname for him: Turd Blossom.  His entire professional life has been spent crafting favorable public perceptions for his employers, often emphasizing, even creating negative memes to hang around the necks of those candidates and critics who happened to be in the way.

The “elections” of George W. Bush are the twin pinnacle achievements of Karl Rove’s life. He has a vested interest in Bush’s historical legacy. And as a professional BS artist, Rove will buff that turd to a fine shimmering shine before conceding anything to his critics.

Knowing full well that Rove’s self interest is woven throughout the pages of “Courage and Consequences” — His positions, crafted for the purpose of propping up the Bush legacy, informed by a lifetime of BS artistry – has the effect of rendering his memoir historically worthless. Put another way, if those responsible for rendering judgment on the Bush presidency are to find Rove’s memoir useful as a source, it will be when they discredit it with other, more objective, sources.

Thus, I see no reason for creating space in my library for it.

Crossposted from Care2.com ~ “Rove’s ‘Courage and Consequence’ Short on Both,” originally published 10 March 2010

                          

For political junkies, it’s a telling summarization of the just how sharp the partisan fault-lines have become. For historians, it’s window into a momentous moment in social policy. For humorists it’s, well, a guilty pleasure…