WWIII

[Guest guest]

Election 2006 & World War III

By Robert Parry

September 7, 2006

 

 

As Americans go to the polls in two months, they should have one

thought fixed in their minds: they will be voting on whether to commit

the nation to fighting World War III against large segments of the

world's one billion Muslims. Beyond the cost in blood and treasure,

this war will mean the end of the United States as a democratic

Republic.

 

Those are the stakes that were made clear by George W. Bush in an

alarmist speech to an association of U.S. military officers on Sept. 5.

He declared that the United States must battle not only likely or even

possible threats from terrorists, but the most fantastical dreams of

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda about a mystical global " caliphate. "

 

Adopting some of the most extreme rhetoric favored by his

neoconservative advisers, Bush also broadened the " war on terror "

beyond al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists and the Sunni-dominated Iraqi

insurgency to include the Shiite-run Hezbollah movement in Lebanon and

the Shiite government of Iran.

 

" As we continue to fight al-Qaeda and these Sunni extremists inspired

by their radical ideology, we also face the threat posed by Shia

extremists, who are learning from al-Qaeda, increasing their

assertiveness and stepping up their threats, " Bush said.

 

" This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, and

just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its

brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East, " Bush continued.

" And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al-Qaeda has so

far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the

nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny,

and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and

pursue their radical agenda. "

 

Bush also cited his determination to defeat Hezbollah, a Shiite

movement in Lebanon that is now a prominent part of the elected

Lebanese government and broadly popular because its militia battled the

Israeli army when it invaded Lebanon in July.

 

Bush referred to Hezbollah's leader as " the terrorist Nasrallah, "

suggesting the United States has joined Israel in its determination to

kill Sheikh Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah who was rated the most respected

leader in the Middle East by an August 2006 poll in Egypt, which is

considered one of Washington's staunchest regional allies.

 

Ranked second in that Egyptian poll was Iran's president Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad, another target of the Bush administration. By contrast,

Egypt's pro-American president Hosni Mubarak wasn't even in the top

10, coming in 11th. Polls across the Middle East also have shown almost

universal disapproval of the Bush administration and its policies.

 

So, Bush has set the United States on course to battle not only the

stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda and the stubborn insurgents in Iraq

but Islamic political leaders who have widespread support among the

Muslim masses. How the United States would win such a war or even

assemble the vast numbers of soldiers needed is hard to comprehend.

 

'World War III'

 

Bush's virtual declaration of war on the Islamic world ranks as

possibly the most ambitious military plan in American history - and

without doubt the most reckless. This so-called " long war, " which

Bush's followers hail as " World War III, " would mean fighting

large portions of a religious movement that has the allegiance of about

one-sixth of the planet's population.

 

Muslims are concentrated in nations from northern Africa to East Asia,

but also include large numbers in Europe and North America.

 

Nevertheless, in his address to the military officers, Bush talked

bravely about how confident he is that the United States will win this

war. " America will not bow down to tyrants, " he declared to

applause.

 

Bush's experience over the past five years, however, suggests that

his strategy would require a full-scale transformation of the United

States into a warrior nation, committed to a virtual endless struggle

against any and all Islamic extremists who harbor thoughts of power, no

matter how fanciful those imaginings might be.

 

A key point in Bush's argument is that al-Qaeda has expressed a dream

of creating a " caliphate " reaching from Spain to Indonesia. Bush

described the steps to this empire as starting with " numerous,

decentralized operating bases across the world, from which they can

plan new attacks, and advance their vision of a unified, totalitarian

Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free

world. "

 

But the reality is that prior to Bush's presidency, al-Qaeda was a

marginal movement in the Islamic world, driven out of countries across

northern Africa, hounded by secular governments in the Middle East, and

expelled even from the Sudan.

 

In summer 2001, as Bush brushed aside CIA warnings about bin Laden's

plans to strike inside the United States, al-Qaeda leaders were holed

up in caves in Afghanistan, literally chased to the ends of the earth.

 

Then, after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington - and the

U.S. counterattack in Afghanistan - bin Laden fled to the mountains

of Tora Bora where he apologized to his followers for leading them to

what looked like defeat both militarily and politically, since the vast

majority of Muslims had joined the rest of the world in condemning the

9/11 attacks.

 

At that crucial moment, the Saudi terrorist leader set off on horseback

along with a small band of supporters and was surprised to find that

Bush hadn't ordered in U.S. troops to cut off al-Qaeda's escape

routes. Bush already was shifting his focus to Iraq, which was governed

by a secular dictator who had persecuted Islamic extremists like bin

Laden. [see, for instance, Ron Suskind's account in The One Percent

Doctrine.]

 

Military Blunder

 

The failure to trap or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora might rank as one of

modern history's worst military blunders. But in his Sept. 5 speech,

Bush instead cited other historical failures - what he called missed

opportunities to eliminate Lenin and Hitler when they were living in

obscurity and writing about their improbable dreams of power.

 

" In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphlet

called 'What Is To Be Done?' - in which he laid out his plans to

launch a communist revolution in Russia, " Bush said. " The world did

not heed Lenin's words, and paid a terrible price. ...

 

" In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he

explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and

take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored

Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price. "

 

But the problem with Bush's history lesson is that wiping out some

future Lenin or Hitler would require killing or imprisoning anyone who

wrote about political change in a way that rulers considered

objectionable or threatening at that time. While " predictive

assassination " might eliminate a Lenin or a Hitler, it also might

kill a Mandela or a Jefferson.

 

What Bush appears to be advocating is the end of free speech and free

thought, or at least the regulation and punishment of speech and

thought that he disdains. Bush is extending his concept of

" preemptive war " - launching attacks against countries that might

present a future threat to the United States - to " preemptive

thought control, " eliminating political opponents who might pose some

future threat.

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the U.S.

government from criminalizing speech. But Bush is indicating that he

and his political followers believe that, amid the " war on terror, "

it is justifiable to do just that.

 

Al-Qaeda Plot

 

In another chilling passage in his speech, Bush laid out a scenario for

labeling criticism of him in the U.S. news media as part of

al-Qaeda's terrorist strategy. Bush claimed that bin Laden wrote to

Taliban leader Mullah Omar about launching " a media campaign ... to

create a wedge between the American people and their government. "

 

Bush said this media campaign would send the American people messages,

including " that their government [will] bring them more losses, in

finances and casualties. " Bush continued that bin Laden's media

plan " aims at creating pressure from the American people on the

American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan. "

 

Bush cited this supposed al-Qaeda manipulation of the U.S. media as one

of the reasons that " bin Laden and his allies are absolutely

convinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causing

our economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent,

and lacking in patience and resolve. And they're wrong. "

 

As Bush defines domestic criticism of his war's costs " in finances

and casualties " as part of a terrorist scheme, it's not hard to

imagine how Bush's devoted followers will react. Any expression of

concern that Bush is charting a course toward mad destruction will be

attacked as somehow acting in concert with terrorists.

 

Though Bush has said that his goal in waging his vague and seemingly

endless " war on terror " is to defend freedom, the reality behind

Bush's grim vision is the emergence of an American totalitarianism

where objectionable thought will be repressed and dissent will be

equated with treason.

 

The President has now made clear that he wants the Nov. 7 congressional

elections to be a referendum on whether Americans will follow him into

this dark future.

 

 

--

 

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the

Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege:

Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at

secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his

1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

 

 

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances,

there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in

such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest

we become unwitting victims of the darkness.

William O. Douglas

[Guest guest]

Hey Fraggle, you all doom and gloom aint cha? post something light hearted once in a while will ya? Dont make me come over there! The Valley Vegan...............fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: Election 2006 & World War IIIBy Robert ParrySeptember 7, 2006As Americans go to the polls in two months, they should have onethought fixed in their minds: they will be voting on whether to committhe nation to fighting World War III against large segments of theworld's one billion Muslims. Beyond the cost in blood and treasure,this war will mean the end of the United States as a democraticRepublic.Those are the stakes that were made clear by George W. Bush in analarmist speech to an association of U.S.

military officers on Sept. 5.He declared that the United States must battle not only likely or evenpossible threats from terrorists, but the most fantastical dreams ofOsama bin Laden and al-Qaeda about a mystical global "caliphate."Adopting some of the most extreme rhetoric favored by hisneoconservative advisers, Bush also broadened the "war on terror"beyond al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists and the Sunni-dominated Iraqiinsurgency to include the Shiite-run Hezbollah movement in Lebanon andthe Shiite government of Iran."As we continue to fight al-Qaeda and these Sunni extremists inspiredby their radical ideology, we also face the threat posed by Shiaextremists, who are learning from al-Qaeda, increasing theirassertiveness and stepping up their threats," Bush said."This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, andjust as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish itsbrand of

hegemony across the broader Middle East," Bush continued."And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al-Qaeda has sofar failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, thenation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny,and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror andpursue their radical agenda."Bush also cited his determination to defeat Hezbollah, a Shiitemovement in Lebanon that is now a prominent part of the electedLebanese government and broadly popular because its militia battled theIsraeli army when it invaded Lebanon in July.Bush referred to Hezbollah's leader as "the terrorist Nasrallah,"suggesting the United States has joined Israel in its determination tokill Sheikh Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah who was rated the most respectedleader in the Middle East by an August 2006 poll in Egypt, which isconsidered one of Washington's staunchest regional

allies.Ranked second in that Egyptian poll was Iran's president MahmoudAhmadinejad, another target of the Bush administration. By contrast,Egypt's pro-American president Hosni Mubarak wasn't even in the top10, coming in 11th. Polls across the Middle East also have shown almostuniversal disapproval of the Bush administration and its policies.So, Bush has set the United States on course to battle not only thestateless terrorists of al-Qaeda and the stubborn insurgents in Iraqbut Islamic political leaders who have widespread support among theMuslim masses. How the United States would win such a war or evenassemble the vast numbers of soldiers needed is hard to comprehend.'World War III'Bush's virtual declaration of war on the Islamic world ranks aspossibly the most ambitious military plan in American history - andwithout doubt the most reckless. This so-called "long war," whichBush's followers hail as

"World War III," would mean fightinglarge portions of a religious movement that has the allegiance of aboutone-sixth of the planet's population.Muslims are concentrated in nations from northern Africa to East Asia,but also include large numbers in Europe and North America.Nevertheless, in his address to the military officers, Bush talkedbravely about how confident he is that the United States will win thiswar. "America will not bow down to tyrants," he declared toapplause.Bush's experience over the past five years, however, suggests thathis strategy would require a full-scale transformation of the UnitedStates into a warrior nation, committed to a virtual endless struggleagainst any and all Islamic extremists who harbor thoughts of power, nomatter how fanciful those imaginings might be.A key point in Bush's argument is that al-Qaeda has expressed a dreamof creating a "caliphate" reaching from Spain

to Indonesia. Bushdescribed the steps to this empire as starting with "numerous,decentralized operating bases across the world, from which they canplan new attacks, and advance their vision of a unified, totalitarianIslamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the freeworld."But the reality is that prior to Bush's presidency, al-Qaeda was amarginal movement in the Islamic world, driven out of countries acrossnorthern Africa, hounded by secular governments in the Middle East, andexpelled even from the Sudan.In summer 2001, as Bush brushed aside CIA warnings about bin Laden'splans to strike inside the United States, al-Qaeda leaders were holedup in caves in Afghanistan, literally chased to the ends of the earth.Then, after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington - and theU.S. counterattack in Afghanistan - bin Laden fled to the mountainsof Tora Bora where he apologized to his followers for

leading them towhat looked like defeat both militarily and politically, since the vastmajority of Muslims had joined the rest of the world in condemning the9/11 attacks.At that crucial moment, the Saudi terrorist leader set off on horsebackalong with a small band of supporters and was surprised to find thatBush hadn't ordered in U.S. troops to cut off al-Qaeda's escaperoutes. Bush already was shifting his focus to Iraq, which was governedby a secular dictator who had persecuted Islamic extremists like binLaden. [see, for instance, Ron Suskind's account in The One PercentDoctrine.]Military BlunderThe failure to trap or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora might rank as one ofmodern history's worst military blunders. But in his Sept. 5 speech,Bush instead cited other historical failures - what he called missedopportunities to eliminate Lenin and Hitler when they were living inobscurity and writing about their

improbable dreams of power."In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphletcalled 'What Is To Be Done?' - in which he laid out his plans tolaunch a communist revolution in Russia," Bush said. "The world didnot heed Lenin's words, and paid a terrible price. ..."In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which heexplained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany andtake revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignoredHitler's words, and paid a terrible price."But the problem with Bush's history lesson is that wiping out somefuture Lenin or Hitler would require killing or imprisoning anyone whowrote about political change in a way that rulers consideredobjectionable or threatening at that time. While "predictiveassassination" might eliminate a Lenin or a Hitler, it also mightkill a Mandela or a Jefferson.What Bush appears to be advocating

is the end of free speech and freethought, or at least the regulation and punishment of speech andthought that he disdains. Bush is extending his concept of"preemptive war" - launching attacks against countries that mightpresent a future threat to the United States - to "preemptivethought control," eliminating political opponents who might pose somefuture threat.The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the U.S.government from criminalizing speech. But Bush is indicating that heand his political followers believe that, amid the "war on terror,"it is justifiable to do just that.Al-Qaeda PlotIn another chilling passage in his speech, Bush laid out a scenario forlabeling criticism of him in the U.S. news media as part ofal-Qaeda's terrorist strategy. Bush claimed that bin Laden wrote toTaliban leader Mullah Omar about launching "a media campaign ... tocreate a wedge between the American

people and their government."Bush said this media campaign would send the American people messages,including "that their government [will] bring them more losses, infinances and casualties." Bush continued that bin Laden's mediaplan "aims at creating pressure from the American people on theAmerican government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan."Bush cited this supposed al-Qaeda manipulation of the U.S. media as oneof the reasons that "bin Laden and his allies are absolutelyconvinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causingour economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent,and lacking in patience and resolve. And they're wrong."As Bush defines domestic criticism of his war's costs "in financesand casualties" as part of a terrorist scheme, it's not hard toimagine how Bush's devoted followers will react. Any expression ofconcern that Bush is charting a course toward

mad destruction will beattacked as somehow acting in concert with terrorists.Though Bush has said that his goal in waging his vague and seeminglyendless "war on terror" is to defend freedom, the reality behindBush's grim vision is the emergence of an American totalitarianismwhere objectionable thought will be repressed and dissent will beequated with treason.The President has now made clear that he wants the Nov. 7 congressionalelections to be a referendum on whether Americans will follow him intothis dark future.--Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for theAssociated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege:Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered atsecrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his1999 book, Lost History:

Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. William O. Douglas To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

can i help it if the world is a bloody mess????

i do post nice stories...every once in awhile

and, i just have to give ya'll a peak into my world on a daily basis....!!!!

 

peter VV Sep 21, 2006 10:41 AM Re: WWIII

Hey Fraggle, you all doom and gloom aint cha?

post something light hearted once in a while will ya?

Dont make me come over there!

 

 

The Valley Vegan...............fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:

Election 2006 & World War IIIBy Robert ParrySeptember 7, 2006As Americans go to the polls in two months, they should have onethought fixed in their minds: they will be voting on whether to committhe nation to fighting World War III against large segments of theworld's one billion Muslims. Beyond the cost in blood and treasure,this war will mean the end of the United States as a democraticRepublic.Those are the stakes that were made clear by George W. Bush in analarmist speech to an association of U.S. military officers on Sept. 5.He declared that the United States must battle not only likely or evenpossible threats from terrorists, but the most fantastical dreams ofOsama bin Laden and al-Qaeda about a mystical global "caliphate."Adopting some of the most extreme rhetoric favored by hisneoconservative advisers, Bush also broadened the "war on terror"beyond al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists and the Sunni-dominated Iraqiinsurgency to include the Shiite-run Hezbollah movement in Lebanon andthe Shiite government of Iran."As we continue to fight al-Qaeda and these Sunni extremists inspiredby their radical ideology, we also face the threat posed by Shiaextremists, who are learning from al-Qaeda, increasing theirassertiveness and stepping up their threats," Bush said."This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, andjust as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish itsbrand of hegemony across the broader Middle East," Bush continued."And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al-Qaeda has sofar failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, thenation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny,and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror andpursue their radical agenda."Bush also cited his determination to defeat Hezbollah, a Shiitemovement in Lebanon that is now a prominent part of the electedLebanese government and broadly popular because its militia battled theIsraeli army when it invaded Lebanon in July.Bush referred to Hezbollah's leader as "the terrorist Nasrallah,"suggesting the United States has joined Israel in its determination tokill Sheikh Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah who was rated the most respectedleader in the Middle East by an August 2006 poll in Egypt, which isconsidered one of Washington's staunchest regional allies.Ranked second in that Egyptian poll was Iran's president MahmoudAhmadinejad, another target of the Bush administration. By contrast,Egypt's pro-American president Hosni Mubarak wasn't even in the top10, coming in 11th. Polls across the Middle East also have shown almostuniversal disapproval of the Bush administration and its policies.So, Bush has set the United States on course to battle not only thestateless terrorists of al-Qaeda and the stubborn insurgents in Iraqbut Islamic political leaders who have widespread support among theMuslim masses. How the United States would win such a war or evenassemble the vast numbers of soldiers needed is hard to comprehend.'World War III'Bush's virtual declaration of war on the Islamic world ranks aspossibly the most ambitious military plan in American history - andwithout doubt the most reckless. This so-called "long war," whichBush's followers hail as "World War III," would mean fightinglarge portions of a religious movement that has the allegiance of aboutone-sixth of the planet's population.Muslims are concentrated in nations from northern Africa to East Asia,but also include large numbers in Europe and North America.Nevertheless, in his address to the military officers, Bush talkedbravely about how confident he is that the United States will win thiswar. "America will not bow down to tyrants," he declared toapplause.Bush's experience over the past five years, however, suggests thathis strategy would require a full-scale transformation of the UnitedStates into a warrior nation, committed to a virtual endless struggleagainst any and all Islamic extremists who harbor thoughts of power, nomatter how fanciful those imaginings might be.A key point in Bush's argument is that al-Qaeda has expressed a dreamof creating a "caliphate" reaching from Spain to Indonesia. Bushdescribed the steps to this empire as starting with "numerous,decentralized operating bases across the world, from which they canplan new attacks, and advance their vision of a unified, totalitarianIslamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the freeworld."But the reality is that prior to Bush's presidency, al-Qaeda was amarginal movement in the Islamic world, driven out of countries acrossnorthern Africa, hounded by secular governments in the Middle East, andexpelled even from the Sudan.In summer 2001, as Bush brushed aside CIA warnings about bin Laden'splans to strike inside the United States, al-Qaeda leaders were holedup in caves in Afghanistan, literally chased to the ends of the earth.Then, after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington - and theU.S. counterattack in Afghanistan - bin Laden fled to the mountainsof Tora Bora where he apologized to his followers for leading them towhat looked like defeat both militarily and politically, since the vastmajority of Muslims had joined the rest of the world in condemning the9/11 attacks.At that crucial moment, the Saudi terrorist leader set off on horsebackalong with a small band of supporters and was surprised to find thatBush hadn't ordered in U.S. troops to cut off al-Qaeda's escaperoutes. Bush already was shifting his focus to Iraq, which was governedby a secular dictator who had persecuted Islamic extremists like binLaden. [see, for instance, Ron Suskind's account in The One PercentDoctrine.]Military BlunderThe failure to trap or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora might rank as one ofmodern history's worst military blunders. But in his Sept. 5 speech,Bush instead cited other historical failures - what he called missedopportunities to eliminate Lenin and Hitler when they were living inobscurity and writing about their improbable dreams of power."In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphletcalled 'What Is To Be Done?' - in which he laid out his plans tolaunch a communist revolution in Russia," Bush said. "The world didnot heed Lenin's words, and paid a terrible price. ..."In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which heexplained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany andtake revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignoredHitler's words, and paid a terrible price."But the problem with Bush's history lesson is that wiping out somefuture Lenin or Hitler would require killing or imprisoning anyone whowrote about political change in a way that rulers consideredobjectionable or threatening at that time. While "predictiveassassination" might eliminate a Lenin or a Hitler, it also mightkill a Mandela or a Jefferson.What Bush appears to be advocating is the end of free speech and freethought, or at least the regulation and punishment of speech andthought that he disdains. Bush is extending his concept of"preemptive war" - launching attacks against countries that mightpresent a future threat to the United States - to "preemptivethought control," eliminating political opponents who might pose somefuture threat.The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the U.S.government from criminalizing speech. But Bush is indicating that heand his political followers believe that, amid the "war on terror,"it is justifiable to do just that.Al-Qaeda PlotIn another chilling passage in his speech, Bush laid out a scenario forlabeling criticism of him in the U.S. news media as part ofal-Qaeda's terrorist strategy. Bush claimed that bin Laden wrote toTaliban leader Mullah Omar about launching "a media campaign ... tocreate a wedge between the American people and their government."Bush said this media campaign would send the American people messages,including "that their government [will] bring them more losses, infinances and casualties." Bush continued that bin Laden's mediaplan "aims at creating pressure from the American people on theAmerican government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan."Bush cited this supposed al-Qaeda manipulation of the U.S. media as oneof the reasons that "bin Laden and his allies are absolutelyconvinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causingour economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent,and lacking in patience and resolve. And they're wrong."As Bush defines domestic criticism of his war's costs "in financesand casualties" as part of a terrorist scheme, it's not hard toimagine how Bush's devoted followers will react. Any expression ofconcern that Bush is charting a course toward mad destruction will beattacked as somehow acting in concert with terrorists.Though Bush has said that his goal in waging his vague and seeminglyendless "war on terror" is to defend freedom, the reality behindBush's grim vision is the emergence of an American totalitarianismwhere objectionable thought will be repressed and dissent will beequated with treason.The President has now made clear that he wants the Nov. 7 congressionalelections to be a referendum on whether Americans will follow him intothis dark future.--Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for theAssociated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege:Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered atsecrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. William O. Douglas To send an email to -