Letter from the Editor
You say that President Bush has gone too far this time? Thathe has crossed the line separating reason from madness, dividing traditionalrules of play from intentional foul play, segregating the defensible from theoutrageous. But when was it exactly that you thought he crossed this line?Probably not with the appointment of Condoleezza Rice, who is more popular thanBush and whose nomination received strong Senate support.
More likely it was one of the latest string of nominationsthat had you saying: “this time Bush has gone too far.” Each of us has ourspecial bête noire. For some, it may be the nomination of pardoned criminal,right-wing Zionist, and death squad apologist Elliott Abrams to lead the
Then came the naming of UN basher John Bolton to be
But President Bush has crossed no new line. He has beenexplicit about his intentions to advance a foreign policy agenda that crushesliberalism along with evil. He is only following the foreign policy blueprintswritten by the neoconservatives in the 1990s–from the Defense Policy Guidancewritten by Paul Wolfowitz and other high officials of this administration in1992 that boldly described a new foreign and military policy based on eternalU.S. military supremacy and preventive war, to the array of public documentspublished by the American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New AmericanCentury, Center for Security Policy, among others.
There is no new appointment (with the policy exception ofthe nonideological Rice) that strays outside the boundaries of these agendasfor “full-spectrum dominance.” Bush has elaborated on theneoconservative agendas in his speeches about preventive war, globaldemocratization, and the special, providential mission of the
These nominations should be fought with public educationcampaigns and public pressure on the Senate. But criticisms that Bush has gonetoo far are unwarranted. Bush has not stepped beyond the radical agenda that heand his foreign policy advisers inside and outside government have time andagain spelled out for us.
What is becoming clearer is that the second Bushadministration’s foreign policy team could be much more effective in advancingthe radical overhaul of
The country’s direction–whether in foreign policy, culturalpolitics, global governance, civil liberties, or development issues–is not beingdecided on the fly but is following the agenda set forth by the right’s web ofinstitutions and individuals who have been working for this moment for threedecades.
To understand this radical agenda–and to stop it–we needto better understand the right web itself. At the same time, we need to beworking on our own agendas that bring together cultural, ethical, nationalsecurity issues, among others. This what the IRC is attempting through theRight Web program and our other programs–Foreign Policy In Focus, ProjectAgainst the Present Danger, and Americas Program.
Right Web is 100% supported by private donors. The right’sblitzkrieg has left liberal foundations quivering, and they are afraid ofcoming under media, IRS, and congressional scrutiny for supporting any projectthat monitors–and criticizes–the right’s architecture of power and influence.
The good news is that last week we received $1,750 inprivate donations–up from $155 the previous week. The bad news is that tenindividuals unsubscribed from Right Web News as a result of the suggestion thatsubscribers should be paying for what they get. Good news is that newsubscriptions doubled those we lost.
If you use the IRC’s Right Web program for your own researchor education, then please consider supporting our work, or going elsewhere foryour information. Try CNN or Fox, or AEI, which also has an NGOWatch projecttogether with the Federalist Society. The IRC program’s annual budget is$146,000, which means that we are facing a $97,000 shortfa
ll. If you appreciateand need Right Web, then please consider supporting us.
We can be indignant about
You can support Right Web by making an online donationthrough our secure server https://secure.iexposure.com/irc/donate.cfmor through Pay Pal, orsimply call or write us with your credit card donation or check:
Right Web Director
This Week onthe Right
Bush’s PR Person to Direct
By Jim Lobe
The most intriguing aspect of U.S. President George W.Bush’s nomination of Karen Hughes to take charge of Washington’s publicdiplomacy apparatus–and particularly outreach to the Islamic world–is thebuilding out of which she will be working.
The decision to put Hughes, who, along with Karl Rove, hasbeen Bush’s closest political adviser since he first ran for
It suggested that Rice is building a major power center atFoggy Bottom, one that is capable of ensuring that she can penetrate the circleof foreign policy hardliners led by Vice President Dick Cheney and bolstered bynational security adviser Stephen Hadley, and his deputy, J.D. Crouch, any timeshe wants.
See complete analysis online at: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2005/0503hughes.php
By Jim Lobe
Perhaps the most important was the little-noted appointment of J.D. Crouch asthe deputy national security adviser under Rice’s former deputy, StephenHadley. While Hadley’s foreign policy views were seen as a mixture of realismand Cheney’s aggressive nationalism, Crouch, who served most recently asambassador to
Jim Lobe is a regular contributor to the Right Web program of theInternational Relations Center (IRC), www.irc-online.org.He is the
See complete analysis online at: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2005/0503throttle.php
*Cold Warriors TurnPost-Cold War Alarmists
The Jamestown Foundation applies its anticommunist andanti-totalitarian ideology to
Right Web Profile:
*Vulcans & Company
This package of profiles andanalysis from the IRC’s Right Web program pieces together the new figures ofthe second Bush administration’s new foreign policy and homeland security team.The foreign policy advisers for candidate George W. Bush’s 2000 electoralcampaign privately called themselves the Vulcans. These Vulcans later becamethe foreign policy team that radically changed the course of
See Right Web profiles:
Elliott Abrams: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/abrams/abrams.php
Stephen Hadley: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/hadley/hadley.php
John Negroponte: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/negroponte/negroponte.php
Roger Noriega: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/noriega/noriega.php
Donald Rumsfeld: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/rumsfeld/rumsfeld.php
Paul Wolfowitz: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/wolfowitz/wolfowitz.php
Robert Zoellick: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/zoellick/zoellick.php
*Bolton’s Legal Sleaze
By Tom Barry
(Excerpted from Bolton’s Baggage, an IRC/Right Webspecial report, that is at: http://www.irc-online.org/content/commentary/2005/0503bolton.php)
John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacyof international law–at least when international conventions, treaties, andnorms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests. Bolton also has arecord of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.
As an associate at the high-powered Covington law firm,Bolton in 1978 worked with Sen. Jesse Helms and the National CongressionalClub, the senator’s campaign-financing organization, to help form a newcampaign finance organization called Jefferson Marketing. According to the LegalTimes, Jefferson Marketing was established “as a vehicle to supplycandidates with such services as advertising and direct mail without having toworry about the federal laws preventing PACs, like the Congressional Club, fromcontributing more than $5,000 per election to any one candidate’s campaigncommittee.” After its formation, Jefferson Marketing became a holdingcompany for three firms–Campaign Management Inc., Computer Operations &Mailing; Professionals, and Discount Paper Brokers.
Together with another Covington attorney, Brice Clagett,Bolton later represented the National Congressional Club and JeffersonMarketing–which were treated as a single legal entity–in various lawsuitsfiled against it by the Federal Election Commission (FEC)–all of which led toa $10,000 fine levied by the FEC against the National Congressional Club in1986.
In 1987 the National Congressional Club reported a debt of$900,000, with its major creditors being Richard Viguerie, Charles Black, Jr.,Covington and Burling, and the DC law office of Baker & Hostetler–all ofwhich maintained good relations with the right-wing political action committeeas their debts for services offered went unpaid. Jefferson Marketing was thePAC’s largest creditor, with more than $676,000 due from the NationalCongressional Club. By the end of the decade, FEC documents showed that Helms’political action committee owed Covington $111,000. But this was not considereda major concern for Covington, according to firm spokesman H. EdwardDunkelberger, Jr.
A decade later Bolton was again entangled in moneylaundering schemes to support Republican candidates, but this time it involvedmoney channeled from Hong Kong and Taiwan to the Republican Party by way of a“think tank” linked to the Republican National Committee (RNC). In 1995-96Bolton served as president of the National Policy Forum (NPF), which, accordingto a congressional investigation, functioned as an intermediary organization tofunnel foreign and corporate money to Republicans.
The NPF had been established in 1993 in anticipation of the1994 general election. Founded by the RNC’s chairman Haley Barbour a few monthsafter he assumed the party’s chairmanship, the forum was organized as anonprofit, tax-exempt education institute, although the IRS later ruled thatNPF was a subsidiary of the RNC and not entitled to its requested tax-exemptstatus.
A congressional investigation into foreign money and influencein the 1996 presidential campaign brought to light the role of the NPF, which,according to a minority report of the congressional committee, channeled$800,000 in foreign money into the 1996 election cycle after having also usedthe same mechanisms to fund congressional races around the country in 1994.
When John Bolton became NPF president in 1995, the forumbegan organizing “megaconferences” as a hook to raise money for the party.These conferences brought together Republican members of congress, lobbyists,and corporate executives to discuss matters that were frequently the object ofpending legislation. An NPF memo laid out the funding strategy: “NPF willcontinue to recruit new donors through conference sponsorships. … In orderfor the conferences to take place, they must pay for themselves or turn aprofit. Industry and association leaders will be recruited to participate andsponsor those forums, starting at $25,000.”
Corporate representatives professed surprise at the size ofthe contribution request. “It’s pretty astounding,” said one invitee. “If thisdoesn’t have ‘payment for access’ (to top GOP lawmakers) written all over it, Idon’t know what does.”
Bolton also made sure that handsome contributors receivedtheir money’s worth. In another NPF memo, two NPF employees told Bolton that,in return for a $200,000 donation by US West, the telecommunications companyshould be assured that the policy issues of most concern to it should beincorporated into the NPF agenda for their upcoming telecommunications“megaconference.”
In addition to the continuing money laundering, during JohnBolton’ tenure as NPF president, the forum received a $25,000 contribution fromthe Pacific Cultural Foundation. Both Barbour and Bolton expressed their appreciationin a letter to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative, which functionsas Taiwan ’s embassy in Washington. According to one communication withTaiwan’s official representative in Washington, it was noted that the “generouscontribution” would enable the forum “to continue to develop and advocate goodinternational policy.”
Bolton left his position at the National Policy Forumshortly before Congress launched its probe into whether the group illegallyaccepted foreign contributions. No charges were ever filed as a result of thecongressional hearings, which according to the Democratic Party minoritymembers of the committee didn’t devote adequate resources into theinvestigation of NPF operations.
See Right Web Profile John Bolton online at: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/bolton/bo
Letters From Our Readers
(Editors Note: We encourage feedback and comments, which can be sent for publicationthrough our feedback page, at: https://rightweb.irc-online.org/form_feedback.html.Thank you.)
All of the following letters are in reference to: Immigration RestrictionismGains Political Clout http://www.americaspolicy.org/columns/amprog/2004/0412pan.html
1) If America “needs” immigrants, then how many immigrants does America “need”?
How many people can America sustain, and still maintain a quality of lifecommensurate with high American standards?
Should Americans accept a declining standard of living for no other purposethan to support continuing immigration, indefinitely, whether we “need” it ornot?
How many immigrants are too many? How many Americans are too many? How will westop immigration once we reach that point, especially if we refuse to controlit now?
What percentage of domestic terrorists have been immigrants?
Do YOU lock the doors of YOUR house when you are away or at night? How aboutduring the day? Why not allow anyone who wants free access to your home? Do youlock your home and your car to RESTRICT access, in order to be SAFE? What’s thedifference between restricting access to your home and doing so in our country,which is our collective, national “home”?
Why would you be a restrictionist when it comes to YOUR property, but argueagainst those who would be restrictionist regarding OUR property? Isn’t THATthe very definition of a hypocrite?
You cannot reasonably or rationally argue for a continued mass influx of peopleinto the U.S., much less into a home, a theater, a school, or a shopping mall,without having some idea of what the natural, physical, social, and environmentallimitations are, and how to stop the flow once those limits are exceeded, forthe well-being and safety of the “immigrants” already here.
Why is it that, in your thinking, immigrants have the “right” to “a betterlife” if they are on their way here, but once established here, as citizens orpermanent residents, they no longer have the right to protect the “better life”they have attained, often at high personal cost?
— Ron “RonBo” Brown
2) I would like to make some comments about the final paragraph of your “openborders” article:
“The anti-immigrant forces are certainly right in their contention thatimmigration—legal and illegal—is an issue that needs the urgent attention ofpolicymakers. However, by scapegoating immigrants for so many of the country’sills—environmental degradation, low wages, tax burdens, crime, socialdisintegration, and even terrorist threats—the new wave of restrictionists arebuilding a vicious backlash movement that’s deepening the social, economic, andpolitical divides in the nation. In the process, the anti-immigrant groups arediverting popular attention away from the more fundamental causes of thesocio-economic problems that are eroding the substance and spirit of
Response: I believe the dominant attitude among immigration restrictionistssuch as myself, which can be confirmed by listening to the public discourse, isthat we do not ascribe very much of the blame for the for the economic andsocial maladies caused by uncontrolled immigration to the illegal aliens; weinstead place the blame where it belongs, which is on the politicians, media,and other entities such as religious organizations which have decided it is intheir interest to promote the violation of the immigration laws.
Consequently, most immigration reform advocates direct their anger preciselywhere it should be directed—at the politicians and media.
There is no widespread hostility or violence going on toward illegal aliens. Iam hard pressed to think of anyone among even the angriest of illegalimmigration critics who believe that the illegal immigrants themselves deservemuch of the blame for this problem.
If the open borders advocates get their way and the problem becomes even worse,there may indeed arise a “backlash” where some people may begin to direct theiranger in the wrong direction, toward the illegal aliens themselves.
However, what you see now is simply a backlash against those in power who havepursued policies that have caused hardship on their most vulnerable constituents.Such a “backlash” is nothing more than a social movement for progressivechange.
Hopefully, the restrictionist agenda will be enacted into law before theproblem becomes so severe that it leads to a genuine public backlash againstthose who bear little of the blame for the problem. If such a backlash everemerges, I will fight against that backlash just as hard as I fight the openborders politicians and journalists who are turning our nation into afeudalistic society of the very rich and the very poor.
— Lance B. Sjogren
3) I enjoyed reading your recent article regarding illegal aliens, notwithstanding the ugly tone, since you use inflammatory phrases such as“anti-immigration,” “xenophobic,” “white supremacist and nativist groups.”
You are quite correct in your basic premise that anti-illegal alien groups aregaining clout. And for that I am very grateful.
Americans are and have been for a long time, fed up with illegals’ unrestrictedaccess into our country and we’re finally getting a voice within our politicalsystem. It’s been a long time coming and it’s only going to get much louder.
If people like you choose to call me racist that’s a very, very small price topay.
¡VIVA LA MIGRA!
— Bobbie Bennett <email@example.com>
If you would like to see our variety of free ezines and listservs, please go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/.
To be removed from this list, please email firstname.lastname@example.org with “unsubscribe Right Web.”