Veterans for Common Sense

Fears rise anew over homegrown terrorists

With focus abroad, militias may thrive

AUSTIN, Texas — When FBI agents searched a rented storage locker in a small east Texas town last year, they were alarmed to discover a huge cache of weapons and the ingredients to make a cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands.

Just as startling was the identity of the owner of the arsenal, which included nearly half a million rounds of ammunition and more than 60 pipe bombs. He was not some foreign terrorist with ties to Al Qaeda but a 63-year-old Texan with an affinity for anti-government militias and white supremacist views.

William Krar, an itinerant gun dealer, quickly pleaded guilty to possession of the chemical weapon and then promptly clammed up, leaving federal officials to wonder what he intended to do with his deadly arsenal and whether his conspiracy extended beyond two known accomplices who pleaded guilty to lesser charges.

Experts who track domestic terrorist groups would like to know as well. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which occurred nine years ago Monday, led to a period of disarray and decline for militias, but anti-government right-wing extremists remain a largely hidden threat of unknown proportions.

With the nation focused on terrorist threats from abroad in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, experts wonder if the Krar case, which FBI agents discovered only by accident, could be a harbinger of homegrown attacks to come.

“All of this homeland security, all of the orientation of the government’s war on terror is about protecting our borders,” said Ken Toole, director of the Montana Human Rights Network, which monitors right-wing groups. “We’re moving back into this period where radical right-wing activism is being dismissed as goofy and loopy, whereas the Al Qaeda threat is around every corner. But the right-wingers are much closer to home. And they are still there.”

Mark Pitcavage, director of fact-finding for the Anti-Defamation League, noted that criminal acts by right-wing extremists “remain at a very high level,” including the slayings of three law enforcement officers last year.

Michigan trooper slain

In one incident, Pitcavage said, a member of the Michigan Militia allegedly killed a Michigan state trooper after a traffic stop, while in South Carolina, a family of “sovereign citizens”–right-wing anarchists who reject all government power–allegedly ambushed and killed two local police officers.

Many militia cells withered after the Oklahoma City bombing, their potential members put off by the magnitude of the crime, while the predicted Year 2000 apocalypse failed to materialize. Meanwhile, other white supremacist groups were hit with a series of criminal and civil prosecutions that depleted their memberships and bank accounts.

While the more marginal followers and hangers-on have dropped away, the hard-core members of extremist groups have increased their resolve, experts say. And anti-Muslim sentiments that have grown in the country since the Sept. 11 attacks are providing fertile ground for new recruitment efforts.

“When the threat is foreign, brown and speaks a different language, that plays into exactly their whole rap to attract people,” said Toole.

Secretive extremist enclaves, such as the white-supremacist Elohim City in Oklahoma, are thriving, while new skinhead groups have surfaced in the Pacific Northwest, experts say.

“With distillation, you usually get a purer form of something, and with these groups you get a purer form of militancy,” said Daniel Levitas, author of “The Terrorist Next Door,” a study of domestic terrorist groups published in 2002.

`More and more extreme’

“If you look at the cycle of rebirth of these movements over the last century, each cycle is more and more extreme,” Levitas said. “Now we have William Krar in Texas building a fully functional chemical weapon. You’ve had paramilitary activists produce ricin. It’s only a matter of time before one of the more hard-core remnants of the militias decides to one-up Timothy McVeigh.”

McVeigh was convicted on federal charges of masterminding the Oklahoma City bombing and executed in 2001. His co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, already serving a life term for his federal conviction in the case, is on trial in Oklahoma on state murder charges, for which he could face the death penalty if found guilty.

The Nichols case is resurrecting fresh scrutiny of extremist groups, because the defense team intends to present evidence suggesting that a white-supremacist bank-robbery group might have been involved in preparations for the Oklahoma City bombing.

As bad as that bombing was–168 people were killed when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was destroyed–federal officials say that Krar’s chemical weapon, had it been used, could have been far worse.

Among the remote-controlled bombs, machine guns and silencers discovered during the FBI’s April 2003 raid on Krar’s storage locker were containers of hydrochloric, nitric and acetic acids, as well as more than 800 grams of sodium cyanide.

Mixed together, the ingredients would have turned into the same poison once used in gas chamber executions, and Krar had enough of the materials to create a bomb capable of killing everyone inside a 30,000-square-foot building, authorities said.

Also discovered when Krar was pulled over for a traffic violation in Tennessee in January 2003 were cryptic documents titled “Trip” and “Proceedure” that contained instructions, meeting places and secret codes for a cross-country trip.

One set of code phrases detailed in the documents employed references to the weather to communicate various levels of threat.

“`Tornadoes are expected in our area’–Things very hot; lay low or change your travel plans,” stated one of the instructions, which were included in an affidavit filed by the FBI as part of its request for a search warrant for the storage locker.

The documents, along with other evidence of Krar’s manufacture of fraudulent identification documents and his connections to militia groups, suggested “a much more involved criminal scheme which could potentially include plans for future civil unrest and/or violent civil disorder against the United States Government,” FBI Agent Bart LaRocca wrote in the affidavit.

Krar faces a maximum penalty of life in prison when he is sentenced on May 4. He claimed that the coded instructions were intended to help a girlfriend escape an abusive ex-husband, but revealed no information about his plans for the arsenal. Federal prosecutors have issued more than 100 subpoenas in their efforts to determine how far any conspiracy might have spread.

Krar first came under scrutiny in 1985, when he was convicted of impersonating a law enforcement officer. In 1995, federal agents investigated him for alleged illegal gun dealing, though he was not charged with a crime, according to the FBI affidavit.

The wrong address

The FBI stumbled upon Krar again in 2002 after he sent a package containing numerous forged identification documents to a member of the New Jersey Militia. The package was mistakenly delivered to a resident of Staten Island, N.Y., who turned it over to police.

“The Justice Department is to be commended for having aggressively pursued that investigation and tracked Krar down,” said Levitas. “But the fact that they made this discovery entirely by accident, and Krar slipped through their fingers and off their radar screen on numerous occasions, is extraordinarily troubling.

“There are thousands of William Krars out there who aren’t being pursued,” Levitas added.

PRESS RELEASE

 National Groups Question the Independence of a Presidential Inquiry into the use of Iraq IntelligenceInquiry must involve Congress and examine the judgment of senior officials  February 4, 2004 – For Immediate ReleaseContact: Ashianna Esmail; (202) 543-6176 The directors of more than a dozen major national organizations and church denominations joined the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) today in expressing concern regarding the particulars of the President’s decision to establish a commission to investigate the validity of prewar intelligence on Iraq. Founded in 1998 and representing a growing membership of mainstream Americans, war veterans, and human rights activists, EPIC works to improve humanitarian conditions in Iraq, defend the human rights of the Iraqi people, and ensure governement accountability for the Iraq war and handling of postwar Iraq. In addition to EPIC, signers include the directors of the Arms Control Association, Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, Veterans for Common Sense, and Council for a Livable World. Addressing President George W. Bush, Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle, the letter states: “the type of inquiry outlined by the White House may fail to address many critical issues in an open, independent, and timely fashion.  Such a failure could further undermine the U.S. government’s credibility at home and abroad, impacting our nation’s ability to work effectively with the international community and address current and future threats to our national security.” The groups agree with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel’s assessment that unless the President convinces the public that he did not “exaggerate” the case for war, “people would start asking, ‘Do we trust his word? Do we trust him to lead this country?’” According to the undersigned organizations, the investigation must examine both the Administration’s prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq and the representation of those assessments by senior Administration officials.  As noted by Cato Institute Director of Defense Policy Studies Charles V. Peña, “we should focus not on the work of professional intelligence analysts, but rather on the judgment of our political leaders, and on their interpretation of all the data at their disposal.” The 18 undersigned organizations outline basic standards that the commission should meet in order for the investigation to have any credibility.   The following spokespersons are available for comment:John David Isaacs, President and Executive Director, Council for a Livable WorldDaryl Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control AssociationErik Gustafson, Executive Director, Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC)To arrange an interview, call Ashianna Esmail at EPIC at (202) 543-6176 The following is the letter and full list of signers: February 4, 2004 Dear President George W. Bush, Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle: We commend the decision to establish a commission to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq.  A panel of inquiry offers an important first step in addressing widespread concern about the intelligence assessments used to make the case for war against Iraq and the representation of those assessments by senior Administration officials. We remain concerned, however, that the type of inquiry outlined by the White House may fail to address many critical issues in an open, independent, and timely fashion.  Such a failure could further undermine the U.S. government’s credibility at home and abroad, impacting our nation’s ability to work effectively with the international community and address current and future threats to our national security.  We, the undersigned organizations, therefore urge you to ensure the commission meets the following basic standards: • Scope – The independent commission should investigate not only the quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraq’s proscribed weapons programs, but also the representation of the intelligence assessments to the American public, Congress, and the United Nations by senior administration officials.  In particular, the commission should be charged with investigating whether the Administration’s description of the potential threat posed by Iraq accurately reflected the views of professional intelligence analysts. The investigation should be focused on the issues at hand. While investigating the role of intelligence in assessing other unconventional weapons threats may be useful, it is tangential to the specific problems concerning the assessment and representation of the Iraqi threat before the war. • Independent and Qualified Experts – To be truly independent, members of the commission should be appointed by Congress and the White House, requiring the consent of the minority leadership.  Given that officials and agencies within the Executive Branch may well come under investigation by the commission, the body must be able to act independently of the White House and the intelligence agencies.  In appointing members to the commission, there should be a bi-partisan balance, as well as a diversity of political perspectives regarding the war.  The commission should include widely respected individuals with recognized expertise on unconventional weapons and on the gathering and processing of intelligence. • Transparency – An independent commission must operate as openly and transparently as possible.  Recent polls indicate that the U.S. public is concerned about the government’s credibility on Iraq and unconventional weapons.  To address such concerns, the commission’s process of investigation should be clear and transparent to Congress and the public.  Unclassified versions of the commission’s findings and recommendations should be made publicly available in a timely manner. • Timing – Every effort should be made to begin this inquiry quickly, to keep it focused, and to produce findings and recommendations so that the Administration, Congress and the American people can understand what went wrong and how such serious errors can be avoided in the future.  We cannot afford to delay until 2005 given that the United States and the international community are at this time working to deal with major proliferation concerns in key regions.  The independent commission should report to the Congress and the Office of the President on an interim basis no later than the middle of this year and conclude its work no later than the end of this year.  The interim and final reports should describe findings and recommendations and, if consensus cannot be reached, present both  minority and majority views. The war in Iraq has now cost over $150 billion dollars, the lives of more than 500 U.S. service members, nearly 3,000 U.S. wounded, and an estimated 10,000 Iraqi lives.  The U.S. decision to terminate UN weapons inspections in Iraq and launch an invasion of Iraq without UN approval undermined international law.  As no stockpile of unconventional weapons has been found in Iraq, our nation’s reputation has been seriously damaged. To restore public trust, rebuild U.S. credibility abroad, and ensure government accountability on decisions of war and peace, the investigation into the quality of U.S. intelligence and the use of that intelligence in making the case for war must be truly independent and as prompt, thorough and open as possible.  Sincerely,Erik K. Gustafson, Executive DirectorEducation for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) Seth Pollack, Board PresidentVeterans for Common Sense Joe Volk, Executive SecretaryFriends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) John David Isaacs, PresidentCouncil for a Livable World Daryl Kimball, Executive DirectorArms Control Association* Tom Z. Collina, Executive Director20/20 Vision Alistair Millar, Vice PresidentFourth Freedom Forum Maureen Fenlon, O.P., National CoordinatorNETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby Susan Shaer, Executive Director, Womens Action for New Directions Martin Butcher, Director of Security Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility Kevin Martin, Executive Director Peace Action & Peace Action Education Fund David Robinson, Executive DirectorPax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement Emira Woods, Co-director, Foreign Policy In FocusInstitute for Policy Studies Phil Jones, Director, Washington Office, Church of the Brethren Rania Masri, Director, Southern Peace Research and Education Center, Institute for Southern Studies Rev. James Kofski, Asia/Pacific and Middle East IssuesMaryknoll Office for Global Concerns William Hartung, Director, Arms Trade Resource Center, World Policy Institute James E. Winkler, General SecretaryGeneral Board of Church and SocietyUnited Methodist Church * for identification purposes only

The United States and Britain had no justification for invading Iraq either on the grounds of alleged threats from illicit weapons and terrorism, or as a humanitarian mission, an international civil rights group said yesterday.

The failure to find Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction has left President George Bush and Tony Blair claiming that the invasion was on humanitarian grounds, said a hard-hitting annual report of Human Rights Watch. It said that the West had done nothing when Saddam massacred Kurds and Shias in the past, and there was no evidence of any continuing mass killings at the start of the war in March 2003.

The report claimed that the US and British occupation forces had “sidelined human rights… as a matter of secondary importance. The rule of law has not arrived and Iraq is still beset by the legacy of human rights abuses of the former government, as well as new ones that have emerged under the occupation.” The reasons given for war by Mr Bush and Mr Blair – WMD and Saddam’s alleged links with international terrorism – hadnot been proved, said Kenneth Roth, executive director of the organisation.

He pointed to recent statements by David Kay, the departing head of the Iraq Survey Group, that WMD were unlikey to be discovered, and said it was unlikely that the Hutton report into the death of David Kelly would say anything different. The document praised the American and British forces for striving to minimise civilian casualties during the air campaign, and also for being much more careful in the use of cluster bombs than in previous conflicts. It condemned the Iraqi resistance for indiscriminately bombing public areas.

The report maintained that it was “irrelevant” that the US had “unclean hands” in its support for Saddam in the past, or that there were other countries which suffered worse internal repression. Neither were good enough arguments against military intervention on proper humanitarian grounds.

However, Human Rights Watch said the US-British attack on Iraq failed to qualify on a number of grounds normally used as a test of justified humanitarian military action.

There were no mass killings going on; war was not the only option – legal, economic and political measures could have been taken; there was no evidence that humanitarian purpose was the main one for launching the invasion; the attack did not have the backing of the United Nations or any other multinational body, and the situation in the country has not got better.

Mr Roth said: “The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair … such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn’t be used to address atrocities that were ignored in the past.

“Humanitarianism, even understood broadly as a concern for the welfare of people, was at best a subsidiary motive for the invasion of Iraq.”

He said: “Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant pre-war link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East.”

Human Rights Watch criticises the US and Britain for not sending in more troops after the invasion. This, says the report, might have prevented the anarchy after the fall of Saddam’s regime. Mr Roth said the Pentagon had acted as if it believed that the Iraqis would welcome the soldiers with open arms.

Human Rights Watch is a mainstream body with support across the political spectrum. It does not have a policy of opposing military action.

U.S. forces accused of razing Iraqi homes
Human rights group says acts would be war crimes
UNITED NATIONS – U.S. military forces in Iraq “appear” to have committed war crimes by detaining relatives of suspected insurgents or wanted former officials, and demolishing their homes, the U.S.-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch has warned. 

Kenneth Roth, the organization’s executive director, told U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a letter on Monday that the United States had reportedly demolished homes “on at least four recent occasions, in situations that did not meet the test of military necessity.” 

It said the actions “rather appeared to be for the purpose of punishing or compelling the cooperation of the family in question.” In two incidents, it added, “U.S. forces also reportedly detained close relatives of a person that the U.S. was attempting to apprehend. In these cases the individuals detained were themselves not suspected of responsibility for any wrongdoing.” 

Geneva Conventions cited

According to Human Rights Watch, destroying civilian property as a reprisal or deterrent “amounts to collective punishment, which is prohibited by the 1949 Geneva Conventions.” Detaining people in order to compel actions from the opposing side “amounts to hostage taking, which is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions: in other words, a war crime.” 

Mr. Roth called on Mr. Rumsfeld to take “immediate and tangible steps to ensure that actions of U.S. forces in Iraq comply fully with the Geneva Conventions,” and to release “without delay” people detained on the basis of their familial relation to wanted persons.

The Financial Times

A Nation of Victims

George W. Bush is generally regarded as a mangler of the English language. What is overlooked is his mastery of emotional language–especially negatively charged emotional language–as a political tool. Take a closer look at his speeches and public utterances, and his political success turns out to be no surprise. It is the predictable result of the intentional use of language to dominate others.

President Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses dependency-creating language. He employs language of contempt and intimidation to shame others into submission and desperate admiration. While we tend to think of the dominator as using physical force, in fact most dominators use verbal abuse to control others. Abusive language has been a major theme of psychological researchers on marital problems, such as John Gottman, and of philosophers and theologians, such as Josef Pieper. But little has been said about the key role it has come to play in political discourse, and in such “hot media” as talk radio and television.

Bush uses several dominating linguistic techniques to induce surrender to his will. The first is empty language. This term refers to broad statements that are so abstract and mean so little that they are virtually impossible to oppose. Empty language is the emotional equivalent of empty calories. Just as we seldom question the content of potato chips while enjoying their pleasurable taste, recipients of empty language are usually distracted from examining the content of what they are hearing. Dominators use empty language to conceal faulty generalizations; to ridicule viable alternatives; to attribute negative motivations to others, thus making them appear contemptible; and to rename and “reframe” opposing viewpoints.

Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech contained thirty-nine examples of empty language. He used it to reduce complex problems to images that left the listener relieved that George W. Bush was in charge. Rather than explaining the relationship between malpractice insurance and skyrocketing healthcare costs, Bush summed up: “No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit.” The multiple fiscal and monetary policy tools that can be used to stimulate an economy were downsized to: “The best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place.” The controversial plan to wage another war on Iraq was simplified to: “We will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people.” In an earlier study, I found that in the 2000 presidential debates Bush used at least four times as many phrases containing empty language as Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Senior or Gore had used in their debates.

Another of Bush’s dominant-language techniques is personalization. By personalization I mean localizing the attention of the listener on the speaker’s personality. Bush projects himself as the only person capable of producing results. In his post-9/11 speech to Congress he said, “I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.” He substitutes his determination for that of the nation’s. In the 2003 State of the Union speech he vowed, “I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.” Contrast Bush’s “I will not yield” etc. with John F. Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

The word “you” rarely appears in Bush’s speeches. Instead, there are numerous statements referring to himself or his personal characteristics–folksiness, confidence, righteous anger or determination–as the answer to the problems of the country. Even when Bush uses “we,” as he did many times in the State of the Union speech, he does it in a way that focuses attention on himself. For example, he stated: “Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.”

In an article in the January 16 New York Review of Books, Joan Didion highlighted Bush’s high degree of personalization and contempt for argumentation in presenting his case for going to war in Iraq. As Didion writes: “‘I made up my mind,’ he had said in April, ‘that Saddam needs to go.’ This was one of many curious, almost petulant statements offered in lieu of actually presenting a case. I’ve made up my mind, I’ve said in speech after speech, I’ve made myself clear. The repeated statements became their own reason.”

Poll after poll demonstrates that Bush’s political agenda is out of step with most Americans’ core beliefs. Yet the public, their electoral resistance broken down by empty language and persuaded by personalization, is susceptible to Bush’s most frequently used linguistic technique: negative framework. A negative framework is a pessimistic image of the world. Bush creates and maintains negative frameworks in his listeners’ minds with a number of linguistic techniques borrowed from advertising and hypnosis to instill the image of a dark and evil world around us. Catastrophic words and phrases are repeatedly drilled into the listener’s head until the opposition feels such a high level of anxiety that it appears pointless to do anything other than cower.

Psychologist Martin Seligman, in his extensive studies of “learned helplessness,” showed that people’s motivation to respond to outside threats and problems is undermined by a belief that they have no control over their environment. Learned helplessness is exacerbated by beliefs that problems caused by negative events are permanent; and when the underlying causes are perceived to apply to many other events, the condition becomes pervasive and paralyzing.

Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate. He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people from feeling they can solve their problems. In his September 20, 2001, speech to Congress on the 9/11 attacks, he chose to increase people’s sense of vulnerability: “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen…. I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight…. Be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.” (Subsequent terror alerts by the FBI, CIA and Department of Homeland Security have maintained and expanded this fear of unknown, sinister enemies.)

Contrast this rhetoric with Franklin Roosevelt’s speech delivered the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He said: “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory…. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces–with the unbounding determination of our people–we will gain the inevitable triumph–so help us God.” Roosevelt focuses on an optimistic future rather than an ongoing threat to Americans’ personal survival.

All political leaders must define the present threats and problems faced by the country before describing their approach to a solution, but the ratio of negative to optimistic statements in Bush’s speeches and policy declarations is much higher, more pervasive and more long-lasting than that of any other President. Let’s compare “crisis” speeches by Bush and Ronald Reagan, the President with whom he most identifies himself. In Reagan’s October 27, 1983, televised address to the nation on the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut, he used nineteen images of crisis and twenty-one images of optimism, evenly balancing optimistic and negative depictions. He limited his evaluation of the problems to the past and present tense, saying only that “with patience and firmness we can bring peace to that strife-torn region–and make our own lives more secure.” George W. Bush’s October 7, 2002, major policy speech on Iraq, on the other hand, began with forty-four consecutive statements referring to the crisis and citing a multitude of possible catastrophic repercussions. The vast majority of these statements (for example: “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time”; “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists”) imply that the crisis will last into the indeterminate future. There is also no specific plan of action. The absence of plans is typical of a negative framework, and leaves the listener without hope that the crisis will ever end. Contrast this with Reagan, who, a third of the way into his explanation of the crisis in Lebanon, asked the following: “Where do we go from here? What can we do now to help Lebanon gain greater stability so that our Marines can come home? Well, I believe we can take three steps now that will make a difference.”

To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the power of the citizen, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even constitutional liberties, to concentrate all power in the imperial presidency and the Republican Party.

Bush’s political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However, people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won’t respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the American electorate back in touch with their core optimism. Bush’s opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. They should heed the example of Reagan, who used optimism against Carter and the “national malaise”; Franklin Roosevelt, who used it against Hoover and the pessimism induced by the Depression (“the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”); and Clinton (the “Man from Hope”), who used positive language against the senior Bush’s lack of vision. This is the linguistic prescription for those who wish to retire Bush in 2004.