By Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyBush's ascent to dictatorship began with a violent attack upon vote recounters in Florida. It was given an imprimatur of legitimacy with the disingenuous 5-4 decision of a conservative SCOTUS. A felonious, physical attack had the effect of stopping the court ordered recount of votes, a count that would have given the White House to Al Gore. Those events and the consolidation of near absolute power since are simply the most visible characteristics of a stunning
coup d'etat consolidated quickly in the aftermath of what many believe to have been a false flag attack upon the US: 911!
Since these events, the Bush path to a totalitarian dictatorship has been by the Nazi playbook and Herr Goebbels guidebook to Nazi propaganda. The Bush rise to power is nothing new. No one ever accused Nazis of being imaginative or innovative. The following is just another variation on a theme that Herr Hitler would have recognized.
- A Stolen Election
- A False-Flag Attack
- A War Begun Upon a Pack of Lies
- Rule by Decree
- Suspension of Habeas Corpus
- The Unitary Executive
- Bush Becomes the 'State'
Our nation is now left with a stark choice: either force from office an illegitimate usurper or forever lose the Democratic Republic. By arrogating unto himself the powers of an absolute dictator, Bush has simply made it impossible to unseat him peaceably and, as Nancy Pelosi infamously declared:
impeachment is off the table! Few, if any, peaceful options remain. If power can be seized in a coup d'etat, perhaps, it will be taken back as well.
But if a coup does not use warfare or a mass uprising to seize control, then where does it get the power to do so? "The short answer," Luttwak says, "is that the power will come from the state itself... A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." 5
Normally, a coup does not seek to destroy the basic structure of the existing government, which is more typical of a revolution or a war for liberation. Instead, Luttwak explains, those undertaking a true coup d'etat "want to seize power within the present system, and [they] shall only stay in power if [they] embody some new status quo supported by those very forces which a revolution may seek to destroy." 6 (Emphasis in original.)
In other words, the coup takes advantage of the governmental structure itself, as well as the bureaucratic nature of modern governments. There is an established hierarchy, an accepted chain of command, and standard procedures that are followed when instructions come down this pipeline. So long as the instructions come from the appropriate source or level of authority, they will almost always be followed even if from a new, and illegitimate, holder of that authority.
Luttwak explains that a coup "operates by taking advantage of this machine-like behavior: during the coup because it uses parts of the state apparatus to seize the controlling levers; afterwards because the value of the 'levers' depends on the fact that the state is a machine." 7
Thus, by gaining control over a few carefully selected pivotal points of power within the government bureaucracy, the plotters of the coup can effectively gain control over the entire "machine" of state.
During the presidential election, the key pivot points proved to be quite limited in number, not to mention patently obvious. The first was the state government of Florida, the second the US Supreme Court. But of course, every puppet needs a puppeteer. --John Dees, Coup 2K
Dees was among the pioneer "whistle-blowers" of the election debacle in Florida which was followed by the infamous
Bush v Gore The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.
--Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting, Bush v Gore
Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and had not Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy and O'Connor intervened, the nation would have been spared the tragic ascension of GWB to the White House. The justices acted just in time to prevent our really knowing the truth when it really counted, that is, who really should have gotten that state's Electoral votes. Antonin Scalia had said that continuing a recount of all the votes would be harmful to Bush.
Counting the votes would threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.
--Antonin Scalia
First of all --it was not the 'legality' of the election but the conduct of GOP partisans and brownshirts who cast doubt upon the process itself. Secondly, the candidate who gets the fewer number of votes is supposed to lose! Scalia forever stained the high court, disgraced his office and became a political tool. His tortured logic enabled a felonious coup d'etat. Americans are still paying the price.
Thus --Bush's coup d'etat was hardly a velvet revolution. It was, rather, a violent overthrow of legitimate government in which Bush 'brownshirts', paid thugs, and white coller criminals, were organized, paid, and trucked to Florida for the purpose of shutting down a legally mandated recount of all the votes.
In Florida, the Bush campaign quietly organized "rent-a-rioters" and flew them to Florida from all over the country. While disingenuously portraying the protests as "spontaneous grass-roots efforts," the Bush campaign sent special squads of GOP Congressional staffers who, in several instances, led violent attacks on Democratic observers, smashed windows, and tried to force their way into vote-counting rooms. This was not civil disobedience intended to show disagreement, but a concerted attack designed to threaten and intimidate. 38
Shortly after the election, the Bush campaign began a two-pronged program to import as many protesters into Florida as they could. The first prong was done openly: phone-trees reached out across the country to coax party loyalists to head down and fight Al Gore's "theft" of the election. This much is standard political fare. What was unusual was the more discreet second prong.
Under the direction of House Republican Whip Tom DeLay (of Texas, mind you), staff members of GOP Congressmen were quietly approached with offers of all-expenses-paid trips to Florida, "all paid for by the Bush campaign." 39 In addition to staying in swanky beach-side hotels, part of their reward would be an exclusive Thanksgiving Day party in Ft. Lauderdale.
According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 200 Congressional staffers signed on, with many of them staying in Florida for over a week. "Once word leaked out," said one GOP operative, "everybody wanted in." 40
Of course, the law prohibits Congressional staffers from participating in partisan political activities on "company" time. However, the rules allow them to "go on vacation" or declare themselves on "temporary leave" at a moment's notice. Their marching orders came from their bosses, but officially they were simply "private citizens" (albeit on the Bush campaign's tab).
Once on the scene, high-level coordination was done as secretly as possible. The Wall Street Journal described the "air of mystery to the operation," noting that daily instructions were issued in the form anonymous memos slipped under hotel-room doors late at night. One aide told the paper, "To tell the truth, nobody knows who is calling the shots." 41
On the streets, operations were coordinated from a motor home decorated with Bush-Cheney campaign shwag, like many others parked nearby. The mobile command center was kept a block or so away from the center of the protests, far enough to lay low but close enough for instant access. The protesters were brought to the scene in specially rented busses. Party operatives used bullhorns to shout inflammatory rhetoric, passed out t-shirts and leaflets, and generally kept things heated.
The first GOP riot occurred in Miami on November 22. 42 In command were some 75 members of the "Congress Gang," who floated in and out of the mobile home a block away where the votes were being counted.
NY Rep. John Sweeney, who was observing the recount, gave the order to "shut it down." 43 Within minutes, an angry mob filled the halls of the government building, screaming threats with their fists in the air. Leading the mob, clearly visible in news footage and photographs, were a number of the staffers in the "Congress Gang."
Panicked sheriff's deputies tried to close the doors leading to the counting area. The protesters responded by pounding on the doors and the large window looking in on the besieged canvassers. The glass bulged under the strain.
Joe Geller, the chairman of the local Democratic Party, decided wisdom was the better part of valor. He shoved some papers and a standard blank sample ballot into his brief case and tried to get away. Someone shouted that Geller was "stealing a ballot," and the mob leapt into hot pursuit. Once on the street, Geller was surrounded. He was beaten and kicked as he tried to shield himself with his arms. Finally, local police waded into the crowd and after a considerable struggle managed to extract Geller in one piece. 44
Back inside, other Democrats were attacked. Party spokesman Luis Rosero was shoved, punched and kicked when cornered outside the election supervisor's office. Even Congressman Peter Deutsch was "manhandled." Then word came that 1,000 Cuban-Americans were on their way to join the fray, egged on by the most influential Spanish-language radio station, Radio Mambi.
To stave off a full-fledged lynching, the canvassing board announced the counting would be re-opened to the public. Sheriff's deputies had to escort the three terrified counters back into the public recount area. Meanwhile, the local election board held a private meeting in more secure quarters. When they emerged, they announced exactly what the mob wanted: the recount would be stopped altogether, and the original results from Nov. 7 would be certified. The Miami-Dade election supervisor, David Leahy, initially admitted that the attacks had played a part in their decision to stop the count. "If what I'd envisioned worked out," he said at the time, "and there were no objections, we'd be up there now counting." 45 Later, he denied the protests had been a factor.
With their work done in Miami, the motor home and its troops moved on to Broward County, where they were joined by about 20 other Congressional staffers who were already on the scene. The promised Cuban-American activists also arrived, many of whom were members of the Cuban American National Foundation, a right-wing organization with documented ties to the CIA.
Security was much heavier in Broward, in part because of the Miami riot that had just been broadcast live on CNN. As a result, the protests there were extremely vocal and sometimes tense but, judging from the available press reports at least, no one was physically assaulted. However, the local Democratic Party Headquarters was surrounded and at one point a brick was thrown through its window.
Other "Congress Gang" platoons were sent to Fort Lauderdale, and some of the same Congressional staffers were also involved in a tense confrontation with Democratic volunteers in West Palm Beach. The group, which included Rev. Al Sharpton, was cornered while trying to retrieve some campaign signs. Things got quite tense and heated words were exchanged, but no violence erupted.
In the end, the secret GOP effort was so successful that at many demonstrations, GOP protesters outnumbered Democratic supporters 10 to one.
When it was all over, the Republican rent-a-rioters got their lavish Thanksgiving Day party, with plenty of free food and booze. Wayne Newton crooned "Danke Schoen" for the crowd, until screaming female fans stormed the stage. "Danke schoen, darling, danke schoen. Save those lies, darling, don't explain...." 46 But the real highlight of the evening was a conference call from Bush and Cheney. Instead of chastising the goon squad for their violent tactics, the candidates thanked them for their work. They even cracked mocking jokes about their rivals. 47
The judicious application of "spontaneous" protests and mob violence has always been a key feature of CIA destabilization. Such operations help put political pressure on the target, make for good TV propaganda, and are sometimes used to intentionally provoke a crackdown that is then widely publicized, often through journalists on the Agency payroll.
For example, the CIA's plan for the 1953 coup in Iran called for "stage[d] political demonstrations under religious cover," to include "staged attacks" on Muslim religious leaders which would then be falsely blamed on the Mossadegh government. 48
In their Chilean operations against Salvador Allende during the early '70s, one of the CIA's greatest propaganda victories was "The March of Empty Pots." Thousands of women marched through the streets banging empty cooking pots with ladles to protest food shortages. In reality, the shortages were artificially induced through a secret campaign of economic sabotage coordinated by the CIA along with ITT, Anaconda Copper and other multinationals. Many of the marching "housewives" were actually the spouses of wealthy anti-Allende partisans who were suffering little. Armed fascist gangs backed by the CIA marched along with the women, then provoked violent clashes with the police. Stories of police "attacking women with empty pots" flooded the world press. Dozens of other protests were organized by CIA front groups in order to artificially escalate tensions and portray Allende as having little support or control. 49
In 1990, during Bulgaria's first post-Communist elections, professional agitators, backed by millions in covert financing from the US, organized massive street protests that ultimately succeeded in unseating the duly elected government. Even though the renamed Communist party had won the overwhelming majority in voting which western observers on the scene widely agreed had been fair, the US (through the CIA) used the mobs to intimidate and ultimately hound officials from office. 50
Not coincidentally, one of the senior members of the Bush administration who coordinated the Bulgarian action was none other than James Baker – the man who spearheaded the Bush campaign's post-election response to Gore's challenges in Florida. 51
--John Dees, Coup 2K"Spontaneous" Mob Violence
In the aftermath of
coup 2k Bush would opine: 'this would be a whole lot easier if this were a dictatorship!' In the aftermath of 911, Bush would issue yet another example of what passes for wit among GOP conspirators and traitors: "Lucky me, I just hit the trifecta!" In fact, his regime had begun working on an attack and invasion of Iraq eight months before 911. [See:
Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq]. Dick Cheney, likewise, had already formed and convened his National Energy Policy Development Group in which the rich oil fields of the Middle East were carved up among the robber barons of big oil. [See
Enron: What Cheney Knew; also:
John Dean: GAO's Final Energy Task Force Report Reveals that the Vice President Made A False Statement to Congress;
Task Force Map of Iraq Oil Fields]
At some point, the Bush administration anticipated the opposition to a war about which he lied: Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction nor had he ties to Bin Laden --a near mythical creation of al Qaeda, itself a creation of the American CIA. Like all incipient dictatorships, Bushco would find it expedient to use against US citizens measures it claimed would be directed only at 'terrorists'. Here's the 'gotcha': a 'terrorist' is whatever and whomever Bush says is a 'terrorist'. Again --Bush would find himself at odds with a 'goddamned piece of paper'.
The Constitution forbids the government from arresting and holding people in the United States without "due process of law." Nonetheless, Bush has claimed the power as commander in chief to designate people as "enemy combatants" and imprison them indefinitely without filing charges.
In 2002, US citizen Jose Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and held in military brigs for nearly three years. Civil libertarians said that was unconstitutional. His case had been heading toward the Supreme Court; the administration recently brought criminal charges against him, thereby thwarting a clear ruling on the issue.
In the past, Congress has ratified treaties pledging that the United States and its agents will not use torture or inhumane treatment against captives. Once ratified, treaties become part of American law, according to the Constitution.
But before this week, the White House maintained that the laws and treaties did not bind the president in handling terrorist leaders. White House lawyers wrote memos that appeared to justify the use of extreme measures - which critics called torture - in interrogating suspected terrorists.
Civil libertarians say the latest revelations add to their frustration with the Bush administration. "If we are a nation of laws, then the president must be bound by the rule of law," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel at the ACLU in Washington.
-- '78 Law Sought to Close Spy Loophole, David G. Savage, The Los Angeles Times
It was all entirely too convenient for a known liar (called 'shiftless' by Ronald Reagan) , a man who had stated that not only was the Constitution a 'goddamned piece of paper', 'this would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship!'.
Washington - In 1978, Congress thought it had closed a loophole in the law when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The loophole concerned secret spying authorized by the president on grounds of national security.
On Friday, many in Washington were surprised to learn that despite the 1978 law, President Bush and his advisors had claimed the power to authorize secret spying within the United States.
The New York Times reported that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to listen in on the phone calls of thousands of people in this country without getting permission from a court. Bush's lawyers maintained that the president had the inherent authority as commander in chief to protect national security through secret spying. The account was confirmed by the Los Angeles Times.
A President Above the Law
A government that robs you of the right to privacy can likewise arrest you in secret, deny you Due Process of Law, Habeas Corpus, the right to legal counsel, the right to make a phone call. In short, Bush has arrogated unto himself and by extension his toadies in the 'administration', the absolute powers of a police state.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
--US Constitution
Bush simply decreed that
Habeas Corpus be suspended, though there is no rebellion nor is there an invasion and, in any case, the power to suspend Habeas Corpus, is not consigned by the Constitution to the 'President' whose
only sworn duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution.
911 was not an invasion even if it had not been an inside job. But there is, in any case, no evidence to support Bush's absurd fairy tale about '19 arab hijackers' and, even if it were true, it hardly amounted to an invasion.
FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that the FBI had no evidence to link the 19 'Muslim men' who have apparently disappeared --neither on the autopsy list or the original 'official flight manifests'. In speech to the Common Wealth Club in San Francisco on April 19, 2003, Mueller stated that the purported hijackers 'left no paper trial'. "In our investigation", he said: "we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." That's because the plot to pull off 911 originated inside the White House. There is enough probable cause right now to indict Bush and Cheney on that very charge.
An event all but forgotten now, overshadowed by the calamitous war against Iraq and the economic ruin brought upon the nation by the Bush administration, had the effect of bullying Congress and the media just as Congress had stalled key portions of Bush's Patriot Act. As the the following sequence of videos from the History Channel and CBS News, the FBI has been implicated in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
The anthrax attacks occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on September 18, 2001. Anthrax spores in letters mailed to several news organizations and two Democratic U.S. Senators, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, killed five people and infected 17 others. The crime --perpetrated by the government of the US on its own citizens --remains unsolved. A government that wages war upon its own citizens is guilty of high treason!
The US attack on Iraq is a war of naked aggression. US 'public safety' was never threatened in any way by Saddam Hussein, in fact, a US puppet, a Bush stooge propped up by the US until he would no longer go along with US imperialist schemes. Saddam was, in fact, lured into invading Kuwait and we have a
transcript of his interview with US Ambassador April Glaspie to prove it.
The US Becomes The World's Biggest Terrorist Nation Bush seemed to have everything going his way toward his vision of the 'Absolute State'. An ominous decision by Federal judge David Trager [March 13, 2006] said the United States can violate international laws, presumably international conventions to which the US is bound by treaty, most notably the Geneva Convention. The case involves a lawsuit filed by Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. He had been kidnapped by CIA agents during a stopover at Kennedy Airport. In his decision, Federal District Judge David Trager dismissed a lawsuit brought by Arar challenging his arrest, detention, and torture.
According to Nat Hentoff's column, Liberty Beat, Arar was flown to Syria where he was held in solitary confinement and tortured:
... in a three-by-six-foot cell ("like a grave," he said). He became, internationally, one of the best-known victims of the CIA's extraordinary renditions—the sending of suspected terrorists to countries known for torturing their prisoners.
—The Torture Judge
Arar, subsequently released, has not been charged with a crime —by Syria or the United States, which refuses to cooperate with any investigation. The Canadian Parliament, however, has begun an investigation to include a public inquiry.
The implications of this case are enormous. If Judge Trager's ruling is allowed to stand, American officials will have a "....green light to do to others what they did to Arar." Any crime could then be committed in the name of national security.
Judge Trager's decision is a transparent circular argument, most often found in the decisions of Antonin Scalia. Trager maintains that any other ruling would have the "...the most serious consequences to our foreign relations or national security or both." In other words, Trager has not ruled upon law, but upon expediency. His primary consideration is not what is legal or what is not but rather, what is "convenient" to those agencies otherwise bound to operate within the U.S. Constitution. He has said, in effect, that even a judge must acquiesce in the commission of state crimes —for convenience! They must acquiesce not by or for law —but for convenience!
The Government Denies 'Due Process of Law' In more enlightened times, 'liberals' found some relief in an independent judiciary. But as the concept of "Separation of Powers" is given a NeoCon treatment by other activist conservative judges, there remains little refuge in the letter of the law.
...the coordinate branches of our government [executive and legislative] are those in whom the Constitution imposes responsibility for our foreign affairs and national security. Those branches have the responsibility to determine whether judicial oversight is appropriate.
The Federal Judiciary since
Marbury v Madison has
always determined when judicial oversight is appropriate. This decision, if left to Bush, consolidates his power grab and subverts the separation of powers. Individual American citizens are hereinafter left no due process of law, no presumption of innocence, no right to counsel. If Bush but deems you a 'terrorist', you don't get a phone call and you may not even be told the charges against you. In the vernacular: you're totally fucked!
Before a stunned nation could recover from 911, Bush moved decisively against the 'freedom' that he had claimed terrorists had 'just hated'. It was clear, however, that the victims of Bush's power grab would be law abiding, ordinary US citizens but primarily those who oppose him politicially.
Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
—George W. Bush, United Nations General Assembly, September 2002
Please note: Bush was not talking about U.S. Abu Ghraib tortures. These were allegations he made against the Hussein regime. But —one wonders: what difference does it make to an Iraqi citizen if he is tortured by Saddam or by Bush? If I am an innocent civilian, what difference does it make to me whether I am summarily executed by Saddam or by Bush?
Bush asserts that wartime and "inherent powers" give him all the legal authority he needs to conduct widespread domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens at home or abroad. In the meantime, the Congress has seen fit to renew the Patriot Act which now includes a little known provision that creates a U.S. "Gestapo" —a new federal police force that will enforce Bush's blatant violations of the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment. Sec. 605 reads:
'There is hereby created and established a permanent police force to be known as the "United States Secret Service Uniformed Division."'
—U.S. Patriot Act, Sec. 605, Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service Uniformed Division
An excerpt:
...officers of the Secret Service Uniform Division will "carry firearms" (sec. 3056A (b)(1)(A)) and be authorized to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony" (sec. 3056A (b)(1)(B))
Please note: the statute establishes "reasonable grounds"! That, in itself, violates the Constitution which establishes as the standard "...probable cause", not "reasonableness". Read the Constitution.
The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!
—George W. Bush
The language of this provision, slipped into the "new and improved" Patriot Act, will allow authorities to haul demonstrators to jail on felony charges for merely breaching an arbitrary perimeter. What's really Orwellian is that this United States Secret Service Uniformed Division (SSUD) may be operational already.
Bush's
weltanschauung is and has been harmful to this nation; it has been harmful to this nation's legal underpinnings; it has been harmful to the world.
One of the most interesting and harmful delusions to which men and nations can be subjected, is that of imagining themselves special instruments of the Divine Will.
—Bertrand Russell, Ideas that Have Harmed Mankind
And elsewhere in that essay, Russell wrote:
The world at the present day stands in need of two kinds of things. On the one hand, organization - political organization for the elimination of wars, economic organization to enable men to work productively, especially in the countries that have been devastated by war, educational organization to generate a sane internationalism. On the other hand it needs certain moral qualities the qualities which have been advocated by moralists for many ages, but hitherto with little success. The qualities most needed are charity and tolerance, not some form of fanatical faith such as is offered to us by the various rampant isms. I think these two aims, the organizational and the ethical, are closely interwoven; given either the other would soon follow.
As I write, Bush will most certainly assume even more powers of a dictator. See:
Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution
An excerpt:
§ 1486. Yet the clause did not wholly escape animadversion in the state conventions. The propriety of admitting the president to be commander-in-chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. The consent of both houses of congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command.2 The answer then given was, that though the president might, there was no necessity, that he should, take the command in person; and there was no probability, that he would do so, except in extraordinary emergencies, and when he was possessed
The Congressional leadership was intimidated with US Military Grade Anthrax. Congress has not been worth the space it takes up since. Had Bush been clever, smart, cunning, the loss of American Democracy might not have been tolerable but, at least, understandable. But it is still hard to believe that the powers of an 'absolute state' have come to reside in a drooling, pretzel/coke snorting cretin with an IQ barely that of a moron! It is a turn of events simply unimaginable, unforgivable and unfathomable!
No admirer of Ronald Reagan, I have nevertheless found the former President's comments with regard to Bush very interesting as characterized in the satirical
My Lunch with Ronald Reagan.
‘A moment I’ve been dreading. George brought his ne’re-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they’ll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.’
Satirical or no --it is an opinion that appears to be shared by the former President's son.
"My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush," says the former president's son [Ron Reagan], in a flame-throwing conversation about the war and the Bush administration's efforts to lay claim to the Reagan legacy. "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"
--
"It was on another occasion, at the house of Heinrich Hoffmann, his photographer friend, that I started playing some of the football marches I had picked up at Harvard. I explained to Hitler all the business about cheer leaders and marches, counter-marches and deliberate whipping up of hysterical enthusiasm. I told him about the thousands of spectators being made to roar 'Harvard, Harvard, Harvard, rah, rah, rah!' in unison and of the hypnotic effect of this sort of thing. I played him some of the Sousa marches and then my own Falarah, to show how it could be done by adapting German tunes, and gave them all that buoyant beat so characteristic of American brass-band music. I had Hitler fairly shouting with enthusiasm. "That is it, Hanfstaengl, that is what we need for the movement, marvellous," and he pranced up and down the room like a drum majorette. After that he had the S.A. band practising the same thing. I even wrote a dozen marches or so myself over the course of the years, including the one that was played by the brownshirt columns as they marched through the Brandenburger Tor on the day he took over power. Rah, rah, rah! became Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil! but that is the origin of it and I suppose I must take my share of the blame."
Hanfstaengl, Hitler: The Missing Years, p.51
