How do you define "terrorist"? Is it on the basis of random acts of violence designed to impress a more powerful opponent? Or is it based on a sense of fear, either in response to real dangers or fear that's manufactured with the intent to intimidate? In other words, is it because of what a person or group does or because of what others are led to imagine?

If it's the former, then we would have to consider the United States' bombing of Iraq for the purpose of impressing the other nations of Asia with its military might a terroristic act and the country a terrorist nation. And, if it's the latter, then we have to conclude that recent efforts to make Americans fearful of individuals and groups who have done them no wrong are themselves terroristic in nature. What kind of person makes people afraid of their neighbors?

It's been apparent for quite some time that the primary strategy of the McCain campaign is to attack the other candidates in areas where their own candidate is weak. It sort of worked in 2004. Attacking Kerry's war record seemed to give George W. Bush, who had none, an advantage. But, what has turned out to be really peculiar is that, although Bush's man, Karl Rove, was given credit (John McCain was quite explicit in his condemnation during his speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention), the principal participant POWs in the Swiftboat caper were John McCain's buds from the Hanoi Hilton, Orson Swindle and Col. "Bud" Day.

So, what does that tell us? Well, for one thing it explains how come John McCain can claim to have done "everything to get George Bush re-elected." It tells us that, although McCain was aiming to be elected President in 2000, in 2004 he was more interested in making sure there wouldn't be a Democratic incumbent in 2008. And, he succeeded.

I'm certainly not the only person who's decried the politics of personal destruction--the turning of elections into a gladiatorial contest in which the last man standing wins. However, it seems I didn't fully comprehend that the behavior we've been a witness to in our elections during the last four decades is actually part of a coherent strategy that got started as far back as 1961 and has been carried forward by one of those ubiquitous "think tanks," the National Strategy Information Center, founded by Frank Barrett, who explained:

"Political warfare in short, is warfare--not public relations. It is one part persuasion and two parts deception. It embraces diverse forms of coercion and violence including strikes and riots, economic sanctions, subsidies for guerrilla or proxy warfare and, when necessary, kidnapping or assassination of enemy elites.

"The aim of political warfare... is to discredit, displace, and neutralize an opponent, to destroy a competing ideology, and to reduce the adherents to political impotence. It is to make one's own values prevail by working the levers of power, as well as by using persuasion."

Presumably, this agenda was aimed towards the communist menace and other U.S. antagonists. However, it's not hard to see that, with the exception of kidnapping and assassination, political warfare has found a home in our electoral process--at least in the campaign of John McCain.

It's probably somewhat ironic that the current head of the National Strategy Information Center, Roy Godson, and the brother of Dean, the head of the Policy Exchange in Great Britain, seems to be promoting the culture of lawfulness even as they engage in a culture of secrecy and deception. On the other hand, since the "culture of lawfulness" is really just a reworking of the old "law and order" theme--code for making sure that the lower classes are kept in line--then it's entirely consistent with their apparent belief that the law is what the ruler, or the demonarch, declares it to be.

I think what we missed about the "unitary executive" is the conviction that the law is a creature of the executive/ruler and the function of the legislature is merely advisory. Once we understand that, it makes sense that lawful behavior is whatever the President (or his duly designated subordinates) says it is. Which is not to say that the President is above the law, but that he is the law.

Take that one step further and you come to understand that when

"Obedience to the law is freedom"

freedom, such as what was being promised to Iraq, implies submission to the authority of the state. You can assume that the submission is a matter of consent, but how do you prove, when bombs and missiles are raining down on the population, that is isn't coerced?

Clearly, the goal of political warfare was/is to coerce submission. And that's the goal that's shared by a host of organizations and think-tanks from which John McCain, by playing the fool and distracting the press, is apparently trying to distance himself. And Bill Kristol, founder of the Project for a New American Century, is doing his best to help deny these connections. So, it's probably worth noting John McCain's associations, once again:

Project for a New American Century (Kristol's baby and primary proponent of the invasion of Iraq)

New Citizenship Project (funding source for NPAC)

Media Support Center Foundation (propaganda press in Kyrgyz)

Sarah Scaife Foundation (right-wing funding source)

Heritage Foundation

International Republican Institute (funding for South American and Asian resistance movements and John McCain's advancement)

Adolph Coors Foundation

Council of World Freedom

National Strategy Information Center

Of course, if you're firmly convinced that human beings exist to be ruled and to satisfy the power lust of a bunch of autocrats, then these groups that McCain belongs to (though his name is not on every roster) are entirely normal. But, if they strike terror into the hearts of people who love their liberty, then some might consider them terroristic. It all depends on how you define terrorist.

What's for sure is that John McCain has a lot to hide. Which is why he's running a stealth campaign.