portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government | imperialism & war

ATTN ALL BUSH BASHERS: READ THIS ARTICLE IF YOU DARE (THE FIX IS IN)

Make no mistake: thje fix is in. As people such as Michael Choussovdsky and Mike Ruppert have suggested, the coming 2004 selection will have nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with REGIME ROTATION. All the recent "scandals" involving the Bush Regime are about the American Establishment moving to replace Bush with a Kinder, Gentler Fascist like John Kerry who will implement the same basic policies with a more Machiavellian mask. If you believe that getting rid of Bush is the primary problem, you are deluding yourselves and others. Bush is only the symptom. The American Empire is the disease.
It is not that a Kerry administration would change any fundamental aspect of contemporary American policy, but rather that those policies would be pursued with a little more discretion and finesse, if it is possible to talk about discretion and war in the same breath. George Soros' quite incredible foray over the last year into presidential politics is a clear indication of this. No one can seriously think that Soros is anything but a new world order imperialist. This is a man who has been in the thick of the destabilisation of Serbia, the coup in Georgia, the looting of Russia and so on....

Is it possible that the establishment has decided that Bush is too much of a risk?

Quite possible; given its track record so far, another Bush administration is likely to result not only in wars abroad but a war at home as well. Bush is giving those opposed to the system an incentive to organise like no other since the Vietnam War. That is the last thing that the power brokers in either party need.

************************************************************************************************************************

The Boston-Little Rock Axis

February 2, 2004

The cynics, as usual, were not cynical enough.

Walter Karp, Indispensable Enemies, New York, Franklin Square Press, 1993

Watch what they do, not what they say.

Anonymous, but smart


The New Year has been launched with ample reminders of the truth of the French phrase, "plus ša change, plus la meme chose." Take the Democratic presidential primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, for instance. Not so many days ago the acknowledged front-runner by a country mile was Howard Dean. Dean, one thought, was an insider, but his support was by all accounts grass roots.

In December, Dean attacked the Democratic Leadership Council.[i] The DLC is as close as one can get to the Party establishment. It is the cradle from which emerged Bill Clinton. Its neoconservative roots are well documented. Criticising the DLC is tantamount to an attack on the real Washington power structure. Suddenly, the presidential race was becoming interesting.

What he said was that the DLC is the Republican wing of the party. This is no more than the truth. The DLC was founded on the premise that the Democratic Party of the late 60s and the 70s had become too radical, that it needed to reorganise and get back to basics. This was classic third-wayism long before Tony Blair began to wear long trousers. Anyone who was in any doubt about what this meant should have learned by 1994 when Bill Clinton pushed the NAFTA accord through Congress. George Bush senior conceived it, and Bill Clinton presided over its birth.

This should not have surprised anyone who had even the most cursory knowledge about the governor of Arkansas: home to Tyson Foods[ii], one of the largest meatpackers in the world, Wal-Mart[iii] the retailing giant that has done more damage to community value since Genghis Khan swept through Central Asia, and Stephens Inc.[iv], one of the largest investment banking and brokerage firms outside of New York with more intelligence connections than you can shake a stick at. This is by no means a comprehensive list of Arkansas's internationally prominent corporate citizens. For that matter the state was also known in governor Clinton's day as a major entrepot and money laundering centre for the American narcotics trade. Arkansas, despite being an underdeveloped third world country, is home to real power, a bastion of the national Democratic Party and the New World Order.

The point here is that by attacking the DLC Dean is basically calling attention to what many people know anyhow, but are too scared to talk about. Needless to say, this sort of thing strikes a deeply resonant chord with unhappy and restive voters who find the Democratic Party's 21st century machine politics demoralising. The last time a Democratic Party presidential candidate won a presidential election because he had managed to mobilise the grassroots of the party was Jimmy Carter, and the party's elders never forgave him for it and indeed spent the next four years destroying him politically.[v] That was an expensive exercise, and one which we are tempted to guess is not one they are prepared to allow to happen with Dean. Carter won because the party had changed the primary rules to allow real voter participation and because they were motivated to participate. The former problem has been fixed, considerably mitigating the latter.


It is hard to otherwise explain the sudden surge of John Kerry, whose campaign lay in the doldrums for all of last year, and as of October at least was even trailing Dean's fundraising.[vi] Kerry, a senator, a veteran of the Vietnamese war, reported to have been tapped for Skull and Bones[vii] while at Yale, is married to Teresa Heinz, heiress of one of America's richest families. This is no outsider; he is a political professional every inch of whom is dedicated to the party, which means he is dedicated to the status quo. His carefully cultivated image as rebel has been in the making for a long time, with no little help from a very friendly press.[viii] What is most striking about his career, however, is very different. This is a man who entered the Senate as a freshman in 1985 and was immediately given a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That sort of thing does not happen to mavericks. Within two years he had been given the chair of a subcommittee to investigate charges of government narcotics and arms trafficking and the war in Central America. He is usually credited with "uncovering" BCCI and doggedly pursuing the felons of Iran Contra. Another way of looking at the same events however is that this is the man who was charged with making sure that the scapegoats were sufficiently insignificant in stature to protect the machine. To anyone familiar with the subject, the fact that his committee was unable to find any proof of government involvement in narcotic trafficking is incredible; the more so because the CIA has since confessed that in fact it was involved.[ix] Most of Congress had accepted money from BCCI. There was certainly no appetite on Capitol Hill for a thorough public airing of that fact. Kerry's handling of Clark Clifford, the fixer-in-chief for the national Democratic Party deeply involved in the BCCI affair, raised more than a few eyebrows. Considering the national security issues at stake, his explanation that Clifford was just an "old man" whom he was not about to humiliate simply doesn't wash.

What does wash is that here one has a machine politician from one of the most venerable and powerful machines, Boston and Massachusetts, a war veteran with a handle as a clean as anyone with such a background is likely to have. Now this is a man who could very well beat Bush on the machine's own terms. Dean could too, but at the cost of energising and organising an electorate that is seething but blessedly disorganised. Now if you were Boss Tweed, what would you do?

Run Kerry.

Contrast him with Bush, whose handle is as dirty as dirty comes. From the Texas Rangers' baseball stadium and Harken Energy, to his family's ties with Osama bin Laden's family, this is a man who is much compromised, and what is more, evidently doesn't give a damn if you know it. Deeply uncommunicative, having held fewer press conferences than any president in memory, his own memory does not extend to remembering his military record. This is just as well, since it appears that he was absent without leave for much of his active Air National Guard service. He is, in short, highly vulnerable to any comparison to the likes of Kerry, who, whatever else you may say about him, actually does seem to have attended classes at Yale and to have been in Vietnam sweating like a trooper while the ex-captain of Yale's cheer leading squad was drinking tequila on the Mexican border.

What is more, Kerry actually has worked for a living, and if you don't think that being point man for the BCCI and Iran Contra cover-up is hard work, think again. Experiences like that are what have given Kerry his "prosecutorial" skills, as the Boston Globe puts it. Indeed, in sharp contrast to Bush, he even seems to speak the English language. It would be worth nominating him for the sheer entertainment of watching him debate Bush. Would he pull his punches as he did with Clifford all those years ago? Bush is no old man, but he does seem to be dyslexic, or worse.

The question, in other words, is this: is Kerry being pushed ahead to actually try and win or is he being pushed to make Bush look good? We think the former is the correct answer. Bush, one suspects, is becoming dangerous to the very establishment of which he is such a prominent member. Under him, the Republicans have put together a coalition of fundamentalist Christians, former Communists, and Zionists.

Confusingly, the ideas that inform each of these three extreme political expressions seem to reside in the same bodies, and a more unstable mix could scarcely be imagined. The Zionists want the US to make the Middle East safe for Israeli hegemony.[x] The Communists want to lead a world revolution.[xi] And last but not least, the fundamentalist Christians want war in the Middle East as a precursor to the extermination of the Jews.[xii] And they all have a mission to save the American people who quite sensibly do not think that they need saving and would far prefer to stay at home, work for a living, and get along with one another. This goes a long way to explaining Bush's curious performance in the polls. He has an irreducible minimum of support but can't seem to pick up any more.

It is not that a Kerry administration would change any fundamental aspect of contemporary American policy, but rather that those policies would be pursued with a little more discretion and finesse, if it is possible to talk about discretion and war in the same breath. George Soros' quite incredible foray over the last year into presidential politics is a clear indication of this. No one can seriously think that Soros is anything but a new world order imperialist. This is a man who has been in the thick of the destabilisation of Serbia, the coup in Georgia, the looting of Russia and so on. On the other hand, he is touring American college campuses saying that the Bush administration reminds him, Hungarian born, of the Nazis in Budapest during his childhood. It is hard to imagine how much more direct he could possibly be, considering that the president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was himself investigated during the Second World War under the Trading with the Enemy Act for the activities of his own Union Bank. And now the grandson of the man who did take the fall during that investigation, William Stamps Farish, is George Bush's ambassador to the Court of St. James.[xiii]

Is it possible that the establishment has decided that Bush is too much of a risk?

Quite possible; given its track record so far, another Bush administration is likely to result not only in wars abroad but a war at home as well. Bush is giving those opposed to the system an incentive to organise like no other since the Vietnam War. That is the last thing that the power brokers in either party need. You don't loose a wolf amongst the flock when your business is shearing. But quite apart from the voters in the abstract, and far more dangerous, are the enemies that the administration has lined up from what should have been its core constituencies in the military and intelligence communities. Invading Iraq was a slap in the face to the majority of the Army's officer corps that warned against it. As one learns from disaffected military professionals such as Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski,[xiv] intelligence was made to fit the objectives, those objectives having themselves been made by a small group of insiders outside the normal chain of command. Doubters were ruthlessly purged and denigrated; no less than ex-Marine General Anthony Zinni, former commander of Central Command (the Middle East and Central Asia) was termed a "traitor" for his public words of caution. Career CIA officer Valerie Plame, responsible for finding weapons of mass destruction no less, was exposed by the White House for apparently no more reason than to get back at her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who exposed the fraudulent claims of the war party that Saddam Hussein had acquired fissile material from Niger.[xv] The Nixon administration had its notorious "enemies list." This administration doesn't need a list; apart from Ariel Sharon and Jerry Falwell, it is hard to imagine who would not want to see it lose power.

We will stick to our prediction of three years ago. This is a one-term president, whose people will be lucky if they do not find themselves arraigned under the same draconian legislation that they have intended for other targets.



Chris Sanders

homepage: homepage: http://www.sandersresearch.com/Sanders/NewsManager/ShowNewsGen.aspx?NewsID=535

Well, it's kinda obvious.... 08.Feb.2004 08:09

Tony Blair's dog

that it'll be the same people who will run things behind whoever "becomes" "president".

The president is nowadays nothing more than the posterboy for the military-industrial complex.
Someone they have as "cover".

Footnotes 08.Feb.2004 08:18

repost

Here are the footnotes to the above article...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i]As is apparent from the linked article by William Saletan which appeared in Slate on December 30, Dean is going to pay a heavy price for criticising "moderate and conservative Democrats." What Saletan proves whether he meant to or not is that terms such as moderate, conservative or liberal have no meaning in contemporary American political discourse except as coded messages.

[ii]2003 sales were $25 billion, making it the biggest meat packing firm in the world, and not incidentally, one of the biggest polluters in Arkansas. (NYSE: TSN)

[iii]2003 sales were $245 billion, the largest of any company in the world. (NYSE: WMT)

[iv]Stephens Inc. is wholly owned by the Stephens Group, in turn wholly owned by the Stephens family. Jackson Stephens, father of current president Warren, is notorious as the owner of Systematics, a computer software firm from Little Rock that provided software and IT services to the banking industry. Systematics was acquired by Alltel Communications in 1990. Systematics' notoriety stems from its development (or theft, as some people would have it) of the PROMIS software system in collaboration with the National Security Agency. For a more through description of this, see www.orlingrabbe.com or go direct to the story here.

[v]For a superb discussion of the neo-conservative role in the creation of the Democratic Leadership Council and the destruction of Jimmy Carter's presidency, see Walter Karp, Liberty Under Siege, American Politics 1976-1988, Henry Holt & Co. 1988.

[vi]That is almost certainly not the case now.

[vii]By far the best book we have found that deals with this is the late Anthony Sutton's America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (GSG & Associates, San Pedro Ca. 1986). Sutton, an Englishman and an economist, was a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. His field of interest was the American political economy, and his determination to understand the real political economy torpedoed his career. His work is by and large ignored outside of dissident circles, which is too bad; he was too meticulous a researcher for it to be refuted, and he puts together pieces of the modern American jigsaw that are fundamental to understanding how and why America functions.

[viii]See the Boston Globe's series on Kerry's life and career at www.boston.com.

[ix]See The Spooky Minded Professor, by Uri Dowbenko posted at  http://civic.net. The classic on government involvement in the international narcotics industry is Alfred McCoy's The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia (New York, Lawrence Hill Books, 1991), the title of which does not do justice to the scope of the book. The fact of the matter is that narcotics trafficking as an instrument of state policy is at least as old as Britain's Indian Empire, opium from which smuggled into China made fortunes for the traders (not a few Americans among them), provided the East India Company with the cash to conquer the Indian subcontinent, and gave Britain her foothold on the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong. If there have been copycats since, you can hardly blame them. See too P.D. Scott, Drugs, Oil and War, New York, Rowman & Littlefied Publishers, 2003 and the authoritative The World Geopolitics of Drugs, 1998/1999, London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.

[x]Ariel Sharon once memorably defined Israel's strategic objective as hegemony from India to Mauritania. See Israel Shahak's Open Secrets, Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, London, Pluto Press and Israel Shahak, 1997, p.32.

[xi]The Communist (i.e. Trotskyite) origin of a number of "neoconservatives" is a well-established fact. For a recent examination of this and related issues, see All News is Lies, An invisible government, January 26, 2004 at www.sandersresearch.com. The facts have not stopped a vigorous and typically scurrilous public exercise in defamation from being waged that attempts to tar criticism of the neocons with anti-Semitism. An excellent example of neoconservative propaganda such as this at work is a column by David Brooks in the January 6, 2004 New York Times, The Era of Distortion. As Brooks would have us believe, there is no neoconservative program, the idea that there is being nothing but a paranoid anti-Semitic fantasy. Brooks, who hails from the mendacious and extremist Weekly Standard certainly ought to know a neocon when he sees one. He is one.

[xii]Christian Zionism is a good example of what happens when superstition meets politics. Those worried about Muslim fundamentalism would do well to worry more about this crowd, who are also armed and actively trying to bring the Second Coming. That the American president actually owes his position to a group like this is a lesson in historical humility. A good source for information about this curious mental phenomenon is to be found at the web site of University College Cork's computer science department. See Palestine, Information with Provenance.

[xiii]The interesting tale of American financial support for National Socialism in its early days and material trade with Germany (after the Second World War had started) has been told in several places, notably by William Sutton, op.cit. Williams Stamps Farish was the chief executive of Standard Oil of New Jersey, which registered German crewed tankers in Panama and shipped fuel oil to to the Canaries where it was used to refuel German submarines. See too George Bush, The Unauthorised Biography by Tarpley and Chaitkin (Washington D.C. Executive Intelligence Review, 1992)

[xiv]See Kwiatowski's three part series on working in the neocons' Pentagon that appeared in The American Conservative: Part 1/Part 2/Part 3.

[xv]The White House now faces a grand jury probe over the Plame affair in an interesting echo of Watergate.


electronic voting machines are the problem 08.Feb.2004 08:40

Bubba

Did you see Bush's facial expression when Russert asked him about Kerry being Skull and Bones? He declined an answer and tells it all. The machines are taking over.

RE: electronic voting machines are the problem 08.Feb.2004 09:11

Al-Jazeera

No, its your American Evil empire that is the problem. One that you American "patriots" and other fascists know how to do and that is to DIVERT AND DEFLECT BLAME away from your fucked up country onto scapegoats and political patsies of all sorts.

Nice try, but no cigar. All the electronic voting machines in the world don't mean squat if the political leaders are all fundamentally the same.

treat what you can 08.Feb.2004 09:52

while you can

"Bush is only the symptom. The American Empire is the disease," etc. etc.

Sure... but the Clinton regime didn't think up the Patriot Acts as far as I know. Under whose regime would you like to try to protest their regime?

Maybe the disease would be easier to treat without the symptoms flaring up. It could be harder to feed it medicine while it's still vomiting. (Well, this is one is vomiting just so it doesn't have to take it's medicine, eh?)

Nearly as if directing and diverting were starting to become contagious, that was only three threads ago here  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280032.shtml

Patriot Act has been in the works for some time 08.Feb.2004 10:21

Kill Tom Ridge

"Sure... but the Clinton regime didn't think up the Patriot Acts as far as I know. Under whose regime would you like to try to protest their regime?"

Get real. You think the Patriot Act was spontaneously and instaneously written in response to 9-11. IT is an open secret that many aspects of the Patriot Act have existed in various forms long before 9-11 dating back several years including during the Clinton regime.

treat what you can 08.Feb.2004 11:22

while you can

"Get real. You think the Patriot Act was spontaneously and instaneously written in response to 9-11"

No. It was written and waiting to be tabled. Under which political climate was it found expeditious to be tabled? Why didn't PNAC types get their "New Pearl Harbor" out of the Clinton regime?

But in all of this, I not only have heard nothing about under which climate we could better expect dissent to be tolerated, I have heard nothing about that form that dissent should take to be successful. Thousands of posts about how resting faith in the Democrats isn't the answer. Heard ya nine hundred times. What IS the answer?
That's harder to come up with than beating a dead horse, eh? Maybe we can protest and see if Bush notices. Maybe you can find me someone else to boycott and see if they even notice the loss in sales this time? Maybe we start blowing stuff up to express dissent and make Bush & Ashcroft's wet dreams all come true. If you ask me, anything that has even the remote possibility of being a real productive asset is nothing to be p*ssing on at this point.

And what flavor is the p*ss? Let's see, how many threads down is that we have another thread a lot like this one and a lot like hundreds of others, complaining about Americans being disenfranchised with the Vote, and cheering them on to be less disenfrachised by going on and on about how utterly hopeless the Vote is. I really hope that's not typical thinking for the droves of Vote-bashers, I really do.

The answer: organize independent of political control 08.Feb.2004 16:55

eric blair

If you want examples, look to Spain - from about 1900 through 1936 and the revolution.

Present day example - look to Argentina - it's been going on for the last two years or so, and still going on.

Look at Venezuela today, and the Bolivarian circles in the barrios.

Those who believe that voting in American elections is ever going to change anything fundamental about our brutal fascist dictatorship, continuously staining our hands with the blood of the poor - well, they are searching for a quick fix, immediate gratification - all too common a trait among the well-trained TV watchers of this country.

It's going to take years of work. In Spain, it took over 30 years of organizing and educating, while being subjected to imprisonments, mass murders, torture, and every other imaginable facet of state repression.

We will probably never see a change in our lifetime. But we need to start now.

Personally I think it is immoral to procreate, because I am a human. Therefore I will have no offspring.

I pity those with children, or those who plan on having children, who somehow manage to turn a blind eye to all of history, and decide that it's easier to sit back and pretend that - hey, what can I do except vote for one of the two fascist parties? I live in relative comfort, and I wouldn't want to jeopardize my little rewards for collaboration. The bombs aren't falling on me. I have a job. I'm not starving. My children aren't dying from dysentery.

Denial is so comforting, isn't it?

New Pearl Harbor and the Clinton Regime 08.Feb.2004 20:18

Kill Tom Ridge

"No. It was written and waiting to be tabled. Under which political climate was it found expeditious to be tabled? Why didn't PNAC types get their "New Pearl Harbor" out of the Clinton regime?"

Are you sure that the Clinton Regime had nothing to do with 9-11? Didn't many of the 9-11 Hijackers train at secure US military bases THROUGHOUT THE 1990S? Regardless, the Patriot Act did not come out of thin air. It came about as the result of the poltiical precedent iniitated by the 1995 anti-Terrorism bill (remember that Oklahoma City bombing? Another suspcious "terrorist" attack)

"But in all of this, I not only have heard nothing about under which climate we could better expect dissent to be tolerated, I have heard nothing about that form that dissent should take to be successful. Thousands of posts about how resting faith in the Democrats isn't the answer. Heard ya nine hundred times. What IS the answer?"

The answer, as someone above has stated, is to organize INDEPENDENT political movements, groups, and institutions which are free from the control of the American political establishment--Democrat or Republican.

It's not rocket science.

ABB uber alles 08.Feb.2004 20:34

bush basher

But, I thought Bush was one of the mean people...and stuff. How dare you suggest a DEMOCRAT could participate in supporting a corrupt regime hellbent on world domination...and stuff. I AM OUTRAGED!!!

Moron Article 08.Feb.2004 22:02

Anarchist

I always find this narrow-minded interpretation of those that bash Bush pathetic. Bashing Bush does not imply support for the Democrats. Bashing Bush is just one of many simultaneous anti-Regime activities soon to be accompanied by bashing Kerry. As a Bush-Basher myself, I think you "lefter than thou" assholes are doing a lot more damage than good. You've got to get people to start somewhere and bashing Bush is a good place to start. What you are arguing is exactly the same thing as claiming that bashing Stalin would have been stupid in the USSR. Bashing Stalin does not imply support for OTHER MEMBERS of the PARTY. That THE PARTY in the US has two mafias does not imply that bashing a leader in one is support for the other. Grow up.


Stupider than thou 08.Feb.2004 23:55

repost

"Ialways find this narrow-minded interpretation of those that bash Bush pathetic. Bashing Bush does not imply support for the Democrats. Bashing Bush is just one of many simultaneous anti-Regime activities soon to be accompanied by bashing Kerry. As a Bush-Basher myself, I think you "lefter than thou" assholes are doing a lot more damage than good"

Hey, did you all even bother to read the article at all, or visit the website of the people who produced it?

Sanders Research Associates is not even a "leftist" organization, nor it is even American. It is a British based business firm designed to give "intelligence" to businessman and investors, but from a non-conventional perspective.

Their article, however, is right on the mark and reveals the political tricks which American political elites are pulling behind the scenes with their promotion of John Kerry, the Great American War Hero (TM) to replace the failed Bush.

BTW, if you want to bash something, why not start with the American Empire in general--regardless of who is in charge.

You people love to spew your venom against this or that PERSONALITY, when the real issue is POLICIES and the institutions that produce those policies.