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?
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.
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article