After reading his article, I became frightened out of wits. Beyond the obvious, I started wondering about the ‘08 elections. Americans are banking on the idea that finally, on Jan. 20, 2009, short of impeachment, which is unlikely, we will rid ourselves of the neoconservative [read fascist] White House. Not even the GOP candidates want anything to do with that bunch. It may take a generation to repair the damage the neocons did, and it may take that long before a Republican is again elected President.

However, that dream of expulsion of neocon power ignores the warnings issued by Mr. Tremblay. That dream ignores the neocon thirst for power. It ignores the wild card, Cheney, the real power in Washington.

The dream also ignores a man named Osama bin Laden, Bush’s symbiotic twin. Osama can, just as easily as you or I, read Mr. Tremblay’s devastating indictment. It is well-documented that Osama is up on his world politics. It is equally well-documented that Osama and al Qa’ida launch their attacks for political reasons. Case in point, 9/11, where months later, in March 2003, Bush/Cheney did exactly what Osama wanted them to do by diverting our attention from his host country. The attacks in Madrid in 2004 altered the outcome of the Spanish elections and caused the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. The attacks in London in 2005 contributed to the downfall of Prime Minister Blair. Al Qa’ida has also shown patience, waiting years for a stunning attack. Anyone thinking al Qa’ida is past tense, think again. Thanks to their poster boy, our President, al Qa’ida is more virulent, more diversified than ever.

Now if I were Osama I would initiate an attack upon the US homeland in the fall of 2008, say 9/11, because Osama loves anniversaries. This could prompt Cheney, I’m sorry, Bush, to declare martial law and suspend the ‘08 elections indefinitely.

You might have not realised this, but as you were rethorically adressing yourself, you were actually typing this into the discussion box of the DV website. Or perhaps those lines were intended to a whole party of yours present here watching you teaching the rest of us. Or it might be just that you intend us to read your mind as you don’t even bother properly adressing those doing the reading. There is not way to tell at present how far you wish to take that condescendance.

Still, I have to say I agree with this citation, that in no way contradicts this article, althought it should make for another related subject to the matter, not a more relevant one.

Now to add to the discussion, Bush II sure didn’t break new grounds here (how could he), it really is all an old recipe from the British empire of which the USA is an offshoot. We can still see the results even today on any type of map we like to make. Even going further back, it always boils down to the struggle of the masses under a system set up by the elite to legitimize their own game of control, whether it be Monarchy, communism or democracy: All good systems on paper, but ultimately all corrupt in their application. Even totalitarian regimes had their purpose momentarily legitimized.We know Hitler was venerated for pulling his country out of unemployment, Saddam surely was too for lifting roughly half of the country into the middle class (Chomsky, Hegemony or survival), but we all agree now on what it was really worth(interrestingly, both systems were for a time supported by US interrests). And of course, if history teaches us one thing, it’s that nobody learns from it.

Perhaps its time for people to open their eyes and see democracy for what it really is: Yet another system set in place by the elite to keep the masses in quiet expectation as it milks them long and hard.

“If the special interest of the investor is liable to clash with the public interest and to induce a wrecking policy, still more dangerous is the special interest of the financier, the general dealer in investments. In large measure the rank and the of the investors are, both for business and for politics, the cat’s-paws of the great financial houses, who use stocks and shares not so much as investments to yield them interest, but as material for speculation in the money market. In handling large masses of stocks and shares, in floating companies, in manipulating fluctuations of values, the magnates of the Bourse find their gain. These great businesses—banking, broking, bill discounting, loan floating, company promoting—form the central ganglion of international capitalism. United by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every State, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, chiefly by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations. No great quick direction of capital is possible save by their consent and through their agency. Does any one seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European State, or a great State loan subscribed, if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it?
Every great political act involving a new flow of capital, or a large fluctuation in the values of existing investments, must receive the sanction and the practical aid of this little group of financial kings. These men, holding their realised wealth and their business capital, as they must, chiefly in stocks and bonds, have a double stake, first as investors, but secondly and chiefly as financial dealers. As investors, their political influence does not differ essentially from that of the smaller investors, except that they usually possess a practical control of the businesses in which they invest. As speculators or financial dealers they constitute, however, the gravest single factor in the economics of Imperialism. To create new public debts, to float new companies, and to cause constant considerable fluctuations of values are three conditions of their profitable business. Each condition carries them into politics, and throws them on the side of Imperialism.”

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Hobson/hbsnImp5.html#Part I, Chapter IV, Economic Parasites of Imperialism

If we hold up Bush as the exemplar of the worst, we miss the underpinnings of the policies which have long created U.S. interventionism and the history of endless war. I have little doubt that Bush will stand down come January 2009, but that changing of the guard does not alter the militaristic and imperialistic trajectory of our deep seeded foreign policies.

Can you dispute the nature of the legislation that is cited?

Plenty of people in this country pretend to “love freedom” because they associate freedom with being able to drive some trendy gas-guzzler or exploit other people’s slavery by shopping at WalMart, not with any kind of actual liberty. In fact, we make a fetish of obedience by idolizing the “be all you’re told to be” authoritarianism of the military, and celebrating the “every knee shall bow” authoritarianism of the church.

The pants-wetting racist paranoia of the “war on terror” that justifies all the attacks on real political and social freedom–as opposed to false freedoms that are just bribes to keep the herd in line–is rank cowardice, and ignores the history of our contempt for the people we now pretend to want to “liberate.” We have killed, maimed, and displaced about three million Iraqis, and we show no remorse, only childish frustration that they didn’t lay down and hand over their nation and its resources to us without a fight.

If Americans aren’t outraged, maybe it isn’t because they’re “not paying attention.” Maybe it’s just because a lot of them are just assholes.

Many of the other sources are newspaper accounts or original sources.

All in all, this was a well done piece of analysis. Perhaps Rowan above simply wanted to dershowitz a respected article or writer because it didn’t conform to a right wing ideological bent.