http://www.forward.com/articles/13709/

I think in 2000 TPTB thought Bush was a shoo-in b/c of Lewinsky and over confident that folks wanted “change.” When that appeared not to be the case and Gore might actually take the WH the bosses had to scramble and thus the fiasco drama of count and recount of votes, etc.

TPTB knew Bush was a moron and would more easily do as he was told, although I think even he may have thought he was boss until they kicked his ass with a pretzel, after that he fell in line.

Gore would have agreed to wage war on Afghanistan, folks were fool enough to support that idea after 9/11. But I think shortly after election 2000, most old-hand dems realized how far TPTB were going to take things, and Gore had no problem falling to the wayside – not out of conscience – just not wanting to take the historic blame if things went horribly awry.

The dems are complicit b/c they too hear the ka-ching ka-ching.

Rove, Cheney, etc. are messengers of TPTB. PNAC and such gives the public something to run with – just enough truth to feed the fear but not enough to prove anything of any consequence on anyone. TPTB know the conspiracy theories of the peasantry – they give us 99% of them.

I think the real powers are names most people do not hear, would not recognize, who live quietly in the shadows and not necessarily in the USA. They are the descendants of the same, predominantly white folks, who have ruled for a very, very long time. Many may have “lost” their thrones but not their money, titles, power, status.

In centuries past the peasants fought for the powers that be with the understanding they could loot and plunder and take some for themselves, in more recent history whip the Brits and get a new country, murder native Americans and get free homesteads and gold, win WWII and build white suburbia from sea to shining sea boomers.

But in the last 40 years or so the sheople have been maneuvered to void that tacit plundering social contract between ruler and ruled. Cry foul, cry immoral, cry illegal and TPTB feel no obligation to share the bounty with those who secure the plunder.

JFKennedy secret society speech: “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

The “efficient machine” may already have won.

No one at the press conference seemed to pick up on this. How will Bush increase troop levels in 2009 when he SUPPOSEDLY won’t be in power in 2009?

I picked up on it as soon as I heard it. Again, I will believe Bush/Cheney are leaving when I see them leave. I don’t think they’re going anywhere.

I have a question for you. If, as you say, it does not matter who the puppets are, why then did Bush/Cheney steal 2 presidential “elections” and why did the Dems let it happen?

And who are the puppet masters? Rove, Cheney, PNAC or who? Who are you referring to?

It seem to me that the Bush Crime Family did not steal 2 presidential “elections” in order to willingly and easily turn their installed Dictatorship over to someone else, unless that someone else is part of their Dictatorship in a covert way. Such as Pelosi taking impeachment “off the table” or Obama voting “yes” for FISA.

I saw Cheney’s nasty-looking face when I was flipping channels the night of the State of the Union lies, and that man did not look like he had any intention of going anywhere in a year.

So yes, I do think impeachment needs to be done NOW, especially since the BCF has murdered millions of people around the world. Something heinous like that cannot be excused no matter who does it.

But it’s a given that impeachment will remain “off the table.” Because the Dems are not about to impeach two of their own people and the people they have been enabling because they would implicate themselves and their complicity in any impeachment hearings.

Baffles me why folks think BushCo is any different than any past WH criminals. Some not quite as blatent but all were an affront to decency and humanity. (Exclude JFK as he wasn’t in office long enough.)

Truman’s death toll, Ike’s overthrows and squads, Johnson’s Vietnam, Nixon’s, Reagan’s death squads in Central America, Clinton Kosovo/Serbs and Haitians, and every one of them contributed to millions of dead around the globe. The US (Clinton) armed the Tutsi and France the Hutus.

US/Euro arming sides in Africa now for the next wave of genocide.

The only difference there has ever been between Dems and Reps were the Dems throw a couple of dollars on the nightstand when they’re done f*cking you.

Quote: Impeaching Bush 6 months before he leaves office will change nothing. End Quote

You’re assuming Bush/Cheney are leaving office in January 2009. Why would you assume that? We are no longer living in days of “politics as usual.” They ended the night of the Judicial Coup, if not before. I don’t assume Bush/Cheney are leaving considering all that I’ve seen these international war criminals do. They may physically leave in January—-I’ll believe it when I see them leave—but they are not going anywhere, even if they do physically leave. The “players” will still be in place.

Also, things are already in place should Bush declare—because of some so-called “national emergency” that he is not leaving in January for “national security” reasons and he won’t think it’s a good time to change White House residents at this critical juncture (such as an attack on Iran, comes to mind, or another cooked up 9/11 to scare the herd). Of course, the Republicrats (a.k.a. the Dems) would have no problem with him staying on. They would “yes” that too and likely say “we were so hoping you wouldn’t have to leave because we have so enjoyed working for you.” They would give him big hugs and slaps on the back and tell him, “whatever you want, we will do for you,” just like we have all along.

Timidity? The Bush-enabling Dems are NOT timid by any means.

Compromise? No, that’s not the case either.

Opportunism, YES.

I often hear people talk about the “weak and spineless Dems,” which tells me at least that many/most people STILL (after all this time) do not understand who the Dems really are. The Dems are not “weak and spineless” by any means. Or timid. Since 2000, they have had a spine of steel for helping Bush accomplish most of his goals and the Dems will continue to do so regardless.

Another article on here used the word “capitulated” referring to the Dems’ actions. For one to say that the Dems have capitulated (which means surrendered or caved or giving up) is simply not the truth or the reality, because the Dems are NOT an “opposition party” and have not been since 2000. They are the enabling party with their beloved friends the Republicans in this pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-Bush one-party system. When people refer to the Dems as “spineless” and “weak” and “cowards” and talk about them having “capitulated” and being “timid” it tells me that the person still does not see the Dems for who and what they really are, as opposed to who and what the person wants them to be.

This article says:

Quote: We’re not suggesting the Democrats are the same as the Republicans. End Quote.

Well, why aren’t you suggesting that?… when they ARE. That’s the reality, which many people absolutely refuse to see.

You sure damn well ought to be suggesting that because they are the same, they have enabled the neoconservatism agenda—repeatedly with their “yes” votes, their silence and their complicity—(and there is nothing “centrist” about the neocon agenda!) and I don’t know how much more one needs to see to understand that, assuming one wants to. That’s often the problem. People don’t want to see it.

Then someone will come along and say the #1 reason the Dems must have the White House is: the Supreme Court.

Really?

Question: Who put in neocons Alito and Roberts?

Answer: THE DEMS. Because they wanted to “keep their powder dry.” (Remember that “powder dry” stuff?)

So one cannot use that Supreme Court argument any longer.

Impeaching Bush 6 months before he leaves office will change nothing. He should never have been allowed to enter the WH under SCOTUS and Jeb Bush’s Florida. Bush/Cheney should have been dragged from the WH in 2002 when they waged war on Afghanistan. But nonviolently of course, with candlelight and peace signs.

Americans have gotten the government they deserve.

So that’s ALL that Saddam and Hitler had to do was to wait a long time and then their crimes wouldn’t need justice? The democrats will do the same things that Bush did! In fact, they did under echelon in the 90′s….

Wake up…. punish someone before it’s commonplace.