consider the possibility that the Bush presidency is wildly SUCCESSFUL...

[mike_c]

...rather than the abject failure we've all thought. Consider the possibility that it might in fact be one of the most successful presidencies of the last half century. It's all a matter of perspective, so before you hit the back button on your browser, hear me out.

Disclaimers-- first, I've just finished reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, and it has profoundly influenced my perceptions of international events and U.S. foreign policy. Second, and perhaps most important, this is a half-baked idea I'm proposing, and the act of writing this is at least partly an effort to flesh out the main points.

Near the end of Confessions Perkins, who was an insider in the seamy marriage of the military-industrial complex and international development banking for many years, says "things are not as they seem." Here's a short list of the way things are:

• In terms of foreign policy, the Bush administration has declared a vague "war on terrorism" that can be fought anywhere in the world, and is a cover for a perpetual state of war-- genuine shooting wars, rather than euphemistic wars like the "war on poverty." This enhances and consolidates the power of the executive branch considerably, and for the foreseeable future. The first genuine front in this "war" was Afghanistan-- a country whose ongoing occupation, aside from not going well at all, demonstrates the underlying intention to maintain an empire under strict U.S. economic and military hegemony.
  
  
• The U.S. has undertaken the weakening, and perhaps ultimately the destruction, of the United Nations, the only international governing body with the street cred to organize opposition to the imperial ambitions of the United States.
  
  
• Bush weaseled and manipulated the press, the popular sentiment, and the U.S. Congress into supporting an apparent military misadventure in Iraq, ostensibly to counter the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's leadership. That threat is now broadly understood to have been wildly exaggerated-- in truth, utterly lied about-- but the lies about Hussein began during the 1990's and were perpetuated during the administrations of the two previous presidents as well. Bush simply capitalized on them after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. The war against Iraq has resulted in:
  
  
  
  • War crimes accusations. At its heart, the war against Iraq is a war of aggression, by definition a crime against humanity under international law-- the law embodied in the Charter of the U.N., which Bush has hobbled by appointing a thinly disguised toady as his ambassador.
    
    
  • The deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and several thousand American (and allied) service persons, mercenaries, and civilians. It has also resulted in the utter destruction of Iraq, which was once one of the best developed, most secular societies in the Middle East.
    
    
  • Saddam Hussein, who rebuffed U.S. efforts to enmesh Iraq more deeply into indentured servitude to U.S. development banks and the MIC for decades, has been deposed, discredited, and awaits certain execution at the hands of his own countrymen. He has been replaced by a provisional government that is entirely beholden to the U.S., not only for its continued existence, but for the very lives of its members. That government has already accepted enormous financial "assistance" from the U.S., and with it the obligations for repayment and national servitude-- the U.S. will directly control Iraq's economy for many years. This has long been a goal of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East-- Bush has achieved it.
    
    
  • Iraq is fractured along ethnic and sectarian lines, to the point of possible civil war. This further weakens its ability to deal with the U.S. military occupation and economic control. The threat of escalating civil strife is already cited among the rationales for continuing the U.S. occupation.
    
    
  • The U.S. has full military and economic control of one of the largest remaining oil reserves in the world. It can effectively challenge OPEC. Recall that Iraq was one of the driving forces behind the 1973 oil embargo.
    
    
  • Congress has appropriated $251 billion dollars (accurate as of October 2005: http://costofwar.com/numbers.html) for the war against Iraq, approximately $233 billion of which have been spent. The larger "war against terror" has consumed some $350 billion dollars. Most of that money has been transferred directly to the budgets of a dozen or so major U.S. engineering and military service companies, whose top executives have long moved freely between government executive branch posts and corporate directorships, or to the Pentagon-- the other component of the MIC. This has been an unbelievably successful transfer of wealth, a windfall of epic proportions, with virtually no oversight. It has been accompanied by exactly the sorts of corruption that Perkins describes in Confessions, with king's ransoms simply disappearing from the vaults of Iraqi provisional government ministries. The transfer of wealth has been so loose that astronomical sums are simply gone and unaccountable, as though they were carried away in the backs of black SUVS. Many undoubtedly were, but that's chump change compared to the windfall that the robber barons in the U.S. have billed through "legitimate" channels. This alone makes the Bush presidency highly successful from their perspective.
    
    
  • The Pentagon has eclipsed the State Department as the primary office for implementing U.S. foreign policy. This keeps the oligarchs of the MIC in control of the future-- and remember, they slip back and forth at will between their corporations and the executive branch-- and relegates the career diplomats to service as waterboys and bad news messengers. The Pentagon is in the process of establishing itself as an alternate to the intelligence gathering services as well.
    
    
  • An insurgency against the occupation of Iraq maintains the chaos which partly justifies the U.S. occupation for the Congress and U.S. citizenry, maintaining the illusion of a just war.
    
    
  • U.S. control of Iraq is key to dominance in the Middle East. Iraq is like a keystone in the map of the region, with borders on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and Turkey. The U.S. is building huge permanent military bases in Iraq, and plans to build the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. This will put the entire Middle East firmly under the U.S. boot heel.
    
    
  • The U.S. military presence in Iraq and in the Gulf states will finally eclipse the power sharing arrangements between Washington and the House of Saud, which have always been just too much a case of having all our eggs in one ugly basket.
    
  
  
• The power of the executive branch is eclipsing that of Congress, which has been largely complicit in this process, and the courts, which are falling to the appointment of toadies who will guarantee their future compliance.
  
  
• Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the invasion of Iraq and a full member of the MIC corporation-executive branch-Pentagon cabal, has been appointed chairman of the World Bank, one of the chief instruments used by the U.S. to enfold developing nations into long term indentured servitude.
  
  
• The petroleum market has been destabilized to a greater extent than during any administration since the early 1970s, and the cost of crude oil has climbed precipitously. Concurrently, petroleum industry profits have grown to obscene heights.
  
  
• Domestically, the U.S. has enacted new laws concentrating authority into arms of the executive branch, and extending that authority considerably under the supposition of "wartime necessity."
  
  
• U.S. tax policy has shifted blatantly in favor of the wealthy and of corporations at the top of the food chain, including the pharmaceutical industry, the petroleum industry, and the MIC robber barons.
  
  
• The most abusive elements of capitalism-- the ones Adam Smith warned about-- are running amok. The disparity in compensation between the average top executives in the U.S. and the average non-executive worker has climbed to something like 475:1, while in countries like England, France, and Sweden it's 24:1, 15:1, and 13:1, respectively (paraphrased from memory).
  
  
• The social safety net has been dramatically slashed, with even more drastic cuts still on the horizon-- this redirects funds from social programs to tax savings for the wealthy on the one hand and further corporate enrichment on the other. The oligarchs benefit tremendously, while the poor fall deeper into destitution.
  
  
• Congress is largely compliant, or distracted by its own partisan squabbles.
  
  
• The Supreme Court is increasingly stacked with philosophical cronies of the robber barons.
  

OK, this is getting long, so I'm going to post it as is, in hopes that others will add to it and that discussion will flesh the thesis out further. The point I'm trying to make is that if you you follow the money and the power, as Perkins obliquely suggests, it begins to look like many of the Bush administration's abject failures have produced tremendous windfall benefits for a small ruling class of MIC oligarchs and their corporations, and for the Pentagon. This is so consistent that coincidence seems unlikely. By these measures, the Bush presidency has been wildly successful. The robber barons are in charge, and they've taken off the gloves. The rape and pillage are progressing better than anyone could have ever imagined, and with control of the Middle East in the game, the future looks very bright for the oligarchs indeed. The rest of us are screwed unless we can bring about some really fundamental changes in the social compact between government and the people in our nation-- the Republic is falling before our eyes.

--edited for formatting and spelling.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. This is how I feel about George W. Bush

He is either an idiot or a genius. I am not sure which. But I don't think the answer lies in the middle. I'll never meet him so I will never know.

[Ladyhawk]

13. Even if you did meet him, you wouldn't know.

Because if he's an idiot, he'd act like an idiot and if he's a genius, he'd still act like an idiot to cover it up.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. True enough

it will remain one of those mysteries of life. And that's fine with me.

[Iowa]

49. I'd say he's neither genius nor idiot...

I'd guess he's functioning with roughly average intelligence - surely not bright enough to be President - but no idiot. He displays an utter lack of integrity, judgment, compassion, maturity, honor, and courage; if he were a brighter man, he would grasp the magnitude of his worthlessness and be depressed, even suicidal.

Years ago, when William Rehnquist was elevated to Chief Justice, an editorial writer acknowledged his intelligence with these words (if memory serves): "...his brilliance is a cold thing that shimmers without the warmth of wisdom and compassion, and therefore serves no purpose...".

Bush is like Rehnquist - minus the brilliance. Just an average, cold-hearted, useless, rich boy.

[stevedeshazer]

2. Wildly successful

Ya know, Joe Stalin was wildly successful, too. And how about that Idi Amin fellow? Wildly successful. Adolf? Hirohito? Caligula? Genghis Khan? Julius Caesar? Pol Pot? Huge success for those guys, too.

For a while.

[Hissyspit]

4. Yes, for a while.

Censorship works. For a while. Totalitarianism works. For a while.

McCarthy went down. Nixon went down. Mussolini went down.

The man's too big. The man's too strong.

[TankLV]

16. Actually, Mussolini went "up" - feet first.

Which is what I wish and hope and pray for for the ENTIRE BUSH CRIME FAMILY.

[ananda]

22. Bush is inherently weak..

.. and that's why the strong forces of corporatism can prop him up and get him to do what they want.

Whatever the success is, it turns out ultimately to be an utter failure because it destroys so much...

... including the perpetrator.

Sue

[eppur_se_muova]

38. Stalin died of a stroke. Way too late for his country.

I'm afraid we may need "divine intervention" to be freed of ** as well.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. An interesting tidbit about Stalin's death

One of my co-workers from the Republic of Georgia told me this story about the death of Stalin.

It seems that one of her great uncles was in Stalin's inner circle. When Stalin got his stroke (or whatever illness actually did him in), he could have been saved if someone had called his physician-- but no one did. They stood around praying for the old man to kick the bucket, and did not call the physician until they were sure he was gone.

[julianer]

57. The rumour is

that Lavrenti Beria (murderer and rapist on his own account) finished him off.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. I'll have to ask my co-worker about Lavrenti Beria

This could be interesting

[julianer]

60. He was Stalin's henchman

In charge of the KGB (called the NKVD at the time, I think) and the project for the atomic bomb. He was notorious for dragging young women into his mansion where he would rape and, sometimes, kill them. He was definitely present, and mostly in charge, during Stalin's final hours.

He was briefly poised to take over from Stalin after the great tyrant's death but was unexpectedly (for him!) bumped off by his competitors after disappearing from a politburo meeting - Malenkov, the man who actually filled the gap between Stalin and Krushchev, amongst them. No remains or real clues as to his fate are known, AFAIK.

[eppur_se_muova]

68. I believe that according to most historians, they were afraid to ...

disturb him. Only one servant had the key to his bedroom, IIRC, and he slept alone behind a locked door, always on the lookout for someone wanting to kill him. When he didn't emerge at his usual time, no one wanted to be the one to open the door and check on him, because he might have them shot in a fit of temper. So he lay in the floor for hours before they finally concluded that something *had* to be wrong, and went ahead and opened it, by which time it was too late.

Seems like a fitting death, in a way.

(BTW, he kept weird hours--foreign diplomats had to get used to the idea that they would be called to see Stalin at 2 or 3 AM, and might not return from the Kremlin before dawn.)

[Vanje]

3. Read this essay

You're onto it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051217/cm_huffpost/012451_200512171432

Excerpt:
The Bushies have a pattern and they stick to it in spite of every apparent reason to change course. It’s not as if we don’t know what pattern it is, and it’s not as if they haven’t advertised what the pattern will be--it is to break down the government so completely that it can’t be put back together again. Let’s take a look at the “mistakes” the Bush administration is said to have made, and, instead, ask ourselves if they are actually realized intentions:

[StClone]

12. Jane Smiley should be required Reading

Her piece on SLATE why people hate Dems is very good too.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109218

Thanks I hope people actually read this.

[mike_c]

17. WOW! Jane Smiley nailed it spot on....

The outcome of such policies will be a dictatorship or a tyranny. Such policies cannot be reconciled with the US as we know it, or with the vision of the Founding Fathers. It is true that rogue elements have stolen elections before, as the slave interest stole the election in Kansas in 1856 by openly ferrying fraudulent voters across the river from Missouri, and then bullying the Congress into certifying the election in spite of plenty of evidence that the election was corrupt. It is also true that the public has been fed lies in the past so that they would support a questionable war (remember the Maine!). Corrupt administrations probably outnumber clean ones in US history. But the ten “successes” I cite above come together to present, I think, the greatest threat to the US since the Civil War. The US is not like much of the rest of theworld: France has always been France, and England has been England for many centuries, and Russia defined itself during the reign of Ivan the Terrible as Russia in contrast to the Tartars and Europe. Chinese history is, supposedly, the longest continual history of any people in the world, but the US is based on an abstraction--a certain set of ideas that divide up and share out power so that it does not become concentrated in the hands of a single tyrannical entity, either party or person. We are expected to participate as citizens in our government at the local, state, and national level, and our government has been expected, from the beginning, to be a shared enterprise, not an engine of power and wealth for a single oligarchic group. Our government was devised as a set of ideas about how to avoid kings, aristocracies, and tyrannies. If it fails at that, or is manipulated into producing tyranny, then we are no longer living in the US, we are living in a no man’s land, without an actual identity. This set of ideas, political techniques, and beliefs that holds together immigrants from every continent and every culture.

I began considering the possibility that what we see around us might indeed constitute success, as far as the Bushies are concerned, when I read in a post by Karen Kwiatkowski that three witnesses had confirmed that Bush referred to the Constitution as a “just a god damned piece of paper.” Then there was the article in The Guardian in which six American pundits were invited to reflect upon the meaning of the last five years of the Bush administration. Two commentators said interesting things. Howell Raines pointed out that four generations of Bushes and Walkers (since 1850) have shown a willingness to do anything for money and power, but no interest of any kind in the common good. R. Emmett Tyrell implied more than he stated when he maintained that the anger that people like me feel toward Bush is mere psychological projection, expressing “the need of the passing Old Order to have enemies.” What was striking in Tyrell’s section is his assumption that the Old Order (legal elections, citizen soldiers, healthy middle class, commonly agreed upon morality, laws, and regulations, useful beaurocracy) IS passing. He must know something I don’t know, because I had been thinking the country we used to have was still salvageable. In addition to these signs, though, we have several others, among them the fact that Bush and Cheney attempt to communicate only with their base (and remember, in “Farenheit 911”, Bush told a group of wealthy contributors that they WERE his base). Their base is fairly small and getting smaller, but they seem to have no desire, even when campaigning, to enlarge their base. It’s as if they know that the voters don’t matter, and, of course, according to the president of the Diebold Company, the voters don’t matter (see Avi Rubin’s post about voting machine certifcation).

That is an amazingly perceptive essay.

[klook]

45. Brilliant and perceptive piece

Thanks for the link.

[mikehiggins]

5. Well, that is the point, isn't it?

If BushCo were a bungling bunch of nitwits stumbling from one disaster to another, who would give a crap? The problem for us is that they know what they are doing, and we keep making the same mistake.

Let me see if I can spell it out.

They don't give a shit about you, me, the Constitution, God or anything beyond their own selfish agenda. Period.

Would Bush turn down the laurel of dictator if offered it? OF course not. And what difference does it make? He operates like a King anyway.

I think, in terms of what he, and those behind him want, this could not have gone better if they had planned it (as some of our 911 conspiracy theorists beleive they did).

And as long as we ignore that fact that these people are NOT just "playing the game" a little differently than people did in the past, we are always going to be playing "catch-up" and losing. There is a slo-mo coup in operation and this country will likely never be the same again.

Everytime our democratic "leadership" compromises, the Bushoids move the goal line a little more in their favor. And then our "leadership" compromises some more, and the Bushoids...

Succeed.

[Solly Mack]

6. I've said the same thing long ago. From Bush's view, and those of

his cronies and business buddies - He's a mad success. From the view of the people and what's best for America, he's a failure.

How a person "sees" the Bush presidency depends on what their priorities are....on what matters to them.... on their values, morals and ethics.

Bush is accomplishing what he said he would accomplish more or less....it just doesn't happen to be what's in the best interests of America.

[Amonester]

18. Accomplishing what he said he would not do too (2000 debate).

** started over a pack of lies, reigns over with a pack of lies, and is very successful at imposing the thieves agenda using a pack of lies.


Once Opposed, Bush Begins Nation Building
President Once Said He Wouldn't Follow Clinton's Example In Balkans

POSTED: 5:01 p.m. EDT April 16, 2003
UPDATED: 5:06 p.m. EDT April 16, 2003
Email This Story | Print This Story

WASHINGTON -- As a candidate for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that, if elected, he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in "nation building."

No way would he follow President Bill Clinton's foray into nation building in the Balkans, Bush declared. Famous last words.

Now that we have blasted Iraq to save it (does that have a familiar ring?), Bush is in the business of nation building as U.S. military forces struggle to put that broken nation back together. Nation building in Iraq means not only getting the water and electrical supply going and arranging garbage collections.

It also means writing a new constitution and creating a government. In the meantime, U.S. troops are performing basic police functions like directing traffic.

More at:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/2117601/detail.html


And he sure is successful at having nobody (with enough Power) brave enough to even begin to take him accountable for all his crimes (not even for just one of them...). (just watched the slow-motion analysis of the planes that "fired a missile" at the WTC towers, a fraction of a second before "entering" through them, here: no doubts at all; planes were not even AA's commercial flights!)

[Solly Mack]

19. cloak your stealing in patrotism

works every single time

[cybildisobedience]

30. many of us did

All of this comes as no mystery to DUers.
How many noted that democracy took its last breath on Dec. 12, 2000, when the Supreme Court stepped in and handed the presidency to Bush?
There are only two issues we need to tackle to salvage this situation: effectively deal with the corporate-owned and controlled media, and get rid of the electronic voting machines --
Actually, if we HAD a real media, we could raise enough of a stink to raise the public consciousness to force legislators to get rid of the electronic voting machines.

[bobbieinok]

48. control media and elections and you can control everything

it was clear after 2000 that the media and the elections had been taken over by the republicans

actually, the media take-over was finalized in the Clinton bashing that took over 24/7 after 'Monica'

[Vincardog]

7. GW is a TOOL

[leftofthedial]

8. king george had been wildly successful

at weakening the US federal government

at enriching his uberwealthy "base"

at cementing corporate control of every aspect of Murkan life

at eroding basic civil liberties

he has done EXACTLY what the neoconst and the theocons and the corporations wanted him to do when they financed the coup in 2000.

[mikehiggins]

9. And why is it that None Dare Call It Treason? With apologies to

Fred Schwarz and the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade. :)

Yeah, I have been around a long time.

And it is a legitimate question.

[eppur_se_muova]

69. "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none...

dare call it treason."

The old treason is the new policy.

on edit: quote attributed to John Harington (no idea who he was).

[mike_c]

10. and here's another measure of success....

The creation of an American security state. In the eyes of the corporate oligarchy, the ends always justify the means-- that's the ultimate lesson that most successful capitalists learn if they're willing to claw their way to the top-- so STATE ETHICS have never made sense to them. They see civil rights, the Geneva Conventions, and so on simply as impediments to success. The solution is simple-- remove the impediments-- but creating the social atmosphere where that's acceptable is another matter. Thus the need for perpetual war and an obsession with "national security."

[stray cat]

11. I fear for a few special interests it is wildly succesful

It is only a failure to people who have to live with it that actually work for a living.

[NJCher]

15. agreed

The paradigm, or set of assumptions and values, that bushco is a "government" is what a lot of people don't see. Most people here do see it but it always amazes me when the press treats bushco like a government. They're not a government (they only play one on TV). They're highly sophisticated thieves and they are backed by some of the most sophisticated media manipulators ever.

If there would be one message I wish the American public could understand, it's that they are not about governance; they are about plundering. The biggest kitty in the whole world is the U.S. treasury. They just did what thieves have done from time immemorial: they went where the money was.

And yes, their day will be over but so will ours--because they will have given away our jobs, spent us into oblivion, and blackened our reputation to the point that there will be no credibility for us for the foreseeable future.

Is it such a bad thing that the United States has come to such an ignominius end? It's values are entirely wrong for the times in which we live. And its not just China and India who are about to show us the curtain has drawn: it's Mother Nature.




Cher

[stevietheman]

54. Maybe it will become high time to encourage the end

"Is it such a bad thing that the United States has come to such an ignominius end?"

Short of revolution, how can we "canaries in the mineshaft" really deal with a regime gone off the deep end on its near-obvious goal of destroying the republic?

This is a wild thought, but maybe we should actually encourage the end... again, if it appears Bush will drive us over the edge, like with attacking Iran and igniting a major world conflict.

Yes, I said it... if Bush goes too far, it will be time to 1) Openly support the country or countries Bush is unjustifiably attacking; 2) Ask the world to isolate our government and our economy; 3) Withdraw our economic support of the regime by reducing consumption to a bare minimum and not paying any taxes; and 4) Call on mysterious "forces" to depose the regime any way it sees fit. We will declare the empire over with. And of course, we as a people will be taking our chances, but it may be the only way to reclaim peace and our democracy.

Again, this is all only if Bush really takes the country off the deep end.

[Emit]

20. This guy sums it up. Kind of a controlled chaos thing.

Very Machiavellian. Read this book in 2004, and it literally made me sick to my stomach. That's when I joined DU and other groups, and started reading everything I could get my hands on.


Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World (New Society, June 2004), by Richard Heinberg

He starts with some of the same things you point out:

...Of course, incompetence and corruption are hardly the monopoly of the Republican Party. Moreover, I hold out little hope that either the Democrats or the Greens could actually do much at this point to avert the impending collapse of the American Empire. To my mind, however, the crowd currently in charge of US policy is guilty of more than the usual levels of incompetence and corruption. I believe that the neoconservatives now in power are extraordinarily dangerous people by any historical measure. In four short years, Bush, Cheney, and company have managed to do the following:

1. Steal an election...
2. Place criminals and human rights violators in prominent policy-making positions...
3. Facilitate a terrorist attack on the US in order to consolidate political power....
4. Lie to the American people and the world in order to justify the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation...
5. Undermine the system of international law by proclaiming the validity of a policy of pre-emptive attack...
6. Use weapons that kill indiscriminately - i.e., "weapons of mass destruction" - in the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq...
7. Subvert the US Constitution. ..
8. Undermine the US economy through unwise tax cuts and vastly increased government borrowing...

Then he continues to discuss players involved in this (mis)administration:

The Neocons and Machiavelli

The current US leaders' actions are so clearly sabotaging the very system that sustains them that an explanation is in order. What motivates these people? Is it mere thirst for wealth and power? Perhaps we can gain some insight by examining the philosophies they espouse.

...Strauss advocated an essentially Machiavellian approach to governance; he believed that

* a leader must perpetually deceive those being ruled;
* those who lead are accountable to no overarching system of morals, only to the right of the superior to rule the inferior;
* religion is the force that binds society together, and is therefore the tool by which the ruler can manipulate the masses (any religion will do);
* secularism in society is to be suppressed, because it leads to critical thinking and dissent;
* a political system can be stable only if it is united against an external threat, and that if no real threat exists, one should be manufactured.

Drury writes that, "In Strauss's view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations."

~snip~

Machiavelli's books, The Prince and The Discourses, constituted manuals on amassing political power; they have inspired kings and tyrants including Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin. The leader, according to Machiavelli, must pretend to do good even as he is actually doing the opposite. "Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them. . . . Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone, for the vulgar is always taken by appearances. . . ." It is to Machiavelli that we owe the dictum that "the end justifies the means."

~snip~

But what are the ends to which neoconservatives strive? Briefly: in foreign policy, American supremacy; in domestic policy, reactionary "values." We can get a sense of what makes these people tick by reviewing a little recent history.

~snip~

Enter the Religious Right

Strauss's belief that religion is a tool that leaders can use to manipulate the masses naturally leads one to wonder about the history and nature of the collaboration between neoconservatives and the Christian evangelical movement. Clearly, the neocon agenda is not what most people would traditionally have thought of as exemplifying the teachings of Jesus; how, then, has the philosophy of Strauss, Kristol, Podhoretz, and Wolfowitz come to achieve virtual sanctification in the eyes of tens of millions of devout American Christians? To answer this question, we must first examine developments within the more conservative US Christian churches in the past few decades.

Cont'd here:

http://www.museletter.com/archive/144.html

In this essay, he never really comes up with a definitive answer as to why, what is their ultimate goal. I'm looking for the book now, as he might have been more directed in his conclusions--must've leant it out.

As I recall, since his book was about peak oil, he writes all of this in relation to Bush & Co.'s ulitmate goal of general power, geopolitical control, and control of remaining oil reserves. Also, what I was left with was the notion of Bush & Co. playing both sides to continue the chaos that then, in turn, line their pockets (warmongers and warprofiteers), all in effort to gain control of the last remaining drops of oil---but again, some of that that I recall might be from other books and pieces I read back then.

Also, this and other things I read shows this wasn't an overnight deal with Bush & Co.--that this has been in the making for over 30 years, with those elite powers at the top knowing full well what direction they wanted to head, how they could find ways to control the masses (religion being one), and, like a big chess game, making choices that, in the end, justify the means... for them.

[Frustratedlady]

24. Too Close For Comfort....Scary, but

you said:

since his book was about peak oil, he writes all of this in relation to Bush & Co.'s ulitmate goal of general power, geopolitical control, and control of remaining oil reserves.

Wouldn't it be ironic if, when they finally got everything/everybody set in place and had control of the oil fields, they discovered the wells were, for all practical purposes, dried up?

I fear for my grandchildren.

[Emit]

31. Yeah, I passed this book on to my sister a while back

who happens to be a doctor. I thought she would call me and tell me how crazy I was for sending her this book. Instead, she called me and said, okay, if this is really gonna happen, lets plan a rendezvous! She'd bring the medicine and I'd bring the guns and labor! We had a long discussion about how we would plan for living off the land, how to rear our kids for a future that involves a rapid decline of oil, continuous war, dwindling resources, etc.

I think the next few years will be very telling. If this is true -- that Bush & Co. is turning our democratic republic into a totalitarian state in order to position itself to becoming the major geopolitical leader of the world and confiscate its natural resources (including water and oil, among others) -- we're in deep doo doo.

The decline of oil is, in and of itself, a critical problem for countries like ours who are so dependent on it. Couple that with a group of megalomaniacs who bypassed majority rule in our democratic republic and assumed its role as the almighty decision-maker of this problem (and, conveniently, became the profiteers in the process) and one realizes how devastating the results will be for us all. We're just part of the means to their end.

So, this is how Bush & Co. prepares for the decline of oil and the ensuing energy crisis? It speaks to how Machiavellian they are, and, considering that behind Bush stands the rich, powerful elite from, likely, all across the world, it could confirm why they are playing for keeps and keep getting away with it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and remove this tin-foil from around my head. I do believe it is making me nauseous.

[leesa]

46. It's not tin foil. It's happening in real time in front of your face.

[Emit]

47. Yes. Which is why it scares me so. n/t

[Amonester]

25. Machiavelli was wrong on that one:

"and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone"

Well, unless he forgot to specify "everyone who drinks the Kool Aid." However, if he meant to say "everyone who never drank it (and never will) cannot do anything to stop the criminal prince-king (and never will?)", he would then seemed to be quite (frighteningly) correct.

[stevietheman]

53. But the "inferior" *are* the superior!

"those who lead are accountable to no overarching system of morals, only to the right of the superior to rule the inferior"

I'd far more trust the American people in general than the dunce and his cronies now in charge. What right does Bush have to "rule" us? Presidents are not supposed to rule--they are supposed to administer an executive branch.

If Bush thinks he "rules", he is not a president, but rather a king or fascist dictator.

[Imagevision]

21. Bush wildly succesful at lying denying with no checks & balances

applying to his corrupt administration -- I just don't get that part -- there seems to be so much proof of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice contradicting themselves with serious issues and they continue to simply "skate" free and avoid the real issues! > damn! these guys are good, how can they continue to pull this malarky off??!!...

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Extremely well written and well thought out. The only thing to ask is

where is Bush's Achille's heel?

I suggest that his Achille's "hell" will be the civil unrest that will develop from the sustained stolen elections that he must maintain to keep his cronies in power. Also, it will become a problem for them when it becomes clear to the man on the street that those people that work in the military-industrial complex accept this chaos, and the American casualties, because they're reaping the windfall.

By the way, my husband's family already believes that this chaos is justified because they're benefitting from it. Until the draft begins, and they begin to lose their children against their will, they will continue to support this crazy strategy.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

27. The answer to your question is your own screen name

The backlash will be forthcoming. It always has. They always just go a little too far, push too much, take too much. The dismantlement of the American Middle class is their Achilles heel. High energy prices, high costs of healthcare, cost of credit, property taxes - it will be the pocketbook issues that take down the regime. As it always is.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. My brother in law said the same.

He said, "You'll see, there won't be even one new Republican voted into office. They'll lose all their elections because things are cyclical." He thinks this chaotic time is acceptable because the Republicans are looting their money back.

But that's kind of scary thinking because I don't know many people who have done better in the last 5 years, than they did in the 5 before.

[progressoid]

26. Yep, from a PNAC point of view, he's doing quite well.

Rank and file repubes will continue to support him because of terra or gay marriage or some other bullshit. They have no idea the checks they wrote to the GOP go directly into making the MIC stronger and screwing them.

[autorank]

28. You're right. We're occupied by alien ideals/leaders. They will fail.

Enter Mr. Hugh Bris. In order to pull this off, you need to be really subtle and do it over time as the corporate class in this country has done. If you make too much noise or get to greedy to quickly, you call attention to the horror. Look at all we know and the low * ratings, very low, with virtually no MSM follow up on any major story they break and tons of stories that have not been broken (eco-catastrophes a go go plus election fraud--end of the world, end of democracy).

They did succeed. The question is will the push back come in time to stop them. Their core constituency is now the 25% fundamentalist supporters of * (there are some who oppose him) who will walk over a cliff with him wrongfully believing he's one of them and the 10% stalwart Republicans (like I am a Democrat--thought Clinton had "no sex" until DNA arrived, but is was a set up).

The 10% stalwarts will fade and all they'll have are the believers in Bush. We need a good personal scandal about Bush to take away those folks. They'll not come back for a generation if that happens.

GREAT POST. Very thought provoking.

[Lisa]

32. in other words -- no matter how things turn out, they profit ...

If Iraq manages to form a stable government, they will take credit for it.
If it falls apart, they will continue to squeeze large amounts out of the US budget in order to prop things up, since most legislators will figure that the US is in too far now to back out. And this also goes for Bush's supporters in the US military -- and the segment of the population which sees itself as pro-military, to the exclusion of all others. (There are still people who feel that US should have put more money and troops into Vietnam, and blame the "extreme left" for being wimps or outright "helping the enemy").

If there isn't another terrorist attack inside the US this year, they will take credit for it. (And use this to emphasize how civil liberties need to be suppressed, since "it clearly works".)
If there is another attack, they will immediately call for more restrictions, and blame the "liberals" for endangering their fellow citizens.

Mike, you make an excellent point. Much as it pains me to say it, being able to wring some kind of advantage out of ANYTHING that happens is quite a useful survival trait. It's even documented in the evolutionary sense (ecologists study "opportunistic" organisms quite a bit, since those are the species which are likely to survive competition, disasters, and massive environmental changes).

Through being ruthless and cynical, this group manages to spin things to their advantage no matter what. (The only thing I'm surprised at is that they didn't use the Katrina disaster against their critics, quite as much as I thought they might ... for example, trying to haul Clinton's FEMA director James Lee Witt into court on trumped-up charges.) Shame, compassion, and all the "normal" restraints don't apply to them. They will drive the rest of us into the ground, for their own short-term profit. (Doubly dangerous when they've hooked up with the end-of-the-world nutcases, because it could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

I'd heard of the expression "apres moi le deluge" -- but I'd never thought I'd see such a clear example of that kind of thinking.

[Emit]

33. Thanks for this--it's important stuff. Now, Part II should include

How they will plan to maintain their power and prevent the backlash from, for example as post # 27 points out, the American middle class.

The stealing of elections, due process of law, torture, spying, reauthorization of the Patriot Act that criminalizes dissent--- All of these things, and more, will be used against us by them to prevent dissent and maintain their power. That's what makes this all so scary. They really are playing for keeps.

[file83]

34. Call it what it is: The New World Order

[Raydawg1234]

35. Yeah for his cronies, but not for me, and most other people.

[wiggs]

36. Even if disgraced, impeached, and jailed...

....Bush/Cheney will be heroes in boardrooms all over the world for decades. Adding to the argument is the strategy to stock regulatory agencies with industry professionals and lobbyists to preside over a giveway of national resources and treasures to corporate interests.

[glitch]

64. Sure, until we pull their charters. Then they'll have to create alters in

their closets. :evilgrin:

IOW: who cares if he's a hero to the marginalized freaks? And they will be marginalized, because their greed is inhuman.
And inhuman is frowned upon by humans, eventually, if history is any guide.

[Pachamama]

71. And you can be sure that they are already "grooming" the successors to

con-tinue the pillaging...assuming anything is left....

[SmokingJacket]

37. Of course! It's a failure to us, but the rich guys are ever richer...

which makes me tremble in fear for the future.

[MadisonProgressive]

39. It's no coincidense....

The BFEE are wildly succsessful at being murderous, lying, stealing, war criminals.

And their supporters celebrate wildly too!!

[teach1st]

40. This is one of the more instructive threads I've read at DU

And now for the million dollar question. What do we do about it?

[mike_c]

43. this is where my inate cynicism kicks in...

...because I don't think there's anything we CAN do unless we're prepared for a general strike and insurrection to replace the entire government with folks dedicated to rooting out the criminals and putting them in jail. Something along the line of the replacement of government we saw in places like South Africa or the Soviet Union. What we're seeing today is not new-- it's the culmination of 50 years of work. What's new with the Bush administration is the utter lack of subtlety-- these folks are full on robber barons and they make no attempt to hide it. Nonetheless, the system was already there for them to exploit-- the MIC, the World Bank and the IMF, the close ties to the House of Saud, the easily led Congress, the warped judiciary, and so on. Getting rid of the Bush administration would only be the first step toward fixing this-- indeed if the Bush administration falls, it would have very little real effect on this except to change some of the players.

I'm afraid that deep, fundamental change needs to come to American politics, and I just don't see where it can come from, or the will to make those kinds of changes on the part of Americans.

[AntiFascist]

41. You're right, the Bush admin has been wildly successful....

for a small group of people. The problem is they now feel threatened. Rightly so!

[peanutbrittle]

42. If this happens..I will never forgive

the one's who voted for Bush and the BFEE. Only the one's who repent of their evil sin's I MIGHT forgive.

Ooops...sounds like GOD talking

[IronLionZion]

44. He has failed America

but is wildly successful for the corporate fascists and other lunatics he really represents. He has done very well for "his constituency".

Look, if Bush is so intelligent then why did he fail in every thing he's ever done in his life? He's failed in school, in business, in governing Texas, and all of a sudden he's succeeded in lining the pockets of his corporate whoremasters? Liberal please... :eyes:

He is being controlled and those controllers are very very good at helping their corporate masters. They are not so good at hiding that fact. But guess what? They don't give a shit. The same bastards involved in the criminally corrupt Nixon and Reagan administrations are running our government today. The Bush white house has many Iran-Contra criminals. You think they give a shit if everybody knows the hell they have wrought upon this world? They sold arms to friggin Iran! They got lunatics to keep Americans hostage until Reagan's inauguration day! Now they are killing people in Iraq and giving our tax dollars to the MIC. You think the average joe gives a shit about any of that?

[Hamlette]

50. the conflict I have is over Iraq, if (big if) it turns into a peaceful

democracy and democracy spread thoughout the middle east (in his dreams) we'll be praying to Bush and his party for many years to come.

Don't get me wrong. As much as I am/was against this war, I don't want to inflict additional suffering on the Iraqi people. I honestly hope it turns out well. Horrid conflict for me.

[mike_c]

52. I believe there is exactly ZERO likelihood of that happening....

eom

[Hamlette]

63. I actually agree it is a fantasy, but more's the pity n/t

[Binka]

56. You Can End Your Conflict Ham It Is NEVER Gonna Happen

The spreading democracy meme is a fucking LIE. I have lived in the ME and there is not one country where a "democracy" would hold. NOT ONE! This is a nightmare unfolding and it will never be anything but a fucking unmitigated disaster. This is GENOCIDE. MASS MASS MASS MURDER. Make book on that.

[Karenina]

58. Good to see ya, Binks!!!

How are your babes doing? :hug::loveya::hug:

I CANNOT understand how anyone can even IMAGINE that some "good" will come from the atrocity of American involvement in Iraq. It IS GENICIDE.
It is MASS MASS MASS MURDER. It is POISONING THE PLANET.

[Binka]

61. Hey Honey

Ben is getting ready to fly to CA tomorrow. He is very conflicted but he is healthy in body and I'll work on the mind thing with him. Peyton and I got SPOILED ROTTEN at Xmas. I'll be calling Callie in Madison in an hour or so, I am sure she needs $$$$$....AGAIN!

Peyton and I Xmas 2005 With Ben Under The Tree :loveya:

[Karenina]

70. Thanks so much for posting the pic!

It's SO GOOD to see you!!!

[mike_c]

51. yet another measure of success-- the dollar is still the monopoly currency

...of petroleum exchange, and U.S. control of Middle Eastern politics will help to keep it that way. However, it looks as though Iran might be the next oil exporter to shake that boat. But I'll bet that if any "compromise solution" is arrived at with Iran, it will involve retaining the dollar's monopoly on petroleum payments.

[Pacifist Patriot]

62. Granted. What the heck do we do to stop it?

[glitch]

65. I got to K & R! Yay for one of the best threads ever.

Very happy that so many people get that it's about the looting.

[centristo]

66. Bush has been a "catastrophic success" eom

[Beetwasher]

67. Yup, You've Got It! I've Been Saying this for Some Time Now

Though I will say that this type of success is inherently VERY unstable. Unfortunately for most of us (and the world), that means lot's and lot's of pain, suffering and death in the relatively near future.

I also think there may be another factor involved in this mad grab (as it were) for as much as they can get, as quickly as they can get it. They know the oil is running out, the planet is warming and catastrophe, both natural and man made is approaching very quickly, so the ruling class is grabbing what it can and preparing to hole up in their fortified bunkers w/ as much resources and protection as they can muster before it all comes crashing down on the rest of us.