In my last post, I said that the Democrats and Republicans are playing out the role of good cop / bad cop, like in the movies. I'll give more examples of this.
The Democrats aren't reigning Bush in.Pelosi and the Dems were elected into Congress, ostensibly to reign Bush in and de-fund the war in Iraq. It's been a year, and the war is still funded.
Here's an Executive Order that Bush did. Not a peep from Congress.
Government can freeze assets of anyone "blocking efforts" in Iraq:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
Try googling it: Bush "July 17" EO
No mention at all in the mass media. Suspicious? It's only discussed on non-corporate news websites.
And what about the recent expansion of Bush's spying powers?http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08042007.html
"The Democrats in this Congress are a bunch of spineless cowards and willing enablers, and they now bear the chief responsibility for establishing the elements of an American police state."And here's the grand-daddy. Try googling it: NSPD-51. Here are sample links:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1837936/posts
Again not a peep from the corporate media, nor the Dems.
The 2 Parties are One and the Same
Indeed, Carroll Quigley in his book "Tragedy and Hope", said, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Quotes
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. {p. 1247}"Who is Carroll Quigley and what is his book about? He was a historian and professor at Georgetown University, and his book was a history of western civilization and the influence of the globe's ultra wealthy families and their organizations. Quigley proudly proclaimed he was a member of one of their organizations, and his only criticism was that they need not remain secret. In this book, Quigley expressed contempt for the middle class, that they should be "squeezed" with more taxes, regulation, debt, and government that appears to be solving problems, but actually does not.
http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X
Bill Clinton was a War Monger and an Elitist
Bill Clinton, a Rhodes scholar at Georgetown, was a protege of Carroll Quigley. Clinton thanked Quigley by name in an acceptance speech. Was he thanking a kindly old professor? No, he mentioned the name of an elitist pig. Maybe to announce to those in the know, that he was part of the "in" group.
Here's an article about the 2-party sham, Bill Clinton, and Quigley, from 1998:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14629
"For those who still cling to the hope that there is a real difference between the two major U.S. political parties.." ".. the ordinary individual..may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups .. his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives" .. "he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits."
If you think Clinton was a great, peaceful president, unlike today's Republicans (neo-conservatives), well:
- Between WW2 and Clinton's administration, the US Military was dispatched overseas 4 times. During Bill Clinton's 2 terms, 44 times: http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-23-99.html
- Bill Clinton passed the "Iraqi Liberation Act" in 1998, saying, "we don't like Saddam and we should throw him out and replace him". This was the PRECURSOR of the Iraq invasion: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
Why Clinton would sign such a thing? Why didn't they vote against the invasion? Why didn't they de-fund the war?
Democratic Presidential Candidates willing to "negotiate" with Iran?
Regarding Iran, some Democratic presidential candidates claim to be "moderate", saying "I am willing to negotiate with Iran". Negotiate? What's there to negotiate?
Why does there need to be any war, "last resort" or not? Iran are NO threat to us. Why does Iran hate the USA? Because in the 1953, the CIA and British Intelligence coordinated a coup against their popular, democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadegh, and replaced with the Shah and his brutal secret police: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Why did the CIA and British overthrow Mossadegh? Because Mossadegh wanted British Petroleum, which owned the oil concessions in Iran, to give more of its profits to the Iranian people. The British convinced the powers that be in the US Government to let the CIA do most of the dirty work. The result was the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, and the Iranian US embassy hostage crisis, and their continuing hatred of the US.
The real reason for beating up on Iran?
Maybe the real issue is oil. Or the fact that Iran wants to sell oil for Euros and Yen instead of US Dollars. Before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had announced the exact same thing. Coincidence?
Saddam to accept Euros and Yen
Or maybe it was the neocon's plan all along. The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) , in their document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" , declared that "Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."
1 minute youtube video
He recounted the list of countries the neocons wanted to invade: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, and Sudan.
The Two Faces of the Same Evil
How many times have you heard people say that they will "vote for the lesser of two evils"? Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island , has said, "They are two faces of the same evil!"
Good cop or bad cop? They're both bad!
1 comment:
well said.
Post a Comment