YES WE DID–WHAT?
YES WE DID–WHAT?
by Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Introduction
* What do these three have in common besides all three being two-term presidents of the U.S.?
* Why is it that the Bushes have now “adopted” Bill Clinton with his other “adopted brother” [Prince] “Bandar Bush” of the Saudi Royal Family?
* Why is it that presidents once leaving office do not criticize those who have taken over and vice-versa those in office typically do not criticize predecessors?
* Why is it that they all promise, when running for office, accountability for the alleged sins and crimes of the previous administrations and yet wind up spouting the usual cliche“We have to look and move forward and cannot afford to dwell on the past…”?
* Why is it that the names Bush and Cheney were not even mentioned, let alone given tributes, at the last Republican presidential and vice-presidential convention in 2012?
* Why is it that Obama launched more drone strikes in one year than Bush in 8 years?
* Why is it that none of the three has expressed even one reservation about the simplefacts related to 9-11?
a) that after the unprecedented carnage of 9-11, instead of two years of serial obstruction by the Bush Administration and the subsequent fraud of the findings and methods, scopes and angles of the underfunded official 9-11 Commission, national security demanded, and still has not been delivered, an immediate, full, no-fear-or-favor, fully-funded, rigorous and complete, properly staffed and supported, no-holds-barred, investigation and recommendations on 9-11 and all its potential causes and effects and implications and with criminal prosecutions of anyone obstructing or committing perjury.
b) Even when a small aircraft crashes there is a full investigation into the causes as lives may be saved in the future from the findings; yet with 9-11 investigations were obstructed, evidence and crime scenes destroyed, whistle-blowers retaliated against and not one person fired, jailed or held accountable in any way for the myriad fuck-ups and worse that took place just prior to, during and following 9-11.
* Why do all these presidents wind up as supporters of the national security state and a Unitary or Dominant Executive Branch”?
The “Logic” of the Political Economy of Capitalism: A System that more and more delivers not even the “Lesser of Evils but more and more the Evil of Lessers”
SOME COMMON DENOMINATORS:
Illicit Drug Use and/versus “Born Again” Criminalizing of all Drugs:
First of all, as the meme embodied in the parody picture suggests, all three presidents have in common that they explicitly and/or implicitly admitted to engaging in, but never getting caught or being made accountable for, illicit drug use to include not only marijuana in all three cases but also cocaine (what Obama “hipply” refers to as “blow” to this day) in the case of Obama and implicitly in the case of Bush. All three of them in other words, could not pass even a Secret-level security clearance check under the same conditions, criteria, protocols and parameters of those given to and required of all their cabinet officers or required of someone applying to say FBI, DEA, NSA, DIA or CIA (all of whose most guarded secrets they had access to).
Yet all three held the codes and authority to launch a nuclear war. And the only difference between them and each of the some 500,000-plus prisoners, about 25% of all in Federal and State prisons and jails for simple possession and use of illicit drugs, no charges of trafficking, no violence, is that they did not get caught. And all three made public pronouncements against drug use, increased expenditures on covert and overt anti-drug operations, and in the case of Bush, asked for tougher penalties on use of cocaine. And two of the three of them are lawyers who, had they been caught and prosecuted for illicit drug use, would have been barred from Bar membership and law school.
Clinton says he tried marijuana “but did not inhale” and of course did it outside of the U.S. (in Britain where it was also illegal there). Bush says in response to the question “Did you ever use illegal drugs?” answered “I don’t want to say yes, and I don’t want to say no, let’s just say I had a wild youth (up to age 41 and while on flight status with the Texas Air Guard; note he and his buddy James R. Bath, then also a principal representative of the bin Laden family in Houston and also a Texas Air Guard pilot, BOTH took themselves off flight status to avoid a flight physical that had been ordered–Bush said his own private doctor, not a flight surgeon was not available; Bath gave no reason for his refusal to stay on flight status):
James R. Bath is a long-time friend of US President George Walker Bush. He served in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s along with Bush. It was this that brought him to widespread public attention, when the White House released Bush’s military service records in March 2004.
A document dated Sept. 29, 1972 records that 1st Lt. George W. Bush was suspended from flying because of his “failure to accomplish [his] annual medical examination.” Bath was also suspended one month later, and this is recorded immediately below the information about Bush. But for some reason, the White House redacted Bath’s name. This caused a lot of speculation, because they did not redact any other names in the documents they released.
Unfortunately for the White House, the same document had previously been released under the Freedom of Information Act to researcher Marty Heldt. On that occasion, Bath’s name was not redacted.
Speculation about the redaction of Bath’s name has focused on Bush’s alleged drug use during his service in the National Guard, and Bath’s role as a go-between for the Bush and bin-Laden families.
In the case of Obama, his drug use was exposed by himself in his book Dreams From My Father”. In his biography of Obama, David Remnick notes that when Obama applied for the position of Community Organizer in Chicago, passing up several lucrative offers in private-practice, he told them he wanted only to work part-time because it was imperative that he finish his book; they told him full-time or nothing. So according to Remnick, and this was right before he decided to get into politics, and the Community Organizer position was clearly a stepping stone and entre into Chicago and Illinois politics, he carried around his laptop with his book on it everywhere he went. And in the book he tells his story of lack of identity and rootedness due to lack of a father and absent mother, and took to heavy use of marijuana and “blow” but is not so candid where and when and up to what age.
But once he got the story out and on his terms, no one from the MSM dared to ask himwhere he would be if, like the other 500,000-plus or so people in jail or prison, and with felony convictions, for simple possession and use of illicit drugs, he had been caught–especially using cocaine. It is clear from the timing and urgency of completing his book that he intended to get the story out (as there are plenty of potential witnesses to his “youthful indiscretions) still alive, under his own terms and timing and control the story to inoculate himself in future political contests.
So what kind of political system and supporting Mainstream Media delivers presidential candidates and presidents that could not pass the same security checks required of all their trusted (with state secrets) subordinates under the same conditions and metrics? Imagine anyone in say CIA when asked the drug question given to Bush, who was running for the presidency that involves access to the codes and authority to launch nuclear war as several presidents almost exercised, “I don’t want to say yes, I don’t want to say no, let’s just say I had a wild youth (up to 41 years of age and while on flight status with the “Champagne Squadron” of the Texas Air Guard)” How would that fly?
Preppy Backgrounds, Connections and Bloodlines
All three of these presidents went to preppy ivy-league schools like Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and in the case of Bush and Obama to elite prep schools, all of which were founded by descendants of the original Puritan White Supremacists, passing-on their Calvinism, Anglo-Saxon-Nordic “Aryan” Supremacy and occultism of the European secret societies, and actively promoting “Eugenics” concepts and policies and laws that later inspired the Nazis according to their own documents and speeches.
Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Columbia all were centers for the “intellectuals” of the Anglo-American Eugenics Movement that inspired Sterilization Laws in 27 U.S. state, Canada and the Commonwealth and later the Nazis.
And all three went to universities that are the traditional breeding grounds for CIA, State, Defense, the presidency, and higher levels of the military: Yale, Princeton, Georgetown, Harvard. All three were marginal students during high school and early college years. All were “movers-and-shakers” at their respective schools, networkers and with powerful mentors Senator Fulbright (Clinton); Zbigniew Brzezinski (Obama) and Skull and Bones register (Bush).
In the case of Clinton, he took a class with Caroll Quigley at Georgetown and not only was very familiar with Quigley’s famous “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Times” about the rise and fall of “civilizations” (but Quigley was not sure if America qualified as an “Empire”–and thus at a stage of a cycle of Empires leading to decay and dissolution). Quigley’s specialty was not only about historical cycles of Empires, but about the institutions, networks, secret societies, blood relations, intrigue, masks, covers, and machinations of what he himself called “The Anglo-American Establishment” of which he himself was a part at the middle but not inner ring level.
COVERT AND UNACCOUNTABLE ORGANS OF GLOBAL “GOVERNANCE AND POLICY”
These three, Bush, Clinton and yes Obama (on his mother’s side) are also connected through gene pools where in the corridors, networks and inner circles of power they count:
But there is so much more that unites these three.
Serial Contempt for the U.S. Constitution and Their Oaths to It
All three have serially breached the oath they all took to support, protect and defend theConstitution and Laws of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. All three have planned, executed and helped to cover-up both covert and overt Acts of War by the United States against sovereign nations that did not attack the U.S., did not represent any kind of direct or immanent threat to the U.S., causing significant losses of life among unarmed non-combatants, and all without even going to Congress or to the U.N. Security Council as required by the U.S. Constitution and the UN Charter a binding treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory.
The central feature of the U.S. Constitution, its foundation, is a supposed system of checks-and-balances between the three co-equal branches of government. Why MUST they be co-equal as a matter of logic and law? Simply because the framers of the U.S. Constitution understood very well that a system of supposed “checks-and-balances” between unequals results only in the more powerful doing all the “checking-and-balancing” against the others while being “checked-and-balanced” by and with the others only in the most superficial ways and at the most powerful’s discretion and whims–mostly for posturing.
But because the branches of government are supposed to be overall “co-equal“, as each exercises “Supreme authority” within its Constitutionally-specified jurisdiction, it does not mean that all the specific checks-and-balances on particular issues are equal. Because of the very nature, logic, possible carnage and spillover effects of war on other nations, even those not in any way parties to the war, the framers of the U.S. Constitution almost all warned against foreign wars and entanglements in them and set up extra checks and balances against easily going to war. They also understood early about imperial and colonial “overreach” and protracted “irregular warfare” against superior forces and technologies, as they were able to progressively bleed the treasury and excite the madness of King George III.
They understood that going to war was very serious business even in the days when there were no WMDs except their smallpox blankets consciously traded or passed on to Indians.
Under the U.S. Constitution only Congress can declare and fund war (two checks and balances against the types of megalomaniacs and narcissists that have occupied the presidency of the U.S. and their “Wag-the-Dog” machinations over the course of American history) and then and only then does the president as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces have the direct and superior authority (check-and-balance) to plan and execute the war fighting and without Congress trying to micro-manage the war.
In case of exigent circumstances and an attack like Pearl Harbor, the president is authorized to execute executive authority to respond and defend; but there is a time limit after which the president is supposed to go to Congress with a rationale for war, the supporting evidence and methodology for gathering and interpreting the evidence for War. FDR went to Congress the next day, on December 8, 1941 for a formal declaration of war against the Axis Powers.
And now under the UN Charter to which the U.S. is a signatory, again because of the multinational nature and possible consequences of acts of war between nations, the case is supposed to be made at the U.S. Security Council where yes, other nations, with differing views have veto powers; the same kind the U.S. exercised over many resolutions.
But Congress at any time can seek to cut off, and has done so in the past, the funding to force and end to an ill-conceived war or one in which the calculus of cost-benefit has changed against the U.S. And absent exigent circumstances, and immediately after them if they occur like Pearl Harbor, the president is supposed to go to Congress to make the case and participate in the debate on a resolution for a Declaration of War.This does not mean supposed “War Powers” as some kind of blank and unspecified check written with their mouths during MSM interviews, to be cashed with the blood and treasure of many innocents at home and abroad.
In other words, going to war was intended to be difficult to achieve and continue without serious cause and direct and imminent threats, and substantive proof of same to avoid committing U.S. blood and treasure under self-serving pretexts of various presidents and their political parties as has happened some many times in U.S. history. Only five times in U.S. history has war been formally declared (182, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, WWI and WWII) while thousands of overt and covert acts of war have been launched against other sovereign nations, most without even some kind of “War Powers” acts or resolutions in Congress and certainly without any debate or input from the public.
“As the executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”
– James Madison
Just as no one takes reprisals against whistle-blowers without pretexts and facades for the real reasons and reprisal nature of actions against whistle-blowers, so it is that even in the most barbaric times, groups, tribes, nations and individuals have dressed-up naked aggression as justified self-defense, some kind of divinely-ordered and preordained manifest destiny, social prophylaxis, or just “Making the World Safe for Democracy” a la Woodrow Wilson.
They have all honored Lincoln and Eisenhower but never once quoted their warnings against Exceptionalism, National Narcissism, Exclusivism, Preemption, Unilateralism and other such summarily-proclaimed “Doctrines” that show contempt for international law and obligations of all nations in a global community that can be threatening in toto by the reckless actions of a few superpowers.
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion… and you allow him to make war at pleasure… If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,–’I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’ (Letter 1848, see Abraham Lincoln: a Documentary Portrait Through His Speeches and Writings. Don E. Farenbacher, editor. 1996. Stanford University Press, Stanford.)
Dwight D. Eisenhower:
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. (Presidential news conference, 11 August 1954)
They have all ordered drone strikes and thus acted as summary judges, juries and executioners with no trial or due process and knowing that “collateral damage” will occur with innocents predictably and likely killed (the definition of terrorism: violence intended or highly likely against non-combatants and without means of defense). They all three ordered extraordinary renditions and “Kill of Capture” raids against suspected terrorists with a clear preference for “Kill” rather than “Capture” (preferred my intelligence professionals and real military) because the persons targeted had CIA pedigree and were they taken alive and given a trial who knows what would have come out.
All three of them used 9-11 as a pretext, along with others, to roll-back even the most token and superficial “checks-and-balances” against and within the NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI, and other elements of the National Security State and specifically against American citizens. All three upheld and expanded the “Patriot Act” and rushed through changes at times and with time-limits to vote so that few if any had read the legislation they were voting on.
Smug Entitlement, Malignant Narcissism, Megalomania, Grandiosity, Deception
Plato once posited as an “axiom” a priori as well as based on evidence from all of human history, that “Those who seek power, are invariably the least fit to hold and to wield it.” Did Plato mean anyone with power? No he meant those who seek power over others.
Those who self-define and self-anoint themselves as “leaders” or “managers” by their choices of majors in college, or through pursuit of “leadership” and “management” positions via various means, show something about themselves. First of all, they presume that some one is “credentialed” as a “leader” or “manager” on the basis of some resume or piece of paper, to be parachuted “down” to lead and manage those who had no say or gave no mandate of trust, to those parachuted “down” on them from the etherial “heights” of society. There is a clear notion held by all three of having been somehow pre-destined or pre-ordained for “greatness” and to become two-term presidents of the U.S.
What do Real Leaders and Managers versus The Faux Ones Do?
Real leaders are not braggarts and do not go around calling themselves leaders as they know only those being led really know and certify who the real leaders are by their willingness to sacrifice and risk their lives or not. Real leaders just quietly do what real leaders do which includes listening very carefully to, and respecting the wisdom, knowledge, experience, commitment of the lives and welfare of their families and vested rights and risks assumed by those being led. For those who have been in the military and in the bush where rank is not worn and displayed, one can tell the real leaders by what they do, how they act and comport themselves and how those they are leading relate to them. And with most of the real leaders, unlike what is common in Western military, business, politics, education and other spheres, is that the real leaders and managers can do well, and show by tangible example, any of the jobs they are supervising.
Real leaders are not braggarts; further, they have a real and in-depth, not patronizing and manipulative, appreciation and respect for each and every member of a unit and the vital role that each plays in the overall performance of the unit and to the causes and missions of that unit. Real leaders do not seek the limelight if for no other reason than to be in a position to work quietly and methodically; when real leaders are thrust into the limelight, they use the precious opportunity to advance the Cause and to bring attention to the critical issues of the times and not to engage in theatrics, narcissism, game playing with words, obfuscation, lies, half-truths serving as lies, posturing and all the other manifestations of pathological egos that are so evident and on display in all three branches of government.
Real leaders have a sense of tactics and strategy and when to speak and when not to speak. Real leaders understand that the real “Coins of the Realm” in any society are trust and respect and they also understand that neither can be commanded but must be earned, and not easily, as they are easily lost and never fully regained with betrayal.
Real leaders do not engage in cover-ups as they understand that cover-ups leave intact and worse, the conditions and issues in need of immediate assessment and action (like an aspirin for a brain tumor or skin cream on a syphilitic rash) in addition to revealing consciousness of guilt, obstruction of justice and contempt for all those harmed. Real leaders do not engage in cronyism, nepotism, favoritism or succumb to being blackmailed or in a position to be blackmailed, as they put the Cause first always; they understand that if the wrong person is put into a position for which he or she is unqualified and unvetted for qualifications in free, fair and open competition, that not only are there direct costs from the actions of the wrong person in the position, but there are the opportunity costs of all the good that could have been done and wasn’t because the wrong person was put into a position.
And finally, to quote that great American philosopher and genius “Dirty Harry”: “Man’s got to know his limitations”. In many languages there is the same aphorism as in the Chinese “Jing Di Zhi Wa” or “For the little frog in the well the well is the whole world, or another translation, “For the little frog in the well, the sky is as big as the mouth of the well.” Real leaders are like the little frog that has crawled enough out of the well to see that the sky is a lot lot bigger than the mouth of the well. Real leaders are more in awe of what they do not know and perhaps can never know, what they need to know to reduce risk and uncertainty and achieve success in their mission, than being impressed with what they think they know. Real leaders understand that there are many forms of “intelligence”, “creativity”, “critical thinking” manifested and demonstrated at all levels and stations of a division of labor or unit and that each person has tangible skills and knowledge that others do not have including the leaders and managers. And when real leaders have to command rather than persuade, as under exigent circumstances, they have the trust and respect from those being led, and who gave their own consent to be led in democratic ways, who trust and have a reason to trust, that the reasons and evidence for a particular course of action justify it and that all possible alternatives were fully considered.
What Have These Three Really Done Outside of Politics, Networking and Speeches?
What can any of these three really DO? What tangible skills do they really possess? Could they pass some of the tests on politics, law, geography, history, mathematics, English language, economics that high-school grades are given or even at the undergraduate level in the disciplines in which they have degrees? How much law have Clinton or Obama actually practiced? How many businesses did Bush even run into the ground let alone really run? And what about even the notion of a community organizer parachuting “down” on a community without having lived there and without any mandate from those living there; is this not pure arrogance, contempt for the community and lack of understanding of what real leadership and organizing are about?
What real jobs, over any real duration, have all three of them never really held and done something of substance in? None held any real private-sector jobs for any duration or with any intent of possibly remaining at the jobs they occupied for short periods of time. All three of them had powerful patrons and “mentors” who groomed them and got them connections and access to all sorts of institutions of power and prestige that they would have had no chance of attaining without their patrons and mentors. They all spent most of their “climb” to the presidency in jobs that were more title than substance. Bush was a failure in Business, Obama once worked as a “consultant” to a business with known CIA connections,
How many courses and with what real preparation did Obama teach Constitutional Law as an Adjunct Instructor (not professor) and how was he hired to teach at University of Chicago with no prior teaching experience or publications in the area of Constitutional Law? Why do they need teleprompters and theatrics to talk to groups of people; why can they not just talk straight and without the speech writers? Why do they control access to themselves and punish, with denial of access, any journalists that dare ask problematic questions?
Imagine, out of a total of 2700 that have ever been members since 1832, this Cult turns out two members running against each other in the same election for president
What kind of person self-asserts, self-promotes, and self-anoints/credentials himself or herself to be “exceptional” and “the best among any possible available candidates” (with no operational definitions or metrics of “best”)?
What kind of person, as all three have admitted, engages in single-minded planning and plotting over many years, seeing various political and private-sector positions along the way as mere “stepping stones” or boxes to be checked off, to be occupied for minimum necessary time, in pursuit of the presidency of the U.S.?
What kind of person would compromise the power, and political capital to do good, image of the presidency, during times of global crisis? a) as Clinton did with Monica (who he basically used as a sperm receptacle and dumped her when no longer useful andthe Israeli Mossad was on to them); or b) as Bush did with his pretexts for wars, plural, based on lies, phony intelligence, incompetent war planning and executions; as c) Obama has done with phony yet deadly “surges” in Afghanistan and Iraq, cover-ups of real civilian casualties, all designed only to give American troops and the U.S. Government “save-face” exits from two more lost wars they once said would be “cake-walks”. Indeedtwo-thirds of the combat deaths in Afghanistan have occurred since Obama’s surge in Afghanistan modeled after the phony surge by now-disgraced Petraeus in Iraq.
Politics, Business, Education, Media, Religion and Entertainment Are All “Target-rich” Environments of an for Psychopaths and Sociopaths
What kind of person is impervious to the suffering of innocents that are not American? What kind of person uses the term “collateral damage” in reference to thousands of innocents killed by drone strikes, so-called “smart bombs”. “cluster bombs”, phosphorous bombs, and other instruments of war and death?
What kind of person sees other human beings as objects and commodities, assessing their capabilities and none of their humanity in narrow selfish and narcissistic terms like “What can this schmuck do for ME and What do I have to do to get it?”
What kind of person cannot just talk straight without a teleprompter or speeches written by ghost-writers? What kind of person needs and submits to media handlers, cosmeticians, $500 haircuts, speech writers, image consultants and the like?
Rhetorical Tricks, Theatrics, Certitude, Gesturing, Posturing, Posing and Crowd Handling
In all these areas Bush, Clinton and Obama appear adept. All share the notion that a good speech, written by someone else but delivered with aid of teleprompter by the candidate, is some kind of credential to run for the presidency and actually handle the job. But these are all the skills of a psychopath and con as well. Take a good look at Clinton’s famous speech “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky…” Remember that? Remember the crooked wagging finger? Remember the absolute certitude shaking and pointing his finger? And all the while, his own cabinet stood by him, along with Hillary, not knowing, or better believing him capable of going on TV and looking directly into the camera and flat-out lying. No one who was as allegedly as bright as Clinton could possibly be that reckless and arrogant to tell a flat-out lie so publicly and for history. But…
In both cases of lies, notice the certitude in his eyes, gestures and voice? Hitler too studied people carefully, and practiced and photographed various gestures of power, feigned sincerity, compassion, humility, concern and the like. All psychopaths are cons and to work a con it takes study of human behavior and emotions and how they are expressed. Most people cannot lie easily without a “tell” or even several. So when someone comes along with numbers, absolute certainty they and the methodologies that yielded were correct, the person appears sincere, forceful, urgent, even with endorsements of some big names, well how could or would he possibly risk it all by lying? I would or could not risk so much on a lie”.
Notice their gestures, eyes, body language, tone of voice and tone changes, and notice how they summarily dismiss anyone who questions them. In interviews, usually with those in the media they know from experience will not cross certain lines into known taboos, they carefully pick their turfs they know something about so they can showcase some “talking points” but they shy away from any kind of free-flow and extemporaneous discussions on a wide range of topics where their ignorance, that we all have on different subjects will not shine.
Chasing the History Books and Attempting to Control Future Narratives
Those who seek power do so not only for the reasons and traits of a typical psychopath or sociopath: (Apply this Hare Checklist for Psychopathy to all three)
Facet 1: Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Facet 2: Affective
Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Facet 3: Lifestyle
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Facet 4: Antisocial
Poor behavioral controls
Early behavioral problems
Juvenile delinquency
Revocation of conditional release
Criminal versatility
Many short-term marital relationships
Promiscuous sexual behavior
But narcissists and megalomaniacs who fancy themselves as “special” and destined”, still have the problem of the ultimate democratic institution–death and mortality. They can and do influence what is said and written about them while in office and even after leaving office to some degree. They can refuse to release documents until many years after their death as Kissinger has done. [see National Security Archive Kissinger Papers on Chile] They write their self-serving books that bring in millions. They get involved in charities and foundations, plus their monuments to their own narcissism (and contempt for all those who were used and sacrifice got them where they wanted to go) called presidential libraries.
But what about the future? What good is “immortality” in monuments that will decay as in all empires, or if future historians wind up seeing and writing about all those things (fetishes, reckless behavior, crimes, lies, etc) that the compliant and access-whoring “mainstream media” ignored and helped to cover-up while the president was alive? Who seeks power and fame as instruments of immortality but does not care what is said in the history books about them? And what about their dynasties passed on through their heirs? If Hitler had had kids, what would their career prospects have looked like around even 1948?
So all three have more than revealed obsessions with image and place in history and in the history books. Clinton is desperate to turn Monica into a footnote or less in the history books via his very lucrative and image enhancing foundation. Imagine if some MSM journalist went rogue and asked Clinton at one of his press conferences:
“Mr. President, as a result of the fine work of the Clinton Global Initiative on HIV/AIDS, and after seeing all the victims of the disease, have you acquired any new sensitivity and awareness of just how reckless and self-indulgent and dangerous was your obvious unprotected sex or whatever you call it, with Ms Lewinsky? Did you get an AIDS test prior to resuming marital relations with Hillary?
Or: how about asking any of the Bushes about Skull and Bones and if he would have any chance at any kind of real job without the name Bush, without the family wealth builtthrough financing Hitler and the Nazis from 1924 onward, cover-ups of Nazi-Catholic Church links, trading with the enemy during wartime, and investment in a plant at Auschwitz using slave labor; and without his prep-school and ivy-league grooming and membership in the likes of Skull and Bones, the Masons, Phi Beta Kappa.
Karma-Time for America: “As you sow, so shall ye reap”
Or: Given that members of secret societies like the Masons, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove etc take oaths of secrecy held to trump any and all other oaths taken or to be taken, including the oath to Support and Protect the U.S. Constitution, why should any member of any secret society allowed a security clearance or any position in government whose oaths of secrecy and allegiance to the U.S.Constitution are trumped by the oaths of secrecy and allegiance they take in the secret societies?
How about asking Obama if he is prepared to release any and all current prisoners being held in the U.S. for the same forms of illicit drug use to which he admitted use (after the statutes of limitations were well over and in order to preempt and inoculate against the illicit drug use issue) in his book and in his speeches, given the fact that the only real difference between him and those in prison and unable to ever run for political office, is that he did not get caught, of if he had been caught as Bush allegedly was, unlike those in prison, he would have had the juice to have had the charges dropped.
Cognitive Dissonance and Sycophancy to the Military
Dr Samuel Johnson once wrote that “Every man [sic] thinks less of himself for not having served in the military.” Indeed, how does someone promote the military and wars, and run for office with the power to launch wars and send troops to fight and die in them, when that person has either consciously avoided military service (Obama) or outright engaged in draft dodging (Clinton and Cheney) or got special handling to get into flight school with a minimum passing score of 25 on a Pilot Candidacy Test and a waiting list of 150 and 18 months for a slot in the Texas Air Guard, along with taking himself off flight status and transferring to the Alabama Air Guard with no aircraft–all while there is a pilot shortage due to the Vietnam War (Bush)?
And all three have been very vocal in their support for the military in which they avoided service and/or combat and revealed cognitive dissonance angst in their posturing over and with the military. All three of them have cynically used military forces and bases, faux military gear, and weapons as stage-props for their photo-ops for the history books and/or election/re-election. And not only in terms of avoiding military service and/or combat or Vietnam or elsewhere, all three of them crafted narratives to secure a political future where their lack of military service and/or very problematic Guard status and performance, would have been problematic.
All three, Clinton, Bush and Obama, all have promoted rank American Exclusivism, Triumphalism (over “Communism”), Exceptionalism, Preemption (at U.S.discretion and judgment alone outside the UN or Congress that it is warranted). They all started out promoting neo-liberalism (read neo-imperialism) using free trade, deregulation, global institutions, “smart power” (“smart” algorithms of “soft” and “hard” power) but not “Nation Building” to effect American dominance (not parity or security). They all spoke of “Full Spectrum Dominance” over: a) all potential fields of battle (land, sea, air, space and cyberspace); b) all possible forms of warfare (strategic nuclear, tactical nuclear, irregular, COIN, CT, conventional, covert operations and destabilization and regime-change campaigns); c) all forms of weapons (nuclear, conventional, “smart”, propaganda, space, geo-weather, etc); and d) over all global geo-strategic locales, routes, technologies, markets and resources.
LAUGHING NEO-CONS
But they all wound-up sounding more like the Neocons and their NEO-FASCIST notions of AMERIKKKA UBER ALLES and international law be damned when it comes to the U.S.; the UN Charter be damned when it comes to the U.S. The U.S. Constitution and the powers reserved to Congress of Declaration and Funding of War be damned when it comes to a need to “Wag the Dog” or time a war or strike for political posturing.
They all carefully, calculatingly and patiently mapped out the road to the White House, played the “long game” and crafted resumes, personas and “legends” to fit the political times and imperatives of political triangulation. Political “Triangulation”, a term coined by Dick Morris, involves appearing as the apex of a triangle, in the center, but above the left and right ends of the “base” of the triangle using single-issues and wedge issues, along with compartmentalization of constituencies, not only to appear to be at some kind of “center” between left and right, but even to move the apex of the triangle rightward so what appears “centrist” used to be considered just slightly “left” of Hitler or Atilla the Hun.