Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
All the Sad Young Literary Men

All the Sad Young Literary Men

By Keith Gessen
$16.47

more items

 
Report

How to Rule the World After Bush

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 18, 2008
Bush and flag
blog.kir.com

Mark Engler

Editor’s note: The introduction below, by Tom Engelhardt, and the essay by Mark Engler were originally published on TomDispatch.com.
 

A mere eight months to go until George W. Bush and Dick Cheney leave office—though, given the cast of characters, it could seem like a lifetime.  Still, it’s a reasonable moment to begin to look back over the last years—and also toward the post-Bush era.  What a crater we’ll have to climb out of by then! 

My last post, “Kiss American Security Goodbye,” was meant to mark the beginning of what will, over the coming months, be a number of Bush legacy pieces at Tomdispatch.  So consider that series officially inaugurated by Foreign Policy in Focus analyst Mark Engler, who has just authored a new book that couldn’t be more relevant to our looming moment of transition: How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy.

The question Engler is curious to have answered is this:  If Bush-style “imperial globalization” is rejected in January, what will American ruling elites try to turn to—Clinton-style economic globalization?  Certainly, as Engler points out, many in the business and financial communities are now rallying to the Democrats.  After all, while John Edwards received the headlines this week for throwing his support behind Barack Obama, that presidential candidate also got the nod from three former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen—William Donaldson, David Ruder, and Clinton appointee Arthur Levitt Jr.  The campaign promptly “released a joint statement by the former SEC chiefs, as well as former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, that praised Obama’s ‘positive leadership and judgment’ on economic issues.” 

The United States, however, is a very different creature than it was in the confident years when these men rode high.  Now, the world is looking at things much differently.  Let Engler explain… Tom 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

Globalizers, Neocons, or…?

The World After Bush

By Mark Engler

Picture January 20, 2009, the day George W. Bush has to vacate the Oval Office.

It’s easy enough to imagine a party marking this fine occasion, with antiwar protestors, civil libertarians, community leaders, environmentalists, health-care advocates, and trade unionists clinking glasses to toast the end of an unfortunate era. Even Americans not normally inclined to political life might be tempted to join the festivities, bringing their own bottles of bubbly to the party. Given that presidential job approval ratings have rarely broken 40% for two years and now remain obdurately around or below 30%—historic lows—it would not surprising if this were a sizeable celebration.

More surprising, however, might be the number of people in the crowd drinking finer brands of champagne. Amid the populist gala, one might well spot figures of high standing in the corporate world, individuals who once would have looked forward to the reign of an MBA president but now believe that neocon bravado is no way to run an empire.

One of the more curious aspects of the Bush years is that the self-proclaimed “uniter” polarized not only American society, but also its business and political elites. These are the types who gather at the annual, ultra-exclusive World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and have their assistants trade business cards for them.  Yet, despite their sometime chumminess, these powerful few are now in disagreement over how American power should be shaped in the post-Bush era and increasing numbers of them are jumping ship when it comes to the course the Republicans have chosen to advance these last years.  They are now engaged in a debate about how to rule the world.

Don’t think of this as some conspiratorial plot, but as a perfectly commonsensical debate over what policies are in the best interests of those who hire phalanxes of Washington lobbyists and fill the coffers of presidential and congressional campaigns. Many business leaders have fond memories of the “free trade” years of the Clinton administration, when CEO salaries soared and the global influence of multinational corporations surged. Rejecting neoconservative unilateralism, they want to see a renewed focus on American “soft power” and its instruments of economic control, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organization (WTO)—the multilateral institutions that formed what was known in international policy circles as “the Washington Consensus.” These corporate globalists are making a bid to control the direction of economic policy under a new Democratic administration.

There is little question that the majority of people on the planet—those who suffered under both the corporate globalization of the Clinton years and the imperial globalization of George W. Bush—deserve something better. However, it is far from certain that social justice advocates who want to encourage a more democratic approach to world affairs and global economic well-being will be able to sway a new administration. On the other hand, the damage inflicted by eight years of neocon rule and the challenges of an increasingly daunting geopolitical scene present a conundrum to the corporate globalizers: Is it even possible to go back to the way things were?

The Revolt of the Corporatists

Throughout their time in office, despite fulsome evidence of failure, George Bush and Dick Cheney have maintained a blithe self-confidence about their ability to successfully promote the interests of the United States, or at least those of their high-rolling “Pioneer”-class donors.  Every so often, though, the public receives notice that loyalists are indeed scurrying to abandon the administration’s sinking ship of state. In October 2007, for instance, in a front-page story entitled “GOP Is Losing Grip On Core Business Vote,” the Wall Street Journal reported that the party could be facing a brand crisis as “[s]ome business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don’t share.”

When it comes to corporate responses to the President’s Global War on Terror, we mostly hear about the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater—companies directly implicated in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and with the mentality of looters.  Such firms have done their best to score quick profits from the military machine. However, there was always a faction of realist, business-oriented Republicans who opposed the invasion from the start, in part because they believed it would negatively impact the U.S. economy. As the administration adventure in Iraq has descended into the morass, the ranks of corporate complainers have only grown.

The “free trade” elite have become particularly upset about the administration’s focus on go-it-alone nationalism and its disregard for multilateral means of securing influence. This belligerent approach to foreign affairs, they believe, has thwarted the advance of corporate globalization. In an April 2006 column in the Washington Post, globalist cheerleader Sebastian Mallaby laid blame for “why globalization has stalled” at the feet of the Bush administration. The White House, Mallaby charged, was unwilling to invest any political capital in the IMF, the World Bank, or the WTO.  He wrote:

“Fifteen years ago, there were hopes that the end of Cold War splits would allow international institutions to acquire a new cohesion. But the great powers of today are simply not interested in creating a resilient multilateral system…. The United States remains the only plausible quarterback for the multilateral system. But the Bush administration has alienated too many players to lead the team effectively. Its strident foreign policy started out as an understandable response to the fecklessness of other powers. But unilateralism has tragically backfired, destroying whatever slim chance there might have been of a workable multilateral alternative.”

Frustrated by Bush’s failures, many in the business elite want to return to the softer empire of corporate globalization and, increasingly, they are looking to the Democrats to navigate this return.  As a measure of this—the capitalist equivalent of voting with their feet—political analyst Kevin Phillips notes in his new book, Bad Money, that, in 2007, “[h]edge fund employees’ contributions to the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee outnumbered those to its Republican rival by roughly nine to one.”

This quiet revolt of the corporatists is already causing interesting reverberations on the campaign trail. The base of the Democratic Party has clearly rejected the “free trade” version of trickle-down economics, which has done far more to help those hedge-fund managers and private-jet-hopping executives than anyone further down the economic ladder. As a result, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running as opponents of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and of a newer bilateral trade deal with Colombia, a country in which organizing a union or vocally advocating for human rights can easily cost you your life. The tenor of the current campaign represents a significant shift from the 1990s, when top Democrats were constantly trying to establish their corporate bona fides and “triangulate” their way into conservative economic policy.

Still, both candidates are surrounded by business-friendly advisors whose views fit nicely within an older, pre-Bush administration paradigm of corporate globalization.  The tension between the anti-NAFTA activists at the base of the Party and those in the campaign war rooms has resulted in some embarrassing gaffes during the primary contest.

For Hillary Clinton, the most notable involved one of her chief strategists, Mark Penn, a man with a long, nefarious record defending corporate abuses as a Washington lobbyist. As it turned out, Penn’s consulting firm received $300,000 in 2007 to support the “free trade” agreement with Colombia.  Even as Clinton was proclaiming her heartfelt opposition to the deal and highlighting the “history of suppression and targeted killings of labor organizers” in that country, a key player in her campaign was charting strategy with Colombian government officials in order to get the pact passed.

The Obama campaign found itself in similar discomfort in February. While the candidate was running in the Ohio primary as an opponent of NAFTA, calling that trade deal a “mistake” that has harmed working people, his senior economic policy adviser, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, was meeting with Canadian government officials to explain, as a memo by the Canadians reported, that Obama’s charges were merely “political positioning.” Goolsbee quickly claimed that his position had been mischaracterized, but the incident naturally raised questions.  Why, for example, had Goolsbee, senior economist to the Democratic Leadership Council, the leading organization on the corporate-friendly rightwing of the party, and a person praised as “a valuable source of free-trade advice over almost a decade,” been positioned to mold Obama’s economic stances in the first place?

If pressure from the base of the party lets up after the elections, it would hardly be surprising to see a victorious candidate revert to Bill Clinton’s corporate model for how to rule the world. However, a return to a pre-Bush-style of international politics may be easier dreamed than done.

The Neocon Paradox

To the chagrin of the “free trade” elite, the market fundamentalist ideas that have dominated international development thinking for at least the last 25 years are now under attack globally. This is largely because the economic prescriptions of deregulation, privitization, open markets, and cuts to social services so often made (and enforced) by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have proven catastrophic.

In 2003, the United Nations’ Human Development Report (UNHDP) explained that 54 already poor countries had actually grown even poorer during the “free trade” era of the 1990s.  The British Guardian summarized well the essence of this report:

“Taking issue with those who have argued that the ‘tough love’ policies of the past two decades have spawned the growth of a new global middle class, the report says the world became ever more divided between the super-rich and the desperately poor. The richest 1% of the world’s population (around 60 million) now receives as much income as the poorest 57%, while the income of the richest 25 million Americans is the equivalent of that of almost 2 billion of the world’s poorest people.”

Such findings led UNDP administrator Mark Malloch Brown, in a remarkably blunt statement, to call for a “guerrilla assault on the Washington Consensus.”

In fact, in 2008, such an assault is already well under way—and Washington is in a far weaker position economically to deal with it. The countries burned by the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, for instance, are now building up huge currency reserves so they never again have to come begging to the International Monetary Fund (and so suffer diktats from Washington) in times of crisis. Moreover, virtually the whole of Latin America is in revolt. Over 500 million people reside in that region, and over two-thirds of them now live under governments elected since 2000 on mandates to split with “free trade” economics, declare independence from Washington, and pursue policies that actually benefit the poor.

In late April, economist Mark Weisbrot noted that, with so many countries breaking free of its grasp, the IMF, which once dictated economic policy to strapped governments around the world, is now but a shadow of its former self.  In the past four years, its loan portfolio has plummeted from $105 billion to less than $10 billion, the bulk of which now goes to just two countries, Turkey and Pakistan. This leaves the U.S. Treasury, which used the body to control foreign economies, with far less power than in past decades. “The IMF’s loss of influence,” Weisbrot writes, “is probably the most important change in the international financial system in more than half a century.”

It is a historic irony that Bush administration neocons, smitten with U.S. military power, itching to launch their wars in Central Asia and the Middle East, and eschewing multinational institutions, actually helped to foster a global situation in which U.S. influence is waning and countries are increasingly seeking independent paths. Back in 2005, British journalist George Monbiot dubbed this “the unacknowledged paradox in neocon thinking.” He wrote:

“They want to drag down the old, multilateral order and replace it with a new, U.S. one. What they fail to understand is that the ‘multilateral’ system is in fact a projection of U.S. unilateralism, cleverly packaged to grant other nations just enough slack to prevent them from fighting it. Like their opponents, the neocons fail to understand how well [Presidents] Roosevelt and Truman stitched up the international order. They are seeking to replace a hegemonic system that is enduring and effective with one that is untested and (because other nations must fight it) unstable.”

Battered by losing wars and economic crisis, the United States is now a superpower visibly on the skids.  And yet, there is no guarantee that the coming era will produce a change for the better. In a world in which the value of the dollar is plummeting, oil is growing ever more scarce relative to demand, and foreign states are rising as rivals to American power, the possibility of either going ahead with the Bush/Cheney style of unilateralism or successfully returning to the “enduring and effective” multilateral corporatism of the 1990s may no longer exist. But the failure of these options will undoubtedly not be for lack of trying. Even with corporate globalization on the decline, multinational businesses will attempt to consolidate or expand their power. And even with the imperial model of globalization discredited, an overextended U.S. military may still try to hold on with violence.

The true Bush administration legacy may be to leave us in a world that is at once far more open to change and also far more dangerous. Such prospects should hardly discourage the long-awaited celebration in January. But they suggest that a new era of globalization battles—struggles to build a world order based neither on corporate influence, nor imperial might—will have only just begun.

Mark Engler, an analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus, is the author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (just published by Nation Books). He can be reached via the website Democracy Uprising.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Allen Wood, May 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By The Way Jake, Please tell me all about the many acts of terrorism that have occured in the U.S. since 9-11-2001. Bet you can’t find any. The only terrorists that reside here are at 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC. We who are alive today are special Americans because we have lived in The United States of America (Soon to be the North American Union) with the leadership (choke) of the WORST President and Vice President in the HISTORY of this great nation. What a Great (Gag, and more choking) honor.

Report this

By hippy pam, May 21, 2008 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

We worry about THIS COUNTRY-FOR A CHANGE???

Report this

By William DeMente, May 20, 2008 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You are reading things into my post that are not even implied.

Report this

By Allen Wood, May 20, 2008 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jake,
    What A Jerk You Are!!!!! When you are being tortured in the camps under martial law, you will finally understand. The people in control of this U.S government are indeed evil. 9-11-2001 was a planned event with the FULL knowledge of the current government. Americans have been sold out. We are finished. Just wait till Dubya pulls the plug on the very internet that allows me to inform you that you are nothing more than cattle, ignorant cattle that is. I hope you believe in a supreme being. You will most certainly need his help in the next 12 months. GOOD LUCK JERK!

Report this

By don knutsen, May 20, 2008 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Its a terrible shame that our system has been so corrupted in this country that when a President & Vice president so blatantly ignore our constitution, circumvent our congress and turn our justice department into nothing but then a partisan extension of the GOP machinery, that they will get away with it. Not only get away scott free but profit from their tenure after leaving america in a much worse state then before they came to power. They have consistantly driven us towards an american style facism and should be labelled the traitors we all know they are. Not only traitors, but war criminals. The damage they have done runs so deep, permeates all of the goverment agencies, and your left wondering if its so broken and so terribly in debt to foreign interests that it might not beable to turn back from the headlong race to the cliff that Cheney and his sock puppet have put us on.

Report this

By Jake, May 20, 2008 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

dude, what a jerk you are.  with what took place on 9/11, why are you questioning her stopping you? how the heck does she know who you are?  you expect her to know that you are a USC.  It’s people (liberals) like you are why we will never win the war on terror.  the best would have been for her to not let you enter back in the US.

what would you suggest her to do if you were in her shoes?

Report this

By Jim Yell, May 20, 2008 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

George Bush and the Bush family have been in the pay of the Saudi Royal family for years. The Saudi’s have personally paid baby Bush’s financial short falls and he has protected them from retribution for 9/11 and the part that Islam paid in radicalizing their population to believe (although I think this was always their belief)that Islam can force conversion and politically destroy anyone not Moslem, although of course they do a great job of destroying Moslems too.

To the extent that Bush protects Israel from invasion by Moslems I see no problem with his doing this, except for the motives of fullfilling prophecy. I have said it before and I will say it again. The area of Israel should have become an independent nation with religious freedom. Moslems handed it to the Jews by violent reaction and by the attempt to murder the Jews they made themselves victims of their own violence. I am sure that Zionest were pleased to be given a good excuse not to have to deal with them. It is too late now for there to be a coming together between Israel and its former Islamic residents. Israel is a reality and I hope it remains more an example of what can be done with progressive political and social policies as opposed to the oppresion and meanness of Islam. And, let us not forget that the Jews are cousins to the Arabs, which just proves there is never such acrimony as when families fight.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, May 19, 2008 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

bush is destroying THIS country
in plain sight and right under our noses.

The recession is by plan to keep us all too busy trying to pay our bills that we have no time to
see what’s going on around us. Or simply not care.

The Nazi’s wrote the rule book and bush is
following it page by page…just like his
Nazi grandfather did.

They’re slowly getting us used to being stopped
by police for no reason. 

This video is of a Border Patrol checkpoint
*within* the US borders, blatantly violating the
4th Amendment to the Constitution.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=133_1210305250

Report this

By William DeMente, May 19, 2008 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In the wake of Dubya’s recent visit to the Middle East in which he failed to get Arabs to increase petroleum production to his liking, the White House will have to stockpile lipstick.  There is a lot of Arab arse to be kissed.

Report this

By jbart, May 19, 2008 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To do what your country needs you to do.  Simply put, DEFEND your country. Not only against the ominous “outside” forces, but also against forces that threaten our country with a much higher probability of succeeding in truly causing harm. You, by now, understand whom I’m referring to. It’s an evil group of very wealthy, and privileged, group of A-holes that seek to “control” our sacred society/country through “control” by a “gratuitously” employing a mercenary army that holds you “all” in very little regard. If you think that the “Blackater” folks respect you…get a grip.  They don’t.  They hold you in distain boys and girls.  They’re “sociopaths” that should be interned or eliminated. Sorry if I appear intemperate here, but sdociopaths/psychopaths, with lethal weaponry should be controlled, not utilized. Guys?? You’re all we got to protect our/your country. Are you willing/able to “answer” the call here? Or are you part, and party, to the loss of our rights/constitution? It’s your call, you military people. I would hope that you can see through the thickness of “bullshit” to more clearly understand that our beloved country is “under attack” from these non-caring a-holes and that your country needs you to “do your job(s)”. That is to “protect” us from them. Who’s “side” are you on,goddammit!!”? Are you still willing to follow orders that are contrary to your country’s well being?  How far can you take the just “following orders” crap while your country suffers and its citizens protest? I only wish to attempt to “reach out” to you all.  Nothing more nor nothing less.

Report this

By Allen Wood, May 19, 2008 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When Dubya cancels the election in November after declaring Martial Law, The average american will be too busy trying to run and hide from the the thugs in charge that they won’t care. Its all going to boil down to simple survival. Wait till the government pulls the plug on all communications by satellite and internet. It will be very easy for them to round everyone up for the little train journey to the KBR camp nearest to you.The average American better stock up on the most precious metal there is for use in these upcoming times. That metal is lead. Please use as much as you can when the satanists in charge come to get you. Don’t Give Up Without A Fight!!!

Report this

By DennisD, May 19, 2008 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How to Rule the World After Bush -

That’s a question best asked of the corporations that currently rule it.

The corporate locusts have destroyed America under the guise of capitalism and are well on their way with the rest of world.

Until they’re exterminated nothing will change.

Report this

By Don Stivers, May 19, 2008 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Sure would be nice to hear how Justice will be served on those who made this mess.  Just remember when the President was strutting under that banner, “Mission Accomplish”, or spouting “You’re with us or against us”, “I’m a WAR President” and “We’re not cuttin’ and runnin’”.  Just think of the bigger mess the U.S. would be in if the Republicans had held onto power after the midterm elections.  Although Pelosi saw to it that Justice is not going to be served.

When are you guys going to start pounding the war drums of Justice?  Too many have died or have been maimed to ignore putting these guys in jail forever.  Maybe even hanging them.  Remember, the Oklahoma Bomber was put to death.  Let’s hear you guys start writing columns about bringing these war criminals to Justice rather than looking ahead to life after Bush and Cheney.

Come on!  Let’s hear the DRUM BEAT FOR JUSTICE!

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, May 19, 2008 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

The Title is a Misnomer!

I really liked the way this article tackled the economic aspects of two schools of thoughts on economic dominance and control.

However, I feel disappointed that it does not provide an outline to make corrections to the two discussed economic models and approaches. Moreover, the title of the piece “How to Rule the World after Bush” sounded to me a misnomer relative to the theme of the article. 

The right title should have been, “How the U.S. Should Rule Itself after Bush.” And the essence of the new approach should be for the United States to abandon the crude and chauvinist love of power, greed and arrogance and to adopt a more humanitarian and humble approach toward the world and its problems and grievances.

Report this

By jmndodge, May 19, 2008 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

Living in society involves interaction with others. On the personal level, they can be conducted from three basic positions or styles,  the language and action of a Parent, an Adult, or a Child.  This then can be received from any of the basic positions.  In recent years the United States has attempted to become the parent to the world.  A young nation with only a few hundred years of history (the native American experience doesn’t count) we issue policy statements and make demands upon the nations of the world.  Iraq, was a prime example, and while many of the worlds powers simply ignore our demands, (the adult reaction to a parents unwanted input)  Saddam was the perfect child, throwing an argument and tantrum which an angry parent could use to justify punishment. 

Sadly, much of the world looks at America in our attempted role, as an abusive parent.  Unwilling to get involved in the middle, they are now taking an adult reaction, and we have become irrelevant to much of the world.  They are moving away from our policies, or economy, and our currency.  Sixty years ago our textbooks boasted about our great natural resources,  the great farm fields, coal and oil, the manufacturing of our steel mills and the technology of our industrial community.  Sadly today, we are attempting to live off the resources of other nations, importing much of the food we eat, while attempting to turn our major agricultural production into energy. 

Unless we change course,  we soon will be the parent with dementia, lovingly responded to by the worlds peoples, in soft platitudes, but allowing us to sit feebly by and watch what is happening in the real world.  It’s time for America to grow up, become and adult as a nation, and set the world free to become adult in the relationship to us and others.  I am constantly amazed that the citizens of the United States allow our leaders to behave in such vulgar embarrassing paternalistic fashion toward the rest of the world.

Report this

By hippy pam, May 19, 2008 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

I see his “imperial higha** Emperor Bullsh*t” has RETURNED from a trip to WHEREVER…and “he is going to direct his interest toward domestic issues”..THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR US….Better he STAYS OVER THERE and
S*cks-up-to-them[his good friends].......When his interest turns to us[as my friend put it]WE ARE FU*CKED-in the *SS-with NO PLEASE-NO THANK YOU-NO KISS-AND NO $10.00 on the nite stand…....and our WALLET IS MISSING…..

Report this

By Jim Yell, May 19, 2008 at 5:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There are a lot of words that have been interjected into our political landscape that make me whince.

In this article that word is “Rule”. Our political system is supposed to be governed by elected and appointed officials who are bound to limitations of what they can do by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. None of these mechanisms for governing are accidents. They are devices to try and control the out of control impulses of narcisstic and arrogant leaders. For most of the last 8 years the system has been allowed to fail, the opposition leaders have been more interested in their perogatives, their wealth; then doing the job they were elected to do. A criminal administration that boldly took the oath of office and then declared they no longer had to obey the laws of the land as being such exhaulted and God Fearing paragons, it was clear anything they wanted to do was not bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Well you can’t protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by violating them and you can’t protect the American people by violating these documents either. Is anything going to change with the change of Administration?

Report this

By samosamo, May 19, 2008 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

I, myself, get pretty caught up in the moment of when the next president takes over January 20, 2009. But I still get that cold splash of water in my face that reminds me of that little directive that was signed that allows w to remaind king IF a natural disaster strikes or we are attacked again by another nation or just a few guys that figure a way to blow up a couple of places I would say all the way up to the morning of January 20, 2009.
That directive wasn’t signs for shits and giggles. It was meant to allow no one else to take the white house and possibly congress. After all the thieving and murdering that these criminals have done, they may not want to give up power and with the military and the CIA in the same corporate boat and the private contractors, it would not be hard to even claim that some 5 or 6 people in Podunk USA have set off a bomb that will keep w & dick in charge.
OR, to me obama and hillbilly hillary are still in the running for the dems nomination, unless I missed the anouncement giving it to one or the other. With crazy billy and his connections hillary may pull out a surprise be it by hook or crook. Then we are faced with the possibility of mccain being appointed president through some neocon trickery.
I sure would hate to know that on January 19, 2009 I went to bed with someone I want as president set to be inaugurated the next day but wake up to head lines that w was to remain the ‘decider’.

Report this

By Celtic, May 18, 2008 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How about we DON’T rule the world? Who do we think we are that everyone else has to kowtow to - US? Maybe a little international understanding is now in order (as in, get educated about other people and their issues before trying to blow the hell out of them).

Report this

By kath cantarella, May 18, 2008 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

[the Wall Street Journal reported that the party could be facing a brand crisis as “[s]ome business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don’t share.”]

That in itself will go a long way towards improving things, if it’s true, and if there are enough such business leaders to make an impact. The responsibility of power has shifted in recent decades from the executive to the corporate sector. The future may rest with the conscience and morality of the corporate leaders who can make a material difference to a decaying culture. It should not be so, but this is what we have let occur, through apathy, fear, and the weak idiotic appeasement of abusive power.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, May 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment

Clinton just played things a little ‘Slick’er.But i’m not sure he was in any more of a position of control Or Just couldn’t keep his mind Focused long entough to Try.
Nixon and Beyond (minus Carter - Good man who got Politically Assasinatied by the boys in the’Shadows’- DICK,Rummy & Wolfie) have done nothing put push sh*t forward and under the Rug, and in the Closet and Under the DESK. Nothing More The Puppets for Cheney et al and his Corp Buddies.
Best & quickest way to scarpe this Crap off our nations Boots- Start Prosecuting Individuals Fro Treason, War Crime & Crimes agaisnt Humanity. Want to see some SOB’s re evalute their Priorities, Levy the Highest Sentence for these High Crimes.
they be throwing Freedoms at US, we never even asked for. they will sew up our national Debt in a blink of an eye and Corp’s will be funding every social service Project we even mention in passing. Innovations regarding conservation will be pulled back down off the back Shelf, dusted off, improved Ready for market….Oh the changes would be Fast & endless after even One is held resposnible for the Consequence of their actions

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

Easy, quit trying to rule it…either the Bush way or the Clinton way.

And not ruling it is very different from not participating in it.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook