"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-FD0D0A.01040522072007@news.giganews.com...

According to this, the goal of the Busheviks is not winning in Iraq, or
even the war on terror. It is all about retaining power for the GOP and
the neocons.

---
How The White House Will Manipulate Events and Emotions to Maintain GOP
Executive Branch Control in 2008

Submitted by mark karlin on Sat, 07/21/2007 - 9:53am. Editorials

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Okay, letıs look at some Bushevik assaults on democracy this last week:

Bush and Cheney Make the Novel and Totalitarian Assertion that the
Department of Justice is Prohibited from Investigating a Congressional
Contempt Citation Over Anyone (Even if They are No Longer Working for
the Government) Asserting Executive Privilege

Bushıs PR Operation Claims to Issue a New Document Forbidding Torture,
When the Details Actually Just Reconfirm the Right of the CIA to
Continue Renditions and Torture

A Bushevik Partisan Hack Judge Throws Out the Plame Civil Suit Against
the Bush Administration, Just as the Same Bush-Appointed Judge Has Made
Partisan Decisions Before that Favor Bush

A Pentagon Official Who is a Former Cheney Aide Accuses a Sitting U.S.
Senator (Hillary Clinton) of Being a Traitor for Exercising Her Rights
to Receive Military Readiness Information

Bush Accuses the Dems of Holding Up Funds and Safety Equipment for Our
Troops When the White House Told the GOP to Sink a Bill Last Week That
Would Have Mandated Proper Preparedness, Proper Training, Adequate Rest,
and Adequate Protective Gear. The Republicans, Under White House Orders,
Defeated the Bill that Would Have Supported Our Troops.

Thatıs a lot to swallow in just one week, and those are just some
egregious examples of the slow creep into fascism that never seems to
halt no matter how badly Cheney and Bush fare in the polls, and no
matter how strongly Americans oppose the Iraq War.

What do you mean "slow creep". It's been Fascism from day 1!

The Democrats MUST remember this most important axiom about Bush, Cheney
and Rove: Their interest is not necessarily to stay in Iraq forever; it
is to ensure that the Republicans can hold onto power indefinitely.

Are you saying your audience is stupid? What does it mean "must remember"?

The quagmire in the battle against terror, in which the Busheviks have
prima facie failed by being unable to beat back a relatively small
hardcore Al-Qaeda movement, is really only a strategy from which they
see opportunities to maintain power, not defeat. (Even if the NIE this
past week stated another offense for which Bush and Cheney should be
removed from office: After years of lies, hundreds of thousands of lives
of Iraqis and Americans lost, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, Al
Qaeda is stronger than ever. What Bush and Cheney have done, through
their failure, is make Al Qaeda into some sort of "Superman" Force. In
short, the perception of Al Qaeda is strengthened by the Bush
Administrationıs ineptness in dealing with them.)

What's the difference between ineptness and ineptitude?

<...>

In a crisis, moreover, the mainstream media, which surfs the news cycles
without a nano-second of historical context, is likely to completely hop
aboard the White House propaganda express again, as it did post-9/11 ­
and is it did for nearly four years of a record of failed declarations
and promises in the Iraq War.

Better yet, the pundits will point out the problems and scandals and create
the impression that something is being done about it, which isn't.

Rove knows that one big event that is perceived as a military challenge
to America can erase all the accumulated negative perceptions of Bush
for enough time to ride the next Republican presidential candidate
through an election cycle (or according to the worst fears of some,
suspend the elections based on Executive Branch emergency powers that
Bush has been incrementally accumulating through executive orders and
with the consent of Congress.)

How do executive orders imply the consent of Congress? The only way to imply
consent of Congress would seem to be its failure to impeach.

So what might these precipitated "rally round the president" crisis
events be?

Here are three options ­ and they are not the only possible ones ­ that
we are sure that Rove and Cheney and others are mulling over:

1) A short-term military assault on the Pakistani "tribal lands,"
bordering Afghanistan, where the Saudi dominated Al-Qaeda has allegedly
been living openly and freely --- and where Osama bin Laden has possibly
been ensconced for several years. If Bush were able to score a real or
propaganda hit on Al- Qaeda, the Democrats would have little alternative
but to congratulate him for doing what they have been advocating all
along. The mainstream media would applaud Bush for finally accepting a
need for recalibrating the "War on Terror."

That won't work. Pakistan would disintegrate. If Iraq was
Afghanistan on steroids, then Pakistan would be Afghanistan on steroids, on
steroids.

Potential risks of this action: Rove would be worrying that it could
backfire if they donıt come up with significant Al-Qaeda members. There
is also the very real risk that a U.S. incursion into Pakistan (remember
the impact of Kissingerıs secret bombing of Cambodia leading to the
emergence of the Khmer Rouge) could result in an Islamic fundamentalist
overthrow of the Musharraf regime. Finally, because of the strain on
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, there might not be a sufficient special
force capability to launch such an attack.

DOh!

2) An air attack, likely employing nuclear weapons, on Iranian nuclear
facilities. Cheney and his Neo-Con cheerleaders are just dying to pull
this one off. It would precipitate a right wing echo chorus of the need
to rally behind the president in a time of war and that only traitors
wouldnıt support our troops in combat. It would further bolster the
"U.S.A. # 1" empire contingent and play to the wounded egos of Americans
who donıt like to lose wars, as is the case in Iraq. Also, the Iranian
Prime Minister has made himself especially unlikable, so the Busheviks
have another bogeyman to demonize.

Potential risks of this action: All Hell would break loose in the Middle
East. Hezbollah and Hamas would probably launch a full-scale assault on
Israel, backed by Iran. The Iranians would start to directly engage U.S.
soldiers in Iraq. Syria would probably be drawn into a full-scale Middle
East war. The strong pro-democracy movement within Iran would be
suppressed almost immediately, as Iranians patriotically rally around
their leadership, however, distasteful, just as Americans would rally
around Bush. Iranians would probably launch surrogate terrorist attacks
against American interests.

Whoopee! Only the neo-cons would have to be purged from the Adminsitration
first, as their whole manipulative strategy was based on Israeli right-wing
politics. The Democrats and Republicans would
instantly throw support behind impeachment, if Israel were dragged into a
such a confrontation..

3) A 9/11 repeat attack on U.S. soil. Despite the fact that such an
attack would make a mockery of the often stated Bush mantra that "we are
fighting them over there, so we donıt have to fight them over here," the
Republicans would ­ in their usual disciplined message point fashion ­
quickly blame the Democrats for not supporting the Iraq War. The
mainstream media would disseminate the Republican message points pretty
much intact. Bush would be positioned as having been right "all along"
about the ongoing terrorist threat and seen as a seer and leader, who
was wrongfully scorned. In fact, more than one Republican leader has
implied that they would welcome a terrorist attack on the U.S., because
­ as their twisted and destructive desire to hold power dictates ­ it
would "validate" the Bush/Cheney war strategy.

A) The Republicans don't control Al-Qaeda. B) It probably wouldn't work at
this
stage, since their credibility is beyond being salvaged. Nothing is likely
to stop the Democrat steamroller, even another 9/11.

<...>