Beyond Bush

After an illness, Michael Ruppert is back with Part II of Beyond Bush - Who's Really in Charge.

I was convinced a long time ago that whoever the President of the United States was, he wasn't the power in charge. The real power behind policy, both foreign and domestic, is truly non-partisan. Nor is it necessarily American. Its interest is not the United States, but perpetuating its own power.

I was fooled, though, by thinking that Bush would simply be a stupid front for Business as Usual. I didn't consider the effects of his appointments. At any rate, while I don't understand all the intricacies, and have no investigative talents, I can sometimes see the larger picture. And, I must agree with Ruppert on this point, whether he can prove his others or not: this country and this world is entrenched in perpetual war for the benefit of the real powers. That was the plan, and it is running full steam now.

The real power players may include presidents, but not by virtue of their presidency. If presidents have power, it is by virtue of their monied connections.

From the intro to Part II of Beyond Bush:

One thing that is now apparent is that George W. Bush may have been set up - much as Lyndon Johnson was in Vietnam - to create an unwinnable war for the benefit of globalized monetary interests whose objective is the destruction of the US as a nation-state, while at the same time securing a top spot for US-based corporations in an increasingly globalized and energy-hungry economy.

...In the final analysis, what we can expect after George Bush is a continuation of what came before and during George Bush. For those with their eyes open, there will be little difference in the outcome. Bush was not a marked historical or policy shift. The Clinton administration set the stage for 9/11 perfectly. George W. Bush is merely the captain of a brutal special team sent onto the field to make a few essential plays consistent with a larger plan. And if I have to spend the four years from January 2005 fighting deluded, guilty, self-aggrandizing progressives who want to convince us that things will be better under a Democrat, the same way I fought the current administration, that's exactly what I'll do. It is, after all, how FTW got its start.

And I will say -- one more time for the record-- that the destabilization and balkanization of Saudi Arabia with 25% of known oil reserves remains near the top of the main agenda. All of that oil lies in a very small area of land near the east coast of a country that we already have surrounded. All "we" need do is convince the American people of Saudi responsibilities for 9/11 in a way that will make convenient intervention tasteful to a war-weary American public that just doesn't get the concept of perpetual war. Then the US will help the Saudi regime crack from the inside and threaten regional stability, as the pretext for the seizure. In my opinion, the next president will be the one who can convince the powers that be that he can pull off that agenda, and sell it to the American people and the world.

You can read Part II without having read Part I and not be lost.

Ruppert makes many interesting points, one of which is this:

It is inevitable that the Neocons will be replaced. Several US presidents have fought the CIA and they have always emerged on the short end of the stick. This time will be no different.

I think I see in much of what has been going on that the CIA may well have fashioned the petard with which George W. and his mean, but not necessarily clever, handlers seem determined to hoist themselves. What's also interesting in that situation, however, is Poppy's connections to the CIA. Very interesting indeed.

As for voting, as I've said all along - I am all but convinced that the whole presidential election process is a sham. And in this Part II, Ruppert would seem to agree.

It still remains unclear whether or not Bush will lose the 2004 election, steal it again, or be replaced via an impeachment effort after a win. There is a great deal to be learned from the Democratic Party side of the equation, and voters who eagerly participate in the election process are almost pathologically in denial about the compromise of the process that has occurred with proprietary electronic software that remains easily manipulated and immune from public scrutiny. As the 2000 election was stolen, the 2004 election may already be locked up (or encoded). No activist in their right mind should participate in the Democratic Party nomination process without addressing this key issue. If they do, they should have their head examined.

The most detailed work on this angle has been done by New Zealand's Scoop Media and author Bev Harris who has a new book out titled Black Box Voting: Ballot-tampering in the 21st Century. You will never think about voting the same way again after reading it.

In Part II, Ruppert gives his opinions of, and exposes various connections of, the major Democrat contenders.

And, speaking of ballot tampering, once again I'll suggest reading Greg Palast's articles and book showing how the Florida coup handed over the presidency to George W. It's even easier to watch the video, which also includes information on Bush's ascension to that possibility. If you don't already know the scandalous outrage of it, or even if you do, you won't be bored.

Part I of Ruppert's essay is here. Part II is here.