|
Sometimes I sit back and try to look at the whole thing--the Bush Junta--in the broad perspective of, say, a spy novel written by John le Carré--no dummy, that guy; no flagpin wearing asshole; a real thinker and exposer of the truth by means of fiction.
What would a mind like his make of all this? --I've wondered to myself--or someone like James Grady author of "Six Days of the Condor"? (-- upon which the movie, "Three Days of the Condor" was based). What is the big picture? And what, then, is the smaller-scale, focused picture of an individual caught within the Byzantine evil of the big picture?
I think that one seminal event of the big picture was Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Sec of Defense, with no change of policy in Iraq. His resignation was played as deriving from the 06 Congressional elections--the Democrats' win--but the Democrats then just went right on with the Iraq War, funding the "surge" and all, as if nothing had happened, as if SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people were not against this war and had not voted to end it. So why did Rumsfeld resign? Merely as a way of fooling the people for a few months? I don't think so. I think it was a major turning point of events that occurred some 99% behind the scenes, possibly some 'white hat' group of insiders heading off an all-out nazi dictatorship in 08 (following upon the coup d'etat we suffered in 2004, with the stolen election).
I think somebody got the goods on Rumsfeld (the Plame outings? 9/11? torture? could be many things) and pushed him out. And I think some kind of bargaining occurred between this 'white hat' group and Bush/Cheney--on that mysterious "table" that Pelosi said impeachment was "off" of. The Democrats 'win' (but the war goes on); Pelosi immediately takes impeachment "off the table" (--a totally unconstitutional violation of her oath of office), apropos of nothing; and Rumsfeld resigns. Then Pelosi goes off to the Middle East (to Syria and other places) in the midst of the British sailors' crisis with Iran. Was attacking Iran put "off the table" at that time? Was that the bargain? (--you don't attack Iran, we won't impeach you--and get rid of Rumsfeld).
We're reduced to reading entrails, I think--we, the people, who are theoretically the employers of these, our public servants, in the White House, Congress, the military and other segments of government. 'Theoretcally', of course, needs to be underlined. But I do think that's our situation--there are forces at work trying to save the Republic, but not necessarily for you and me, more as a continued useful tool of the global corporate predators who are running things. I don't have illusions about these posited 'white hats.' Their purpose may simply be continued global corporate predator rule with velvet gloved hand, rather than iron fist--possibly because of the risk of rebellion (in this huge and culturally varied country, with its traditions of revolution and democracy--once ignited here, a peoples' revolution in the U.S. would be very hard to control). And there may be mixed motives, too--some altruistic, some not.
Anyway, that's my feeling. And many an honest DoJ attorney--used to playing by the rules--or FBI agent or military jag lawyer appalled at torture, or other upright, "rule of law" insiders, may well have felt serious fear along the way, as to whether or not Bush/Cheney's naked power-mongering could be curtailed. This would be especially true of whistle-blowers--or anyone who dared to openly oppose the junta--but it would also be true of those simply trying to do their jobs, with no particular thoughts of rebelling--and finding out that "doing their jobs" was not okay. More was required. Obeisance was required. Doing wrong was required. Crimes were required. So we start hearing stories of top DoJ lawyers who felt they had to speak in code, because they were being wiretapped, and even feared physical harm.
That's where a John le Carré or a James Grady might find focus in the tale of the Bush Junta--individual insiders trapped by criminals above them, "all the way to the top," finding that their insider status is no protection; in fact, they are targets, just because they are relatively honest, and are doing their jobs, or because they inadvertently stumbled upon the crimes of those above them, and know too much.
I think that this kind of broad thinking is useful. In fact, not utilizing the techniques of thought by which fiction writers design conspiracies can render us blind. It can create a kind of myopia where you just see details, and bits of news, day by day, and can never understand sudden, shocking events, like the march to unjust war in Iraq. The Bush/Cheney regime is a conspiracy--plotted long before 9/11--to invade Iraq and take over its oil industry, and to lay down a narrative of lies in the compliant corporate press to disable the opposition (which was quite significant back in Feb 03, just before the invasion--55% to 60% of Americans opposed).
You have to wonder why the Democrats, during the same period (indeed, during the same month as the IWR--Oct 02) agreed to fast-track electronic voting run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. But that is--in fictional terms--more context, or backstory, as to how individuals got trapped and threatened by the junta. No one to turn to. Not even the Democrats gave a damn.
I can't help but be glad that maybe we won't have the gestapo kicking in our doors in the middle of the night (as U.S. forces do in Iraq--at least most of us won't have to endure this--some already have, like that lawyer in Oregon who was whisked away, Capt. James Yee, who was put in shackles, those finding themselves on "no fly" lists, the brown-skinned people picked up in immigration sweeps and hauled to detention camps, and others who have felt the nazi boot). We can (most of us) breathe a little easier--as seems to be the case with those insiders who felt threatened, some of whom have become whistleblowers (on various things, at various junctures), and some of whom may have gotten together to do something about the worst of this junta, and to get them out. ('You don't attack Iran, and you go quietly when the time comes, and we won't impeach you.') You'd have to have ice water in your veins not to be glad of that. But that it might be happening 99% behind the scenes, and not including the American people--that is very, very dismaying, and does not bode well for our future as a democracy. And it leaves us wide open to future assault by the same malefactors who have nearly destroyed us--financially and every other way--as it is.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
