George H.W. Bush has died at age 94.
- Thread starter Ca.
- Start date
angelburst29
The Living Force
December 6, 2018 - George Bush’s Wars Set The Stage For 25 Years Of Endless War – OpEd
George Bush’s Wars Set The Stage For 25 Years Of Endless War – OpEd
By 1989, it had become apparent to all — everyone except the CIA, of course — that the Soviet economy, and thus the Soviet state was in very deep trouble.
In November 1989, the Berlin Wall came down in the face of Soviet impotence.
And, with the Cold-War corpse not even cold yet, president George Bush used the newly apparent Soviet weakness as an opportunity to expand US foreign interventionism beyond the limits that had been imposed on it by a competing Soviet Union.
Over the next decade, Bush and his successor Bill Clinton — who very much carried on Bush’s ideals of global interventionism — would place Iraq, Somalia, and Yugoslavia in the crosshairs.
But first on Bush’s list was Panama in December 1989. At the time, the Panamanian state was an authoritarian regime that stayed in power largely due to US support, and functioned as an American puppet state in Central America where Communists were often successful in overthrowing right-wing dictatorships.
The US regime’s man in Panama was Manuel Noriega. But, after he stopped taking orders from Washington, Noriega became the first in a long line of foreign politicians who were held up as the next “Hitler” by the American propaganda machine.
This was done in order to justify what would become an endless policy of invading tiny foreign countries that are no threat to the US — mostly done in the name of “humanitarian” intervention.
Writing in April 1990, Murray Rothbard summed up the situation in Panama:
The positive vaunting was, of course, prominent: what was called, idiotically, the “restoration of democracy” in Panama. When in blazes did Panama ever have a democracy? Certainly not under Noriega’s beloved predecessor and mentor, the U.S.’s Panama Treaty partner, General Omar Torrijos. The alleged victory of the unappetizing Guillermo Endara in the abortive Panamanian election was totally unproven. The “democracy” the U.S. imposed was peculiar, to say the least: swearing in Endara and his “cabinet” in secrecy on a US army base.
It was difficult for our rulers to lay on the Noriega “threat” very heavily: Since Noriega, whatever his other sins, is obviously no Marxist-Leninist, and since the Cold War is over anyway it would have been tricky; even embarrassing, to try to paint Noriega and his tiny country as a grave threat to big, powerful United States. And so the Bush administration laid on the “drug” menace with a trowel, braving the common knowledge that Noriega himself was a longtime CIA creature and employee whose drug trafficking was at the very least condoned by the U.S. for many years.
The administration therefore kept stressing that Noriega was simply a “common criminal” who had been indicted in the US (for actions outside the US — so why not indict every other head of state as well — all of whom have undoubtedly committed crimes galore?) so that the invasion was simply a police action to apprehend an alleged fugitive. But what real police action — that is, police action over a territory over which the government has a virtual monopoly of force —involves total destruction of an entire working-class neighborhood, the murder of hundreds of Panamanian civilians as well as American soldiers, and the destruction of a half-billion dollars of civilian property?
The invasion also contained many bizarre elements of low comedy: There was the U.S. government’s attempt to justify the invasion retroactively by displaying Noriega’s plundered effects: porno in the desk drawer (well, gee, that sure justifies mass killing and destruction of property), the obligatory picture of Hitler in the closet (Aha! the Nazi threat again!), the fact that Noriega was stocking a lot of Soviet-made arms (a Commie as well as a Nazi, and “paranoid” too — the deluded fool was actually expecting an American invasion!).
It’s almost darkly comedic how easy it has been to convince the American people to go along with nearly any justification for invading a foreign country, no matter how flimsy. It may be hard for my younger readers to comprehend, but in the late 80s, the American public was so hysterical with fear over street drugs, that it struck many Americans as perfectly reasonable to invade a foreign country, burn down a neighborhood, and send the US Army to lay siege to Panama’s presidential headquarters to catch a single drug kingpin.
After Panama, President Bush moved on to Iraq.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein became the next Hitler, with the media hinting that if left unchecked, Hussein would invade the entire Middle East. “He gassed his own people!” was the endless refrain. The other justification was that Saddam’s government had invaded another country. Rothbard, of course, noted the irony of this “justification”:
Americans, however, would have done well to keep up with a healthy dose of post-Vietnam cynicism. After all, the 1991 Gulf War — a war said to be humanitarian in nature — accomplished little more than to empower Saudi Arabia, a brutal Islamist dictatorship ruled by friends of the Bush family, and which currently wages a blood-soaked war in Yemen against women and children.
But, thanks to Bush’s efforts, war in America was made popular again, and the stage was set for years of follow-up wars waged by Bush successors.
The Clinton Years
By the mid-1990s, Slobodan Milošević was the new Hitler, stepping in to replace Noriega and Hussein as the world’s greatest threats to peace.
The downside of these new Hitlers, of course, was that any reasonable person could see that none of them were any threat whatsoever to the United States.
Even the call for “humanitarian” action rung a little untrue for more astute observers. After all, it struck many people as curious as to why Serbia required bombing for its human rights violations while the genocide in Rwanda — which was occurring right around the same time — was steadfastly ignored by Washington. If human rights were such a major concern for the US state in the 90s, why was there no invasion of North Korea in response to the horrors of the death camps there?
New life was breathed into the military-interventionist camp after 2001 by Osama bin Laden. But “humanitarian” missions and the search for the next Hitler continue to this day.
In 2011, the usual tactics were employed to justify the invasion of Libya — which only made the country a breeding ground for ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
And today, of course, we hear the same things about Bashar Assad in Syria. Like Noriega, Hussein, Milošević, and Qaddafi before him, Assad is obviously no threat to the US or its residents. Indeed, Assad is fighting people who potentially are a threat to US residents. But, since the US military establishment wants Assad gone, some excuse must be manufactured for an invasion.
Ultimately, Rothbard concluded that these methods can be employed against any regime on earth, and wrote sarcastically in 1994: “‘we cannot stand idly by’ while anyone anywhere starves, hits someone over the head, is undemocratic, or commits a Hate Crime”:
George Bush’s wars would prove to be only an introduction to what was to come during the next 25 years of American foreign policy: target a foreign regime that poses no threat to the US, and manufacture a nice-sounding reason for doing so. Today, the methods are the same, and only the names have changed.
George Bush’s Wars Set The Stage For 25 Years Of Endless War – OpEd
By 1989, it had become apparent to all — everyone except the CIA, of course — that the Soviet economy, and thus the Soviet state was in very deep trouble.
In November 1989, the Berlin Wall came down in the face of Soviet impotence.
And, with the Cold-War corpse not even cold yet, president George Bush used the newly apparent Soviet weakness as an opportunity to expand US foreign interventionism beyond the limits that had been imposed on it by a competing Soviet Union.
Over the next decade, Bush and his successor Bill Clinton — who very much carried on Bush’s ideals of global interventionism — would place Iraq, Somalia, and Yugoslavia in the crosshairs.
But first on Bush’s list was Panama in December 1989. At the time, the Panamanian state was an authoritarian regime that stayed in power largely due to US support, and functioned as an American puppet state in Central America where Communists were often successful in overthrowing right-wing dictatorships.
The US regime’s man in Panama was Manuel Noriega. But, after he stopped taking orders from Washington, Noriega became the first in a long line of foreign politicians who were held up as the next “Hitler” by the American propaganda machine.
This was done in order to justify what would become an endless policy of invading tiny foreign countries that are no threat to the US — mostly done in the name of “humanitarian” intervention.
Writing in April 1990, Murray Rothbard summed up the situation in Panama:
The U.S. invasion of Panama was the first act of military intervention in the new post-Cold War world — the first act of war since 1945 where the United States has not used Communism or “Marxism-Leninism” as the effective all-purpose alibi. Coming so soon after the end of the Cold War, the invasion was confused and chaotic — a hallmark of Bushian policy in general. Bush’s list of alleged reasons for the invasion were a grab-bag of haphazard and inconsistent arguments — none of which made much sense.
The positive vaunting was, of course, prominent: what was called, idiotically, the “restoration of democracy” in Panama. When in blazes did Panama ever have a democracy? Certainly not under Noriega’s beloved predecessor and mentor, the U.S.’s Panama Treaty partner, General Omar Torrijos. The alleged victory of the unappetizing Guillermo Endara in the abortive Panamanian election was totally unproven. The “democracy” the U.S. imposed was peculiar, to say the least: swearing in Endara and his “cabinet” in secrecy on a US army base.
It was difficult for our rulers to lay on the Noriega “threat” very heavily: Since Noriega, whatever his other sins, is obviously no Marxist-Leninist, and since the Cold War is over anyway it would have been tricky; even embarrassing, to try to paint Noriega and his tiny country as a grave threat to big, powerful United States. And so the Bush administration laid on the “drug” menace with a trowel, braving the common knowledge that Noriega himself was a longtime CIA creature and employee whose drug trafficking was at the very least condoned by the U.S. for many years.
The administration therefore kept stressing that Noriega was simply a “common criminal” who had been indicted in the US (for actions outside the US — so why not indict every other head of state as well — all of whom have undoubtedly committed crimes galore?) so that the invasion was simply a police action to apprehend an alleged fugitive. But what real police action — that is, police action over a territory over which the government has a virtual monopoly of force —involves total destruction of an entire working-class neighborhood, the murder of hundreds of Panamanian civilians as well as American soldiers, and the destruction of a half-billion dollars of civilian property?
The invasion also contained many bizarre elements of low comedy: There was the U.S. government’s attempt to justify the invasion retroactively by displaying Noriega’s plundered effects: porno in the desk drawer (well, gee, that sure justifies mass killing and destruction of property), the obligatory picture of Hitler in the closet (Aha! the Nazi threat again!), the fact that Noriega was stocking a lot of Soviet-made arms (a Commie as well as a Nazi, and “paranoid” too — the deluded fool was actually expecting an American invasion!).
It’s almost darkly comedic how easy it has been to convince the American people to go along with nearly any justification for invading a foreign country, no matter how flimsy. It may be hard for my younger readers to comprehend, but in the late 80s, the American public was so hysterical with fear over street drugs, that it struck many Americans as perfectly reasonable to invade a foreign country, burn down a neighborhood, and send the US Army to lay siege to Panama’s presidential headquarters to catch a single drug kingpin.
After Panama, President Bush moved on to Iraq.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein became the next Hitler, with the media hinting that if left unchecked, Hussein would invade the entire Middle East. “He gassed his own people!” was the endless refrain. The other justification was that Saddam’s government had invaded another country. Rothbard, of course, noted the irony of this “justification”:
But, “he invaded a small country.” Yes, indeed he did. But, are we ungracious for bringing up the undoubted fact that none other than George Bush, not long ago, invaded a very small country: Panama? And to the unanimous huzzahs of the same U.S. media and politicians now denouncing Saddam?
The Iraq War was an even greater political success than the Panama war. But more importantly, George Bush provided an immeasurably wonderful service to the national security state by making war popular again, after more than a decade of the so-called “Vietnam Syndrome.” As Bush so enthusiastically declared after the end of the Gulf War, “The ghosts of Vietnam have been laid to rest beneath the sands of the Arabian desert.”Americans, however, would have done well to keep up with a healthy dose of post-Vietnam cynicism. After all, the 1991 Gulf War — a war said to be humanitarian in nature — accomplished little more than to empower Saudi Arabia, a brutal Islamist dictatorship ruled by friends of the Bush family, and which currently wages a blood-soaked war in Yemen against women and children.
But, thanks to Bush’s efforts, war in America was made popular again, and the stage was set for years of follow-up wars waged by Bush successors.
The Clinton Years
By the mid-1990s, Slobodan Milošević was the new Hitler, stepping in to replace Noriega and Hussein as the world’s greatest threats to peace.
The downside of these new Hitlers, of course, was that any reasonable person could see that none of them were any threat whatsoever to the United States.
Even the call for “humanitarian” action rung a little untrue for more astute observers. After all, it struck many people as curious as to why Serbia required bombing for its human rights violations while the genocide in Rwanda — which was occurring right around the same time — was steadfastly ignored by Washington. If human rights were such a major concern for the US state in the 90s, why was there no invasion of North Korea in response to the horrors of the death camps there?
New life was breathed into the military-interventionist camp after 2001 by Osama bin Laden. But “humanitarian” missions and the search for the next Hitler continue to this day.
In 2011, the usual tactics were employed to justify the invasion of Libya — which only made the country a breeding ground for ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
And today, of course, we hear the same things about Bashar Assad in Syria. Like Noriega, Hussein, Milošević, and Qaddafi before him, Assad is obviously no threat to the US or its residents. Indeed, Assad is fighting people who potentially are a threat to US residents. But, since the US military establishment wants Assad gone, some excuse must be manufactured for an invasion.
Ultimately, Rothbard concluded that these methods can be employed against any regime on earth, and wrote sarcastically in 1994: “‘we cannot stand idly by’ while anyone anywhere starves, hits someone over the head, is undemocratic, or commits a Hate Crime”:
We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and “human rights,” and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds. Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of “freedom,” “free trade,” “multiculturalism,” and “expanding democracy.”
And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S. I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World! Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.
And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S. I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World! Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.
George Bush’s wars would prove to be only an introduction to what was to come during the next 25 years of American foreign policy: target a foreign regime that poses no threat to the US, and manufacture a nice-sounding reason for doing so. Today, the methods are the same, and only the names have changed.
angelburst29
The Living Force
Hillary cut short her grieving performance at the Bush Funeral ... so she could "hit the Friendly Skies" and touch down in India - just in time "for Happy Hour and a posh Wedding"!
December 8, 2018 - VIP's arrive at Pre-wedding Bash for Daughter of India's Richest Man
VIPs arrive at pre-wedding bash for daughter of India's richest man | Reuters
NEW DELHI, India - Dozens of chartered planes carrying celebrities, including former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton, flew into a sleepy airport in western India for the lavish pre-wedding festivities for the daughter of India’s richest man.
Isha Ambani, 27, daughter of Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani, will marry Anand Piramal, 33, in the financial capital of Mumbai next Wednesday, but the celebrations began this weekend in the desert city of Udaipur, with feasts, singing and dancing, and other pre-wedding rituals.
Security was beefed up as the high-profile guests started arriving at Udaipur’s airport, said a source at the scene, who asked not to be identified. Outside, they were awaited by luxury sedans driven by chauffers wearing white uniforms and colorful Rajasthani turbans.
The Clintons and the Ambanis have an association that goes back more than 18 years and have met several times both in India and abroad, according to Indian media reports.
Then President Bill Clinton held meetings in India with the Ambanis, including deceased founder and Mukesh’s father Dhirubhai Ambani, just before and after he left the presidency in 2000-2001.
In March this year, when Hillary Clinton visited India to deliver a keynote speech at a conference in Mumbai, she dined with the Ambanis at their 27-floor Antilia residence - one of the world’s most expensive homes, according to local media.
Many other top industrialists, politicians, sports and Bollywood stars descended in Udaipur on Saturday to join what has been dubbed locally “the big, fat Indian wedding.”
Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, cricket legend Sachin Tendulkar and newly-weds, actress Priyanka Chopra and singer Nick Jonas were among the guests joining the bash.
Former head of advertising giant WPP, Martin Sorrell, BP Group CEO Bob Dudley, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington, 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch and Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih are also invited.
Guests for the celebrations, which will bring together two of India’s most influential families, have access to an app mapping out the activities, which include a private concert by Beyonce.
Many in India, where millions live in dire poverty, have closely followed the preparations, including the Ivy League-graduate couple’s engagement at the luxury Villa D’Este hotel on Italy’s Lake Como, attended by more than 600 guests, and featuring a private performance by singer John Legend.
mrtn
Dagobah Resident
She's obviously stressed, and I think she takes a second look at an envelope or picture that some people got at the funeral. The are quite a few videos about the funeral these envelopes and peoples gestures notably Jeb Bush's reaction. Here is one:
angelburst29
The Living Force
(Quote:) c.a. said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069002599121256448
Video
Now the Criminal Investigation Service of the US Navy and the Ministry of the Interior of Bahrain are conducting relevant activities.
US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Stirney is found dead at his residence in Bahrain. He was the commander of the Fifth Fleet - the American grouping of ships operating in the Persian Gulf.
Top US naval commander in Middle East found dead
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/us-naval-commander-stearney-dead/index.html
Commander Of US Navy's Middle East Fleet Found Dead
Click to expand...
In the past two months, there have been several high ranking Military Officers assassinated or found dead in Afghanistan. This goes for Afghan Officers, as well as, US/NATO high ranking Military officers. US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Stirney was the high command of a large Navy Fleet in Afghanistan. Add to that - Diplomatic Peace talks have begun to defuse the situation and pull foreign Troops (US) out of the Country. There might be some kind of power-struggle going on and high ranking Military Officials are getting bumped-off?
Afghanistan (End Quote.)
Vice Admiral Scott Stearney was top Navy Brass. This is a long article but presents some very interesting information that might apply to his death?
December 21, 2018 - Scarce News on Admiral Stearney’s Death
Scarce News on Admiral Stearney’s Death
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069002599121256448
Video
Now the Criminal Investigation Service of the US Navy and the Ministry of the Interior of Bahrain are conducting relevant activities.
US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Stirney is found dead at his residence in Bahrain. He was the commander of the Fifth Fleet - the American grouping of ships operating in the Persian Gulf.
Top US naval commander in Middle East found dead
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/us-naval-commander-stearney-dead/index.html
Commander Of US Navy's Middle East Fleet Found Dead
Click to expand...
In the past two months, there have been several high ranking Military Officers assassinated or found dead in Afghanistan. This goes for Afghan Officers, as well as, US/NATO high ranking Military officers. US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Stirney was the high command of a large Navy Fleet in Afghanistan. Add to that - Diplomatic Peace talks have begun to defuse the situation and pull foreign Troops (US) out of the Country. There might be some kind of power-struggle going on and high ranking Military Officials are getting bumped-off?
Afghanistan (End Quote.)
Vice Admiral Scott Stearney was top Navy Brass. This is a long article but presents some very interesting information that might apply to his death?
December 21, 2018 - Scarce News on Admiral Stearney’s Death
Scarce News on Admiral Stearney’s Death
An interesting US TV interview dating from 1988 with investigative journalist Joseph McBride of the Nation who broke the story ahead of the Presidential election that year that there was reasonable reason to suspect that G. H. Bush had been a member of the CIA back in 1963 but had hidden this fact from the American public. McBride explores the implications of this as well as the suggestion that Bush was involved at some level in the events in Dallas in '63. This ground has been well covered since by a number of JFK investigators but its interesting to see how McBride was at first given exposure on this topic and as the implications began to gain some early traction the year of the election the story was gradually memory holed, and the US public ended up voting for a true monster none the wiser.
The interview is on a YouTube channel worth keeping an eye on; suitably called The Memory Hole, it specializes in uncovering the kind of TV documentary and interview that used to get broadcast from time to time in the world prior to 9-11 when there was still some room for intelligent people to question in public the nefarious goings on of our glorious leaders.
The interview is on a YouTube channel worth keeping an eye on; suitably called The Memory Hole, it specializes in uncovering the kind of TV documentary and interview that used to get broadcast from time to time in the world prior to 9-11 when there was still some room for intelligent people to question in public the nefarious goings on of our glorious leaders.
I uploaded the following video 4 years ago, which is taken from the second half of the documentary Dark Legacy: George Bush and the Murder of John F. Kennedy, by director John Hankey.
The first half of the documentary focuses on the cover-up of JFK's autopsy, leaving you in no doubt that the president was also shot from the front as his motorcade crossed Dealey Plaza. The second half is relevant to Bush Sr.: the myriad connections that place the Bush family center-stage in the plot to kill Kennedy.
George HW Bush was 39-years-old at the time. Almost completely airbrushed from his biography is that he had by then been a CIA operative for almost two decades.
George HW Bush may not have been THE political operator at the time (that role of 'eminence grise' belonged to his seniors, like Allen Dulles), but this documentary shows that - whether or not he was literally on Dealey Plaza that day - Bush 'Senior' was instrumental in bringing together the elements (including the assassins) that made it happen.
The first half of the documentary focuses on the cover-up of JFK's autopsy, leaving you in no doubt that the president was also shot from the front as his motorcade crossed Dealey Plaza. The second half is relevant to Bush Sr.: the myriad connections that place the Bush family center-stage in the plot to kill Kennedy.
George HW Bush was 39-years-old at the time. Almost completely airbrushed from his biography is that he had by then been a CIA operative for almost two decades.
George HW Bush may not have been THE political operator at the time (that role of 'eminence grise' belonged to his seniors, like Allen Dulles), but this documentary shows that - whether or not he was literally on Dealey Plaza that day - Bush 'Senior' was instrumental in bringing together the elements (including the assassins) that made it happen.
Thanks for reposting Niall. Always was pretty much a slam dunk case against the Nazi Bushes, which brings to mind that quote George H.W. Bush is attributed to have given in a June 1992 interview to journalist Sarah McClendon, who covered the white House for over 50 years. As to my knowledge no original printed source has ever been uncovered it may be apocryphal, but it still says it all:
On the balance of evidence we have now, its fair to suggest that there was mafia hit squad, an anti-Castro CIA hit squad, a Spanish/French derived NAZI hit squad and even possibly a Mossad derived hit squad (though that link may have been covered by the Otto Skorzeny Nazi team), all lined up in Dallas that day and ready to make sure for the master planners that all roads led off in so many different directions that no one bullet could be traced directly back to Rome. Even if they all didn't actually take part in the murder, they were all in town that day and they all scattered different trails of conflicting evidence behind them as they fled the kill zone. Seems they learned something from taking on Ceasar face to face all those centuries ago! Plausible deniability meets chaos theory.
On the balance of evidence we have now, its fair to suggest that there was mafia hit squad, an anti-Castro CIA hit squad, a Spanish/French derived NAZI hit squad and even possibly a Mossad derived hit squad (though that link may have been covered by the Otto Skorzeny Nazi team), all lined up in Dallas that day and ready to make sure for the master planners that all roads led off in so many different directions that no one bullet could be traced directly back to Rome. Even if they all didn't actually take part in the murder, they were all in town that day and they all scattered different trails of conflicting evidence behind them as they fled the kill zone. Seems they learned something from taking on Ceasar face to face all those centuries ago! Plausible deniability meets chaos theory.
Had seen this before and viewed it again when posted, so thanks for the reminder.
Oh those Bushies, what a corrupts family racket (and to see Prescott in on the 1934 Bankers' Coup). Absent in the film here was the near silence on LBJ, and both he and J. Edgar are more or less painted in a good light (at least that is what is remembered). However, as Michael B-C states:
Yes. When the cagey string pullers put their minds to it, they get every one up dancing and pointing fingers to the point that, who is on first base becomes near impossible to fully know. They always leave crumbs, though, sometimes purposefully to help deceive and sometimes they make mistakes in their games, and the cover ups and omissions are clues enough.
So, multiple teams (some teams with multiple handlers), and tracks laid down pointing off into all directions.
Edit: P.s. (forgot the title of the thread) Sayonara, George Herbert Walker Bush, may your transition be everything mirrored that you gave, and if heavens gate happens to kick you in the arse for what you Bushies gave done, well that is divine law for you. Have a nice contemplation.
Last edited:
