Topic awaiting preservation: The Power Behind (Page 1 of 1)

In Bug's post here http://www.ozoneasylum.com/26554 he notes a couple of things that as he says are a 'little different from the topic at hand' and so because I find this sort of thing of interest..thought I'd spin it off and give you my spin on the power behind the throne... in this case the 'presidency.' Another of my disjointed caffiene induced ramblings... bail out at your liesure. =)

quote:

---

I would consider it proper for any president we duly elect to uphold the oath of office he or she swears. I fully expect them to draw upon sources of guidance and decision making that have 'gotten them to the place they were.

I remember a lot of criticism during the Clinton years about how Hillary 'was the one really running the presidency.'

---

Getting to where they are is always interesting. Ronald Reagan I thought actually 'worked' his way to the presidency. Yes a good deal of help along the way but when you go back to his bad acting career where he became head of the screen actors guild or some such... that was likely his first real 'taste' of politics. But I think 2nd wife Nancy was the main push in that relationship. The power behind the throne.'Others' thought they were but it was indeed she. No doubt Nancy didn't win 'all' the time but if he had doubts and she said 'Ronnie, this is what you do.' He did it. Nonetheless I do beleive he 'worked' to get there. No I was not a fan and even less so of Nancy who I view a particularly vain nuerotic woman whose sole desire was to have tea with the Queen. And she, the Queen, was not amused. =)

Bill & Hillary. An interesting and powerful combination. Again I think Bill 'essentially' worked his way there but I don't think, in this case that Hillary was the power behind . I think that went to Vernon White and the group he amassed. Regardless, I doubt you'll see a more powerful 'couple' in the Whitehouse for a long time to come...and for shear brain power... a very long time. That's certainly a 'maybe' but I'm not sure Hillary can amass the power behind to have a run at the Whitehouse. And besides her behind is already and axe-handle or two too wide...and if that didn't count in todays politics Madelin Albright would be president.

Jimmy Carter was probably the most legitimately *sincere* of the post WW2 presidents. A fluke and proof nice guys don't always finish last. I see the power behind Carter as being absent by design. I think the power behind, found carter to be too soft for even them,( the democrats) and they hung him out to dry. Rosalind was a very nice first lady and I'm sure they 'talked' especially when Jimmy fessed up to lusting in his heart.

Jack Kennedy was a bit of a war hero which helped but the power behind in this case ws of course the old man and gangsters and we all know how that turned out and I think he got there more by 'design' than work... not that he didn't work mind you.

But the 'Design Prize' in my opinion, goes to the Republicans and goes back to Eisenhower. Fresh out of war.. a war hero who as I understand it had no political aspirations. In this case the power behind knew they had a winner. Your service to your country is not over yet Ike.... ya gotta do it. And he did. Design.

And while that 'design' was being executed the power behind was working on a design for another war hero of sorts. When the power behind saw the film of George Hebert Walker Bush being rescued from his war plane in WW2 George Sr. didn't know it but somebody said; '..there he is fellas... that boy's going to be President one day. Unlike Eisenhower who had to be prodded, George seniors father, Preston, for a decade was a well connected Senator and lubricating the labyrinth for his son was - relatively speaking - quite easy.

But in 1992 with the election of Clinton, the power behind the repulicans had to go back to the drawing board and what a 'design JOB' this turned out to be and it's still being executed.

Like him or not I think you'd have to admit that hitherto his political achievments George junior wasn't terribly succesful with his various and other undertakings. And those politcal achievments are, I suggest, the result of pure design. In this case the power behind knew they needed someone they could 'handle.' And when you're a 'trainer'... you look to the 'litter.'
George senior was trainable and easy to handle perhaps, one of the boys is too. 'What about Jeb?' Well I don't know...maybe one day but not now. I think he's too much of 'thinker' for what we want to get done .... we'll let him work Florida for now.. may even make governor... but No this time, I think George Jr is our best bet. Let's talk to the old man.'

And thus in 1994 and two years into the Clinton years the power behind orchestrates Juniors march to the governors mansion in Texas and ultimately the Whitehouse. Laura I see as the 'concience' behind the throne and every once in a while he listens . She's certainly not the power. That goes to Cheney, Wolfewits and Rumsfeld AND others. Read up on their histories... these boys go back a long time and the fact they're visible, suggests to me, there's a serious rift in the power behind the republicans.

Those 3 would much rather be as far behind the scenes as possible. How that rift resolves itself remains to be seen but the next page in the 'design' as I see it is, for the power behind to put forward Jeb as the face of the 'Kinder Gentler Republican.' His kids have been raised as 'catholics' that'll keep the religious element somewhat happy and tho' he denies it, the fact it's even rumoured he had an affair with a former playboy bunny well that ...will certainly pull in a few democratic votes. =)

So when it comes to 'really running the presidency' how do you see it...... =)

quote:

---

So when it comes to 'really running the presidency' how do you see it...... =)

---

I don't really see it as one controlling factor, but many intertwined factors working in a chaotic mesh of ineptitude and corruption.

The immediate power behind the throne? Cheney, Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz is now head of the world bank, but he must also still hold some sway. You are right on their history. I think papa Bush is still in the game too. He has a colorful history himself. These people are in turn controlled by various bankers, corporations, private interests, and self-interest (greed,power,control). Oh, and I am sure some higher elements from the DoD and various intelligence agencies hold some sway as well.

Various members of congress (or perhaps the parties themselves) are also controlled by the mega-corps. You only need to look at campaign contributions and voting records to see that. Political Friendster is another great resource.

One of the biggest controlling factors is the Fed and the international banks. They determine how and when economic policies are initiated. Whether there is boom or bust. Inflation rates, interest rates, how much paper money to pump into the economy, confiscation of wealth and destruction of the middle class through devaluing our money, etc. Tons of unbridled power here. Lot's of debt as well. If certain stakeholders were to sell off their dollar reserves, look out. So you have to cater to them, because they really have you by the balls.

Some recent Supreme Court decisions suggest possible infiltration in that area as well. And now with two Bush nominees who knows what the future holds here. Roberts seems ok, but they all seem ok at first. Rumors are abound that Bush may pick Gonzales this time around, which would not be good.

Sorry for going all over the map here, as I know you asked specifically about the president, but I see lots of threads in this web. They all lead back to the global elite, those who are rich and getting richer all the time at the cost of untold human suffering.

One thing is for sure, whoever is running the damn thing, it ain't us.

As a side note, if you've never read it check out War is a Racket, written by Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most distinguished and highly decorated Marines to ever serve. It is a bit dated, but still very applicable.

Here is a quote:

quote:

---

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

---

There is also a good article on Counterpunch from 2003, good read, kind of a small update to the aforementioned: Is War Still a Racket?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

It is a bit dated

---

Not at all. It's war and it's ever been thus. Sadly.

A few days back on a talk show I heard something that I must have missed along the line. Old to you and other perhaps but new to me that being; that one of the main reasons the US went into Iraq was because Saddam and another country, I can't recall which, were trying to switch currencies... change over to Euro's. Selling their oil in Euro's would of course knock the slats out of the US dollar... and then the 'walls come tumblin' down' don't they.

Was quite interesting and I trust the source. Certainly put a different perspective on things for me.

I watched the various sunday morning talkshow/pundits armed with the latest polls and I'll tell ya the 'power behind' dubya must be wondering what the hell to do next other than double check their overseas accounts and make sure there's fuel in the jet.

Well it can only go on for so long, this 'empire' building. Other than our own beloved the only other recent Emperor who comes to mind is Hylie Selassie. And for some reason I can't see dubya sharing Hylies love for Bob Marley. Too bad actually. =)

(Edited by NoJive on 09-19-2005 11:26)

quote:

---

Not at all. It's war and it's ever been thus. Sadly

---

I didn't mean that the Butler book is dated in concept, but in some of the facts he throws out concerning WWI and profiteering. If anything, what he wrote about occurs on a much, much larger scale today. Hell, this was before there was even a large comglomeration of corporations who depended on war for much of their profit.

quote:

---

[...]were trying to switch currencies... change over to Euro's. Selling their oil in Euro's would of course knock the slats out of the US dollar... and then the 'walls come tumblin' down' don't they.

---

I missed that too. I've been trying to figure out the macroeconomic elements of the invasion, and this is a piece of the puzzle I was missing. Very interesting, and it makes terrible sense. If this is the case, in a distorted way, I guess you could say we were protecting our "national security". Not that it makes it right. The larger the blanket of "national security" grows, the more empirical we become.

If the dollar is destined to fall, let it fall, it is going to happen soon enough anyway as I see it, and there is no good reason to go around the world on conquests to try and stop it. If they had not abandoned the monetary policies postulated by the founders, that of solid backing and the many warnings of central banks, there would be no problem to begin with. If they had not allowed the creation of the Fed and the subsequent state of inflation and debt to take hold... *sigh* Rather than go back to the root of a problem, government always likes to focus on the surface elements. Building on a house of cards...and that is why governments fail.

Not surprisingly, I was unable to find any mainstream sources, but what I found rings true. Another piece of information shoved down the old memory hole obviously. From what I have read, Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 -- when the Euro was worth about 80 cents to a dollar -- and had been making off very well, especially after 9/11 and the subsequent devaluing of the dollar.

Here are some links if you're interested:

http://www.rferl.org/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/iraq_reason.htm
http://www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3193
http://www.888webtoday.com/joyce8.html

There are plenty more out there where that came from. What a tangled web we weave.

In any case, thanks for the heads up.

quote:

---

I watched the various sunday morning talkshow/pundits armed with the latest polls and I'll tell ya the 'power behind' dubya must be wondering what the hell to do next other than double check their overseas accounts and make sure there's fuel in the jet.

---

Support is waning big time, especially since Katrina. I think a lot of people are waking up. My fear is that they will simply switch parties come '06 and '08 -- propaganda overload -- thinking that the Democrats will make things 'right'.

I see either party, both of which support Big Government and pro-interventionist foreign policies, as a threat to our liberties. To me, and I may have said this before, it does not matter if there is a left-footed or a right-footed boot on your throat, there is still a damn boot on your throat.

In any case, unless something happens between then and now, Hillary will be voted into the White House, and I still sincerely believe Bill has his eyes set on SG of the UN. His Clinton Global Initiative, if 'successful', will see to that. This is troubling. Nothing will change. One could say that they are a lesser of two evils, but I've been down that road before, and refuse to keep supporting a sinking ship driven by these two parties. We've been doing it for over a hundred years now, and it has cost us much.

quote:

---

Too bad actually. =)

---

Yeah, a little reggae, and a lot of ganja could do him some good.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 09-19-2005 22:10)

When you get to this page http://www.600am.com/pages/Rafe.html click on 'the rafe mair show audio archives' then click 'thursday.' On the resulting pop up... move the slider up to the 64 minute mark.

An interesting interview with John Nichols US Editor of 'The Economist' on how the British and Europeans areviewing Bush/America the result of Katrina.

I don't think this is something new. It is just a new name applied to the same thing.

In almost every history book you will hear these profiteers called War Hawks. They are one and the same.

Dan @ Code Town

NoJive: Interesting interview. Nice to get things from an outside perspective like that.

WarMage: No, nothing new, but worth pointing out to people who support war based on the ideological/political excuses given. You'd be surprised how many people don't consider this aspect...or even the financial banking elements.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us