Why is the media still silent on the indisputable Bush family connections to Osama Bin Laden?

There's a thought-provoking bumper sticker that you may have seen over the past several years. It reads: "Can You IMAGINE If Clinton Was Pulling This Shit?"

Think about it for a minute. Before you're tempted to dismiss it as advocating the issuing of a retroactive blank check to Bill Clinton or basically any Democrat president, flip the statement around: "How does BUSH Get Away With This Shit?"

The bumper sticker is really pointing out the absolute imbalance that exists in this country when it comes to honesty and accountability. Why is it that people who wrap themselves in the stars and stripes, thump the bible and position themselves as the "true" patriots and defenders of freedom seem to be able to get away (at least for a while) just about any ridiculous chicanery, however self-serving and damaging to the nation? Here's a quote from one of comedian George Carlin's routines from his album and HBO special "You Are All Diseased" that might shed a little light on the subject:

"This country's most profitable business is still the manufacture, packaging, distribution and marketing of bullshit. High-quality, grade-A, prime-cut, pure American bullshit." Amen.

In other words, its just an accepted fact that as a wealthy superpower you can gloss over anything and avoid dealing with reality, at least until the economy tanks, body bags start showing up and the shit hits the fan hard enough that it starts to spill over on your suburban lawn. Or, like China wanting repayment of the hundreds of billions they've lent us to pay for "Operation Oil" in Iraq. Until then, everybody goes along for the ride. The media, the big corporate interests and, worse, a good portion of the public at large simply prefer to nod slack-jawed at the pat answers and the shallow, illogical crap that is doled out, rather than hear multi-faceted intricacies relevant to the issue at hand and, God forbid, have do any serious thinking.

This unfortunate characteristic of "We the People" ultimately leads to us enduring nonsensical statements designed to avoid telling the truth or in any way actively looking for real answers. The terrorist attacks of 9-11 morph into something done to us by people "who hate our freedom". Corpses floating in the streets of New Orleans simply prove that "government can't solve big problems". The indefinite continuation of a quagmire like the half-a-trillion dollar occupation of Iraq is necessary "so terrorists don't follow us home". Non-existent connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda become proven fact simply because they're repeated often enough and are never questioned by a domestic media that has completely abandoned their role of investigating the government's assertions and then reporting the truth.

I don't believe for a minute that the average person really accepts the nonsense pedaled by the Bush-Cheney administration for the past 7 years, but then again, what percentage of the public actually pays attention at all? Speaking of connections between the late despot of Iraq and al Qaeda, isn't it interesting that the media has never asked, even once to my knowledge, any of the following questions:

1. Why has the U.S. government never demanded answers from the Saudi Royal family about the Saudi nationals who plotted against and successfully attacked the nation on 9-11? Was this an act of guerrilla terrorism or a formal declaration of war by Saudi Arabia against the United States? Does the Saudi Royal family condone the attacks? Have they ever apologised for them?

2. How can a sitting president and vice-president be trusted to unilaterally decide going to war is necessary when they and their families and their close business associates have a clear and direct financial interest in promoting America's first ever "preemptive" attack and invasion of another nation state?

3. Both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush and their immediate relatives have long-standing and documented business dealings with the bin Laden family. Has this in any way compromised the nation's interests and our national security and more importantly, following 9-11, what role did these private family interests play in influencing the government's reaction to these attacks and the nation's military and foreign policy from that point forward?

Re-read these questions and ask yourself: "How in the world could it be that our media, the Democrats and the public at large have not demanded immediate answers and full disclosure on these issues?"

(If you'd like to see a visual representation of the proven connections between the Bush and bin Laden families and more examples of shadowy international networks of power, money and government, take a look at the intricate diagrams drawn by the late artist Mark Lombardi. Just conduct a search using his name or visit here: www.wburg.com/0202/arts/lombardi.html)

It's beyond incredible. It is nothing short of a complete dereliction of duty that these "smoking guns" have gone totally unexamined by our elected representatives in the halls of Congress and our media as part of the public discourse. Don't they cut to the core of the current "war on terrorism"? Hasn't this been the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since September 11th, 2001? Or is our true agenda in helping Israel wage war on Arab nations and engaging in a massive and baldfaced imperialistic oil and land grab in Iraq?

"Can You IMAGINE If Clinton Was Pulling This Shit?" Think about it: What would have happened if President Clinton had been in office when 9-11 occurred and instead of a flimsy real estate scandal like Whitewater it turned out that his family had decades-old business dealings with the family of the ringleader that planned, funded and carried out these attacks? He would've been pillared and drummed out of office. But only after extensive Congressional investigations. After endless months of investigative reports and accusatory news stories in the media. After being labelled a "traitor", "unpatriotic", "un-American" and "a terrible president, even worse than Carter."

But when it's a Republican president, up to his neck in corruption and personally benefiting from the insane policies his administration concocts and not even smart enough to care to try to hide these connections, he gets a free pass, from Congress, from the media, from the "people" who find him "likable" and his phony Texas cowboy image "down to earth". Folks, there can be only one explanation for something so deeply disturbing and bizarre.

"Bullshit. High-quality, grade-A, prime-cut, pure American bullshit."

Here's an excerpt from a Judicial Watch report just weeks after 9-11:

Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, reacted with disbelief to The Wall Street Journal report of yesterday (late September, 2001) that George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm. The senior Bush had met with the bin Laden family at least twice. (Other top Republicans are also associated with the Carlyle group, such as former Secretary of State James A. Baker.)

The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had supposedly been disowned by his family, which runs a multi-billion dollar business in Saudi Arabia and is a major investor in the senior Bush's firm. Other reports have questioned, though, whether members of his Saudi family have truly cut off Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the Journal also reported yesterday that the FBI has subpoenaed the bin Laden family business's bank records. Judicial Watch earlier this year had strongly criticized President Bush's father's association with the Carlyle Group, pointing out in a March 5 statement that it was a "conflict of interest (which) could cause problems for America's foreign policy in Middle East and Asia." Judicial Watch called for the senior Bush to resign from the firm then. This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal.

"The idea of the President's father, an ex-president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group", stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.... --Judicial Watch, 9/28/01

You can read more, much more at http://www.bushwatch.com/ and dozens of other "alternative" (read: investigative) news websites.

God Bless American Bullshit.

Random Thought on How Long it Will Take the American Public and History to Catch Up with the Bushes and their Ilk:

"Evil is obvious only in retrospect."

~ Gloria Steinem, American feminist, journalist, author, publisher

Bill Bradley's Three Pointer

Former Democrat Senator and two-time NBA champion Bill Bradley knows a few things about winning. A three-time All-American at Princeton, he delayed going pro so he could put in a couple of years at Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship. As a forward for the New York Knicks he helped them win their first NBA championship in 1970 and a second in 1973. In 1977 he was elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame in his very first year of eligibility. His jersey number 24 was retired by the Knicks in 1984.

Following the 2004 election "victory" by the Bush-Diebold team, he wrote the following essay which appeared in the New York Times. Although it has since become clear that the Kerry-Edwards ticket likely won the election, especially in light of the confirmation of the GOP's massive use of voter caging revealed during the Gonzales hearings, Bradley's salient points are still highly relevant. His argument is that until the Democrats create a three-point strategy to develop the central ideals that guide their leadership, they are doomed to only occasional possession of the White House, largely based on lucking into a charismatic leader similar to a Kennedy or Clinton.

According to Bradley, the places to incubate, test and spread political strategies and principles are on campuses, in academic journals and in the news media. More than anything, he's advising the Democratic leadership to take the long view (admittedly, something progressives sometimes have difficulty with) and borrow a page directly from the Republican's play book. When you carefully consider his thesis, its very compelling.

Why hasn't it gained credence with the party and the people who fund progressive politics in this country? Is it true, as critics of the Dems say, that what the party lacks is a sense of the 'big picture' and where they're going? Or, even worse, maybe the Democrats, always quick to appease, ready to capitulate and eager to compromise, just don't have a sense of where they are unless a great leader can bring it all into focus.

A Party Inverted
by Bill Bradley
Published on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 by the New York Times

Five months after the presidential election Democrats are still pointing fingers at one another and trying to figure out why Republicans won. Was the problem the party's position on social issues or taxes or defense or what? Were there tactical errors made in the conduct of the campaign? Were the right advisers heard? Was the candidate flawed?

Before deciding what Democrats should do now, it's important to see what Republicans have done right over many years. When the Goldwater Republicans lost in 1964, they didn't try to become Democrats. They tried to figure out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the voters. As part of this effort, they turned to Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and soon to become a member of the United States Supreme Court. In 1971 he wrote a landmark memo for the United States Chamber of Commerce in which he advocated a sweeping, coordinated and long-term effort to spread conservative ideas on college campuses, in academic journals and in the news media.

To further the party's ideological and political goals, Republicans in the 1970's and 1980's built a comprehensive structure based on Powell's blueprint. Visualize that structure as a pyramid. You've probably heard some of this before, but let me run through it again. Big individual donors and large foundations - the Scaife family and Olin foundations, for instance - form the base of the pyramid. They finance conservative research centers like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, entities that make up the second level of the pyramid.

The ideas these organizations develop are then pushed up to the third level of the pyramid - the political level. There, strategists like Karl Rove or Ralph Reed or Ken Mehlman take these new ideas and, through polling, focus groups and careful attention to Democratic attacks, convert them into language that will appeal to the broadest electorate. That language is sometimes in the form of an assault on Democrats and at other times in the form of advocacy for a new policy position. The development process can take years. And then there's the fourth level of the pyramid: the partisan news media. Conservative commentators and networks spread these finely honed ideas.

At the very top of the pyramid you'll find the president. Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it and it works fine.

It is not quite the "right wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton described, but it is an impressive organization built consciously, carefully and single-mindedly. The Ann Coulters and Grover Norquists don't want to be candidates for anything or cabinet officers for anyone. They know their roles and execute them because they're paid well and believe, I think, in what they're saying. True, there's lots of money involved, but the money makes a difference because it goes toward reinforcing a structure that is already stable.

To understand how the Democratic Party works, invert the pyramid. Imagine a pyramid balancing precariously on its point, which is the presidential candidate.

Democrats who run for president have to build their own pyramids all by themselves. There is no coherent, larger structure that they can rely on. Unlike Republicans, they don't simply have to assemble a campaign apparatus - they have to formulate ideas and a vision, too. Many Democratic fundraisers join a campaign only after assessing how well it has done in assembling its pyramid of political, media and idea people.

There is no clearly identifiable funding base for Democratic policy organizations, and in the frantic campaign rush there is no time for patient, long-term development of new ideas or of new ways to sell old ideas. Campaigns don't start thinking about a Democratic brand until halfway through the election year, by which time winning the daily news cycle takes precedence over building a consistent message. The closest that Democrats get to a brand is a catchy slogan.
Democrats choose this approach, I believe, because we are still hypnotized by Jack Kennedy, and the promise of a charismatic leader who can change America by the strength and style of his personality. The trouble is that every four years the party splits and rallies around several different individuals at once. Opponents in the primaries then exaggerate their differences and leave the public confused about what Democrats believe.

In such a system tactics trump strategy. Candidates don't risk talking about big ideas because the ideas have never been sufficiently tested. Instead they usually wind up arguing about minor issues and express few deep convictions. In the worst case, they embrace "Republican lite" platforms - never realizing that in doing so they're allowing the Republicans to define the terms of the debate.

A party based on charisma has no long-term impact. Think of our last charismatic leader, Bill Clinton. He was president for eight years. He was the first Democrat to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt. He was smart, skilled and possessed great energy. But what happened? At the end of his tenure in the most powerful office in the world, there were fewer Democratic governors, fewer Democratic senators, members of Congress and state legislators and a national party that was deep in debt. The president did well. The party did not. Charisma didn't translate into structure.

If Democrats are serious about preparing for the next election or the next election after that, some influential Democrats will have to resist entrusting their dreams to individual candidates and instead make a commitment to build a stable pyramid from the base up. It will take at least a decade's commitment, and it won't come cheap. But there really is no other choice.

Bill Bradley, a former Democratic senator from New Jersey, is a managing director of Allen & Company.

© 2005 New York Times, Co.

Random Thought as the Democrats Prepare to Either Waltz to Victory Next Year or Sprint to Defeat:

"The only interesting answers are those which destroy the questions."

~ Susan Sontag, American novelist, essayist and critic

A brief flashback to another golden age of Republican thievery

First, Karl Rove bows out of his role as the devil incarnate of Washington politics and now comes word that Reagan-era uber-hack Michael Deaver has expired and gone to wherever lobbyists ultimately go. Last week's news of Mr. Rove's skulking back to Texas brought Mr. Deaver to mind, causing one to wonder "whatever happened to . . .?" Well, now we know.

Interestingly, in the CNN.com obituary of Deaver www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/18/deaver.obit.ap/ there was nary a mention of his infamous appearance on the cover of TIME magazine. Being that both CNN and the newsweekly are part of the sprawling (staggering?) Time Warner media empire, you'd think the editors at CNN would have given credit where credit was due. To refresh your memory, Deaver the Cleaver's nose-thumbing moment as TIME cover-boy was widely seen as a motivating factor for bringing his baldfaced influence pedaling under federal scrutiny which ultimately derailed his gravy train and almost sent him to the poky.

Just to put things into perspective, the most egregious of this hack's pocket-stuffing escapades pale in comparison to the chicanery and corruption of the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate. While Reagan almost put America into the poorhouse with his idiot 'star wars' intergalactic laser beam missile defense debacle, at least his advisers were smart enough to (occasionally) pull troops out of unwinnable quagmires. Sadly, this is something the neo-cons from the Project for a New American Century, the ideologues for the numb skulls currently bankrupting the treasury and robbing the taxpayer still haven't figured out. Well, that's the 'spend and bomb' GOP for ya.

Random Thought as the Rats Abandon the Bush-Cheney Ship:

"Silence moves faster when it's going backward."

~ Jean Cocteau, French poet, novelist, dramatist, filmmaker