Keith, You are just beginning to discover the intricacies of Republican Politics. If you think this is something, you should have been in Washington during the Nixon era. Republicans like war. But they have to have the country behind them for them to enjoy it. They have been angry at the Democrats for seventy years about:
1. The Democrats stopping the Depression by WW II. 2. Pre-empting them on Civil Rights although some Republicans walked with the Democrats in the Marches, Civil Rights was largely a Democrat affair in the sixties even though the Republican party had a deep history of civil rights from the Civil War forward. However they lost it in the early sixties. 3. They absorbed the most racist arm of the Democrat party (Dixiecrats) left the Democrats during the Civil Rights marches and joined the Republicans with Nixon. They also took the hit on Martin Luther King's assignation. 4. The disgrace of Watergate, 5. Iran-Contra, even though an old Republican (Judge Walsh) was the most damning on the California and Southern branch of the Party. Remember that the Contras were funded by very suspect drug money with the drugs eventually reaching the streets of the Black ghetto in LA. (Not many of those old 'Walsh' Republicans left, remember the elder Bush was not one, he was a CIA spook who also loved war, as was the editor of the National Review William Buckley. Most of these folks long for the Cold War and the duality of "us vs. them." They don't do well with complexity but they are into covert special operations. It seems clear today that the Republicans are the first party to market a President who was exhibiting the first signs of Alzheimer's. As proof of this, they use it as an excuse for him coming out FOR the National Endowment of the Arts in the last two years of his administration. (This mirrored the Democrat fiasco with Wilson during the old issue of the League of Nations when his wife and cabal ran the country into the ground.) 6. The sex scandals that deposed the liberal wing of the Republican Congress 7. Bill Clinton's seeming ability to absorb all of their worst traits and still function through the power of his education and intelligence. 8. Ending up on the opposite side of the last election from what they believed. They were convinced that Bush would win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. Chris Matthews wrote in one of the Republican Jewish rags what the "game plan" was. It was exactly the same as Gore eventually used. They planned to make Gore suspect for this four years and to subvert the economy through powerful partisanship developed through the Cable and Radio Media. They haven't quite caught their pace since they ended up on the reverse side with a minority elected President. So why wouldn't they be a bit confused. I would say that they have a number of un-resolved issues that pollutes their action today as they continually see the present through the dark vision of these actions in the past. Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:09 AM Subject: Walking on eggshells > I'm normally a supporter of the cock-up theory of history and not a > conspiracy man, but I've had to become the latter when considering Bush's > Iraq policy. Some very odd things are going on at senior level in the US > and UK governments. > > Three days ago Vice President Dick Cheney, repeated the tone and substance > of Rumsfeld's recent speech by saying that a return of inspectors to Iraq > "would provide no assurance whatsoever" and that it would provide "false > comfort". Yesterday it was revealed by the BBC for a forthcoming TV > programme that Secretary of State Powell -- normally the second-most > powerful person in the US and usually expected to be totally faithful to > the President -- has repeated his long-held view that UN inspectors should > return rather than attack Iraq. > > The White House didn't seem to be too concerned about this and spokesman > Scott McClellan's insouciant response was there is no widening of debate > within the administration! There was no difference of opinion or emphasis > between Cheney and Powell. He seemed to be backing both an inspection > policy and an invasion/overthrow policy by saying that "unfettered > inspection are not enough." > > There are either fierce differences within the administration at high level > or there is, indeed, a conspiracy going on in the > Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz camp and Powell has been totally sidelined. > > In the UK, there can be little doubt that Blair knows a great deal more of > what is in the mind of Bush or he wouldn't possibly be so gung-ho when > faced with bitter opposition from his own party and to all the rest of the > world with the possible exception of Australia and Turkey. Very senior > government ministers have let it be known discreetly Blair has probably > been allowed to tell Foreign Secretary Straw -- a very astute operator > indeed -- because he is using words rather similarly to the White House > spokesman above, using words both ways. > > One person who has been taking an enormous amount of flak from the army > generals is Defence Secretary Noon. Bush has probably not allowed Blair to > tell him what the real truth of the matter is, because Noon has made sure > that he's said absolutely nothing in recent weeks despite the consternation > that amounts almost to a revolution within his own Ministry. But he'll > probably know soon because he's flying to Washington this week to be briefed. > > The long article in Time magazine, "Secret History of the Sept 11 failure" > by Michael Elliot, reveals just how much the CIA and FBI (as well as > Clinton thro Bush) have been dominated by fears of the Al Qaeda network, > and that there have been a great many more attacks, foiled attacks and > arrests than is realised by the ordinary reader of the press. Between now > and the anniversary next week, the Bush administration must be walking on > egg shells. It could only take one Al Qaeda attack for the whole US > population to suddenly wake up and realise that all Bush's ranting about > overthrowing Saddam Hussein is really beside the point. > > Keith Hudson > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------ > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________
