Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

While the Labour Party members were furious and felt betrayed by Blair's Iraq War policy and were only too well acquainted with the infamous Downing Street Memo, who was the major guest who surfaced to stand beside Blair and praise him, explaining that history would judge him more favorably than he was being judged at that moment by his party members?

It was none other than Bill Clinton standing up for Tony Blair.  This demonstrated that there would be no division in the New World Order of which Clinton and Blair played such major roles.

Remaining on the subject of the Middle East, who was the political figure that Hillary Clinton closed ranks with when it came to voting for a resolution condemning Iran's national guard as a terrorist group, a move seen as favoring early military action against that nation's regime?

Joseph Lieberman was on board alongside Hillary Clinton in supporting the inflammatory resolution.  As in the case of Iraq, dire consequences were predicted unless America acted immediately.  

The result was the same as the National Intelligence Estimate served the cause of debunking Iran's alleged nuclear potential just as Joseph Wilson, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix and others had done relative to the false claims of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

Take a look at Dennis Kucinich's voting record on the Iraq War alongside that of Hillary Clinton.  Not only did Clinton favor initially giving Bush the power to attack Iraq if he felt that conditions compelled it; in a presidential debate with Barack Obama she criticized his sensible statement that during such critical times it is important to speak to opposition leaders even if we oppose their policies and objectives.

Obama's sensible comment harkened back to John F. Kennedy's statement, "While we must never negotiate from fear, we must never fear to negotiate" and Winston Churchill's bluntly memorable peroration, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war."

When Clinton criticized Obama's comment as "naïve," thereby seeking to elevate herself to the level of voice of experience in the campaign, the mainstream media predictably fell into line, touting her "foreign policy credentials" and attempting to spin the view that Obama was out of his depth.  

In some ludicrous instances Hillary was not only seen winning the day with her criticism of Obama; she was projected as winning the debates because she established good body language and had mastered her facial gestures, especially a knowing nod, that was perceived as psyching out Obama.  

It was reminiscent of the "Doctor Feel Good" Reagan operatives saying that he had prevailed in a debate with Walter Mondale because he had "better camera angles."

Fortunately Democratic voters who were paying attention to what was happening did not fall for such media snake oil and realized that Obama was acting more as an agent of change while Hillary was acting like just another dusted off version of the old regime, a New World Order relic.

Hillary looked even more like a New World Order relic when Bill, in an effort to help her campaign by injecting what he hoped would be a perceived note of bipartisanship, announced that after Hillary was ensconced in office that he would be willing to take the lead in traveling around the world seeking to shore up America's image and regain prestige and influence we had lost during George W. Bush's presidency.

Bill Clinton's projected partner recommended for this bipartisan mission was none other than the current Bush's father, Clinton's predecessor in office George H. W. Bush.  Naturally the elder Bush was appalled by Clinton suggesting he undertake a mission that implicitly acknowledged failure on the part of his own son's foreign policy.

The broader lesson to be gleaned by progressives, however, was that Bush the Elder, having been mired in the Iran-Contra Scandal also launched a war with Iraq over Kuwait in a situation that could have been easily remedied diplomatically.  

Bush the Elder also attacked Panama and killed innocent civilians unjustifiably.  He also played a key role in providing weapons for Saddam Hussein, including poison gas that the ruthless dictator was able to use to commit genocide on his own Kurdish population.

To show how eager Bill Clinton is to grovel for votes, what did Bush the Elder do when the then Arkansas governor was running against him for president?  It was Bush's gang that broke the law in unearthing Clinton's passport and ultimately seeking to link him to allegedly un-American activities pertaining to anti-Vietnam War demonstrations he participated in while a Rhodes Scholar student in England.

If you need anymore proof of close involvement by the Clintons in the globalist New World Order scheme in which the Bushes and Dick Cheney prevail and that progressives seek to confront, check out what Mack McLarty is currently doing.

Mack McLarty is one of Bill Clinton's oldest friends.  They reportedly first met when they were in kindergarten.  McLarty served in Clinton's White House as his trusted friend's White House Chief of Staff.  

I haven't read anything about McLarty lately in the mainstream media.  Guess what he is now doing?  McLarty's current position is that of president of Kissinger-McLarty Associates, a political consulting firm based (where else?) in Washington.  Yes, his partner is none other than Henry Kissinger of Vietnam-Chile-Timor days, old "let's make the world in our image" Henry.

This is all great territory for progressives, right?  It is no small wonder that Dennis Kucinich advised his supporters in Iowa to coalesce behind Barack Obama as a second choice behind the Ohio progressive congressman.

Remember Bill Clinton's chief strategist during his successful 1996 presidential campaign?  It was Dick Morris, who formerly worked for Jesse Helms.

Kucinich can correctly smell the political winds and so should other progressives.  As Robert Parry wrote the other day, the actions of the Clintons are to give George W. Bush and his unconstitutional and thoroughly ruthless policies "a pass" should Hillary Clinton be elected.  

Is this the kind of "bipartisanship" that best serves America and the world?