From the Wilderness: GOP orchestrating Bush take down

[CatWoman]

Powers above the White House are deciding that it's time for the Bush gang to go. As a Watergate-style take down is being meticulously put into place, the question is not whether the Bush Administration will be removed before or after the 2004 election. The important questions are whether Bush's successor will address 9/11, Peak Oil, civil liberties, or any of the critical issues. What is being done even now to control the challengers in the Presidential election? A clandestine drama is unfolding and we'll help you understand it. This special free series is a must-read going into 2004.

http://fromthewilderness.com

[monobrau]

1. Sorry, but

I ain't buying it. Too good to be true.

[CatWoman]

4. whatever

but we can hope, right? :D

don't forget to read this, too:

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_beyond_bush_1.html

[justicebuilder]

8. You didn't read the article, did you? n/t

[ClintonTyree]

2. Posted yesterday...........

and I still don't believe it either. These people's egos are way too big to allow something like that to happen. There might be an airplane crash in the future if it is true.

[RandomKoolzip]

3. Mike Ruppert: Does he have credibility?

I've read some peoiple doubt Ruppert's veracity... If this is true, we're in deep shit.

[CatWoman]

5. About the author

http://fromthewilderness.com/about.html

[Sophree]

15. He's been right about nearly everything so far

He predicted the Iraq war long before it ever happened. His writings on 911 have been right on the money.

I would listen to what he has to say. All the recent events- people coming out against the * Admin. Wilson, Levin, Rockefeller (whose criticism Ruppert thinks is highly indicative of a "turn" on *)

They are inept and f-ing up the grand scheme. Or they have worn out their usefulness.

[HFishbine]

6. Take Down

doesn't mean a change of the guard -- just the puppets. Here's how to know if the take down starts to transpire: watch Cheney. If he goes, likely because of "health" issues, the next president will be installed first as VeePee. Then Shrub's time will be limited.

[Mz Pip]

7. Interesting speculation

I read the article last night and am awaiting part II. I don't know what to think about this. It's a pretty wild theory. If these unnamed powerful people can bring down the Bush Administration it seems to me they could just as easily control it.

MzPip
:dem:

[Jack The Tab]

9. Oh Puhleaze - you think they want to take down their new "legend"?

This is the guy they need to be their own Kennedy. They're gonna try to deify this guy like you've never seen before. This is their Kennedy, their legacy.

His father could dismantle the GOP if he wanted to. Actually, his father could dismantle a lot of things if he ever got the inkling. This boy is protected, with a capital P.

Nothing will happen to a Bush.

[htuttle]

10. I reject this assessment

But it's not that I don't think that Bush might go down in flames, or that I have any serious credibility problems with Ruppert.

I reject this, because it puts the responsibility for changing things on an unseen, all-powerful group instead of on the people. It leads to the continuation of our disempowerment, and feeds on the idea that nothing will change unless the big boys make it so.

It reminds me of the attitude that some people have of Karl Rove. So often, even when something seems to go against Bush, I'll read someone thinking that somehow, someway, this must be a Rovian trick.

I think that both those things give 'them' WAY too much power, and take our own power from us.

Even given the same facts as Ruppert brings up, I'd say that the REASON that Bush would be allowed to go down is because the PEOPLE are seeing him as the problem. If the 'big boys' are doing something about it, it's only in reaction to what the people are doing and saying.

Throughout history, freedom and liberty weren't ultimately granted to us by an elite group out of some altruistic impluse -- the people forced it out of them, and the elites agreed, mostly out of fear (of us...or our ancestors). That has been true of nearly every bit of progress -- from the Magna Carta to the enfranchisement of women.

[Cocoa]

11. this kind of thinking degrades democracy

We can see with our eyes that the struggle is real between the Dems and Republicans on this. Why don't we go with what we know to be real rather than some shadowy theory?

Look at the dem candidates out on the trail and tell me that the people aren't the ones that are going to decide this.

[teryang]

12. No one can predict the future

...but many desired (corporate) gains on the right have been consolidated in terms of statutory law and regulations. The Legislative branch is under corporate control. The judicial branch is corporate friendly. There is a lot of risk to keeping the current crew in power and virtually all the benefits the corporations sought have already been made into law. The notion of making the Patriot Act permanent or having Patriot II is probably not regarded as necessary to protect the bottom line and perhaps even a threat. Once you acquiesce to unaccountable government, who's to say you won't become its victim at some point in the future. The greater the excesses to the right, the greater the leftist mood to tear down the edifice will become. So, why not quit while you're ahead. Return to legitimacy now that the shitheads in power have done the dirty work.

It would take decades to undo the harm that has been done. Isn't it enough? I'll bet some are thinking this. This doesn't even get into the harm done to international relations during this regime. Good for junta croney corporations Bad for business generally.

[Tinoire]

13. Of course they are but I'm not sure 'they' is the GOP

'They' is the people who are really in charge behind the scenes and who wrote the script. 'They' is the people who give our Presidents, all of them, their marching orders. Bush's problem is that he's too much of a drunk to follow the script properly and keeps messing up his lines- wet brain- and is an embarrassment and a major liability to them because now, with the advent of the information age, people are digging in places they would rather remain hidden.

Carlyle's Advisory Board and their investors have already made their decision- that inarticulate frat boy needs to go. Somehow they'll replace him with someone more 'palatable' to the American people- could even be a Democrat but you can bet your ass it will be someone who follows their script.

[Sophree]

17. I don't think it's all Carlyle

I think it's all the International Bankers.

Who's more powerful- the Rockefellers or the Bushes? I don't really know. Poppy has the CIA thing, but even the CIA has been exposing * lies.

:shrug:

[iH8repukes]

14. What a heaping helping of "wishful thinking".

I don't buy it for one second.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

16. Did anyone happen to notice...

That this piece relies heavily on Will's interview with McGovern?

[WilliamPitt]

18. Nice...but...

My ass is still crispy after the Capitol Hill Blue fiasco. I'll file this under 'Wait and See.'

[madfloridian]

19. This part sounds about right.....

....."Some on the Democratic side are already positioning themselves to co-opt and control what happened on 9/11 into a softer, less disturbing "Better this than nothing" strategy. This attitude, that the only thing that matters is finding an electable Democrat, is nothing more than a rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Has everyone suddenly forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen: first by using software and political machinery to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters, then by open interference at polling places, and finally by an absolutely illegal Supreme Court decision? Do these people believe that such a crime, absolutely successful the first time, will never be attempted again?...."

Have I heard the word "electable" "unelectable" lately? Oh, yes.

This part I agree with. He says the people can change it.

[Cocoa]

20. I'm not falling for that again

I voted for Nader under the influence of that kind of thinking.

Every day under Bush makes it clearer and clearer that who the president is does make a huge difference.

It's not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, it's removing a gangster from the presidency of the United States.

[madfloridian]

22. Referring to the ones who don't question this administration.

The Democrats,that is. We have articles like "Good Night, Vietnam" coming from the DLC. I admire the ones speaking out now.

I was referring to the ones who aren't and weren't.

The word "electable" is often used by them. I don't like it. That is what I meant. Not Nader, Democrats who speak out are who I will vote for.

[nolabels]

21. Ideal: title of thread is a miss, needs read "follow the money"

It sounds like Mike has been doing some reading here. Clipped them complementary three paragraphs

(snip)
Already we can see the early signs of delusional and dishonest behavior that is being willingly embraced by equally delusional activists who have begun a sterile debate about which candidate to support and why it is better to become involved on the side of one Democratic Party candidate or another or why a vote for a Green Party candidate instead of a Democrat is tantamount to treason. The Republicans, of course, are sharpening up a campaign that will portray George W. Bush as the "Hero of 9/11", "The Protector of the American Economy", "The Savior of the Free World", "A Man Who Loves God", and "The Man Who Cut Taxes". Electroshock therapy might be useful for these people. (snip)
(snip) (snip)
Short Memories
Some on the Democratic side are already positioning themselves to co-opt and control what happened on 9/11 into a softer, less disturbing "Better this than nothing" strategy. This attitude, that the only thing that matters is finding an electable Democrat, is nothing more than a rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Has everyone suddenly forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen: first by using software and political machinery to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters, then by open interference at polling places, and finally by an absolutely illegal Supreme Court decision? Do these people believe that such a crime, absolutely successful the first time, will never be attempted again? (snip)
(snip)(snip)
As casualties continue to mount in the worsening guerrilla war in Iraq, and as growing casualties in Afghanistan are beginning to attract notice, it is a certainty that career military leaders are going to become more restive as they watch their troops die in attacks that remind us all of Vietnam and as the world continues to disintegrate. The power of the military, rarely discussed in the news media, is substantial. And if the military has no confidence in the White House, it will shake both Washington and Wall Street to the core. Without the military, Wall Street cannot function. This is especially true as conflicts continue to erupt all over Africa and instability mounts in Iran and Saudi Arabia. That instability was created by an administration that is increasingly demonstrating zero management competence. (snip)

This has to do with keeping the empire intact IMO