Bush and Harriman Family Connections.

[David Zephyr]

No doubt now that the WASP dynastic families of the Harriman and Bush clans are now legend. Along with the Dulles family, they certainly have had their way with writing American history to their own benefit, including selecting Presidents and removing them, if and when, it suited their purposes.

The Bush/Harriman financial purse seems to have had no boundary domestic or abroad, legal or political that hampered its interests. Indeed, the extent of their collective power seems almost surreal today in how it clandestinely (when the job was a dirty one) and overtly (when the job was deemed of societal merit) manipulated our nation in almost every possible way imaginable.

Who'd have ever figured that poor little Richard Nixon was just a pawn in the Bush family hands and that they were the authors and finishers of his fate? That it was Prescott Bush and his Dresser pals who cobbled a near penniless Nixon into a Congressman and later to a Vice President in the 1950's? That it was Prescott Bush and his friends at Dresser calling the shots in Nixon's Presidential campaign in 1960? That it was the Bush Cabal of Dulles and Bush operatives that beguiled John Kennedy into the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the same cabal that later ended his presidency. That it was Prescott Bush's money laundered by Nixon to Gordon Liddy during Watergate. And that the only thing that kept Trickie Dick a pardoned criminal instead of an imprisoned one was that he had too much dirt on the Bush and Harriman families.

The crimes have been all kept at bay, of course, for all these many decades thanks to the fact that the Bush Family have had tight reigns on all executives in the White House, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, who defied the tide and beat Gerald Ford (a Warren Commission and Allen Dulles lackey and Nixon pardoner) and his odd VP choice of Bob Dole. Carter briefly encouraged the investigation by Frank Church into the JFK assassination only to be targeted by the Bush crowd once more through Saudi induced oil shortages and an intentionally postponed release of American hostages by Iran in exchange for weapons delivered to them, as promised by George H. Bush, within eight weeks of Ronald Reagan becoming President in 1980.

And then, there it was, a Bush in the Executive Branch from 1980 until 1992. And, still again from 2000 until probably 2008.

What a long reach from the 1950's until this very day, that these families have had on our country!

And from 1976 until clear to 2008, the startling fact is that either a Bush or a Dole has been on every single Republican ticket.

1976: Ford / DOLE
1980: Reagan / BUSH
1984: Reagan / BUSH
1988: BUSH / Quayle
1992: BUSH / Quayle
1998: DOLE / Kemp
2000: BUSH / Cheney (a Halliburton / Dresser man, too)
2004: BUSH / Cheney

Of course, there was a moment of relief from the Bush/Harriman/Dresser crowd when the U.S. had someone named Clinton in the White House.

Now, sometimes I hear that some Democrats bemoan the fact that it seems inevitable that Americans must see-saw between the Bush and Clinton families. That with George W. exiting, we might have to choose between a Jeb Bush and yet another Clinton. Why that's just a silly notion! Isn't it?

Surely everyone knows that the Clintons have nothing in common with the Bush crowd, and most of all, never had any relationship whatsoever with the Harrimans. At least...

[conscious evolution]

1. I wouldn't mind seeing a family tree

for those two families.Including extended family through marriage.
I bet the connections would really be interesting,to say the least.

[Vorta]

3. It might be interesting

... though not necessarily meaningful. I'm related to Bush (and Jimmy Carter) and it's doing me no good.

[KoKo]

4. Kevin Philips "American Dynasty" is a good start. It's a good book and

an excellent read for all things about Bush...including the "family tree" going way...way back before the Nazi Connection.

[David Zephyr]

5. It is an excellent book and I'm glad that you mentioned it here.

Philips really layed out a lot in his book that surprised even this old jaded liberal about the Bush family. Thanks for mentioning it.

[conscious evolution]

9. Thanks for the referance

Tracing family connections can be very illuminating.
Have y'all ever noticed how there is an article every Presidential election about how the candidates are 'related' to some royal family?This is not done by accident.It is done to let certain people's 'know' the pedigree of the candidates.
Think about it.One of the hallmarks,itseems,of so called royal families is their belief in their 'genetic' superiority over us mere mortals.The belief that just because some distant ancestor did good makes them 'better' people than the rest of us.Bab's sure seems to embody this attitude if you ask me.
I also think they learned a lesson from history too.In the old days the oldest son inherited power.Unfortunately to many oldest sons where idiots or morans.So instead of handing over power to a moron they started handing over the reigns to the smarter family members,even if they are 3rd or 4th cousins or are only distantly or remotely connected to the family.Then there are cases where there are no male hiers.A dynasty can change names when the daughters marry.But it is still the same family.Just the name has changed.It doesn't really matter who,as long as they are family.

[KoKo]

10. Interesting...and, I do remember Bush Family related to the Queen of

England Royal Family and it is interesting that his allies were Blair and the Dutch amongst others. (great families stick together). It was through Queen Victoria (and her many children's fortunate marriages) that most of the Royalty of the English and her Prince Albert were ensconsed into the great families pre WWI. Russia, Germany, Netherlands, Greece, Austria, etc.

Bush has used his connections very well. But then we live in a Global World a Global Economy where those who made it long ago still have heirs who rule the Mining, Oil, Shipping and other interests. They got there first! :D

Edited: for typo's and clarifying sentences.

[conscious evolution]

11. And now we know

why they want to repeal the 'death tax'!

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. That stuff is nonsense...

most people don't realise it, but there's nothing particularly unique about those family connections--Bush is something like a 14th cousin of Elizabeth II, but so are millions of other people (me, for one; also I'm distantly related to Bush the Lesser through his mother). And everyone of European ancestry is probably a descendant of royalty; it's just that some people can trace the connection more easily than others (and also, the genealogy of presidents and public figures tends to be a subject of research, to a degree most people's isn't).

[conscious evolution]

34. Most normal people dont care about it

However,people in the upper classes do care.There fortunes and positions in life depend on maintaining the status quo.Royalty,like elephants,never forget.

[Roland99]

40. Ayup. VERY good book!

[Gwerlain]

2. You wouldn't want to forget that...

Prescott Bush oversaw the Thyssen interests in the Ruhr under the Nazis for Brown Bros. Harriman until FDR axed the deal. There's your original Bush/Harriman link.

[David Zephyr]

6. Oh yes, Gwerlain.

Original sin.

[bleever]

7. What, I'm the first to recommend this post?

This kind of history is not nearly well enough known, even here on DU.

K&R. Always love seeing that pic of Nixon getting his hat adjusted.

[David Zephyr]

8. Thanks. I enjoy that photo of Prescott with his boy, Nixon, too.

My sister says that the Bush family's crimes are so epic in scope, so vast, so sweeping that to even talk about them is enough for them to put you in a straight jacket.

Of course, the JFK assassination is the heart of the matter, isn't it? Or should we call it, as Nixon did, "that Bay of Pigs affair"? Thanks for weighing in here in my somewhat obtuse thread.

[Octafish]

12. Bushes and Harrimans also share an interest in EUGENICS...

Not only did they invest in Hitler, the Wehrmacht and the Reich, they supplied lots o' inspiration:

Eugenics: the California connection to Nazi policies

SF Chronicle
Mon, 10 Nov 2003

On Sunday, Nov 9, the San Francisco Chronicle published an extraordinary, most informative article by Edwin Black, that sheds light on the role played by the American eugenics movement in the Nazi extermination policy. Eugenics is a pseudoscience whose purported aim is to "improve" the human race, while eliminating that portion of the race that eugenicists deem "undesirable." The article is adapted from Black’s recently released book, "War Against the Weak," published by Four Walls Eight Windows.

Black shows that American eugenics played a decisive role in the adoption of racist and even lethal public policies in the US and then in Germany. Black writes: "Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims."

SNIP...

"The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization."

The influence of American eugenicists was even more sinister. American eugenicists influenced the Nazi sterilization, experimentation, and extermination policies--including the medical atrocities first conducted on institutionalized disabled human beings--adults and children. What's more, the scions of American philanthropy financed German eugenicists and actively supported their pseudoscientific research institutes.

Therefore, no useful discussion about medical and behavioral research ethics can take place without an examination of the American eugenics movement. Yet, American bioethicists have studiously avoided a critical analysis of the eugenics movement, its lethal ideology, and its inevitably lethal "solutions." By their silence, American bioethics seem to be attesting to the lingering, but covert influence of eugenics within the American healthcare and research community.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/03/11/10.php

Sorry to add to the obtusedness, but some subjects require it.

Great thread, David Zephyr.

[Canuckistanian]

13. My eyes are getting wider with each post here

What? How? When? Who? I'm a fan of your posts, Octafish, but this is getiing.... astounding.

What's around the corner?

[Octafish]

16. Shudda wrote: 'Vietnam and Iraq Wars Started by Same (Class of) People'

Post 3 in the link below makes me very, very sad.

They of "Them" are the "Who's Who," wot?

Vietnam and Iraq Wars Started by Same People

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3193142

Harriman was instrumental in arming Hitler and in backing the overthrow of Diem in South Vietnam, precipitating the chaos that engulfed Vietnam and the United States.

Like World War II was for the corporate class, it was very, very profitable.

[blm]

29. Around the corner is Clinton2 in place to cover up for Bush2. Unless WE stop it.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[David Zephyr]

31. Exellent post, blm.

:thumbsup: I hope it gets play.

[blm]

32. Parry gave permission for this to be reprinted and spread -

My guess is that he knows damn well all of this will be buried forever if the Bushes and Clintons beat down the anti-corruptionm, open government Democrats who are our last chance.

[Canuckistanian]

35. Thanks! I'll read this later.

[H2O Man]

36. Great article.

Parry is right on target, as usual.

[BeHereNow]

41. And tomorrow marks the anniversary of JFK's assassination....

CONNECT THE DOTS people.
JFK was the last president ELECTED by the people, FOR the people.
The KKKabal has been in power ever since.
And yes, Pamela Harriman was key to Clinton's rise to power.
BHN

[Occulus]

47. God. Damn.

Can we stop calling them centrist Democrats and start calling them stealth republicans?

Or stealth neocons?

[conscious evolution]

17. Reading stuff like thismakes

me wonder what is in the vaccines they force soldiers to take.I can totally see where bushco would think that 'hey If their are dumb enough to fight for 'our' oil they are too dumb to breed'.

[blm]

28. That's an interesting aspect.

Kind of the old King David theory. Get rid of the male warriors so the privileged can have more access to the women.

[bobthedrummer]

37. Consider that DynCorp got the contract for plague and anthrax vaccines

in January 2003-DynCorp didn't have any problems with clinical trials or it's criminal history and it's lack of experience in vaccine production was ok with Daddy War Bucks et al

"Co. Wins US Contract for Plague, Anthrax Vaccine" by Maggie Fox Reuters Health 1-22-03
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/January/CoWinsUsContract22.htm

Many of our troops became ill from these DYNCORP/Avant Immunotheraputics "products".
They are among an unknown number of non-consensual human test subjects used by the elite of the BFEE.

[David Zephyr]

19. For those who don't know, Octafish is an expert on the Bush family,

and the its, shall we say, proximity to JFK's assassination.

On this subject matter, Octafish's grasp of that whole, "Bay of Pigs thing" (to quote Nixon) is most impressive.

Thanks for the post about Harriman. I didn't know this, but it hardly surprises me.

[Virginia Dare]

44. Marvin Pierce (Barbara's father) was no slouch either...

he and his wife Pauline had a very shall we say "interesting" marriage. Pauline was killed in a car accident when Marvin, who was driving, claimed he reached over to prevent a cup of coffee from spilling on her and lost control.

A very interesting family indeed.

[Canuckistanian]

14. I'm amazed by the Nixon/Prescott pic

Back in those days, you touched a man's hat like you touched his huevos.

No doubt Nixon was pwnd3d, as the youngsters like to say...

[AntiFascist]

15. Are you implying that we might as well accept see-sawing between two dynasties

because it's better than becoming subjects under the one?

[conscious evolution]

18. I think he is trying to expose the dynasties

SO we can OVERTHROW them.One of the great things about the googles and the internets is that it gives us a way to research and expose such inhuman criminals.

[David Zephyr]

20. Gwerlain touched on this above, but here's some more, conscious evolution

These are the ties that bind.

1.) Bush' Grandfather's company, G. H. Walker and Company, and Fritz Thyssen who bankrolled Hitler.

2.) Allen Dulles's company, Sullivan and Cromwell, investing in Nazi Germany.

3.) W. A. Harriman & Company and Fritz Thyssen in Germany and Union Banking, where German bonds were sold to U.S. investors. Union Banking's president? Bert Walker (that Walker).

4.) Prescott became the vice president of W. A. Harriman.

Bush/Walker...Dulles/Dulles...Harriman.

Let's see...three families and whoops, and there it is:

- Illegal trading with the Nazis
- The OAS and the beginning of the CIA
- The overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953
- The overthrow of the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in 1954
- The grooming for power of Richard Nixon
- The "invention" of South Vietnam, the assassination of Diem and the Vietnam War 1950's through 1974
- The Bay of Pigs Operation
- The assassination of John F. Kennedy
- The Warren Commission and the arrival of Gerald Ford
- The assassination of Che Guevara
- Watergate Crimes, removing Agnew to make place for G. Ford to become President, money laundering
- The undermining of Jimmy Carter's presidency with oil manipulation
- The deal in Paris with Iran to swap arms for a delayed hostage release in 1980
- Iran Contra Crimes
- Iran / Contra
- BCCI
- Haliburton/Dresser Industries

And people wonder how Bush stole the election in 2000 down in Florida where another Bush was Governor.

[conscious evolution]

21. I am so glad you guys

have the patience to dig this kinda of stuff up.I have been doing the google on info found in CorpGovActivist threads and it makes my head spin.
Do you have a list or extended family tree of other current members of the Walker,Harriman,Dulles families?The ones with differant names due to marriage and what not?I have a feeling such a list might come in handy while reaserching stuff.

[AntiFascist]

22. FYI, searching on "Mena Airport" turns up interesting connections...

to the Iran-Contra affair.

:hide:

[David Zephyr]

24. Now, you are really on the mark, AntiFascist

I like your verve and you are on to the other dynasty, huh? Yeah, the Mena Airport. Ooops. Don't want to go too far here. Jerry Brown almost pressed this issue in 1992, but didn't.

The San Jose Mercury News ran an entire series about this sorry state of affairs and just how sick this crowd is to deal drugs to our least fortunate citizens to fund their grand schemes.

Since we are talking drugs, not many people know that little Georgie, during his coke-snorting days, was flying small planes back and forth from Texas to Florida and to Central America. Ever wonder what he was transporting?

In 1971, Bush worked as a management "trainee" for an "agricultural company" in Houston where his "job" was to travel and fly small planes to Florida, around the U.S. and Central America to "size up" exotic plant nurseries and plants that the Houston firm (not known) might want to purchase.

"Is it just us? Does anyone else have a problem seeing George W. Bush as Mr. Green Jeans? The idea seems ridiculous on its face, especially as his plant nursery job comes smack dab (as they say in Texas) in the middle of a time when Bush was living la vida loca, partying, boozing, and, persistent rumors allege, doing other drugs as well.

"Bush lived at Chateaux Dijon, an apartment complex near the Houston Galleria known for its singles scene, which included water volleyball games in its swimming pools. Friends describe him as taking a hearty approach to his social life, and Bush himself has said famously that he was "young and irresponsible" in Houston, that he "'raised a little hell.'" From the Mad Cow Morning News: http://www.madcowprod.com/mc4622004.html

[AntiFascist]

25. Thanks David, I should point out...

that if I had to choose between the dynasties, I would choose the Clintons.

It's kind of frightening when you read authors such as Peter Dale Scott you may come to the conclusion that illegal drug sales are so profitable that they are necessary for propping up our otherwise sick economy. Is this why democracy must be subverted by election fraud? Does our President also have to serve the function of drug king?

[David Zephyr]

26. Agreed. The Clinton Dynasty is better. They serve their purpose, too.

I choose the Clinton dynasty, too.

Howard Zinn inferred that the Democratic Party essentially has been a safety valve to appease the populace when the ruling class and its lawyers (Republican congressmen) go too far. History certainly seems to bear him out.

Much of the Democratic squeaky victories at the polls this month were, according to exit polls, a result of concern with "corruption". So the Democrats provide a "safety valve" against festering resentment by the working class.

Bill Clinton climbed a long way from his poor roots in Arkansas, not politically, but in class structure. He often peppers his speeches these days with reminders that the GOP's tax cut benefits "me and my class, not you". I cringe every time he says this for it is nothing more than the boast of a poor boy accepted by the ruling class. He cozied up to a Harriman, albeit, the widow of one, as a very young man and came to love the smell of power.

When Clinton's generation was entrenched in Chicago in 1968, when the very Democratic Party that he was working for was at its moment of truth, Bill was AWOL claiming (in his biography) that he'd promised to go fishing with one of his mother's many boyfriends and couldn't be in Chicago. How convenient! He has a story that no one can prove or disprove as to why he wasn't in Chicago. In his biography, he unconvincingly laments something along the lines of "I sure wish I could have been with the kids, like Tom Hayden, in the streets there." Really! What utter crap! I was never bothered by Clinton's draft dodging from the War in Vietnam, but his dodging the anti-war movement here in the U.S where it might have cost his political career too much, well, that's something that I don't respect at all.

Clinton's "welfare reform" was far worse than his silly Lewinsky mess. Michael Moore drives that point home in "Bowling at Columbine". One of Hillary's best friends cut her off socially after the welfare reform nonsense.

Today, Bill and Hillary, the corporatists of the DNC, are now weekly lunching buddies with Rupert Murdoch and were guests at his big party out here that even Tony Blair flew over from the U.K. to attend.

Anybody doubting that there is not an entrenched ruling class on this planet is living in a delusion. NAFTA and the trade agreements that Clinton pushed through leave children as wage slaves in deplorable and life-threatening conditions reminiscent of Oliver Twist's childhood. We have the cheap consumer goods and they die young for it.

If forced to choose, I would also choose the appointed Clinton dynasty and its safety valve over the other dynasty in the continual see-saw of good cop/bad cop. The Clintons are the new Kennedys.

But, wouldn't it be great, if just once in blue moon, the people really did have a choice?

I think the great frustration that I sense here at the DU is all based on the cold stark reality that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. All of the love, passion and support that many here have for other candidates is tempered with a split psyche of knowledge that Hillary already has the nomination locked up.

[goforit]

39. Remember Mike Selicas ..." The Amazon Jaque Cousteau" He is now in jail

for transporting one of the largest drug smuggling shipments in America from South America.
Hmmm... I wonder if George Bush knows this guy?
and I wonder how many favors were given to the Bush Cabal?
Interesting connections!!!

[blm]

27. Now you know why neither Bushes or the Clintons wanted Kerry in office and

why McAuliffe was in place at the DNC to make sure the party infrastructure was too collapsed to secure the election process and get the votes counted. Pretty odd that the exit polls said Kerry won by almost 5%, eh?

And pretty odd that Carville called Matalin at the WH to tell her that Kerry was contesting based on 250,000 provisional ballots and soon after Blackwell's office informs Ohio Dem party that there are 150,000 ballots, not 250,000.

And pretty odd that Carville and other Clintonites immediately started blaming Kerry for being weak on national security, when every one of them knew it was absurd to claim that.

And pretty odd that Carville tried to dump Dean after Dean REBUILT the party infrastructure that THEIR team had collapsed since 1996.

Too many ODD things to believe - you'd have to believe in mere coincidence.

Well, I AIN'T NO COINCIDENCE THEORIST.

[David Zephyr]

30. And Kerry stood up against the War in Vietnam and it cost him dearly.

Bill opposed the war, but did so "overseas" in the U.K. where little could be made of it here.

Meanwhile, John Kerry, a war hero came back and stood up to Nixon and became an even greater hero by doing so.

McAuliffe is the corporate money boy. He raised all of that money and won absolutely nothing with it. And Carville criticizes Howard Dean!

By the way, for those who don't know, it was John Kerry who took tongs and hammer at BCCI and Iran Contra in the 1980's, too.

[Karenina]

23. K&R

:kick:

[tomp]

38. wasn't pamela harriman the kingmaker after averell?

didn't she pick clinton?

[BeHereNow]

42. Oh yes. THANK you for noticing. N/T

bhn

[blm]

43. And so the push for Clinton 2

.

[Virginia Dare]

45. Indeed she did, with Jackie's approval..

I often wonder what really took place on those private sailing trips that Jackie and Clintons took.

[blm]

46. Interesting that Ted Kennedy is sticking with Kerry over Clinton - imagine what

HE knows. I think Ted wants someone in the oval office who ISN'T afraid to open the books that need opening. Without doing that, everything gets blown off as 'conspiracy theory' very conveniently for the Bushes.

[Karenina]

48. There does seem to be

quite the concerted effort to prevent Kerry from getting his hands on the bullhorn...