Iraq Intelligence Letter Associating Al Qaeda with Iraq Was White House Contrivance

When it rains it pours. In the immediate wake of an apparent suicide of Dr. Bruce Ivins in the face of what increasing looks like the FBI's attempts to frame him as the government's scapegoat for the 2001 Anthrax Scare, evidence is now being presented by journalist and author Ron Suskind that in 2003 the White House promoted a forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda as part of its concerted effort to bamboozle the American people into supporting their conjured neocon war against Iraq.

The forgery appeared as a follow-up to the now infamous "Feith Memo," a 16-page "top secret" intelligence document "leaked" to the Weekly Standard purportedly detailing evidence of Saddam's complicity with terrorist activities perpetrated by al Qaeda.

Feith's notorious allegations, produced by the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, were summarized and published in the Weekly Standard in an equally notorious article, "Case Closed" that served to prop-up the latest casus belli in a string of lies, including the "Niger Yellowcake Forgery," that were aggressively exploited by Vice President Richard Cheney in order to promote what has now turned into the Administration's regional war in the Middle East.

When it all folds together, the unavoidable conclusion -- that Congress nevertheless persists in avoiding -- is that the Bush/Cheney Administration is guilty of war crimes of the highest order.

Book Says White House Ordered Forgery
By MIKE ALLEN | 8/4/08 11:23 PM EST

A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.
Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”

The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”
The Telegraph story by Con Coughlin (which, coincidentally, ran the day Hussein was captured in his “spider hole”) was touted in the U.S. media by supporters of the war, and he was interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Over the next few days, the Habbush letter continued to be featured prominently in the United States and across the globe," Suskind writes. "Fox's Bill O'Reilly trumpeted the story Sunday night on 'The O'Reilly Factor,' talking breathlessly about details of the story and exhorting, 'Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda—Saddam.'" According to Suskind, the administration had been in contact with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in the last years of Hussein’s regime, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti.

“The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”

As we discussed above, this was apparently all part of an organized effort to provide false intelligence linking Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda and Osama ben Laden. The centerpiece of the scam was the infamous "leak" of a "top secret" memo written by Douglas Feith, the neoconservative head of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, a classical piece of agitprop now known as "The Feith Memo."

Miraculously, as they say, the Feith Memo fell into the hands of none other than the Weekly Standard, the bastion of neoconservative journals founded by William Kristol, and was reported in an article entitled "Case Closed," by the Standard's Stephen F. Hayes.

The 16-page memo detailed years of so-called attempts to coordinate terrorist activities between Iraq and al-Qaeda, intelligence that now has been proved false and made up from whole cloth.

Richard Cheney then began to give personal interviews promoting the most recent "evidence" of Iraq and al Qaeda complicity in planning terrorist operations, "evidence" that was completely contrived as ordered up by him personally. Here is one example:

In today's [1/27/04] Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information." [cf. Weekly Standard, "Case Closed", by Stephen F. Hayes; Editor's Note of 01/27/04.]

Only a few weeks later, the hoopla that followed the Feith Memo was capped by the forged letter from the Iraqi chief of intelligence to Saddam Hussein, the missive now under examination by Ron Suskind. Despite confrontation from the media's left-bank, Cheney continued for months in the controlled mainstream media to arrogantly promote the very lies that had been discredited by the independent press. It was all a can of pork and beans.

Why haven't they been impeached?  Ask Kafka.

The late, but still unsinkable, Molly Ivins once counseled: "Never get into a mud wrestling contest with a pig; you get all muddy and the pig loves it."  Still I can't help but wonder why McCain is attacking the experience of Barack Obama.

Even more shocking, given the military history he has taken pains to bury, is his assertion that Obama does not have McCain's military experience, repeatedly claiming that McCain is by far the most experienced and therefore the most trustworthy candidate to fill the role of Commander-In-Chief.

Therefore, since McCain has announced today that he will stick by his recent ads featuring a classic presentation of the fallacy, argumentum ad hominem (by association), some Dems think it only fair to examine his claim that he has the military experience that we need in these trying times of "war."

McCain's 1967 USS Forrestal Incident

August 1-3, 2008 -- With McCain's campaign firing off anti-Obama videos, there is one video John McCain doesn't want anyone to see:

Courtesy of The Wayne Madsen Report:

"The John McCain campaign is releasing a series of anti-Barack Obama videos. However, there is one video that Johnny "Wet Start" McCain, as he was known after the disastrous USS Forrestal fire in 1967, does not want America to see."

From WMR, November 20, 2007: WMR has learned additional details regarding the deadly fire aboard the Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, on July 19, 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The additional details point to then-Lieut. Commander John McCain playing more of a role in triggering the fire and explosions than previously reported.

WMR also cited the potential that McCain's Navy records were used against him by the neocons in control of the Pentagon, "The neo-cons, who have had five years to examine every file within the Department of Defense, have likely accessed documents that could prove embarrassing to McCain, who was on board the USS Forrestal on July 29, 1967, and whose A-4 Skyhawk was struck by an air-to-ground Zuni missile that had misfired from an F-4 Phantom."

In McCain's case, the "wet-start" apparently "cooked off" and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration.

"Wet starting" was apparently a common practice among young "hot-dog" pilots. McCain was quickly transferred to the USS Oriskany (the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred). After the disaster, McCain was shot down over North Vietnam on October 26, 1967.

"McCain was confronted by Forrestal fire survivors with his role in starting the Forrestal fire during his 2000 presidential campaign, particularly in South Carolina. McCain was visibly shaken by the encounter with the survivors, according to some who contacted WMR. WMR is pleased to present the video that causes McCain to turn whiter than his usual wan complexion. Watch the following video and McCain's reaction to any mention of the Forrestal is understandable."  -Wayne Madsen

See Video Here

Just this week, my news filters started picking up what increasingly appears to be a disinformation campaign aimed at "poisoning the well" in Latin America:

* "DEA Reports Show That Mexican Cartel 'Thugs' Are Receiving Training From Iranian Revolutionary Guard"

* "Mexican Drug Cartels and Islamic Radicals Working Together"

* "The Caracas-Tehran Axes"

Something is up.
They are cranking up the propaganda machine perhaps in preparation for
a future deployment of U.S. forces in Mexico, Colombia and/or Paraguay.
For now, their intention seems to be to threaten and to terrorize.
Imagine that.

Mexico,
in stoking up the heat on the drug cartels, has fallen into anarchy
within its northern states along the U.S. border. Although the Bush
Administration recently announced funding support for the Mexican
military in their violent struggle against the Sinaloa
Federation and Gulf Cartels, it is possible that more direct support
may have been “placed on the table,” even though the cartels have
devolved into interior power struggles and internecine wars for
territorial control.

Bolivia and Ecuador
are lining up with our OPEC "enemy," Venezuela, who currently supplies
25% of our imported oil. Both are currently experiencing diplomatic
conflagrations with the right-wing government of Colombia, which the
Bush Administration supports. Issues involve Colombia's alleged
cross-border incursions into Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela in pursuit
of left-wing guerrillas whom Colombia claims have been given sanctuary
by them. Venezuela has vehemently denied any support.

All the while, the Bush Administration has recommissioned the 4th
Fleet and sent it to the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela. The Navy
has already launched acts of provocation, in the form of "accidental"
flyovers of Venezuelan island territories in the Caribbean, drawing
protests from Chavez. At the same time, Ecuador demanded that the
United States close its airbase in that country, which we did, moving
it to Colombia.

Last week, it was revealed that George W. Bush's man in Bogota, President Álvaro Uribe [right], just happens to be one of the former captains of Colombia's infamous Madeline cocaine cartel, led by Pablo Escobar [left],
who was "reportedly" killed in a joint operation of DEA and Colombian
government forces in the 90s. What appears to have occurred is that CIA
and Mossad handlers lost control over both Escobar
and Daniel Noriega of Panama after Vice President George H. W. Bush,
Oliver North and John P. Walters, who is not surprisingly the current
"Drug Czar" under George W. Bush-43, spent so much "persuasive" effort
in bringing them into the CIA Colombian "plaza" in order to benefit the
Contra counter-revolution against Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

It has been a general rule in Latin America that if the government was a first generation democracy emerging from the neo-liberal
thumb of American corporatism, then the drug "plaza" was run by the CIA
against them in order to raise illegal covert funding for groups like
the Contras in Nicaragua, mentioned above; ergo, the infamous
Iran-Contra Affair. But now, competition has arisen even in the
underworld as resurgent left-wing movements, such as Colombia's FARC, have moved into "the plaza" to take their "cut" of the profits in order to buy arms; although, the Bush and Uribe governments have announced that FARC is all but defeated.

Much of the time, it is the U.S. arms industry providing the arms for the left and the right and now, evidence has begun to emerge that Mossad has always been active in the region as a silent partner to the CIA. Some have even accused Mossad of covertly "outing" the CIA by deferring all of the blame for Iran-Contra onto President George H. W. Bush, who outrightly
favored the oil rich Arab nations over the national interests of Israel
in the immediate years of the Soviet's demise in the Cold War. Now they
feel much more comfortable with his -- let's face it -- idiot son, who
has allowed an obviously compromised and corrupted Richard Cheney,
stumbling along in the secure hands of a cabal of sayanim neocons with their promise to create wealth for the American oligarchy, take over the American government from the shadows. So go the recent accusations from the underground press.

We all should be keeping our eyes on Latin America as our politicians, both conservative (McCain) and "progressive" (Obama)
refine their respective "opposing" positions on a possible withdrawal
from Iraq, only to redeploy them to Afghanistan while looking askance
at Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. The controlled press has been
cooperative in covering stories of strengthening Taliban forces in
South Asia but such a redeployment would only represent a shell game.

Indeed, the press is jabbering
on behalf of the Pentagon, calling for more troops in Afghanistan and
publishing stories of U.S. troops on the verge of being overwhelmed at
the same time the Latin American press is being planted with stories
regarding an eminent DEA paramilitary operation in South America [see stories cited above]. Afghanistan happens to be conveniently located on the Northeastern border of Iran.

Personally, what this writer perceives is the opportunity to set up and execute a classic pincer movement [cf. article below]
against Iran from Iraq's southeastern or northeastern border and from
Afghanistan's southwestern border. At the same time, the Pentagon may
set aside a regiment or two for redeployment against OPEC's Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has formed an alliance with Iran's Ahmadinejad,
even moving to the Euro currency for Venezuelan oil/gas transactions
just as Saddam Hussein did and Iran has now done, except in the case of
the latter, Iran has opened its bourse to a number of currencies other than the dollar.

In fact, this amounts to the same formula by which Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, at first drew Russian
military forces into Afghanistan by attacking their puppet regime in
Kabul with U.S. surrogate Mujaheddin forces; and then by covertly
supporting the Mujaheddin against them in an extended, Vietnam-like
debacle in order to get them to dump their GNP into a costly war with
no return, one that would devalue the ruble and then break them. Yet
this is exactly the trap the Bush/Cheney Administration has fallen into
in Iraq. It would not surprise anyone to discover that -- out of
retaliation -- Russian economic advisers inspired first Saddam Hussein
and then Iran and Venezuela to reject the dollar for oil transactions,
thus bringing the full force of the U.S. foreign debt onto our own
heads as the dollar is replaced as the coin of the realm by the Euro.
The U.S. is betting that the dollar will survive all challenges,
including this speculative one.

The Afghanistan redeployment will proceed, despite the State Department's
initiation of talks with Iran, a diplomatic strategy forsworn by Bush
until now. Israel is said to be on the verge of issuing a scathing
denouncement of a negotiated settlement, even though they have begun
negotiating with Syria. Their fear is that the U.S. will withdraw
leaving them vulnerable to future aggression by Iran, who maintains the
strongest military presence in the Middle East, opposite Israel's. Both
Israel and the United States want assurances that Iran will not enrich
uranium that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, but this
artificially precludes the possibility of Iran procuring enriched
uranium from Russia or China, their allies in trade.

Therefor, a dual diplomatic and a military strategy
appear to be in the offing, but many cautious pundits have opined that
Bush is only going through diplomatic paces so that he can later claim
he tried everything possible to avoid war, a tactic he used against
Saddam Hussein that was later documented to have been disingenuous and
perfunctory from the beginning. Bush is known to have an unrealistic
need for certainty; negotiated settlements could never assuage his
anxiety. Besides, one of the primary Straussian (neoconservative) goals set out by PNAC
beyond securing Israel is to insure that the Soviet Union is never
again resurrected to threaten another expansion of her empire into the
oil rich Caspian and Middle East regions or into Afghanistan to secure
southeastern pipeline routes to the coastline of Pakistan. The best way
to prevent a resurgence of the Soviet empire, neocons aggressively assert, is to replace it in the region with our own.

Given Obama's initial opposition to the invasion of Iraq, for Barack Obama to call for (now a staged) withdrawal, one supported by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki of Iraq,
at the same time he promotes sending troops to Afghanistan, is
disingenuous at worse and inadequately informed at best. Since he is
now being handled by some of the top insider foreign
policy experts in the country, my estimation is that he and his
campaign staff are being duplicitous. Notwithstanding the secret
mission established by Cheney to secure for ourselves the
trans-Afghanistan pipelines from the Caspian and the gas rich region of
South Asia west of there, the stated reason for going into Afghanistan
originally was to eliminate al-Qaida
in the wake of 9/11. The Taliban became a secondary issue once we
invaded despite their current resurgence. Nevertheless, I'm sure Obama thinks his position is now more "nuanced."

How shall I put this?  Is there any way that a coalition of progressives and the supporters of Senator Clinton can force Obama back to her left? Obama has now taken a position on many issues -- despite what he said to the press today in denying a "move to the middle" -- an aggregate of positions that is so obviously to the RIGHT of Senator Clinton that it begs the question in the headline.

He is even using Reagan's rhetoric: "I'm not just somebody who is talking about government as the solution to everything. I also believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in faith." [cf. 07-08-08; "Obama Denies Shift to the Middle," Associated Press article posted on RawStory]. 

Sen. Obama is undeniably using the code words of Reaganite conservative-speak, folks. Let me quote that again:

"I'm not just somebody who is talking about government as the solution
to everything. I also believe in personal responsibility. I also
believe in faith."

I am a yellow dog -- progressive -- liberal. I personally intend to vote for the most progressive candidate even if I have to write-in her name, if not the name of Dennis Kucinich because of his impressive courage in pressing forward on impeachment today by announcing that on Thursday, he will submit only one article of impeachment in order to make it more difficult for a belly-up House of Representatives to sweep his 35-article manifesto under the Justice Committee room's carpets.

Of course, there are other assertions that go further in explaining the behavior of our demurred representatives and senators that are more sinister in nature than the common wisdom that our party's problem in leadership is simply a matter of Congressional cowardice reminiscent of the senatorial leadership of Tom Daschle -- a terminally nice guy for whom South Dakotans had little patience and tossed from office. 

Nevertheless, to his credit, Daschle who is currently undergoing a deserved resurrection, managed to avoid the building suspicions of all-round corruption that first adversely affected the Republican Party in Congress. I won't get into the more scandalous "mouth honour breath that the poor heart would feign deny and dare not."  At least not just now.  But as the song goes, "everybody knows the dice are loaded..." and we haven't heard a peep lately out of Obama about the corruption caused by lobbyists and their ilk, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed having brought them to our attention, righteous citizens of God and Country that they are.  Yet, was not the promise to limit the influence of special interest in Washington one of the hallmark issues that brought Obama to the dance?

To wit, my question is is also my thesis:  Is there any possibility that in Denver, the national delegates can/will threaten abandonment of Obama in response to his abandonment of the "one who brung him [to the dance]"? If so, will such a strategy work to either drive him back to a solid, believable commitment to the progressive agenda and stop this insultingly obvious  pandering that has led to the demise of trust, or could it possibly result in the draft of another party nominee?

Hey, it's our party!

Of course, the obvious choice at the convention, should such an Uprising occur, is Hillary Clinton, who now occupies a position to Obama's left, despite that Obama maintains he has held these moderate positions for years. If that was the case, then he was pandering to us, the progressives who brought him to the dance in our pretty pink carnations and prom dresses.  But damn, wasn't that some nice cologne?

Or, failing the strategy of finding another suitor who won't two-time us (if there is such a politician -- they are all such pigs, you know), would Senator Clinton consider an independent party run in September? If so, no one could accuse her of party disloyalty in the vain of Joseph Lieberman, who jumped ship because of "dual loyalties" driven by the type of ethnocentrism that has led him to align with the neoconservative movement and the most strident of their Straussian war hawks and Likudniks (there, I said it, Bibi). Oh no,  the onus for selling-short belongs to Barack Obama by virtue of the abandonment of his commitment to the Progressive Movement, the last bastion of American Democracy representing the interests of its middle and working classes -- "government of the people, by the people and for the people."  That is, if you really, really believe from the bottom of your heart that the 14th Amendment applies to corporations who claim to be "people" too.

It is an egregious affront upon representative democracy for someone (yet again) running on integrity and change to at first run against a candidate while attacking her as too moderate and then, once defeating her with his "progressive candidate" bona fides, to move to her right for the general election.

Just remember, no matter what he promises, never go to the prom without a condom and a box of Kleenex in your purse. If you don't use one, you may need the other.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XsYJyVEUaC4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XsYJyVEUaC4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction. You heard it first on This Ain't My First Rodeo [and on the Wayne Madsen Report]

The Clintons have stuck it out this long
and common sense itself now demands that Hillary drops from the race on
behalf of party unity. But, if I read them correctly, the Clintons have
always been closer to the neocon "middle" than any other candidate.
Declaring themselves "New Democrats"
and racing everyone else to the middle was the strategy they used to
beat an incumbent Bush-41 in the wake of the conservative "Reagan
Revolution."

McCain has been nailed down on the far right, probably with the help of the Clintons in the back rooms. They are currently furiously working to associate him with the Reverend John Hagee, a right wing-nut. The country has had it with these hate-filled apocalyptic Dominionists who have sold their populist souls to the elite corporatists of "the Military-industrial Complex."

We've all figured out by now they are not really even "Christian," at least in the ancient foundations they themselves would have a revivalist America focus upon -- they
are Zealots, the chief rivals of early Christians who struggled to come
to terms with Roman occupation in the midsts of The Jewish Wars of
Zealot insurgency that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in
68 AD, followed by the Great Diaspora and the final stand of Zealot forces at Masada in the second century.
Early Christianity thus took hold among the Hellenized general diaspora
of Jews already scattered throughout the Roman Empire. Once the
decision was made to admit into full communion the Gentiles who had
already taken an interest in Judaism, the course for peace and
reconciliation with the reality of Rome's supremacy "in the world" was
set. The next stage of development, in the face of the persecutions,
occurred when the Christianized diaspora began to distance themselves
from the the Jews of the homeland whose Zealot insurrections they saw
as the cause of their persecutions as Jews. This began with the efforts
of Paul to convince Nero that the Christians were of a different
character and that they intended to remain "subject to the higher
authorities." St. Paul never saw the affects of his writing;
nevertheless, the final and complete severance from Judaism occurred in
the fourth century when Constantine declared of political
necessity,Christianity the religion of the realm without ever having
been baptized himself.



Stay with me; I'm not just bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting.

Any educated "Christian" knows full well that the Messiah was not a messiah of insurrection; he was "The Prince of Peace." So in reaction to the arch-conservative nationalism and triumphalism of right-wing Zealots such as Richard Land, Rev. John Hagee, Pat Robertson and the politicians who
have exploited them, there has emerged within the various populist
movements a pervasive ethical and religious ambiguity. This cultural
ambiguity can be summarized as a confusing mix of metaphors, for
example the leftest Christian view of "Washington-as-Rome" versus its
polar opposite in the left-wing Zealot black community, "Washington-as-Babylon" versus the extreme right-wing view that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon
in Rome. To wit, any less strident, tolerant and ethically directed
notion of the historical and political role of Christianity in a
secular society has to come to terms with the democratic concept of
pluralism with its inclusive respect for both the inalienable
rights of the individual and minorities, as well as the safeguards
against the tyranny of the majority institutionalized in the
Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Opposing the ever
resurgent Theocracy sought by the Extreme Right from age to age, this
more Enlightened pluralistic view
of our forefathers moves the multifarious and contravening institutions
of religion which from time to time run afoul of Civil Liberties with
the best of intentions, to a more peripheral political role of
influence, while respecting their universal spiritual value, by
avoiding absolutist and authoritarian abuse in the nation's own state of affairs.

Theologically, if only for the sake of respite, we leave the Book of Revelations to the realm of the angles without forsaking the Gospels, we can acknowledge that mainstream Christianity represents The Kingdom of Heaven which is "IN the world but not OF the world."
The recognition of this universal spiritual principle calls us to an
altogether higher level of freedom. Subsequently, as the underlying
scriptural ambiguities brought to light by our contemporary "Culture
Wars" are worked through in the mainstream, the ongoing reconciliation
process is driving folks of all extremes back to a less
confrontational, less muscular Middle Way, to a place more in partnership with "the poor" and in identification with their suffering. Moreover, the traditional Christian
notions of community, compassion, reconciliation, surrender, conversion
at depth, spiritual growth and the longing for Peace -- The Way of Wisdom -- seem ever resilient in the face of such Zealotry as we have tolerated from the authoritarian
Right to the point of impatience. A coalition of human secularists with
mainstream Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Native American and various
"churched" and "unchurched" is beginning to emerge into a new
Progressivism and is drawing populists of every tradition back to that middle place.

And Here Waits the Clintons. Hillary is holding on, working the split within the Democratic Party
so that in September or early October she will have brought the nation
to the great political nexus that has been coming anyway.

The Independent Party candidate for 2008
who will win the presidency will be
Hillary Rodham Clinton.



The "October Surprise" of 2008


Independent Joe Lieberman will move quickly to endorse her followed by hundreds from both parties, perhaps even Rush Limbaugh who knows full well where his bread is buttered.


John McCain will go away into retirement exasperated and confused.

John Edwards will have recognized that holding off any endorsement of Obama was wise for him personally but traitorous to the cause of Progressivism. *The
only viable candidate with any chance of facing Clinton in 2012 will
come from a new Progressive Party, formed under resentment by minority
members and ideologically dedicated liberals who felt betrayed by a
Democratic Party turned "independent" who abdicated their economic and
social responsibilities to the people while appropriating the "Southern
Strategy" to maintain its hold on power.



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.