I think she stepped down because she learned that there was no way in hell she'd be nominated and might have even gotten caught up in the tidal wave that is overtaking Bushco.
You want sinister?
From my post in GD a broader perspective:
"They" are DONE with Bush.
And the attacks on Miers which resulted in her withdrawal only adds to Bush's appearance of weakness. And if Miers would have defended him were he to come up for any type of legal prosecution or impeachment then this will prevent her from impeding that process. Anyway, if she was as loyal to Bush as is being stated by the press, then it would make sense that he'd choose her if he knows that the tide has turned against him from all sides.
That is IF R. Moore is correct in his assessment (re: his analysis of Brzezinski's true motivations as revealed in his latest article about Bush...which supports the PNAC plan as outlined in his own book). What he's saying is that the PNAC group was used to do the dirty work, and now Brzezinski's non-partisan crowd will step in as heroes and pick through the ruins of Iraq and keep what they want and trash the rest:
From R. Moore's article (which makes sense to me given the actions, rather than words, of those that align themselves with Brzezinski..which are Dems and Repubs alike).
... So far, it seems Brzezinski is simply doing a hatchet job on Bush, using his prestige, saying whatever works as anti-Bush propaganda. This would
indicate that the CFR-level community is ready to dump Bush, as they dumped Nixon, hoping that all the shit will stick to him as they flush him away, as it did with Nixon: the scapegoat scenario.
..snip..
The whole neocon clique were known to be a pack of attack dogs: they were unleashed; they captured territory; we can now apologize that they got off leash; and we get to keep the bits we want. It was necessary that Bush based the campaign on lies, so that we can now say that he was wrong but he was sincere and perhaps deranged -- getting us off the hook for our actual oil-imperialist motivation. Before joining the neocon lynch mob, recall Bob Dylan's words to those who felt like lynching Medgar Evers' killer: "He was only a pawn in their game."
As a consequence of this well-thought-out grand strategy, if that's what it
has been, the U.S. would emerge not only with its oil and bases, but with most of its military forces mobilized and freed up from active assignments.http://tinyurl.com/7twev OR
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=\'740\'&ba...
_____________________________________________________________________________-
If that is a valid baseline assumption then it should make it easier to decipher the unfolding events to see if they support it. It might also explain why Bush Sr.'s old buddies spoke out against Bush JR.'s policies early on, to everyone's surprise. And it might explain why so many DLCers signed on for this war.
It's hard to keep it all sorted out, and determine what's real and what's a manipulation and who is working with and against the other.
But I think all sides agreed on the invasion of Iraq just as they agreed on Bosnia, etc.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(807 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
