- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

The Bushes Are Not America’s Friends

Michael Scheuer‏

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

A lesson from two George Bushes: Never give the elite the benefit of the doubt.

–“And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject.” John Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 13 (1)

–“General revolts and rebellions of a whole people never were encouraged now or at any time. They were always provoked.” Edmund Burke, 1777 (2)

Sentiment is human weakness that always is an obstacle to clear thinking, or at least it always is in my case.  I have always given George H.W. Bush and and George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt because I thought both were patriots and decent men. The former flew more than 50 combat missions during World War II, and the latter seemed sadly trapped in, and manipulated by, a nest of Neoconservative and Israel-First cretins. Since early in 2016, however, I have come to see how stupid and blinding it is to let sentiment hide the clearly visible truth that the Bushes are not America’s friends.

The elder Bush was a disaster for America, his only accomplishment being that he kept the White House from the Democrats for a 4-year term. He is the author and first implementer of the totalitarian idea of a “New World Order”, which began what is now nearly 30 years of constant war for the United States. He laid the ground work for the current confrontation with Russia by greatly expanding NATO and unleashing Western greed to suck anything economically worth having out of the former USSR; he added countries to NATO that are irrelevant to U.S. security but sit right on Russia’s border; he squandered most of what President Reagan had accomplished; he fought an unnecessary, half-fought, unwon, and Islamist-benefiting war against Iraq; and he ran a reelection campaign against the whore-loving buffoon Bill Clinton that looked like it should have been in one of the lesser Marx Brothers movies. Finally, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Bush refused to endorse Trump, and his closest confidants suggested he preferred Hillary Clinton. Revalidating the McCain Rule that great physical courage does not connote even moderate brainpower or commonsense, it was all downhill for George H.W. Bush after the second Great War ended. Sadly, that decline ended up by delivering the United States to the malevolent hands and minds of Clinton and Obama, as well as to those of his  son.

George W. Bush outdid his Dad in terms of negative accomplishments, his only accomplishment being that he kept the White House from the Democrats for eight years, and even that success was minimal as his performance allowed the presidency of the execrable Obama. The younger Bush picked up his father’s interventionist mantle and waged a effeminate war against al-Qaeda, a genuine enemy of the United States, and a half-witted, small-footprint, losing, and utterly unnecessary war in Iraq, a war whose negative impact on U.S. interests has yet to be fully seen. Then, after his silence during Obama’s eight years of military and cultural interventionism, pathological lying and racism, and Constitution-shredding, he joins his Dad, and his clueless yet extraordinarily arrogant bother Jeb, to publicly and clandestinely oppose Trump as Republican presidential contender, Republican candidate, president-elect, and president. Most recently, George W. Bush has been out hawking a book of his paintings and hobnobbing with Michelle Obama and other such mindless, virago-like Democratic women and celebrities, and mindlessly basking in the praise of these racist and authoritarian Amazons who would gladly spit on his grave.

As if this long record of Bush anti-Americanism was not enough, George W. Bush this week took the time to instruct President Trump to avoid adopting an “isolationist tendency” because it would be “dangerous to national security.” By avoiding unnecessary interventions and wars and minding its own business, Bush said, the United States creates a vacuum that “is generally filled with people who don’t share the ideology, the same sense of human rights and human dignity and freedom that we do.” (3)

Well, God bless George the Younger. In his reliably bumbling way, he has allowed Americans to see — in the 30 words quoted above — that the intent of post-1945 U.S. foreign policy has not been to defend them and their republic but to use the taxes and children of American workers to endlessly intervene abroad to rid the world of people and governments that “don’t share our ideology” and who do not have the same “sense … [of] freedom we do.” Bush is not referring here to the ideology and sense of freedom possessed by Americans, but rather to those that the internationalist/globalist/interventionist elites, like the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, most European leaders, Bill Gates, George Soros, and untold numbers of other rich and highly educated people, want to impose on all peoples — including Americans — so they can rule people as they see fit and without the possibility popular resistance.

Coincidentally, as this piece was being completed, the younger Bush’s war buddy, Tony Blair, published a piece in the New York Times which calls on “centrist progressives” to hold their ground and defeat the populists and nationalists. “Today,” the Globalist-shill Blair wrote,

a distinction that often matters more than traditional right and left is open vs. closed. The open-minded see globalization as an opportunity but one with challenges that should be mitigated; the closed-minded see the outside world as a threat. This distinction crosses traditional party lines and thus has no organizing base, no natural channel for representation in electoral politics.  ..

So this leaves a big space in the center. For the progressive wing of politics, the correct strategy is to make the case for building a new coalition out from the center. To do so, progressives need to acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of those voters who have deserted the cause of social progress: on immigration, the threat of radical Islamism and the difference between being progressive and appearing obsessive on issues like gender identity.

The center needs to develop a new policy agenda that shows people they will get support to help them through the change that’s happening around them. At the heart of this has to be an alliance between those driving the technological revolution, in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, and those responsible for public policy in government. At present, there is a chasm of understanding between the two. There will inevitably continue to be a negative impact on jobs from artificial intelligence and big data, but the opportunities to change lives for the better through technology are enormous.

Any new agenda has to focus on these opportunities for radical change in the way that government and services like health care serve people. This must include how we educate, skill and equip our work forces for the future; how we reform tax and welfare systems to encourage more fair distribution of wealth; and how we replenish our nations’ infrastructures and invest in the communities most harmed by trade and technology. (4)

I added the italics to Blair’s words to make the point that the Western and global elites have not a clue about what is going on all around them, and what is increasingly likely to happen to them. For Blair, there is not a mortal divide between those who believe  progressive government is the answer, and those who know that progressive government, if fully developed and entrenched, will be the greatest slave master in history. No, Blair sees the divide as being between the “open-minded” progressives and the “close-minded” hay seeds who “have deserted the cause of social progress” and cannot understand that progressives know what is best for them, a prescription that includes unlimited immigration; suppression of religion, nation-states, and nationalism; more intrusive government control of their lives through improved “government services”; and, naturally, larger taxes and welfare payments to ensure a “more fair distribution of wealth,” which, as always, means more money given to groups that are generally composed of the scum of the earth and will always vote for those that pledge to keep them forever on the dole.


Throughout history, watching the demise of those who speak about and treat the great mass of people as if they are inferior human beings, and who are then utterly shocked when they find the inferiors’ bayonets in their bellies, always has been a most enjoyable experience. Blair, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Gates-Soros-Davos billionaires, and the rest of the Globalist clique are blithely and arrogantly striding down a path marked “Pointy Ended Road”, their trip having been blessed, ironically, by the applause-craving and hell-on-earth-creating Bishop of Rome. They will arrive at that road’s dead end, hopefully soon, to find that the great unwashed understand all too well that progressives intend to impose a global tyranny on formerly free peoples, and they will be shocked to find themselves in a fight to their well-merited deaths. No cavalry will come to their aid, of course, because such forces always are composed of the children of the people they mean to rob of their wages and property, and then enslave.

Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952) is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, author, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies.