All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, December 05, 2018

History overlooks Bush. It shouldn't

As a critic of the New World Order, the death of its key architect forced me to view it again. I was stunned to see it worked. The plan was not perfect but the New World Order addressed a need and avoided chaos.

The collapse of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, was a surprise. Even with the fall of the Berlin Wall two years earlier, the public did not expect this. An empire fell without a war, an invasion, or even a battle.

The world rightly feared at least one civil war. Sudan faced two civil wars for most of the past decade.

And given the thousands of nukes that the CCCP (USSR) had, people rightly feared some disenchanted military man or unit would peddle nukes to some rogue nation. I get that would be extremely difficult. But it was within the realm of possibilities.

As head of the sole surviving superpower, President George Herbert Walker Bush had to prevent an implosion.

This meant he had to be a gracious winner. A man whose first act as an adult was to enlist in the Navy to fight a war was fighting to win the peace. Americans are not very good at that.

But if George Marshall could get Europe to rebuild itself after World War II, then George Bush could win the peace.

Surely Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address inspired the president, particularly Lincoln's final words: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

And on that score, the New World Order worked far better than the Reconstruction.

That the Soviet Union collapsed on Bush's watch seemed to cheat Reagan of the prize.

But it took many presidencies to prevail. Bush was a part of that collaboration.

Who did Ford send to Red China to establish a relationship that would serve as a counterweight to the Soviet Union? Bush. He had proved himself to be trustworthy and competent as UN ambassador. He acquitted himself well in Red China.

I am not knocking Reagan. Believe me. He pushed the Soviets to the brink with his SDI plans. They could not keep up.

But Nixon's opening of Red China helped sweep the Soviet Union into the dustbin of history. Sadly, Carter did not follow up on that, but Reagan did.

After the collapse, the call for globalism helped ease the pain for Russia, which is a shell of the Soviet Union.

But like so many agencies of the government, the New World Order outlived its usefulness. Please, don't blame Bush 41 for this. Blame the next three presidents, if you must.

###

Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at DonSurber@gmail.com

18 comments:

  1. I think the NWO was meant to outlast the end of the cold war. This wasn't a case of a new government bureau being formed to solve a problem and outlasting its usefulness, like the interstate commerce commission. I think the idea was to have an informal cabal of elites deciding everything for everyone because us rubes are too stupid to think for ourselves. So you get all of these meet ups by elites at Davos, and CFR and the whatshisface commission. There's something about being rich, wealthy, succssful, or highly educated that causes people to assume that somehow they have a gift for running other people's lives and telling them what to do. And when these people get frustrated about how successful they are in dealing with those they live among, they do what good utopians always do. Take it to the next level. If it doesn't work in a small experiment, well then maybe it'll work at a national level; if not there, international. It works the same whether it is communism or "cooperation".

    How many times have you heard some pretty liberal woman say that we should all be able to get along and we would be able to do that with the proper education, etc, etc. What she means is that if you weren't so stupid we'd be living in Eden, and why can't we get rid of you.

    This is the elites talking to you in microcosm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All the ones I have seen would not fit this description,
      "How many times have you heard some pretty liberal woman"
      maybe it should read,

      "How many times have you heard some liberal woman"

      Delete
  2. A very insightful article; thank you, Don, for all your posts. I enjoy this blog very much.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The ending of the Cold War started in October, 1986, when President Reagan stood up and walked out of the Reykjavik Summit with Gorbachev when Gorbachev demanded the US restrict work on SDI. That took guts on Reagan’s part. If only 41 had had the guts to stand up to the Left and keep his “No new taxes” pledge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Food for thought and definitely something I had not even considered. Makes sense. Thanks Don.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This made me realize my lack of enthusiasm for Bush is that he couldn't measure up to Reagan. I shouldn't blame him for that. Wouldn't be prudent.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The NWO has been planned since Wilson with the League of Nations. To understand Bush you have to follow his family connections. And he was Skull and Bones so his oath was to them not to Americans. Electing a spook was a grave mistake.

    Or listen to an interview by one guy who wrote the book on Bush. The Mafia, CIA and Bush Senior - Pete Brewton, Author, Journalist (1992) the facts are overwhelming.

    All the fawning over the grave of another criminal president is typical as most americans don't care to know the truth about the oligarchs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Former reporter for the Houston Post, Pete Brewton tells of one of the most momentous stories of the past 50 years and how it has been suppressed by the establishment media and the Congress. Pete’s book The Mafia, CIA and George Bush, shows the incredible complexity of the relationships in the operation of the destruction of hundreds of Savings and Loans at the hands of the CIA and the Mafia, stealing many billions of dollars in the process, and leaving the taxpayers to bailout the banks. Big names at the state and national levels of power are involved, including Lloyd Bentsen, the Bush family, and power brokers in Houston. People such as Charles Keating and Don Dixon, who are mentioned prominently in the press in connection with the S & L debacle, were merely front men or “cutouts” for the main movers. Keating and his ilk only took millions; the CIA and the Mafia looted billions.”"

      It also gave us the songbird McCain as his future career blossomed for his service during this affair.

      Delete
    2. Then comes the Bush leadership during Iran Contra when cocaine was traded for arms. Here is where Bush groomed Clinton as drugs were smuggled into Mena, Arkansas regularly 1980-1986

      In 1995, Ambrose Evans Pritchard wrote about this for his London paper has WaPo wouldn't publish it.

      Delete
    3. ""It is engraved on the consciousness of the world by now that Arkansas is a corrupt one-party state. What is less well known is that it is also a major point for transshipment of drugs coming from Latin America and the Caribbean. In the mid-1980s it was perilously close..."
      -The Sunday Telegraph
      October 9, 1994
      Morris and Denton have added fresh evidence but the real political importance of the piece is the fact that it was going to run in The Washington Post. The Post still sets the agenda in Washington and guides many US press and TV reporters on what they are supposed to think.

      Up to now, the Post has conducted no more than desultory investigation of the Mena affair and its reporters have persistently treated it as a ludicrous conspiracy theory.

      The treatment of the article by Morris and Denton will fuel claims from both Left and Right that The Washington Post is engaged in active suppression of the news to protect either Clinton or the CIA or both.

      "It's down to naked politics now," Morris told The Sunday Telegraph. "We've jumped through every hoop. We've given them everything they've asked for. They can't say the story's not credible now."

      In the end the Mena story is going to come out, with the courts doing the work of the press. A lawsuit in Arkasas is being used to determine the role of both Clinton and the US federal government in dirty tricks linked to Mena.

      The case has already reached a crucial phase. A high-powered team of lawyers has issued subpoenas to key witnesses who will be compelled to testify under oath. Sworn depositions will rain down like confetti over the next few months.

      And if the great American newspapers do not want to cover it, the radio talk shows certainly will."

      Delete
    4. "It might almost be called The Greatest Story Never Told. The article was typeset and scheduled to run in today's edition of The Washington Post.

      It had the enthusiastic backing of the editors and staff of the Sunday Outlook section, where it was to appear after 11 weeks of soul-searching and debate.

      Lawyers had gone through the text line by line. Supporting documents had been examined with meticulous care. The artwork and illustrations had been completed. The contract with the authors had been signed. Leonard Downie, the executive editor of the newspaper, had given his final assent.

      But on Thursday morning the piece was cancelled. It had been delayed before --- so often, in fact, that its non-appearance was becoming the talk of Washington --- but this time the authors were convinced that the story was doomed and would never make it into the pages of what is arguably the world's most powerful political newspaper. They have withdrawn it in disgust, accusing the Post of a cover-up of the biggest scandal in American history."

      Delete
  7. Reagan was also the last President that attempted to address the communist threat in South America.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Saving & loan Debacle - CIA is not that competent. Rico decimated the mafia. It was just plain greed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maybe, but there probably was a better way of doing it than going back to the Divine Right of Kings.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'The collapse of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, was a surprise.'


    Not to Reagan. And it didn't fall--it was pushed.


    Bush did manage it well after the initial Chicken Kiev speech. But he defined the New World Order as the UN "living up to the promise of its founders". I prefer another New England Republican patrician's take:

    "You may call me selfish if you will, conservative or reactionary, or use any other harsh adjective you see fit to apply, but an American I was born, an American I have remained all my life. I can never be anything else but an American, and I must think of the United States first, and when I think of the United States first in an arrangement like this I am thinking of what is best for the world, for if the United States fails, the best hopes of mankind fail with it. I have never had but one allegiance--I cannot divide it now. I have loved but one flag and I cannot share that devotion and give affection to the mongrel banner invented for a league. Internationalism, illustrated by the Bolshevik and by the men to whom all countries are alike provided they can make money out of them, is to me repulsive. National I must remain, and in that way I like all other Americans can render the amplest service to the world. The United States is the world's best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her power for good and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come as in the years that have gone. Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind. Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance, this great land of ordered liberty, for if we stumble and fall freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin."--Senate Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. (R-MA), August 12, 1919.


    Still, Bush provided adult leadership, especially compared to who followed. And as CIA Director, he didn't insert agents into Jimmy Carter's campaign or recruit the British and Australian intelligence services to spy on Carter. And as president, he didn't let his Sec/State run a worldwide bribery empire out of the State Dept. or weaponize the entire NAT/Sec apparatus to wiretap, smear and frame Dukakis.

    That's more than a lot of them can say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All this talk of New World Order (v-a-v Old Cold War etc) is but a continuation of Rousseau's Social Contract as applied to foreign affairs.
      Rousseau's claim that the all important issue was the "general will" and "who shall lead" should have been buried long ago by that which America's founders recognized ... namely that the key issue has to do with Liberty, limits on power (whether party, government or whatever) with ascendant attention on "how much Liberty the people shall retain."
      Of course these considerations are absent here.

      Delete
  11. Bush managed Russia & oligarchs well. Maybe by that time the top Soviets were ready to become capitalist multi-millionaires.

    Big Big failure with Desert Storm & Colin Powell.

    After Iraq invaded Kuwait, we should have pushed for Unconditional Surrender, but Powell & Bush preferred to let Saddam stay in power, along with the Dems.

    Bush 41 & New World Order did work among the mighty, but not so well for the middle sized powerful; sort of like globalization was not so great for the middle class.

    ReplyDelete