Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 03.09.10

Hillary Clinton. Hey, Hey!!!! She did it again! Twice! In one trip!

As Hillary visits various continents she leaves behind a trail of diplomatic disasters. This time she went to South America.

Her first stop was Chile, immediately after the earthquake. Of course, the last thing a leader of Chile wants to deal with in the wake of the monumental damage is a visiting foreign dignitary. This consideration didn't seem to bother Hillary as she used the quake to promote her own image.

Then it was on to Argentina. There she managed to create a diplomatic blow-up with Britain. Her contribution to the long-standing dispute over the Falkland Islands was to suggest that the issue be referred to the United Nation's decolonization committee!

The British uproar was immediate. The Wall Street Journal (3.9.10) reports, "This has not played well in London, nor among [Falkland] island residents, who have been British subjects since 1833 and have no desire to become Argentines...British officials are angry at what they regard as a cavalier disregard for Britain's interests at a time when Britain is the only major European power committing significant numbers of combat troops to Afghanistan."

And so add another Hillary disaster to the list. The American authorities in Washington, London, and Buenos Aires will now have to work overtime to clean up her mess, as she travels merrily along to her next victims.

Obama has relegated Clinton to secondary issues and kept her away from all the major foreign policy questions, and with good reason. Yet, Hillary has managed to screw up almost every matter she has directed her attention to.

The media, of course, covers up for Clinton as they have been doing for years. But the list of disasters is so long now that she can give up on any further elective office. Her only hope for political advancement is to secure a Supreme Court position. (God Help Us!)

Afghanistan, in Today's News 01.28.10

Afghanistan. American fruitless efforts to snooker all or a part of the Taliban continue.

An international conference of some 60 foreign ministers is meeting now in London to discuss the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. To reach that time, this conference is usurping the independence of Afghanistan and telling them how to build their security forces, army, etc.

But, the significant revelation at the conference is the existence of a fund whose donors include the US, UK and Japan, the purpose of which is to 'help' former Taliban members to integrate into the Afghan government's version of reality. The fund is Japan-led and will be run by the Afghans. Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, plugged the fund to the conference.

Comments:

1. If the 'allies' really believe that a fund like this is going to have an appreciable effect on the Taliban, they are gravely mistaken. Individual members of the Taliban can see that the Taliban will ultimately win the battle with the Karzai government, probably sooner than later. They have no incentive to accept a bribe from the US, Japan et al. In fact, accepting the money would only stigmatize the recipient.

2. Does anyone think that a fund run by the Afghan government will remain corruption-free? The great likelihood is that the big bucks will find their way into the pockets of any Afghan leader powerful enough to take the money. And there are plenty of those leaders.

3. The conference itself is kind of a joke. The US can only persuade a few countries to participate militarily in the Afghan war. So, to appease American critics and to get some of the financial burden off its shoulders, the US has convened these 60 nations. The conference is supposed to give the impression that Afghan policy is decided by many, many countries. This is a joke. The US will do the deciding. The fact that Hillary Clinton is at the conference gives some indication how little this conference has to do with the war planning in Washington.

Pakistan and India, in Today's News 01.24.10

Pakistan and India. United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been visiting India, then Pakistan. The purpose of the tour seems to be to convince the two countries to end their hostility and instead oppose the enemies of Israel. 

Gates has made a big push on how Al Qaeda and others are trying to foment conflict between India and Pakistan. Gates is pleading with them to not fall for this, and realize their joint enemy is Al Qaeda et al.

Gates' point about Al Qaeda trying to cause a regional conflict is questionable. What Al Qaeda would have to gain by such a conflict is a mystery. But, Gates does know that a defense of Israel requires at least neutrality toward Israel by mideast and asian nations. 

Israel's illegitimate presence in the mideast will continue to provoke conflict. Moreover, Israel continually makes aggressive moves toward the Palestinians and its neighbors in a misconceived effort to defend itself.

The Israelis target-of-concern nowadays is Iran. Israel has been seeking US support for a military confrontation with Iran for more than a couple of years. The US, for its part, has preferred to try to undermine Iran through CIA sponsored internal conflict. When this US strategy runs its course with no appreciable results, the US will be stuck with the Israeli alternative of direct engagement with Iran.

Enter Gates and his attempt to line-up two asian and mideast powerhouses against Arab militancy. When a confrontation with Iran occurs, it will be a big help to the US and Israel if the major players in the region don't get in the way.

*****

BTW, shouldn't the Secretary of State be involved in these kinds of discussions? Well, no. Obama smartly prefers to keep Hillary Clinton involved only with secondary issues. 

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 11.09.09

Hillary Clinton. The repercussions from Clinton's foray into the middle east politics continue to pile up.

First, shortly after Clinton positioned the United States as giving some support to the Israeli settlement policy, the various political forces in the middle east went into uproar. Clinton, the State Department, and the White House had to go on a special footing to spin her remarks into 'no change in the American position of non-support to the settlements.'

Next, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced that he would not seek re-election in protest over the US bias in favor of Israel. 

And now Obama has to scramble to assure Israel of the United States' real position. A meeting between the two has been scheduled.

Clinton is so used to having her big-mouth remarks explained away by the media and her team, that she can't quite seem to adjust to the world of diplomacy where every word counts.

Clinton is now finished as a politician. Her frequent mis-steps as Secretary of State, starting with her "reset" fiasco in Moscow, will haunt any future attempts by her to achieve the presidency, or any other office.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 11.02.09

Hillary Clinton. She's done it again. Another disastrous trip as Secretary of State to foreign lands. Clinton is proving to be one of the worst Secretaries of State in the nation's history.

1). Clinton made her first official trip to Pakistan to, as the Wall Street Journal put it, "to smooth relations strained by terms of an American aid package for the key South Asian ally."  WSJ: "Clinton said she will seek to clarify issues related to the aid during her meetings with Pakistani officials...while also working to forge closer economic, diplomatic and cultural ties."

And so, what happened?  "A stream of people grilled Mrs. Clinton on the merits of a new multibillion-dollar US aid bill for Pakistan that they claimed was tailored to constrain Islamabad's military and nuclear programs. Lahore university students argued that the Pentagon's drone strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Pakistan's tribal regions were increasingly causing violence to spill out into their country's major cities and urban areas."

Of course, Clinton took the bait, lost her cool, and insulted her hosts. "In a particularly blunt exchange, Mrs. Clinton told a gathering of newspaper editors that the US didn't believe Pakistan's government had done all it could to hunt al Qaeda leaders...whom Washington believes are still hiding in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan."

In other words, Clinton succeeded in doing just the opposite of her stated goal of smoothing relations.

In her defense, it is possible that Clinton was set up by the Obama team. Obama's people were surely aware of the Pakistan discontent with the new aid package. They could have reasoned, 'send Clinton and let her take the heat.' It's a lose-lose situation for her, and a winner for the Obama people.

2). After the Pakistan debacle, Clinton travelled to mid-east for two days "aimed at getting the Palestinians and the Israelis to return to peace talks..." (WSJ). To which one can only comment, 'you got to be kidding!!'

Clinton thinks that she can swoop in for a couple of days and the forces who have been battling for decades will suddenly recognize her superior wisdom and return to negotiations.

Even so, she managed to screw things up a bit further. She positioned herself closer to the Israeli policy of settlements, and as a result the Palestinians strengthened their resolve to stay away from negotiations.

In other words, Clinton achieved just the opposite of what she set out to do.

The media, of course, gives her every break. But, the Obama team knows all the better why it is crucial to keep her away from the administration's key foreign policy discussions and actions.

One other comment: in reading Clinton's various statements on these trips, it becomes clear that her knowledge of the situations is no greater than what one would get from reading the New York Times and the Washington Post. 

Afghanistan, in Today's News 10.07.09

Afghanistan. The so-called Presidential review of war strategy for Afghanistan is a fraud designed to fool the public into thinking that Obama's decision will be fair and reasonable based on a studied discussion of all options.

Obama feels obliged to go through this charade because he has lots and lots of opposition that must be neutralized. First is the military, who are pushing strongly for a mammoth increase in troops to Afghanistan. Second is his own party's left wing who are angry with Obama for not carrying out his campaign pledge to pull out of Afghanistan. Third are the 'allies' who are fatigued by trying to help the US in an effort that they could care less about. Fourth is the American public whose opposition to the war grows with each new poll of their opinions. 

Obama has no policy options that will help him out of the mess. He desperately does not want to send in more troops because the resulting major war will get in the way of the 'reforms' he wants to accomplish. But, if he holds the line on troops, he risks the Taliban and al Qaeda scoring major victories and destabilizing what is left of the American-imposed government. Plus, his troops in Afghanistan will be somewhat short of being inspired. And a continuing US presence in Afghanistan will feed public opposition and disenchant the left wing of the Democrats.

Obama hopes to avoid sending in more troops by somehow reaching an understanding with the Taliban. His dream is to convince the Taliban to shut out Al Qaeda and then play a 'positive' role in building a new Afghan government. If agreed, then the US will basically leave the Taliban alone. This approach is really only making a virtue out of necessity, because so many Afghan provincial leaders have formed blocs with the Taliban to overthrow the present government. 

The idea of driving a wedge between the Taliban and al Qaeda is so unreal that one wonders if Obama takes it seriously. He probably thinks that nothing ventured is nothing gained, so why not.

The approach that Obama wants to pursue would keep U.S. troop levels roughly constant while refocusing the broader American mission in Afghanistan on killing individual al Qaeda leaders rather than protecting the Afghan population.

If he follows through with this, the US will definitively lose the war. The Afghan population will fall away, if they haven't already. The Afghan government will surely fall if the US orients away from protecting the population. Trying to kill individual al Qaeda leaders might have a success or two, but it will never work and amounts only to busy-work. The Taliban will easily see that they are winning, and will have no inclination to make a deal with the invaders.

An honest review of war strategy would reveal that there are no options that serve Obama's interests. If he were smart he would cut and run, and minimize the loses. But there is no possibility of US withdrawal. The political price Obama would pay is too much for him.

*****

A humorous footnote: The Afghan troop decision is one of the most consequential for the Obama regime. To make sure he is covered politically, he has called in anyone connected with the war for the 'review'. So the question is, where is the person responsible for foreign policy, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? She is nowhere to be found. Obama has completely isolated Clinton, and also he keeps her under control by having her in his administration. Say what you will about Obama, but in this case he has demonstrated some adroit political maneuvering, while Clinton does her best to seem important.

Iran, in Today's News 09.28.09

Iran. One of the pleasures of political commentary is that every once in a while Hillary Clinton will step forward with some stupidity. Clinton can be relied upon to provide comic relief to the serious business of world politics.

Clinton never does anything unless it is strictly in her own interests. Now she has figured out that Iran is a big deal and will provide many opportunities to get her face before the public. So, she steps in on the action.

Yesterday, she horned in on a media conference by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Her amateur contribution: She said to the Iranian government, "Don't assert it [peaceful intentions], prove it..." Someone should tell Hillary that this kind of bluster is best suited to a high school political campaign.

And just how is Iran supposed to prove it? "...they can open their entire system to the kind of extensive investigation that the facts call for." [!!!] Extensive investigation of the entire system?????? Is there a country in the world that would be so out of their mind as to allow this? Let alone a country that everyday has to listen to threats from Israel and the United States to destroy their country as it exists today. The only way any government would permit this is if they were militarily smashed.

The reaction that could be expected from the Iranians would be some raucous guffaws. Members of the State Department and Obama's team probably also got a few laughs out it. The Obama-team resolution to keep Clinton away from the central issues could only be reinforced by her remarks.

Iraq, in Today's News 08.20.09

Iraq. Today's Wall Street Journal page one headline: 'Deadly Blasts Test Iraq's Grip, Explosions in Baghdad Kill 95, Challenging Security Amid U.S. Pullback From Cities"

First Afghanistan, now Iraq is slipping away from Obama. If he sticks to his campaign promises to withdraw U.S. forces he will surely face a humiliating defeat. He may anyway.

Times are not so great for Obama currently. He is on the verge of debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq, his national health plan has polarized the nation and is in danger of not passing, and then there is Hillary who, oh so subtly, is undermining him by talking about her issues.

By the way, falling into these messes is not what the cryptocracy expected from Obama. Team Obama better get moving very fast.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 08.15.09

Hillary Clinton. Hillary seems to be calling in some of her chits. The August 15 edition of the Wall Street Journal has a long (~50 inches) powder-puff interview with Clinton by a member of the WSJ editorial board.

Obama's decline in popularity does not go unnoticed by Clinton. Her efforts at the moment are designed to ensure that her star rises as Obama's fades. Her 'diplomatic' tour of Africa and a high profile with the media are the hallmarks of this suddenly public Hillary.

Obama cannot be pleased by Hillary trying to steal the spotlight especially when he needs all the help he can get right now to bolster his standing in the public.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 08.11.09

Hillary Clinton. The foot-in-mouth Secretary of State. Once again Clinton has shot off her mouth and created all kinds of problems for the White House. This time in the Congo where she brusquely dismissed a student questioner. 

Once again her handlers and the Presidential office have had to scurry around in order to sort her remarks out and give them a better spin. Plus special efforts have to be made to undo the damage.

Obama has frozen Clinton out of the big foreign policy issues that his administration is dealing with. Instead, they have Clinton running around the world on second and third rate issues, and even these she is messing up.

Obama must be peeved, but on some reflection he may realize that all the Clinton mis-steps will help him. Clinton is not part of the Obama team. She is only in the Secretary of State office to appease her and her husband. Obama would be quite happy to get rid of her.

And so the opportunity to remove her as a discredited diplomat grows with each Clinton gaff. How's the old saying go? Give her enough rope to hang herself.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 07.25.09

Hillary Clinton. Clinton has certainly elevated the level of diplomatic discourse recently. (Sarcasm)

Clinton got the ball rolling by calling the North Koreans "small children" demanding attention. Now the North Koreans have responded by calling Clinton a "funny lady" who sometimes "looks like a primary school girl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping."

Yes indeed, Mrs. Clinton is making a new level of contribution to international discourse: name-calling!!

None of this is worth mentioning, except it has entertainment value which is something you can always count on the Clintons to provide.

Incidentally, today's Wall Street Journal has a big page A9 spread on Clinton's plans to lead on foreign policy.

The WSJ comments in paragraph two, "But the emerging structure of the Obama administration's foreign-policy team could challenge the secretary's [Clinton's] influence on some of the pressing issues Washington faces in the coming months."

That's a diplomatic way of saying she is on the outs, and will remain so. The only purpose in having Clinton be the Secretary of State is to keep better track of her and to eliminate any challenges by her.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 07.23.09

Hillary Clinton. Clinton's foot-in-mouth tour of Asia continues. Today's display of total ineptitude involves her statement on Iran in which she managed to anger the Arab client-countries, Iran, Israel, and Asian nations, and embarrassed the Obama administration.

Wall Street Journal: "...Hillary Clinton caused waves in the Middle East during her visit to Southeast Asia, telling a Thai television program that Washington could extend a 'defense umbrella' to protect its Arab allies if Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons."

"...her comments...left the impression among some Middle East diplomats Wednesday that the U.S. envisions having to find ways to defend its Persian Gulf allies from a nuclear-armed Iran -- rather than preventing Tehran from ever getting that far."

Washington tried to spin her statement into something supporting what Obama has said, but the attempt was pretty lame, and not worth quoting.

Israel, of course, was none-too-happy. The minister of intelligence and atomic energy said that Clinton's remarks indicated the U.S. had "already come to terms with a nuclear Iran." He added, "I think that's a mistake." Those who can read Israeli diplomatic language will realize that Israel saying the U.S. has made a mistake is tantamount to accusing the U.S. of betrayal. Which, of course, is a serious, serious charge coming from Israel.

Clinton may well have been expressing where Obama wants to go on Iran policy, but her communication handicap has managed to put Obama in a very tight spot.

Clinton is so used to having a back-up squad to tailor and explain her remarks that she feels she can just shoot off her mouth anytime. But there is no such squad now; she's on her own; and Obama must be losing patience.

What will she do next? Stay tuned.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 07.21.09

Hillary Clinton. Clinton's trip to India really doesn't deserve to be written about, but it is such a complete joke, one can't resist.

Her big accomplishment: deals that could bring American defense contractors and power companies billions of dollars in business in India. Her request that India set limits on their carbon emissions was rejected, almost laughingly. She invited the Prime Minister to make a state visit. That's about it, except for lots of talk about democracies, cordial relations, etc.

Obama and his handlers must be laughing out loud. Their little maneuver to control Clinton by holding her close in the administration is working out just fine. Obama is making an impact on all sort of world issues, and Clinton is running around issuing invitations for leaders to come visit Obama! 

By the way, Clinton shot off her mouth again and may have caused diplomatic problems with North Korea. In an interview, she compared North Korea to a child seeking attention. The Obama team has warned Clinton before not to make statements outside the diplomatic standard verbiage (see here), but apparently she can't help herself.

Hillary Clinton, in Today's News 07.16.09

Hillary Clinton. You have to give the devil his due. Obama certainly knows how to handle Hillary. His administration has succeeded in isolating her when no one else could, including the Democratic Party.

Clinton gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday that was notable for its lack of coverage in the media. The "...address [was] aimed at raising her visibility as a chief voice of U.S. foreign policy," according to Paul Richter of the Tribune Newspapers.

Obama has done what he wanted in foreign policy and has largely ignored Clinton while letting her flit around the world here and there. At one point Obama's people let a warning to her appear in the Tribune Newspapers, telling her to cool it. See here.

Richter: "Though the former New York senator and first lady brought star power to her post, they say the debut months of the administration's foreign policy have been dominated by her boss, President Barack Obama, as well as a White House inner circle that has strong ties to him."

"State Department officials dismissed portrayals of Clinton as a secondary player. But some have said there has been concern at the department that Clinton has not gotten enough credit for her efforts."

There she goes again with the victimized stuff.

It's probably true that she is not a secondary player. Tertiary seems more like it.

"Though administration officials insist she is a major player in all top decisions, she has not been the leading voice so far on the urgent national security issues, from Iran to North Korea, Arab-Israeli peace or Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq." [!!!]

The Clinton star has been eclipsed. 

in Today's News 05.18.09

Hillary Clinton.  Paul Richter of the Washington Bureau of the Chicago Tribune reports that Clinton's "candor" is raising eyebrows and questions at home and abroad.  "Startling U.S. friends and foes alike, Clinton has sent aides scrambling to explain her remarks and has stirred a debate over whether speaking frankly is a good thing for U.S. foreign policy."

"Clinton's remarks may not seem to be insulting or impolitic on their face.  But coming from the nation's chief diplomat, they have raised eyebrows."

The remarks the article refers to are Clinton's many verbal mis-steps regarding North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China and elsewhere.  Clinton has a habit of simply shooting off her mouth, and then leaving it to others to clean up the mess.

Richter undoubtedly writes because at least a section of the Obama administration wants to send a warning to Clinton.  The diplomatic wordage of the article is a nice way of saying that they believe Clinton doesn't know what the hell she is doing. (Hillary's incompetence comes as no surprise to those who have watched Hillary over the years.)

Obama faces an interesting predicament if things continue on this course.  At some point his people are going to get tired of smoothing out Clinton.  Then what do they do?  Firing her is not so easy.  And there is nowhere to kick her upstairs. Observing how Obama deals with this situation should be one of the minor entertainments of his administration.

BTW, it is interesting that Clinton, the old pro, stumbles almost every time she opens her mouth.  Obama, who is barely wet behind the ears, has only stumbled a couple of times with no big consequences.

Richter's article in not yet available on the internet.  It is titled "Clinton a diplomatic wild card" and was published on May, 18, 2009 by the Washington Bureau of the Chicago Tribune (which has been one of Obama's prime supporters).

in Today's News 05.17.09

1.  American Secretary of State.  Has anyone noticed that Hillary Clinton is a terrible Secretary of State (from the point of view of the interests of cryptocracy)?  There were the frequent mis-steps initially, most notably her "reset" fiasco in Moscow. Now comes the disaster in Pakistan on which she took the lead.

Mrs. Clinton during her swing through Asia first sounded the alarm on the need for drastic and immediate action in Pakistan.  The United States evidently felt Pakistan was slipping away into the influence of the Taliban.  Great pressure was put on a reluctant Pakistan to turn loose the Pakistan army in the Swat Valley.  Pakistan complied.

What happened?  The American proposed Pakistani action created one of the largest refugee situations in modern history.  Over a million poor and desolate human beings have flowed out of Swat Valley to squalor in refugee camps.  This crisis now creates a difficulty for the Pakistan government that may well be beyond its resources.  And thereby the pressure to 'slip away' to the Taliban increases.

And so, the American precipitate action has qualitatively worsened an already worrisome situation, from the point of view of the cryptocracy.  Way to go, Mrs. Clinton!!!!

Will the media pay any attention to the human tragedy in Pakistan?  Not likely.  Will the media report the current situation as attributable to Mrs. Clinton's stewardship of American foreign policy?  Not likely.  The media has always given the Clintons a pass, and it won't change now.

And by the way, where is the Pope?  Here we have one million people driven from their homes and their method of making a living.  Most of these people's families have probably lived in the Swat Valley for generations.  Can the Pope manage to say something?  Can he perhaps call for prayers?  How about directing some Catholic relief efforts to Pakistan?  We will see.  Perhaps, the Pope is too busy fighting anti-semitism.

2.  Pakistan.  Question: How does the United States get out from responsibility for the one million strong refugee problem in Pakistan?  Answer: Easy.  First, declare that the number is only 200,000.  Then, say they are all Pashtuns who are the dominant ethnic group in the Taliban.  Then, point out that Taliban members are using the refugees to infiltrate into Karachi.  

See, no difficulty is too big for the prevaricators in the cryptocracy.  The only problem is, they can say this, and even believe it, and they can get the media and the American public to buy it.  But, the reality remains.  Which is there are over one million refugees outside Karachi and the needs of this group are far greater than Pakistan can provide.

in Today's News 05.16.09

1.  Pakistan.  (WSJ) "A two-week-old Pakistani army offensive against Taliban militias is triggering a massive exodus of refugees -- one of the largest such crises since the Indian subcontinent was divided in 1947.  Nearly a million people have abandoned the Swat Valley...according to United Nations officials."

This outrageous human suffering was made in the USA. Hillary Clinton, in her swing through this area of the world, was the first to demand that the Pakistan government begin the offensive now in progress.  The US government then put heavy pressure on the Pakistani to the same purpose.  One has the impression that Pakistani did not want to do it (undoubtedly fearing what has happened), but the Obama administration made it very clear that Pakistan must attack the Taliban or relations with the US were at stake.

And so now there is one of the worst crises in the history of the Indian sub-continent.  This mass of humanity is now being herded into refugee camps that consist of rows of small tents pitched in the blazing sun.  Listen to Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, "Many people are fleeing with nothing.  It will not be possible to meet their needs without massive and rapid help from the international community.  And if help doesn't come, it will be a humanitarian disaster." (!!!)

Will the Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton take responsibility for creating this catastrophe?  Don't count on it.  Will they take the lead in trying to alleviate the human suffering?  Don't count on it.  All that matters in Washington is that the Pakistan government did as they were told and the Taliban was attacked. 

2.  The New Government-Controlled Economy.  The closing of Chrysler and General Motors dealerships gives an indication of why the cryptocracy is now opting for a government-controlled economy. 

The big banks and their owners have been pressuring the auto makers (especially General Motors) for years to dramatically reduce spending.  Wages, health and retirement benefits, bloated dealerships, and inefficient corporate functioning were the targets.  The cryptocracy was driven to distraction over the zillions of dollars that were wasted (from the cryptocracy's viewpoint) on these silly expenditures.

General Motors and the others have made several runs at trying to meet the demands of the bank owners.  All of them pretty much failed.  Failed because of union intransigence, the incredible hide-bound bureaucratic complaceny, and the weight of past decades of glorious American auto-maker success.

It is now clear that the cryptocracy finally lost patience. They created the economic crisis so that emergency governmental action could be taken in regard to various sectors of the economy including to bust up General Motors and others like them. The bank owners obviously decided that the only way to accomplish their aims was to move to a government-directed economy where corporate entities would be under supervision and restraint. And where action would be taken immediately on the demands of the bank owners.

Mere mortals usually think that politics and the economy are evolving normally. The bank owners have a much different view. They believe that many, many changes urgently need to be made.  They are always on the prod to accomplish their secret agenda.  Their outlook is intense; they are always contemplating drastic action to ensure their control, their fortunes, and their investments, and their political agenda.