Reply #69: TruthIsAll, your post is too cryptic.

[Peace Patriot]

I read it three or four times, and still couldn't figure out what it meant. Read the comments. Still confused. Searched DU for other info on this. Nothing. Came back here and decided this is what you meant: First of all, you did NOT mean that Jesse Jackson recently said on Larry King that Bush won "fair and square." That's what your title and the first part of your post seems to mean--quite alarming (that Jesse might have gone over to the Dark Side), but it makes the second part of your post non-sensical.

(That Clinton might have said Bush won "fair and square" didn't surprise me--I pretty much wrote him off back when he betrayed his country, the left, and all his voters, by signing NAFTA with no labor and environmental protections, after promising otherwise in the campaign. I protested that policy in Seattle '99 (and got gassed by the Democrats). I think he did good on war and intelligence policy, for the most part, but I believe he is more responsible for job outsourcing and dismantling of the American middle class than Bush is. NAFTA, GATT et al are treasonous documents. And, given what Bush is generally--the puppet of a fascist coup--I found it nauseating and unbelievable that Clinton would invite him to anything, i.e. opening of Clinton library. Bush should have been (and should be) shunned. Clinton cozying up to Bush. Jeez. Best case: He doesn't want him and his to find their airplanes crashing mysteriously. Worst case: Bush is just a badass Clinton--both tools of global corporate jihad on all the resources and all the "little people" on the planet, including Americans. Bush "fair and square"? Uh-huh. And no, I don't think Clinton is about to burst into the White House with subpoenas. If there is such a plan, he is not part of it.)

So then I contemplated the second part of your post. Found a comment on it that pointed out that Jesse Jackson's "fair and square" remark was quite old (election fraud-wise). And so, what I gather you meant was: Here we had Jesse Jackson saying Bush won "fair and square" in the weeks after the election, but, a) either he was playing the Rattlesnake strategy (didn't believe Bush won "fair and square" but was saying so publicly to throw the BushCons off), or, b) the evidence turned him around (especially suppression of black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which he had personally worked so hard for as a youth), and he became hot on election fraud. ("Look what Jesse is doing now. Fighting for us."--despite his previous "fair and square" belief or statement.)

And the same thing is true of--and will happen with--Clinton, in your opinion. He is either, a) part of the Rattlesnake strategy, or, b) the evidence will turn him around, if and when somebody gets it to him.

"The Big Con" (of your post): What I have been calling the Rattlesnake strategy. Kerry lying low, quietly gathering evidence (like the BCII and Iran Contra investigator/prosecutor he was), and will strike when the moment is ripe. (--has also been called the Teflon strategy--keep the focus off him, don't let BushCon smear campaign get going; that's why he's in Iraq and not DC this week).

"Amazement. Shock. Awe." (your post): The Rattlesnake strike is coming soon.

IS that what you meant?

My feeling about it: It's interesting. My gut says yes, that's what's happening. It's a sort of dream hit I got on Kerry (the Rattlesnake). My intellect says no--just too much evidence of Democratic and Kerry shilly-shallying around BushCons. 100,000-plus innocent Iraqis slaughtered. Hardly a peep out of them. Prisoners tortured, breaking of all treaties. Not a word. Grand theft Halliburton. Nothing. They want to do a "more efficient war in Iraq." Uh-huh. Not to menton their permitting Wally O'Dell and H. Ahmanson to get secret source code/no paper trail control of our election system.

So head and heart are not together right now.