Maoist Internationalist Movement

Security update

September 2 2007

MIM would like to alert the party's friends to a security problem connected to the Democrats and Hillary Clinton in particular.

It is pretty clear that Cheney has made an overture to the Clintons by talking about leaving the office in the condition he found it. Rove has also mixed a combination of threats and overtures to the Clintons in particular. The executive branch is set up in such a way that Clinton and Bush now have a special tie.

At this moment, Hillary Clinton cannot count on a sewn up nomination for the presidency. She has to behave well and be wary of sudden dirt.

Of the Democrats it is a good question who is most inclined to attack Bush. Obama and Edwards have less history with the executive branch. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton may believe that she can defend herself better than Obama and Edwards can. MIM would guess that Obama and Edwards are more inclined to attacking Bush.

On the attorney firings question, Hillary Clinton already said that the president has the right to fire the attorneys. She went so far as to sidestep how many times she can fire the attorneys--as if it does not become politicization of attorneys at some point. So it's a question of how much the president can do independent of the other branches of government. Clinton is most receptive to arguments of executive privilege.

Hillary Clinton is for the evisceration of the Bill of Rights. She separates questions of credit and medical information from other information concerning "terrorists," which she is so sure are "terrorists" that they have no fourth amendment rights:

"So much of what we know about terrorists, and the successes we have had in preventing and thwarting attacks and tracking would-be perpetrators, has been through information technology. We track terrorists across continents through their cell phones. We monitor terrorists and their supporters through Internet chat rooms. We had phone intercepts that should have given us advance notice of 9-11 if we had been paying attention.

"Now although our Founders couldn't imagine data mining or terror cells, they did anticipate differences of opinion between the executive and legislative branches, and even within them."

It's completely idiotic, because of course the British considered the American Revolutionaries terrorists. So she soft-pedals the question of security versus liberty the way the founders did not. She follows up this bit of her speech with how executive power needs a bipartisan basis. It's not what Washington or Lincoln said: those were oppressor Americans. Hillary Clinton is an Amerikan, because for her even what the founders said was too much.

The founders were elitists and this enabled them to put a higher emphasis on science. The "Federalist Papers" are quite scientific-minded. Today dumbocracy means that a politician can no longer uphold science even in a capitalist way. It is the lower sectors of the petty-bourgeoisie dragging down liberty, from American to Amerikan. The founders knew that liberty and security cannot be traded, because if one felt security at risk, there was a cause for that underlying that needed addressing. Today's average Amerikan voter does not like discussion of cause and effect and prefers hatred of gays, flying the flag and spitting on Mexicans.

In any case, the earliest anyone can sew up the nomination is January, 2008, by winning primaries decisively. Even then however, the candidate will want to avoid giving opportunities to opponents. If Hillary Clinton sews up the nomination in January, 2008, it is possible we will see a united front of Bush and Clinton on executive privilege questions. We may suspect that in fact there is already an incipient unity afoot. Of course, if Obama or Edwards become vice-president material for Clinton, then they too will be in on the imperialist unity between the House of Clinton and the House of Bush.

At the moment, the two imperialist parties are having a serious discussion of the bipartisan bases of the "war on terror." Clinton, Dodd and Dukakis have made some significant comments indicating that the Democrats are thinking hard about how to handle the politics of the "war on terror," since the Democrats have lost out in that regard in the past. Dodd is prepared to serve as a foil to Guileiani, who is banking on a partisan approach to 9/11 to win the presidency. Clinton so far is taking the opposite tack of challenging the Republicans' underlying conception of how to defeat terrorism. Such an approach has the possibility of a harder, more political stance than what Dodd has offered.

Regardless of appearances contrary, we have to know that there is some "progress" toward imperialist unity. At the same time, during a campaign season, it is well known that political situations become more hardened and it is possible for new events to occur that exacerbate political rivalries.

Note:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1230