1968: DE JAVU ALL OVER AGAIN

America is mired in a highly unpopular war we cannot win. Our appointed president has the lowest approval rating of any president since Richard Nixon - another Republican. Hmmmm, is there something in the Republican Water that breeds this type of president? But I digress.

As in 1968, there is wide-spread discontent in America regarding our economy and most Americans, except those at the top of the economic ladder, are significantly worse off than they were in 1990 when the neo-conservatives hijacked the nation. How could it be otherwise with America saddled with the largest national debt in our history, the value of the dollar 25% less than it was in 1990 and well below that of the euro, and America's balance of payments in the toilet as a consequence of Mr. Bush’s NACFA and CAFCA that has resulted in the mass exodus of American jobs via outsourcing.

It was also about this aame time in the election campaign of 1968 that the possibility of real change arose that our campaign is in today that is energized by the possibility of real change - the possibility that a progressive Democrat either a woman or an African American will be our next president. Just one year ago that possibility seemed as far fetched - more science fiction than reality - than the possibility of Eugene McCarthy becoming president in 1968.

Yet, there they are. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States of America.

In the end, lightening did not strike in 1968. The anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy lost the election on January 30, 1968, the day the Tet Offensive by the North Vietnamese began. That is not surprising because the Tet Offensive was understood by most Americans as a mandate to respond in kind. With the advent of the Tet Offensive there was no room in the American mind or heart for an anti-war president when what was needed was to gird up our loins, stay the path, and bring the war doubled in spades to the enemy. With the advent of the Tet Offensive, the Democrats and their anti-war candidate had lost credibility in the mind of the American people which allowed the "no nonsense, hard line, War Hawk" Republican Richard Nixon to steal the election of 1968.

Nixon and his cabinet of War Hawks would soon be known for their mantra: "No peace without honor." Seeking that honor, waiting for that honor, would cost untold thousands of American lives and the catastrophic physical and emotional injury sustained by untold thousands more American soldiers that would result in life-long effects that crippled both their bodies and their minds.

In the end there was to be no "peace with honor," Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, and Uncle Ho kicked our ass out of Vietnam in the most ignoble defeat in American history.

Could this scenario happen again? Could we experience de javu all over again in the manner of 1968? Could something happen in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran that would poison the minds and hearts of America to a progressive Democratic presidency? Could something happen that would end the credibility of replacing the neo-conservatives with progressive democracy in the minds and hearts of the American people?

That seems unlikely today, this first day after Christmas, when America is still basking in the euphoria of "peace on earth good will toward men." It seems unlikely when bombings and casualties, especially American casualties, are down in Iraq from those of a few months ago as a result of the success of "the surge" if one believes Mr. Bush and company. It seems unlikely even though the Taliban has regained control of the tribal highlands of Afghanistan as they still pose no threat to Kabul. It seems unlikely with the recent revelation that Iran discontinued its build up to nuclear weapons three years ago.

Yet, for many Americans, there remains that prickly feeling on the back of their neck. There is a feeling, an intuition, that it will not be long before the other shoe drops and something catastrophic happens - another al-Qaeda attack on America, escalation of bombings and American casualties in Iraq, the Taliban mounting a surge of their own in Afghanistan, or that the Iranians have pulled the wool over our eyes much like the Japanese whose ambassador assured America's Department of State on December 1, 1942 that Japan had no desire or plan to attack America only to have American's wake up the next morning, December 2, 1942, to discover that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. That day, according to President Roosevelt, was a day that would live in infamy.

It seems unlikely that any of these events will happen but there is another side to this coin. It is a side that many Americans scoff at, believe is impossible, and relegate to the scrap heap of conspiracy theories postulated by left-wing whackos and Bush haters. Yet, I believe this side of the coin is much more likely than the one cited above. I believe so because three formerly high ranking men in the American military and covert agencies that I know personally have told me they would not be surprised if it does happen and in fact would be more surprised if it does not happen.

What is this side of the coin? Although the particulars differ between the three the thrust of their argument is the same. Their argument is that Mr. Bush and company will manufacture an "event," predicated on lies and misinformation that will justify a dramatic military attack by our government.

What kind of a scenario could elicit such an attack? One scenario is an upswing in the bombings and subsequent American casualties in Iraq wherein it is "proven" that al-Qaeda has successfully infiltrated Iraq and was using it as a base of operations. Another is "proof" that Iran was behind the escalation of violence in Iraq and that an Iranian plan to "annex Iraq and set up a puppet government controlled by Iran" had been discovered. Still another would be President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan's "invitation" for American forces, both on the ground and in the air, to join with Pakistani troops to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the Pakistani tribal areas in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. A scenario related to that one is if Taliban or al-Qaeda led forces mount a successful coup against President Musharraf. In this scenario the justification changes from fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda to overthrowing a radical, terrorist, Islamic government because not to do so would mean that they would control the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

The obvious question is, "Why would our government manufacture such an "event" that can only lead to greater catastrophe and misery for both America and the world? The answer is simple: political power combined with a world-view that believes it is America's God given destiny to both control the Middle East and to be a major player in the biblically prophesied Armageddon. Most Americans, especially Republicans, shrink back from such a possibility and as above relegate it to the scrap heap of conspiracy theories postulated by left-wing whackos and Bush haters.

However, to do so would be not only short-sighted and a great folly but also to ignore the wisdom of Lord Acton in his Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887 that all Americans should take as a warning: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Over the past seven years of the Bush administration and the neo-conservatives led by Dick Cheney have proven time and again the validity of Lord Acton's warning. One may argue whether it was the power given to them by the American people that corrupted them or whether already being corrupt they corrupted our government. Regardless of which came first, the fact is that we now experience them both.

This side of the coin expresses the belief that neo-conservatives led by their think tanks The Heritage Foundation, The Manhattan Institute, The American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institute which John Chuckman describes as, "phony institutes where ideologue-propagandists pose as academics ... [into which] money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertising's suffocation of genuine debate" will not go quietly into the night. Rather, when the handwriting of Republican defeat is on the wall and their ouster from the seats of power and influence is certain, they will supply the "justification" for a military preemptive strike to "defend American" that is solely designed to elect the Republican candidate to the office of the presidency and ensure their continued propaganda as the guiding beacon of American foreign policy.

If that does happen it will not simply be 1968 de javu all over again. It may well be that the neo-conservatives will get their wish - at least part of it - and America will be a major player in the fulfillment of the biblical prophesy of Armageddon.