Lewis's political rule of thumb:

In a managed-media-controlled society, every consequential governmental act has a political motive.  That motive is generally identical to the results of that act.  If you want to know why such a government has done something, follow the results.

The "absence of WMDs" in Iraq has been the pivotal political issue of recent American history. It's created the generally accepted impression that the Bush administration falisified evidence to justify an invasion, leading in turn to the Democrats' takeover of Congress, an impending unprecedentedly leftwing Democrat presidency, and even the acceptance of this leftist spin on the affair by a segment of the "enlightened right," leading to the Ron Paul phenomenon.

The "no-WMD" outcome has also meant saved face and enhanced the credibility and power for the United Nations (in harmony with an administration pushing UNCLOS and North American unification).

I'll demonstrate that these have been the intended effects of this "RINO" administration from the start.

What W has succeeded in doing (like other Surrogate Democrat prezzes before him, like "Daddy Bush" and "Tricky Dick") is systematically divide and de-energize the conservative base. He has about a third of us turned into "neolibs" - mouthing the left's "war for oil, imperialist neocon" rhetoric. Another third is willing to follow Dubya off the cliff like the lemmings who followed his dad and Nixon. No matter the nature of the mental gymnastics required to defend whatever lethal absurdity (as in ChiCom "Freeportgate" and the Dubai ports affair) he offers, these toadies march in lockstep.

That leaves a final third (from Joseph Farah to David Severin to Bill O'Reilly to yours truly) having wondered out loud why Bush has concealed the WMDs and Al Qaeda connections we've found. W - an internationist by breeding, is consistently dividing conservatives into opposing camps and setting the table for the return of the overt Marxist party (whose bidding he has done "under the radar") to power.

Bush rolls out the red carpet for criminal Mexicans and Salvadoreans who will get driver's licenses (not to mention "paths to citizenship") and "motor vote" virtually 100% Democratic (without even an attempt in a 2-term Republican presidency to repeal this Clintonista "motor voter" legislation that likely nets the Democrats about 5 million illicit votes per election cycle). Meanwhile he's persecuting true refugees from Cuba (who come from the identical stock that won 2000 for him in Florida) under Clinton's "wet foot, dry foot" policy - capsizing their boats, sending them home (to be tortured to death) even when they land on our soil, and prosecuting brave Americans who help them - as smugglers or murderers.

And hs regime tips off Mexico on Minuteman locations - and issues mandates for Border Patrol agents to refrain from investigating reports from Minutemen of illegal crossing citings. But the WMD thing is the most critical issue, the one that has us most confused and divided.

The Surrogate Democrat hypothesis is an apt one for both Bushes, and for Nixon/Ford. Nixon was no conservative. He instituted a socialistic wage/price freeze, initiated our racial spoils system, abandoned Taiwan and recognized China, and surrendered southeast Asia to the communists.

His lemming's cliff involved sending political hacks to burglarize the office of an opponent he led by 40 points at the time. And most conservative politicos either went down with this pseudo-con's ship or joined the bandwagon of condemning his "rightist" excesses. The net result was major losses in ensuing elections for the conservatism in which Nixon (contrary to the media hype) never partook.

All this should not have been a surprise if we recognize that Nixon, as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) - our internationalist "invisible government" - could have been expected to work against US interests, including handing a "mandate" to the "Dems" to wreak their more open brand of havoc.

By the time GHW Bush later took a similar dive ("Yes, new taxes"), it should have come as no surprise. Another CFR member, Daddy Bush had expelled just about all of the true conservative operatives he had inherited from the Reagan Administration, reverted to the Rockefeller school of Republicanism, and sold his conservative base out just about every way possible. But again, essentially out of aversion to the "alternative" Democratic Party (by then pure Marxist), conservatives tied their hopes to this pseudo-con, went down hard in the '92 elections, and suffered 8 years of Clintonism for their troubles. (Read Phyllis Schlafly's '64 classic, A Choice, not an Echo for documention of a long succession of prior "me too" GOP presidents and candidates who similarly fell on their swords for their Democratic "rivals.")

This current administration has eclipsed all records - even adjusted for inflation and population - for "entitlement" (read "welfare" program) spending. The same socialized medicine program that was so radical that Hillary could not get it through a Democratic Congress a decade ago has now become a reality under the "opposition" party, with fully 1/3 of our 300 million "insured" by the government.

A bi-cameral majority was not enough for W to pass ANWR drilling - even with gas prices out of reach of a many Americans and with us essentially at war with our principle foreign suppliers. But he spared no arm twisting to ram through CAFTA, which ceded about 1/3 of our sovereignty to Vicente Fox-types.

An unprecedentedly socialistic farm bill, the abolition of the 1st Amendment via "campaign finance reform," the unpunished lynx hair fraud, the non-endangered Tucson area owl off-limiting 1.2 billion acres, continuation of the Feinstein-Schumer "assault rifle" ban, breaking of a campaign promise to reverse Clinton's draconian National Monuments Order; the retention - with disastrous results - of Clintonistas like Norman Mineta, Joe Wilson, and George Tenet, the Patriot Act (facilitating future Democratic abuses), the cave-in on U of Michigan preferences, abolition of restrictions on supercomputer sales to China, Bush's approval of Clinton's destruction doctor-patient privacy, the pass given Clintonista spy Sandy Berger, his "guest worker" amnesty, ad infinitum all tell a dismal tale.

Even more telling have been W's policies re the UN's takeover of our sovereignty. He has gotten us back in UNESCO, implemented the UN's One World agenda via No Child Left Behind, aggressively promoted ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, accepted the Supreme Court's eminent domain decision (an imposition of principles of the UN's Agenda 21 "Sustainable Development" tyranny), and carried the ball for the World Health Organization, via his plan to test all Americans for "mental illness."

Rep. Ron Paul's proposed amendment (opposed by the "Bushites") to the last of these initiatives that would have at least required parental consent for the testing of children was roundly defeated. Republicans voted no by a 55%-45% margin, as did all but one Democrat. This may be the first time in history that the opposition party sided with a president by a much wider margin than his own party. (This provides stark insight into a motive for Bush wanting to sabotage congressional GOP candidates and replace them with Democrats, which I contend is one of the main reasons he's done a "bellyflop" on Iraqi WMDs, which has indeed produced that transformation of power.)

On the eve of the Iraq invasion, I heard, on the Judicial Watch program, of the systematic suppression of the research of Jayna Davis (in The Third Terrorist), which proved that the Oklahoma City bombing was essentially the work of Iraqis (with Nichols and McVeigh thrown in as "lily whites"). This suppression occurred first with the Clinton Administration, which wanted to do anything it could to pin whatever it could on "conservative" forces within the country. The lengths to which Mrs. Davis showed that the Clinton administration had gone were unspeakably scandalous and corrupt. Yet the cover-up was perpetuated by the Bush Administration - which seemingly had much to gain (a virtual death blow to the credibility of its "rival" party; justification for the invasion) by exposiing it. Even the staunch support of lead impeachment counsel David Schippers had failed to yield the slightest attention.

[When supposedly conservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R, CA) later held hearings on Olahoma City, he called only 2 of Jayna Davis's 20+ key wtiness (and ignored her list of questions for the FBI) and focused on a debunked theory - mirroring the Clintonista lies that rescued "Bubba" from rock bottom poll numbers and carried him to victory in '96 - alleging involvement of the hard right.]

All of this made no sense in the context of the two-parties-at-each-others'-throats model. But it made perfect sense under the one party (Democrat policy supported by Surrogate Democrats masquerading as "Republicans") model I knew to be true. I was moved to call the show and predict that we would find WMDs and not reveal that we had found them.

At this point it was our credibility against that of the UN, whose "inspectors" had assured us there were no such weapons. Knowing Bush's allegiance to the UN's designs on our sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity, I could not see him showing the UN up by exposing any WMD's or terror links we might find.

Such revelations would have destroyed the UN's credibility, seriously setting back its schemes to take us over. But if we could be the ones to lose credibility ,,, well, we've witnessed the political devastation, both at home and abroad, that this very oucome has created - especially within the conservative movement itself.

The 1st weeks of the war only reinforced my convictions. 12 servicemen who uncovered one site took sick, with symptoms typical for chemical exposure (http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/more_chemical_weapons_found_in_iraq). The administration immediately dismissed these illnesses as "battle fatigue." (Battle fatigue? After about a week of war? And among 12 out of 12 GI's?) No less left-wing an outfit than NPR then reported our finding missiles "ready to fire" armed with warheads initially testing positive for chemicals (http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=20419). This report was immediately shut up via a designation (according to the Washington Times) of "classified." We heard nothing more.

In the bowels of a site previously "inspected" by Hans Blix's motley crew, we found radiation "off the scale." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's reaction was an extremely curious, "all first reports we get turn out to be wrong." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83455,00.html) Not "some first reports aren't entirely accurate," but all of them are always wrong. Sure enough, everything "turned out" to be, ostensibly, false. Funny Rummy should have known in advance they all would be wrong, and funny that we even look if we know in advance we'll always come up dry.

A later barrel find (based on a tip by locals) tested positive twice in the field for Sarin and mustard gas. One of the admin's "experts" abrupty pooh-poohed the findings and predicted that the stuff was rocket fuel (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79505&page=1), which it "sho nuff" "turned out to be" - to the preclusion of laboratory testing. In "reaction," the administration promised not to divulge any further positive preliminary results - we had heard the last from this administration on WMDs in Iraq. Chalk up one more for the United Nations.

Funny how "conservatives" who are so willing to swallow whole the Marxist line about the Bushites' designs on conquering the planet for the USA seem so oblivious to the obvious. Is it possible that a cadre so unscrupulous, so willing to fabricate the justification for going in in the first place would not be willing to take the easy step of planting WMDs to perpetuate the ruse?

Little by little, some major figures began to notice the pattern. Bill O'Reilly verbalized how he could not fathom the Bushites' silence on Salman Pak, where we found a half-buried airliner, complete with manuals on how to hijack one and use it as a weapon.

On the eve of the '04 elections, John Loftus (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169244/posts), perhaps the most knowledgeable American on middle eastern intrigues, revealed that Libya - apparently spooked by the fate of Saddam and the Taliban, and in conjunction with 'fessing up to its own WMD projects - had revealed that Iraq's entire nuclear program had undergone an eleventh hour transfer to Libya, personnel and all. Loftus, a Democrat, at that point predicted that this coup would sweep Bush to victory in those '04 elections.

One expected W's party to emphasize this as, if nothing more, an "October surprise." It never happened. But we were not quite ready to elect a candidate with a 35-year history of open communist collaboration, lying, and disdain toward America. The GOP - with its charging entourage of "RINOs" (constituting the vast majority of at least its Senate retinue), won in spite of its best efforts not to.

Later, the highly credible Richard Miniter, in Misinformation, catalogued large amounts of chemical and biological weapons we had uncovered - finds the administration had never bothered to tell us about. This prompted Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily to exclaim, in headlines, "Why doesn't Bush just say it?"

Then the solid evidence of cover-up began to emerge. David Gaubatz,, formerly of the Army's Office of Special Investigations, told us of Nasirah, Iraq, where he saw convincing evidence that flooded tunnels, sealed off by 5-foot concrete walls, were the depositories of chemical and biological weapons that locals said they were. He recalled his frustration at being stonewalled by both the David Kay and Charles Duelfer WMD panels, in spite of months of pleading by himself and other agents.

Pentagon operative John Shaw (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=tn) told of how he and others had uncovered hard evidence that the Russians had removed (to Syria and elsewhere) huge amounts of WMDs in the run-up to the war (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002204.php). The US government had gone to great lengths to see to it that this was not publicized . This report dovetailed with the stories of Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada (http://www.nysun.com/article/26514), and even Saddam's half brother, Gen. Barzan Al-Tikriti (http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/talk_tikriti.htm), neither of whose contentions and allegations have drawn the slightest note from the administration.

Later, Sen. Rick Santorum (R, PA) uncovered (through the Freedom of Information Act) data that showed we had found and destroyed about 500 other DMVs in Iraq (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/santorum-wmd/). This info had to be pried loose by a legislator (as opposed to revealed - triumphantly - when it all happened). The Administration itself once again offered no comment - except through an unnamed "Pentagon source" who downplayed it. And Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham's 2004 revelation (reported in the BBC) that we had removed 1.7 tons of enriched uranium from Iraq] was also swiftly and summarily squelched.

Among those privy to these stories (kept from general consumption by the mainstream media), all this became so plain that some Bush apologists began taking it as a given and inventing bizarre alibis for the suppression of these stories. The best they seemed to be able to do was claim that the finds would implicate Russia, France, and Germany (as they almost assuredly would), and that administration did not want to alienate these countries, as it was looking for their help in an upcoming Iran campaign.

These explanations do not pass the imbecility test. These deceitful governments would be more obligated to help us if we exposed their real motives for opposing the Iraq invasion, exposed these folks for the high stakes colluders with Saddam that they were. The metamorphosis in public opinion that would occur would far more than make up for any reticence on the part of this trio of nations. It would likewise stanch much of the present flow of venom against us worldwide.

Many of us know that there are no real choices at the national level between the 2 parties, and that the agenda both follow is basically the overt Marxism of the Democrats. That Republican opposition to this is essentially token, and that the GOP is able to institute certain facets that the Democrats could never get away with introducing, given the critical eye of conservative opinion (including, tragically, that of large segments of the "religious right") tends to not be focused anywhere near as much on Republicans.

Thus, a Republican administration like the current one would never willfully score a knockout punch for pro-American conservatism, and can only be expected to self destruct on cue, just as former ones have. What we cannot do is allow this president to get us accepting precepts (or mouthing the rhetoric) of the left. Once we have done that, his mission, in my humble opinion, is accomplished.

Let's get a few things straight before we on the right lose all notion of common principles and self-destruct just the way those who want to divide and conquer us wish:

1. Bush's immigration policy is not a "ploy for votes." Voters of all persuasions (particularly Republicans and Independents) oppose amnesty schemes (not to mention his refusal to either accept Congress's mandate to increase border manpower or allow the military to patrol the frontier) - by wide margins.

Besides, Bush has to know that the more non-Cuban Latinos he lets slip in, the more ground his party will lose to its leftwing rivals - especially in the absence of Motor Voter repeal. A reasonable hypothesis, then, is that he wants to lose that ground; the fact he's shut off the Cuban faucet, coupled with his behavior vis a vis Portgate, Freeportgate, and WMD-find suppression (plus the curious self destruction of antecedents like Bush I and Nixon) make this hypothesis seem far from far fetched. And in light of what we have long known about the secret societies that control world politics, it is downright plausible.

2. The term, "military industrial complex" is not a synonym for the international banking cartel and tax exempt foundations that have been engineering our doom for so long. Neolibs cite Eisenhower's cautionary reference during his administration, but Eisenhower was a CFR member who did not even call himself a conservative, a Rockefeller Republican very much along Nixon/Bush lines, and thus not anyone who would ever reveal the true nature of what goes on behind the scenes.

Besides, our military is and has long been hamstrung, gayed, feminized, demonized, sensitivity trained, forced to fight the UN's battles and even wear its insignias; our industry is mostly outsourced or foreign owned, practically dead in the water. "Military industrial complex" is jargon of the Marxist left, aimed at destroying our economic infrastructure and disarming us. It's not interchangeable with the many accurate (and sufficient) ones we have long had at our disposal: invisible government, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, etc. Our troops and weapons industry have kept us free these many years.

3. It's not "corporate America" that deserves our scorn, but multinationals, including traitorous American-based corporations who've armed the likes of China, with passes & perks from whatever party's administration happens to be in power. "Corporate America" is a leftist slur depicting capitalism as evil.

4. We are not "imperialists." "Imperialist" is a Marxist anti-American term. We're the victims of a one world takeover (imperialism, if you will), not perpetrators of expansionism. It's amazing how neolibs no longer condemn the still very active communist imperialism (China, Russia, North Korea, Latin America... ) or Islamist imperialism (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia..) - only our own supposed quest to spread the American system worldwide (if only this were the extent of our worries).

5. These Republican traitors are not "neocons." The left loves this supposedly derogatory term. "Neocons" simply means "new conservatives," something we need a lot more of, especially the fully informed sort. What we're dealing with are pseudocons - imitation conservatives.

6. We shouldn't talk about "globalists" (though this particular term is not especially inaccurate). The rowdy demonstrators of the anti-capitalist far left - the kind that love to riot and tear up cities where the G8 meets - are fond of this term. Not that the G8 is up to any good, but neither are these thugs, and we don't need to be confused with them. Not when we have tried and true, unambiguous terms these degenerates would never use in any critical contexts - terms like "internationalists," and "one worlders."

7. Iraq is no "war for oil." If Dubya cared about oil for American companies, he would have railroaded through ANWR as he railroaded through CAFTA, and gas would not be $3 or so a gallon with no end in site to the carnage. Iraq - as it is being carefully contorted - is a war for the humiliation of America, a war for the destruction of our credibility, a war to strengthen the UN's grip on us.

The deposing (and, yes, disarming) of Saddam and the enfranchisement of his formerly oppressed people, the incredible acts of heroism and goodwill of our incomparable troops are then seen, ironically, to be collateral (and, yes, beneficial) effects of a much larger campaign to bring us to our knees.

Every time we use the above rhetoric of the left instead of the perfectly adequate conservative Constitutionalist terms I offer there as substitutes, we are raising the hackles of numerous patriots who otherwise might be marching shoulder to shoulder with us. If American conservatives and Constitutionalists can see things in such a context they can heal their internal differences and become the type of united force that is so desperately needed at this point in our threatened nation's history.

Instead of harmonizing with our sworn enemies on the left, we need our own anti-administration chorus - based on the truth, that there are Democrats, and then again there are Surrogate Democrats.