What's Bandow's point? I think his point is that Khrushchev was not Hitler either. But everyone (including the Illuminati) does what one can with what one has. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/antiwar/~3/192797196/
Khrushchev, who presented the U.S.S.R. as an equal to the U.S. knew the U.S.S.R. was vastly inferior. It was all bluff. But Khrushchev provided the Pentagon with what it needed to continue building up the "Defence of the West". Khrushchev was right (contrary to Bandow's opinion): the U.S. is run by a cabal of militarists. They have been running things from the beginning — even before 1776. One need only look at the record, decade after decade, century after century. Khrushchev might have done in the fifties what Gorbachev did in the nineties. But that would not have been good for business, if one's business is war. So Khrushchev had to go. Eisenhower had to go too. He knew the Soviets had no way to get nukes to the U.S. The U-2 flights proved that: that's what they were for. Kennedy was much better for business than Eisenhower had been. And Eisenhower had been good for business. Kennedy built the Minuteman ICBM fleet to "close the missile gap" which Eisenhower said didn't exist. (The Soviets didn't even have bombers like the B52. They still do not. But they do have a missile fleet, thanks to Kennedy.) Johnson was even better for business than Kennedy has been. (Or Truman. Or FDR. And both of them had been GREAT FOR BUSINESS!) Which is why Kennedy had to go. LBJ and the State of Israel may have been behind the Kennedy assassination: LBJ became the President, the Pentagon and "Israel" got rid of Nasser; "Israel" got the bomb and the great victory of the "6 Day War", thanks to LBJ. Going back to the Cold War, Anthony Sutton called the U.S.S.R. "the best enemy money could buy." He explained that U.S. capitalists had been subsidizing the "communists" from 1917 onward. Sutton had to go.
The cabal is really stretching things with Osama and Al Qaeda. They just couldn't afford to wait for the Chinese. And the Chinese are good for business. Is the cabal the Illuminati or is it part of the Illuminati? They managed to milk the bogyman that was Castro for over half a century. They created Castro too. They put him in power. One night Batista got a call from one of the Dulles brothers who informed him that the U.S. wouldn't be supporting Batista any longer. The next morning Batista flew out of Havana never to be seen again and Castro drove into Havana to cheering crowds.
Try this: on a strategic level, Great Britain was a fortress surrounded by a big moat, the English Channel and the rest. William the Conqueror (a Viking descendant) was the last person to successfully invade fortress Britain. That was a thousand years ago. I won't try to summarize the next thousand years here in one sentence, but Great Britain would become a world-wide empire without equal in 1763 with the Seven Years War. A few years later the empire would split with the American Revolution. Then, around 1901, the centre of the empire began to move from London to Washington. The transfer of power was completed by 1945. The U.S. continental empire has huge advantages over dinky little England and it is surrounded by a really really big moat: the Atlantic and the Pacific. The empire had acquired super weapons and global hegemony. But things keep changing. Today, economic power is shifting from the Anglo-American empire to the Far East. Today's debacle in Iraq suggests that military power is not working as well as it did for centuries. Vietnam and Korea confirm this. The empire has not won a war since 1945 and the empire has started lots of wars since then. Let's hope they will beat their swords into plowshares.
This is The Age of Aquarius so Let the Sun Shine In!