There was a strange moment during President Trump's inauguration speech, and that strange moment seems to be catching the attention of a few people and making a few rounds of discussion, and I have (as one might suspect) my own suspicions and high octane speculations, and they don't seem to be entirely unique to me. And while I normally don't comment much about US domestic politics here, other then to say the Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas have left it a shambles, this one caught my eye: as Mr. Trump began his inaugural address, a group of soldiers and sailors came up behind the new President, flanked him, and stood for a few seconds until another military man came up, said something, and the soldiers and sailors turn and exit.
Now, The Daily Mail is spinning this all as a "moment of confusion"; this was all accident, a mistake. And indeed, I suspect it was made at least to appear to be "a moment of confusion," and an accident and a mistake.
One person emailed me and asked if I had caught it, and stated that for that moment, he felt like "this is it, this is the moment they assassinate him, and return power to the neo-con neo-liberal Clinton-Bush-Obama-roids." Or words to that effect (he was a bit more "colorful" in his language).
But in my high octane speculation of the day, I am going to suggest this was no "moment of confusion" nor even an "accident", but rather, a very clear symbolic message. Whether that message is a disturbing one is up to the individual reader to determine; I merely present my suspicions and speculations. Indeed, that message can be taken in two ways, as we'll see.
Prior to this last election there was a great deal of back and forth on the internet, and there was even talk - promoted primarily by CIA-affiliated Dr. Steve Piezcenik - that Mr Trump was indeed getting powerful backing from segments of the American Deep State that had finally "had it" with the unipolar Neo-con Neo-liberal agenda of the past three administrations, and that it was launching a soft "countercoup."So far as that scenario goes, it mirrors my own speculations, voiced in various interviews, that Mr. Trump did indeed have backing of certain factions in the American deep state, only my scenario did not include that bit about "countercoups." That in itself is an interesting choice of words, for it implies some previous coup, which, interestingly enough, was never specified as to when it began, and who pulled it off. For my part, I've suggested in a couple of interviews that I view the whole recent election fracas from a very long historical arc, dating back at least to (you guessed it) the Kennedy Administration. And if that "countercoup" scenario does have any merit, then the language itself does suggest that some sort of long historical arc is necessary, for the Bush political dynasty was, in effect, launched when Mr. Nixon brought GHW Bush into the White House from the CIA and made him head of the RNC. Mr. Reagan, of course, was forced to accept Mr. Bush as his Vice President, and months later an assassination attempt on his life by Bush family acquaintance John Hinckley left Mr. Reagan in a hospital bed and Mr. Bush effectively running the country. And, if you've been keeping score, the disturbing revelations surrounding Iran-Contra, and the book of intelligence operative Terry Reed (Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA) exposed a whole network of nasty connections between the two families.
So picture, now, the scene: Mr. Trump delivering his inaugural address. Behind him are seated former Presidents Bill Clinton, George Walker Bush, and Barack Obama(forced to take Darth Hillary as his Secretary of State), with first ladies Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton. The military walks up behind Trump. Message? Do what we tell you to do.
Conversely, the message could be very different: same scene, different interpretation: the military walks up behind Mr. Trump and flanks him, in clear view of the assembled presidential neo-cons and neo-libs: message? We've got his back, don't try anything stupid. And in the context of pre-election campaign chatter of countercoups and so on, it seems to fit more closely.
But either way, the message is a disturbing one, and I'll leave it as a case of "you tell me."
See you on the flip side...