Sunday, July 29, 2007

Will Bush Declare Martial Law – Or Worse?

Presidential candidate Ron Paul says that the U.S. is in “great danger” of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation... that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of martial law – that Bush recently signed into law via executive order.

What might Bush/Cheney team be capable of?

Bush and Cheney's approval ratings are near record lows. There is even talk of impeachment. The Republican Party doesn't stand a chance at winning the next presidential race. The only Republican candidate who stands out among the Bush clone wannabes is Ron Paul. However, his libertarian opinions probably won't get him much support from the Republican money/power structure. A Democrat looks like a shoe-in for the next president. Are Bush and Cheney powerless to stop the political blowback of their inept and corrupt “leadership?” Only if they play by the rules.

Now remember, the Bush and Cheney team didn't get elected (or likely reelected) by playing by the “rules.” The Bush and Cheney team have spent the past 7 years rewriting the rules so that they can do whatever they want. Just recently, they have thumbed their noses at Congress over a number of issues that used to be considered criminal. Nonetheless, the Bush/Cheney team are not as powerful as they once were. Most everything they have overseen is coming undone – and the American people are not happy about it. What Bush and Cheney need is another 9/11.

Terrorists once saved the Bush/Cheney team from a mediocre one-term presidency. In case you don't remember, these guys weren't very popular in their first few months in office. Al Gore had received 150,000 more votes nationwide, and the Supreme Court wouldn't allow the Florida recount to finish. Cheney was off doing back room deals with energy companies, and Bush was busy trying to get a tax break for the rich. They had no top level meetings concerning terrorism in the first 8 months. I cannot remember either of them even mentioning the term “terrorist” before 9/11. And then, like some perverse godsend, terrorists made the Bush/Cheney team popular.

I have never contended that the Twin Towers were blown up. I feel that the 9/11 attacks were genuine terrorist attacks – that could have been prevented had it not been for the ineptitude of our government agencies. The Bush/Cheney team had 8 months to see that those agencies were functioning, and fix things if need be. In case you haven't noticed, the Bush/Cheney team hasn't been bragging about what security reforms they made before 9/11. Sometimes, politicians win by losing. Sometimes, politicians can get what they want by doing nothing. We all know that the Bush/Cheney team did essentially nothing about terrorism before 9/11. The only thing we don't know is whether it was presidential ineptitude or scheming that led to essentially no acts to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Since 9/11, the Bush/Cheney team has played the terrorism card for as much as they can get. If there wasn't any scheming before 9/11, there definitely has been since. The same team that was supposed to be on watch when 9/11 occurred now wants us to believe that they are our only hope for salvation. The terror alerts and scares have been nonstop. It almost seems as if the Bush/Cheney team is hoping there will be another terrorist attack, so that the Nation will rally behind them again. So, how bad do they want another terrorist attack?

In 2002, the Defense Science Board requested the creation of a 100 man $100 million team called the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group (P2OG) that would provoke terrorist attacks. The lame excuse for provoking terrorists was to get them to expose themselves to attacks by U.S. Forces. Of course, if the terrorists didn't attack, they wouldn't actually be terrorists, now would they? Haven't we provoked enough terrorists already? Why would we want to steal their money, trick them with fake communications, kill their family members, or infiltrate their groups with provocateurs, who could even direct terrorist strikes? Just suggesting that we provoke terrorists is insane! But U.S. taxpayers might now be paying for it. In fact, we might even be paying for U.S. controlled terrorist groups to commit atrocities (to get street credibility with existing terrorist groups). Is it really such a stretch for P2OG to commit one of these atrocities on the U.S. mainland?

The U.S. military/industrial complex has pushed very hard. However, even with all the U.S. warships off the coast of Iran, even with the military occupation of Iraq, even with all of the violent acts done in the name of the U.S. worldwide; I doubt that there will be a legitimate terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland. The terrorists of the world have been watching U.S. politics. They see that Bush and Cheney are in trouble. The American people are becoming very discouraged and aggravated with Bush/Cheney team. This time; all the terrorists have to do is wait and do nothing.

As an example; even though Homeland Security has been publishing (for years now) when security is low (with their various colored alerts), the terrorists haven't taken the bait. A terrorist attack now, when the Bush/Cheney team needs it the most, seems extremely unlikely.

Consequently, if there is a “terrorist” attack now, you should be very skeptical of who's terrorists commit it.

I doubt that there will be a military attack of any sort ordered by Iran. Whatever they can do to us, our military is prepared, poised, and willing... no... itching to do 100 times worse. If Iran attacks one of our warships, we'll attack their country. No matter the provocation, it would be suicide for Iran to order an attack on the U.S. Would it be out of character for America to stage an attack? Not really. That's what happened to North Viet Nam at the Gulf of Tonkin. Again, be very skeptical of an attack on a U.S. military installation outside of Iraq.

I also doubt that there will be any use of Weapons of Mass Destruction – unless the terrorists could be absolutely sure we couldn't determine the weapons' origin. The U.S. has 10,000 nuclear weapons and thousands of other WMD. It would be downright silly for America to use the WMD excuse to attack Iran for the same reason that it was silly to attack Iraq over WMD. Even if Iran had Weapons of Mass Destruction, their only practical use would be as retaliatory weapons of last resort. If Iran were to nuke an American city (or even Israel), the U.S. (or Israel) would then nuke the whole nation of Iran. There would be nothing left in Iran but dead bodies and oil. Yet... I wonder if the Bush and Cheney team might like that option – after what's happened in Iraq.

I'm speculating, of course. Maybe the Bush/Cheney team have some scruples after all. Maybe they aren't willing to destroy what's left of the American dream of a democratic republic. Maybe they won't allow a staged terrorist attack. Maybe even the Bush/Cheney “team” won't set Bush up with no options but to retaliate and declare martial law. And then again, maybe if we all know what they're up to, they won't be able to pull it off. Please let others know, so that this cannot be a surprise.

1 comment:

dortiz said...

A friend wrote back to me:

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) spoke in favor of the changes to the Insurrection Act, referencing the Administration's poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Kennedy seems to believe the provision does not grant any additional powers to Bush, but merely specifies which emergency situations will be covered by his existing powers:

"As I understand the amendment, it defines when the President can call on the Armed Forces if there is a major public emergency at home. The amended statute now lists specific situations in which the troops can be used to restore public order. This includes natural disasters, epidemics or other serious public health emergencies, and terrorist attacks or incidents that result in domestic violence to such an extent that State authorities are unable to maintain public order. These were not mentioned specifically before. While the amendment does not grant the President any new powers, it fills an important gap in clarifying the President's authority to respond to these new kinds of emergencies."