"White House preparing to stage new September 11"

#1
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340886.html

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."

"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face,"
...
"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."
While I agree that new 911 type tragedy would be highly profitable for mr.Bush from political point of view unlikely it would be staged or 'orchestrated' by the administration. Though the former Reagan official is well aware about political kitchen from inside.
 
#3
KGB_resident said:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340886.html

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."

"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face,"
...
"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."
While I agree that new 911 type tragedy would be highly profitable for mr.Bush from political point of view unlikely it would be staged or 'orchestrated' by the administration. Though the former Reagan official is well aware about political kitchen from inside.
I'll believe it when I see it.

As I've said before, I find it amusing and ironic that an administration which is composed of incompetents, leaks information like a sieve, and is headed by a man widely derided as an idiot, is at the same time credited with having the ability to 'orchestrate' the 9/11 attacks.

The "former Reagan official" has also been out of the "political kitchen" for nearly twenty years...he's also an economist, which in my lamentable experience of such people means that he imagines himself an absolute authority on everything, usually subjects with nothing whatsoever to do with economics.

Did I mention that he is something of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?
 
#4
Gallowglass, I think that you are right. You are right in each your phrase. Though the interview is worth to be discussed.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Oldline_Republican_warns_somethings_in_works_0719.html

"Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."
Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.
What does it mean btw?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America...
...
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and...
...
I hereby order:
...
all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States ... are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense...
Note, courts decision has not been mentioned.

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
I fancy that all peace activists fall to these categories. Apparently information about corruption of American firms in Iraq 'undermines' the efforts.
 
#5
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/the-pentagon-issues-warning-to-clinton/

one of the Pentagon’s top officials sent a letter to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton earlier this week that essentially told her that any outline of plans for withdrawing American troops from Iraq is tantamount to reinforcing “enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

The letter from Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman was in response to Senator Clinton’s request in May for the Defense Department to draw up proposals to get the troops out of the battlefields.
Would mrs Clinton be allowed to take part in the ellections? Would her property be blocked?
 
#6
Gallowglass:
As I've said before, I find it amusing and ironic that an administration which is composed of incompetents, leaks information like a sieve, and is headed by a man widely derided as an idiot, is at the same time credited with having the ability to 'orchestrate' the 9/11 attacks.
Has it ever occurred to you Gallowglass, that the clever and powerful are operating behind a veneer of incompetence. How better to keep the designs secret and deflect any sense of enquiry from a complacent public.
Of course this must have occurred to you surely? Afterall there is long standing highly visible evidence of such right in front of our eyes.
The man responsible for spouting the words in my signature is obviously a man not capable of organising the proverbial p'iss up.

But whatever faults he may have, the man who stands behind the chimps throne and who occupies the vice presidents office can hardly be described as 'incompetent' now can he?
(Did you read the 5 part Cheney story in the Washpost at all? It was most revealing indeed. It is he who is in fact in power and the chimp is there to be dull witted and incurious and sign and spout as and when required. And the more incoherent the chimp is the better it suits Mr Cheney's purpose)

Incompetence was used to great effect in Iraq during the Bremmer stage. All those young know nothing Republican die hards with heads full of bible babble were sent out there to be incompetent so that the country would fall apart and at the same time they wouldn't spot the blatant rip offs and corruption happening right under their noses. I could go on about the applied use of loyalist incompetence by the clever but wont right now.
Suffice it to say that incompetent people have deliberately been used to undermine and corrupt the major organs of state.
Brownie really did do a heck off a job, and thats no lie.

KGB:
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.
Very interesting this one. The penalty is the give away here. Once this gets around it'll cause a complete self censorship syndrome throughout the middle class and above as each individual now worries about keeping secure their personal assets. (Gallowglass, pay attention, this is clever there is no sign of incompetence here.)
At first blush one might think to introduce such a mesure at this stage of the Iraq game was superfluous. But that would be complacent and dead wrong. First you get the middle class used to shutting the f'uck up critizing the Iraq war. Then when they have got with the program, only then do you launch an attack on Iran. At that point large sections of society will have a mass siesure as their powerful need to protest is met by the equally powerful need to keep their mouths shut. Also at that point the carefully nutured fear of terrorism will then be suplanted by a need to keep their heads down and not get caught. The manipulation of fear in a fascist regime goes through phases. And that one will be the biggy.
The way these guys are operating will in the future become a classic case study of the steady introduction of Fascist measures in to society without frightening any more of the horses than need be at any given time. This ones aimed at Liberal money.
If you think this fanciful checkout Micheal Ledeen a neo con who studied Italian Fascism at an Italian university back in the seventies. And who incidently was in Italy having meetings with the Italian secret service around the time of the Niger yellow cake forgeries.
 
#8
If the president claims executive privilege on this one suspicions should be raised.
First Bush would finally have gone completly into King John mode. Giving himself not only the right to hold persons without charge indefinitely but claiming the right not to have to disclose any such evidence that they might have against such people.
When he does that the correct position to take is, until further notified we have to assume there isn't any.
But what it will also reveal is that he himself has something to hide.

Court Tells U.S. to Reveal Data on Detainees at Guantánamo

By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Published: July 21, 2007
A federal appeals court ordered the government yesterday to turn over virtually all its information on Guantánamo detainees who are challenging their detention, rejecting an effort by the Justice Department to limit disclosures and setting the stage for new legal battles over the government’s reasons for holding the men indefinitely.
The ruling, which came in one of the main court cases dealing with the fate of the detainees, effectively set the ground rules for scores of cases by detainees challenging the actions of Pentagon tribunals that decide whether terror suspects should be held as enemy combatants.
It was the latest of a series of stinging legal challenges to the administration’s detention policies that have amplified pressure on the Bush administration to find some alternative to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where about 360 men are now being held at the United States naval base.
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington unanimously rejected a government effort to limit the information it must turn over to the court and lawyers for the detainees.
The court said meaningful review of the military tribunals would not be possible “without seeing all the evidence, any more than one can tell whether a fraction is more or less than half by looking only at the numerator and not the denominator.”
Advocates for detainees have criticized the tribunals since they were instituted in 2004 because the terror suspects held at Guantánamo have not been permitted lawyers during the proceedings and have not been allowed to see much of the evidence against them.
P. Sabin Willett, a Boston lawyer who argued the case for detainees, called the ruling
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/us/21gitmo.html?
 
#9
KGB_resident said:
While I agree that new 911 type tragedy would be highly profitable for mr.Bush from political point of view unlikely it would be staged or 'orchestrated' by the administration. Though the former Reagan official is well aware about political kitchen from inside.
I'm afraid it would be more likely staged than not. I dont think he would use it against someone like Hillary Clinton but he may likely use it in some staged event to cut off funds to Iran (or someone similar) and to make it look like he stopped some attack from reaching US soil. If he stages an attack on our soil, he still would have lost all credibility.

It does have repercussions for anyone who criticizes the administration but it doesn't hold water legally. They only way he could pull it off is if he convinces enough of us that an attack was eminent. Most these days wont buy it, I hope. It would certainly fall flat if he tried to use it against a political opponent. I'm sure it will be challenged by congress right away. This is not something he is allowed to do.
 
#10
I do believe the main threat is the administration more than any terrorist group. That is the one thing I do agree with. I just think they can't pull it off. But then I'm relying on Democrats to save us and they haven't always stood firm (see Iraq war authorization).
 
#11
gnuorder said:
KGB_resident said:
While I agree that new 911 type tragedy would be highly profitable for mr.Bush from political point of view unlikely it would be staged or 'orchestrated' by the administration. Though the former Reagan official is well aware about political kitchen from inside.
I'm afraid it would be more likely staged than not.
But unlikely in would happen in USA. Everyone would ask how American secret services allowed terror act on American soil. Maybe in the UK? There is a lot of wouldbe-terrorist or semi-terrorist Mulims groups, organisations in the UK. 'Unknown' source 'helps' one of them, supplies with arms, explosives, money. In theory it is possible.
 
#12
I doubt the US is stupid enough to ferment terrorist activity in its closest ally. As soon as it was realised that the US caused it, the whole world would turn against the US (what's left of the world that isn't already anti-US).

It simply wouldn't happen because of the risk, Sergey.
 
#13
The_Goon said:
I doubt the US is stupid enough to ferment terrorist activity in its closest ally. As soon as it was realised that the US caused it, the whole world would turn against the US (what's left of the world that isn't already anti-US).

It simply wouldn't happen because of the risk, Sergey.
Yes, the risk is big. But there exist schemes that make the revelation in fact impossible.

What actually is needed?

To find few would be terrorist groups in the UK. It is not so difficult problem. Could such an organisation receive donations from 'their Mulim brothers'? Why not? This help could be made by complex multi-stage route with using of several proxi organisations, criminal gangs.

CIA used criminals in attempts to kill Castro. Why doesn't it impossible now.
 
#14
Oh, it's possible, Sergey. I just mean that the US would have to be on crack to try it with the UK - we're the best allies they have, and they know it.
 
#15
The world is full of conspiracy theorists. While I will b ethe first to admit that open government does not actually exist anywhere in the world and the excuse for secrecy is often National Security it sems that some people , some ARRSE members included, are determined to see an hidden agenda in everything that governments do. The statement does not say that assets etc will be confiscated but will b efrozen, as someone who doesn't want to blown up I'm quitye prepared to forgo a few of my civil liberties if it's going to keep me alive.
 
#16
The_Goon said:
Oh, it's possible, Sergey. I just mean that the US would have to be on crack to try it with the UK - we're the best allies they have, and they know it.
Goon, I don't mean you insult you. I really belive that British army is one of the best in the World. But British participation in Iraqi war was in fact symbolic. USA alone would be able to defeat Saddam.

USA needed 'the coalition' not from military but rather from political point of view.

Quwait was occupied and USA sent troops very soon. But when British territory was occupied then USA even didn't make threats toward Argies.

And tell me where IRA did collect donations? Maybe in Soviet Union?
 
#17
I am wary about this overestimation about the US government can achieve. UFOS can be 'hidden' away from the public. 9/11 is a conspiracy (the best conspiracy I have heard on this is that it was holograms and not real planes!!), yet could Bill Clinton cover up the Monica Lewinsky affair? No...

It is all well and good saying that the government made it happen, but for this AL QAEDA and the world's radical muslim population must have been in on the conspiracy as well.

I remember a dcoumentary on BBC (what a surprise) after 9/11 saying that there is no threat from terrorists (I think it was called Nightmares or something like that) and that it was a fear campaign to make people consume and buy more and be more obedient to their government, and a couple of weeks later 7/7 happened.
 
#18
craftsmanx said:
The world is full of conspiracy theorists. While I will b ethe first to admit that open government does not actually exist anywhere in the world and the excuse for secrecy is often National Security it sems that some people , some ARRSE members included, are determined to see an hidden agenda in everything that governments do. The statement does not say that assets etc will be confiscated but will b efrozen, as someone who doesn't want to blown up I'm quitye prepared to forgo a few of my civil liberties if it's going to keep me alive.
Have you read any PNAC literature at all? Try the stuff from the nineties you will see plenty of plans laid out that most definitely needed 'conspiracies' before they could be acted out.
The fooling of the American public was essential. Judith Miller ring any bells? Downingstreet memo? Niger yellowcake, and indeed the WMD scare were all the products of conspiracies.
Cheney' office seems increasingly run behind a cloak of secrecy which both covers the actual conspiracies he is up to and gives rise to conspiracy theories because of a lack of knowledge of what he is actually doing.

OF COURSE there are conspiracies, that should go without saying. What matters is which of the conspiracy theories fit the actual reality.
In America right now the government is becoming more and more secretive.
One has to ask why?
 
#19
and there was a big bang...and chaos..and death....and the President said "I am the way and the truth - I will save you" and the people were again afraid and cast their vote......and the President smiled......
 
#20
craftsmanx said:
As someone who doesn't want to blown up I'm quitye prepared to forgo a few of my civil liberties if it's going to keep me alive.
“He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither.”

Written by an American. Shame we don't seem to place as high a value on our liberties in the UK.
Still, we will all get what is coming to us, one way or another. The people have, and will get the government they deserve.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top