PDA

View Full Version : Bamboozling the American electorate again




LEK
02-20-2008, 03:16 PM
This article is l-o-n-g so I have taken out a few chunks that are extremely eye-opening. These are the games being played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. After rigging two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.
.
.
.
Nevertheless, Clinton seems remiss in doing relatively little challenge the media's manipulation of the electorate. Having agreed to appear in an NBC debate shortly before the Texas and Ohio primaries, she's sure to be walking into another ambush. Like Benazir Bhutto, the years of political bludgeoning may have short-circuited her ability to navigate the minefields of the body politic (or even to appoint competent advisors). Regarding Karl Rove and the Bush-Cheney team, all she has mustered to date is her oft-repeated statement, “They’re not going to surrender the White House voluntarily." Last spring, she suggested that another terrorist attack against the United States would inevitably play into the hands of the G.O.P.

Vague as they sound, those two comments may prove prophetic in the event the Obama strategy fails and she goes on to win the Democratic nomination. The implications of a female president for American foreign and domestic policy are profound, creating jitters not only on Wall Street but for the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department. It's possible that a significant number of officials accused of breaking U.S. laws or violating the Geneva Conventions might be arrested and prosecuted by a Clinton-directed Justice Department.

If that's not enough to keep Bush appointees and generals lying awake deep into the night, their long-running undercover operation with the ayatollahs in Iran (who paved the way for Reagan's 1980 election), the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, and the Saudi royal family could be curtailed by the staunchly pro-women's rights democrat. The Saudis especially have reason to fret now that they and their counterparts in Kuwait and the U.A.E. have started buying up huge stakes in U.S. banks. Condolleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi are one thing. A Clinton White House is quite another.

For his part, President Bush may have implemented a back-up plan last April when he signed National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, an executive order allowing him to suspend the constitution without prior congressional approval. NSPD 51 gives the President the discretion to declare a state of emergency (i.e. martial law) in the event of a major terrorist attack or other “decapitating” incident against the United States, even if the attack happens outside the country. Under this scenario, he can cancel elections, padlock the Capitol dome and send the Supreme Court justices home. The directive also assigns the President's homeland security assistant ( a low-level position exempt from senate confirmation) to administer what has been dubbed the Enduring Constitutional Government. In other words, another Sept. 11th disaster could reduce this year's election to nothing more than the status of a season of Survivor.

Here’s the text of the National Security Presidential Directive: http://thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/NSPD%2051.html

http://thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
02-20-2008, 03:21 PM
It's possible that a significant number of officials accused of breaking U.S. laws or violating the Geneva Conventions might be arrested and prosecuted by a Clinton-directed Justice Department.

Seriously, does anyone believe that? They never prosecute each other for their crimes, because they'd all like to continue committing crimes with no accountability.

nullvalu
02-20-2008, 03:26 PM
If Directive 51 were enacted, do you think there would be a real revolution in this country with blood & arms? Or do you think people would go on being sheep?

acptulsa
02-20-2008, 03:36 PM
They have more to fear from Obama than Clinton. Clinton's a game player from way back and they know it--witness the aforementioned Karl Rove's recent habit of actually saying nice things about her. Obama has the potential to be a loose cannon. Comparisons to Kennedy aren't merely idle talk to these people. He does make them nervous--not as nervous as Paul, who they know won't play ball with them, but nervous nonetheless.

As for whether people will rise against Bush's martial law, that depends on how bad they make the terrorist attacks, whether or not they happen right here at home, and whether or not anyone manages to expose why these attacks happened to be so "convenient".