Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 4th, 2004, 11:59 AM        PREDICTION: BUSH IS , TO USE A NALDO WORD, 'TOAST'
Yep, I'm a psychic.


Please note, I am NOT saying he won't win reelection. But Nixon won reelection to, in a land slide, and shortly therefater resigned rather than face impeachement.

In some ways, I think W. would be lucky to loose. If he looses, the Bush dynasty won't be finished. If he looses, there's some cahnce the degree of his perfidy may never be discovered, and his cronies may end up taking all the blame.

But either way, I think the Bush house of cards is in the process of falling, and after thinking about it for a while, I've decided I know what's up with Tenets resignation. This is a rat leaving a sinking ship.

1.) Chalabi, long time pal of the neocons and once the presumed ruler of post Sadaam Iraq has been exposed as a liar, turned against the US and now stands accused of espionage. (He's a british citizen, but I looked it up, he can still be charged with espionage by the US, and if found guilty, the most stringent penalty is death)
2.) If Chalabi did give Iran intelligence about intercepts, someone gave it to him. Now I suppose it could have been some low level spook, but concidering all the highly placed administration mooks Chalabi's palled around with, how likely is that? He was seated directly behind Laura Bush at the stte of the union. They got away with saying W didn't reall know Kenny-boy lay all that well really, but that was back before a whole slew of mistakes. This administrations tefflon is starting to peal.
3.) The investigation of the Pjalme leak has gone gone far enough that W had to consult a private lawyer. This story has been underground for a while now, but I thought it had legs. No administration fully controls the CIA and you can't just go blowing agents covers without retalliation. The main feature of W's gang is arrogance, and I think they've made too many enemies.
4.) Tennet is now a civillian and can say whatever he wants. That doesn't mean he will, but it's got to have some powerful folks worried. It's one thing to say a former Treasury secretary was out of the loop, but it's harder to say that about a guy who directed the CIA for a very long time.
5.) Prisoner abuse. This gets uglier alll the time. So far they've had three soldiers plead guilty without a fight. Think they'll all go that quietly?
6.) Time magazine just released a white house email that strongly implies Chenney had something to do with Haliburton getting those fat no bid contracts in Iraq. No surprise there, but he's denied it all along. This is an investigation waiting to happen.
7.) The supreme court is about to take up the Padilla Case. They will decide if the pres on his sole authority alone has the right to indeffinitely detain a US citizen without charging him and hold him without access to a lawyer. Even this supreme coourt is going to have a hard time swallowing that. If he gets his rights, they'll either have to release him or try him. Releasing him would certainly look bad, and if they try him, none of the evidence they've gathered will be admissible in court. And suppose it truns out that they don't have anything more solid on him than they did on Wen Ho Li or James Yee, and maybe they tortured him a little. Even if they deny it, even if they didn't do it, he can make that case. If this guy gets his rights, no matter how guilty he may be, the state has blown it's case no matter how you slice it.
8.) Sovereignity. What if the new gov asks us to leave? Far more likely, suppose they throw Halliburton out in favor of giving jobs to say, unemployed Iraqis, or at very least, Ilsamic businesses? What will we say in either case?
9.) What will we do in the highly likely event Iraq starts sliding toward civil war? Take sovereignity back?

Bush is up a creek without a paddle, and the creek is made of his own bodily fluids. He may stay ahead of the shit wave long enough to get reelected, but not much longer. There may well be some epublican king makers out there who are already concidering wether it might be better for W to loose now, let Kerry deal with the mess for a term, and run Jeb. It's what I;d do if I was looking at the big picture, and big picture is what your Grover Norquist types are good at.

SCARY FLY IN THE OINTMENT PREDICTION: Should things start to look bad, should some of the Kingmakers start bailing on the administration, I don't expect W. to be as accomodating as Nixon was. Nixon accepted disgrace, accepted fading away. W will never accept he played the game badly. Karl Rove sinks or swims with W. He might, just might survive a W. loss and mke a come bck, but he'll never survive a W meltdown. Chenney won't let go of power unless he's offered a way back in. Same for Rummy.

I'm nowhere near paranoid enough to imagine they'd engineer a fake terrorist attack, or even let one happen. BUT I think they'd exploit real attack and declare martial law. More than that, I think they'd trump up a non existant threat and declare martial law. Chenney and Rumsfeld have been playing officiaal shadow government war games since the reagan administration. I'm not making that up, it's a matter of public record. I haven't forgotten that six month rotating shadow government has existed since a few months after 9/11. gain, no conspiracy theory; official, real policy. I do not think these guys will go gracefully if things fall apart. There are lots of other players out there who would see it coming and try to prevent it, many of them from Bush seniors days, but I would not put martial law out of the picture. These guys are all decended from Strauss, a man who promoted the idea of the 'Noble Lie'. They believe they are right, some of them believe they are in contact with God. I don't think there's much they wouldn't scruple at to do what they think is best for America.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Jun 4th, 2004, 01:07 PM       
I hope these aren't the kind of bedtime stories you tell your kids, Max. That's some pretty scary shit. And I don't think any of it's paranoid at all. I think yours is a pretty solid take on the collective psyche of the administration. However things shake out, the next few months are definitely going to make for an interesting show.

On the engineered attack thing, I don't think it's ridiculous to at least consider it. I wouldn't put it past them to set up something relatively small (nowhere near the level of 9/11), but enough to scare the shit out of the public. If they really got desperate, I just can't dismiss that as a possibility. EDIT: Here's why I do not rule out an engineered attack- I don't mean to hijack the thread, but this bears a mention:


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Friendly Fire
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe


N E W Y O R K, May 1 — In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.
__________________
"If honesty is the best policy, then, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy. Second is not all that bad."
-George Carlin
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Jun 4th, 2004, 01:27 PM       
I've been thinking lately about the presidents the United States has had in the last 50 years, and I've come to the conclusion that the last good Republican president was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Putting aside the fact that he put America on the road to nuclear armament, I get the impression from what I've read that Eisenhower shouldered the responsibilities of leadership with the right degree of solemnity and dignity that his successors did not have. When he gave the order to launch Operation Overlord, he did not shirk away from the terrible consquences of his decision and prepared a written statement in which he accepted full responsibility for the decision, in the event the invasion at Normandy failed.

An early review of 'Farenheit 9/11' describes scenes in which Bush makes faces at the camera just before his speech on the night America invaded Iraq. At the very least, Americans should question the light-hearted, almost cavalier, attitude that he displays. Is this the type of leader they want making decisions which could kill their sons and daughters?
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Jun 6th, 2004, 05:09 PM       
Bush will win reelection and will live happily ever after...

Max, will not....

Yes, I'm psychic.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #5  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 6th, 2004, 05:12 PM       
Wow, that was lacking in the usual Raygun zeal. Has the loss of The Gipper hit you hard, Ronnie????
Reply With Quote
  #6  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 6th, 2004, 06:46 PM       
Detailwise, Naldo is Jeane Dixon and I'm Nostrodamus.

C'mon, Nalds, take a few more risks. Sketch out your scenario, add a little color. I think you may well be right that W will win reelection. It's the happier ever after part that's debatable. If he declared martial law I bet he'd be as happy as a pecary in merde, but I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

I think right now there's a real sgadow struggle going on in the bowels of the Republican powr structure. Go with W, who's made some serious miscalculations, or sink him and run Jeb after Kerry has to eat four years of what W left on the plate. If they back W, they're putting it all on the line. If he went down in flames he'd drag the whole party with him. If they sacrfafice him, they've got Bush brothers and nephews for generations to come.

I think this could come down to a secret chainsaw fight between Grover Norquist and Karl Rove.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Jun 6th, 2004, 09:46 PM       
I just don't think there's any substance to what you're saying.

I bet you were saying that Iran Contra was going to sink Reagan......but it really didn't mean anything just like this doesn't.

....not that this is ever even going to be as big as Iran Contra.

Yes, the death of the Gipper has me down a little but in a way I think he's better off.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #8  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 7th, 2004, 12:11 AM       
I agree about Reagan. He isn't in pain anymore, and what he had is horrible.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 7th, 2004, 07:52 AM       
Nalds, while your were being burped I was saying Iran Contra was far too complicated too arouse the same ire as watergate, which was a simple, followable crime. I wished Iran Contra woud sink Reagan, And I thought trading arms for hostages and illegally funding the money to the contras ought to have been more than enough to bring down a president, but I had no illusions. The story wasn't clear enough and Reagan, having established his foggy sweet grampa persona was allowed to say "I don't remember" over and over until no one could believe he even understood what had happened, let alone approved it.

Thus was established the principal that while actual guilt is a bad thing with a president, not knowing what's going on in your own administration and not really caring much either is hunky dory. A lot of what we put up with in Presidents (And I include Clinton) was established by the gipper.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 7th, 2004, 08:59 AM       
If Clinton did the same thing Ronnie would be calling for a televised execution.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 7th, 2004, 12:25 PM       
I think Iran Contra was a far greater series of crimes than Watergate, which was Burglary, improper use of funds and cover ups with perjury.

Iran Contra had all that but the burglary and in addition added allowing individuals to design and implement private foreign policy, deliberate action by the executive branch to break laws on weapons sales and military financing. In addition, it involved negotiating with terrorists. It was a violemnt abuse of our system of government, and Reagan called it's principal agent a "great American Hero." It DWARFED Watergate.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Immortal Goat is probably a spambot
Old Jun 7th, 2004, 03:01 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
Bush will win reelection and will live happily ever after...

Max, will not....
Hey, that gives me an idea...


MAX FOR PRESIDENT! :salute
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Jun 7th, 2004, 10:00 PM       
Unlike Kerry, at least Max says what he really thinks....well, at least more than Kerry.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #14  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jun 8th, 2004, 12:11 AM        Wow
And you know what Kerry thinks how exactly? Just curious. I didn't realize that you were so adept at translating the true thoughts of evil Democrats.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Immortal Goat is probably a spambot
Old Jun 8th, 2004, 12:46 AM       
Quote:
And you know what Kerry thinks how exactly? Just curious. I didn't realize that you were so adept at translating the true thoughts of evil Democrats.
Hey, it's a dirty job, but someone has to assume they can do it, and Vince was busy meeting up with Sspadowsky during the interview period.
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.