Reply #86: more imagination stuff [View All]

[Zan_of_Texas]

Well, here goes. (Remember, you asked! So, you can call me Chief Worrier from now on.)

I think it's possible that Osama is dead. He was engaged in regular kidney dialysis way back before 9-11. The US has attempted to stonewall that information, at least at the early stages -- later they admitted it. At least one photo of him post-9-11 looked like he was in not so good shape.

What if the relations between the various bin Ladens are not all that strained? What if BushCo needed a villain, and they said, Osama, fella, you ain't got long for this world, how about you be it? No one will ever know when or where you keel.

Because it IS true that when you are the biggest and baddest country, and there is no military competitor in sight, you MUST invent enemies or provoke them in order to keep the military money machine going. And, an enemy helps the president consolidate power. And, fear has been the key to tremendous constitutional incursions by the Prez and his men.

Beyond that, Ronnie's death is certainly possible. If all other distractions (Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, etc etc) fail, there's always trying to revive the "debate" about putting Ronnie on the dime instead of FDR.

But, I fear a biochemical attack on the American people. The odd string of deaths of microbiologists, at least a dozen or two, makes me uneasy. God only knows what's being cooked up. I wonder if the outbreaks of disease on cruise ships were controlled experiments.

I also worry that a number of people in government will be taken out at once. Cheney had very heavy equipment at the VP residence for many months (that was maybe a year ago?), groundshaking stuff, apparently digging something major, no one would say what. There is discussion/hearings/etc. about changing the entire presidential succession order, throwing Congress out of the line and substituting Cabinet members (how tickled am I to have Ashcroft on any list of presidential succession? -- beyond words). (see next post)

In addition, one of the stooges the BBV gang has been watching has testified at Congress about how long it would take to have elections in event of loss of many elected officials. He said 45 - 60 days PLUS some time to seat newly elected people. The mere fact of this "inquiry" makes my skin crawl. YMMV -- maybe you will consider it outstanding contingency planning.

Testimony
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Ensuring the Continuity of the United States Government: The Congress.
September 9, 2003

Mr. R. Doug Lewis
Executive Director, CERA
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/030909-lewis.htm
The Election Center -- an international association of voter registration and election officials
Houston, TX 77077

Testimony for U.S. Senate Hearings
On Disasters and Special Elections
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Constitution

Senators and Distinguished Guests:

Thank you for providing an opportunity for the nation's elections administrators to have input into these hearings about how Congress would fill vacancies in the Congress should a national disaster occur.

It is sobering indeed to have to contemplate a situation that would require the use of any special provisions, whether natural disasters or human caused disasters. In a climate where, for some, it is acceptable to use violence rather than votes to achieve their goals, the planning is made necessary about how to react and replenish our democracy's representatives. This planning process can even have the positive attribute of covering all manners of disasters which would otherwise might not have received careful review and planning necessitated by either natural or human disasters. <snip>

The genius of American democracy is that it creates fundamental faith in voters that it is fair, free, and has great integrity. But sometimes it is terribly inefficient and cumbersome and time consuming and maddeningly frustrating in its complexities, and yet it works. In order to accomplish an election within 21-days means that we would have to suspend many state laws and procedures just to accomplish the task and many of the voter protections that are contained in the current system.

<snip>
Additionally, what does Congress set as a threshold for what constitutes a "national emergency"? Is it the loss of 25 members? 50 members? 100 members? A quorum? <more>