The general floated the idea of suspension of the Constitution and a martial state resulting from just
one more terrorist attack, in a little-noticed interview with Cigar Aficianado magazine:
Now, let me talk to the substance of your question: Two years after the fact of 9/11, we should ask ourselves what is-not in 1941, not in 1917, 1918 - today, in the twenty-first century, what is the worst thing that can happen in our country? The worst thing that can happen is, perhaps-and this is my personal opinion-two steps. The first step would he a nexus between weapons of mass destruction of any variety. It could he chemical, it could he biological, it could he some nuclear device; and terrorism. Terrorists or any human being who is committed to the proposition of terror, try to just create casualties, not for the purpose of annihilation, but to terrify a population. We see it in the Middle East today, in order to change the mannerisms, the behavior, the sociology and, ultimately, the anthropology of a society.
That goes to step number two, which is that the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy. Now, in a practical sense, what does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world-it may be in the United States of America-that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps: very, very important.
http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/index.php?q=node/3470&CSID=93c3184f5978382771415e62c4353181
And the question that provoked this dire prognosis?
You just said that the war in Iraq was not just about weapons of mass destruction, but is part of the overall fight against terrorism. Given that profound statement, what are your feelings about criticism of President Bush that because we've found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it suggests the president misled our country, and we had no business going to war there?
See that? Question Dubya's fuckups and we get a warning that WE may wind up demanding that the chimp rescind our freedoms to protect us!
Thanks for taking point in softening us up for what's coming Tommy, you buttlicking Bushbot.