The Republic is in danger

[RainDog]

http://www.juancole.com/
 
Franks broaches Military Dictatorship
Friends, the Republic is in real danger. It is not the UN black helicopters that threaten it, but elements of the United States officer corps. That is, if their thinking is in any way exemplified by Tommy Franks. Franks has speculated that in the wake of a major WMD attack, the US will scrap its constitution and adopt a military government. I can't imagine a more fascist, irresponsible thing for him to say. (I am not saying he advocates such a step. I am saying that for such a high-ranking former officer to even speak of this matter is the most irresponsible thing I have ever seen. The responsible thing for him to have done was to urge planning for civilian government under such emergency conditions.)

George Washington, who faced much proportionally much more devastating attacks and loss of life after 1775 (the population was only 4 million then) never threw in the towel on democracy like that. Let's think about the statistics. At 280 million, the US population is now 70 times larger than it was during the Revolutionary War. The US lost 4,435 ordinary soldiers in 1775-1783 in the war against King George III, and the number rises to 25,324 if you include Native American scouts, mercenaries, and civilians who took up arms. Proportionally, that would be like losing between 310,450 and 1.7 million US troops in 2001-2009. And it doesn't count innocent civilians killed in the Revolutionary War. It is highly unlikely that a terrorist WMD attack would inflict as much damage on the contemporary US as the British did in that period, and yet, amazingly enough, Madison, Jefferson, Washington and others were not stampeded by the Redcoats' attacks into resigning themselves to a military government in 1783. Obviously, Tommy Franks is not cut from the same cloth.

The Republic and the Constitution are what America is about. Without them, we lose our historic mission and identity. They are not in danger from terrorism. They survived the Civil War, which proportionally was massive compared to the small events of our era. (I know Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested thousands, but we did not go to a military dictatorship, and the arrests were almost certainly not necessary anyway). Hell, we lose 30,000 citizens a year to automobile accidents, and we're going to scrap the Constitution over a little dirty bomb? The Constitution can function in emergencies, and we should be educating Americans to think creatively about that. Bin Laden said he was going to "deprive them of their liberties." Seems like he has willing allies in the imaginary of the American Right. And imagine, he got this going with 19 young men and a few hijackings.

I was talking to a former high government official recently, who told me that for the first time in his life he was alarmed about the survival of American democracy. I think we all should be.

-----
Juan Cole is a prof at U.Mich whose expertise is the middle east. His blog is one of the best to parse who the diff. factions are in Iraq, and their possible motives and alliances.

Obviously, the Bush crew, including their military men, are a greater danger to America than Osama or Saddam could ever be.

Is there anyone left on this board who can deny that we are looking at fascism in the guise of patriotism? If so, what would it take to convince you otherwise???

[bryant69]

1. This is an interesting triangle

OK, the initial link takes us to Jaun Cole, who runs a pretty interesting Blog with one failing; he often doesn't tell where his information is coming from. He comments on the Franks story which came off of Newsmax. He also trims it to fit his point; he portrays Franks as wanting a military takeover. Franks is in fact expressing the dangers that would occur if a large scale weapons of mass destruction attack were to happen anywhere. Now he is too cavilier about the idea of a military takeover, but he doesn't suggest it. Oh, and where did the original article come from?

Cigar Afficienado.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RainDog]

3. so, you're more of an expert?

where in his blog entry do you see that he portrays Franks wanting a military takeover? He explicity states in the first graph, which I included, that he (Cole) is not saying the he (Franks) is advocating this, but calls it the height of irresponsibility for a man in his position to broach this as an issue which is then not defended against by this man who is suppposedly charged with defending the Constitution.

I know the Franks interview comes from Cigar Afficianado. I have a hard copy of it. I also know that most all bloggers/etc have picked up the NewsMax story, including Eschaton and many, many posters here on this site.

Cole comments on the ideological bent of the military, Franks included, as a cause for concern. I don't see where you get that he's accusing Franks from the content of Cole's blog.

Again, Cole writes on the subject of Middle Eastern politics, including books. He has articles in the recent Boston Review and a journal whose exact name escapes me...middle eastern review or politics.

Are you suggesting that Cole, who is considered an expert on the area, is less informed than you are, or less reliable?

His blog is also cited by Riverbend, a native and current resident of Iraq, who seems to think he knows what he's talking about.

If you would like to know his sources, you can certainly find them cited in such places.

Here's one of them to get you going-

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/cole.html
 
The Iraqi Shiites

On the history of America’s would-be allies

Juan Cole

8 The ambitious aim of the American war in Iraq—articulated by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and other neoconservative defense intellectuals—was to effect a fundamental transformation in Middle East politics. The war was not—or not principally—about finding weapons of mass destruction, or preventing alliances with al Qaeda, or protecting the Iraqi population from Saddam’s terror. For U.S. policy makers the importance of such a transformation was brought home by the events of September 11, which challenged U.S. strategy in the region by compromising the longstanding U.S. alliance with Saudi Wahhabis. In response to this challenge, the Bush administration saw the possibility of creating a new pillar for U.S. policy in the region: a post-Baathist Iraq, dominated by Iraqi Shiites, which would spark a wave of democratization across the Middle East.

But the Bush administration badly neglected the history of the group they wanted to claim as their new ally. Who are the Iraqi Shiites? And how likely are they to support democracy or U.S. goals in the region? To address these questions, we will first need some background.

Anti-Communism and the Pillars of U.S. Policy

From 1970 until the end of the Cold War, U.S. policy in the Middle East was based on three principles and two key alliances.. The principles included fighting against Communist and other radical anti-American influences; supporting conservative religious and authoritarian political elites; and ensuring access to Middle Eastern petroleum supplies. The two principal allies were Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The centrality of the anti-Soviet pillar to regional policy is often ignored, but it helps explain the others. Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, was a crucial pivot of U.S. policy from the 1970s forward. U.S. officials viewed its deeply conservative Wahhabi form of Islam as a barricade against Communism and—after the 1979 Iranian Revolution—against Iran’s Shiite Khomeinism. Israel, too, battled leftist and pro-Soviet forces, though its determination to annex much or all of the territories it captured in 1967 made it a problematic partner for a United States seeking Arab friends. The United States could maintain an alliance with both the Zionist state and the Wahhabi kingdom, even though the two did not care very much for one another, because both disliked the Soviets and leftist Palestinians.

...more

[BiggJawn]

18. So the "Stogie Sucker Illustrated" angle is NEW to you?

Hell, every story I have heard about this states "In an interview publish in..."

Bryant, if someone in a position of power is shooting off his mouth about how our Constitution is going to be 86'ed, I don't care if it's printed in "Budgie Lovers Monthly", I'm gonna be concerned about it.

If the ONLY source for this story was Newsmax, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but its not.

[Old and In the Way]

2. If such an event was to occur, I would hold this administration

totally responsible. No question. Since they have obstructed a public investigation into the root cause of 9/11, they have made us vulnerable to terror.

Or perhaps they are getting desperate to maintain power and keep control of the information about 9/11. I think this whole dictatorship idea was planned way before 9/11....Bush is on record pining to be a dictator. If you know there is damning info that you knew 9/11 would occur and let it happen, that would make you responsible for the deaths of 2,500 Americans. What wouldn't this administration do to avoid being held criminally responsible?

[RainDog]

5. I have no doubt

that Bush and this gang of thugs have no respect for the Constitution....just look at the Patriot Acts...the second of which is worming its way into legislation as attachments to other bills, totally under the radar of most Americans.

Strange, too, that Osama is no longer an issue, that the anthrax terrorist is no longer an issue, that Bush wants the 9-11 investigation to disappear after he couldn't stonewall it into oblivion or underfund it and thus starve it to death.

The sad thing is that we have known precedents for just such planning, as General Smedley Butler revealed and which George Seldes noted in "1000 Americans" (1947) apprendix 21, as part of the records of the 74th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives Report No. 153 "Investigation of Nazi and Other Propaganda" on February 15, 1935.

(McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee)

This information was initially suppressed, until Seldes' book, but has subsequently been described by Jules Archer in "The Plot to Seize the White House" (Hawthorne Books, 1973- out of print)

btw...the New York Times and Time Magazine (controlled by J.P Morgan & Co., part of the coup plot, in fact), both dismissed General Butler's testimony.

In this historical precedent, Wall Street bankers, members of the DuPont family, and members of the American Liberty League were all implicated in testimony from General Butler, Paul Comly French of Philadelphia Record, and from letters written by one of the plotters, Gerald C. MacGuire, who lied under oath.

[tom_paine]

4. Absolutely. Franks floated a trial balloon

Not the first time, either.

www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/kirs-j26_prn.shtml

www.asianweek.com/2002_08_09/news_korematsu.html

(strangely enough, thisw is about all I could find on this event, even though I distinctly remember it being covered in the Amerikan "Press", albeit poorly and slightly)

I also find it interestingly Orwellian that when Googling for these items, no "mainstream" soucre can be found in the first 50 hits, even though I myself remember seeing the coverage, even if it was only in a local paper.

Of corse, it is equally as difficult to find a biography of Bushevik Minister of Propaganda, Roger Ailes and the CNN political driector (his name escapes me, but Google it and you will also find an un-person).

I also find it vry interesting that more than once when Googling on a topic like this, looking for Bushevik words I remember being uttered, that the World Socialist Web Sit pops up as #1. The World Socialist Web Site being perhaps the one site guaranteed to make the Imperial Subjects of Amerika instantly dissmissive if they even dared to make such a search...

[RainDog]

6. I'm not at all surprised

As noted above, mainstream "news" sources function as disinformation for traitors to democracy too often in this country.

Watergate was the exception, not the rule.

George Seldes was not welcome for his honest "In Fact" reportage and had to resort to what would now be known as independent press. As you most likely know, he called the history of the 20th century a story of lies, mostly because the fascist elements of America were protected by mainstream news sources and lies about Franco's fascism, for instance, were routinely part of mainstream reporting.

Reporters who told the truth about Iran-Contra (including the papers which allowed them to tell the truth, such as the San Jose Mercury News) were smeared in the mainstream press, yet when the truth was acknowledged, Time or Newsweek or the New York Times didn't bother to make sure Americans were aware that they had misrepresented the truth at the time.

To this day, I would imagine the majority of Americans are unaware of the truth of the whole Reagan/Bush sr. era. I'm not fully aware, try though I may to get myself informed.

As we have seen in the build up to this recent Iraq invasion, the press (including the New York Times and their role as an outlet for Chalabi/Wolfowitz/Cheny propaganda via Judith Miller, as well as the Fox News all lies, all the time disinformation, making their viewers the least informed of any news outlet, though other t.v. media isn't that far behind, save for PBS (and we all know the reich wing is targeting them).

I also had someone tell me that The Guardian and the BBC were not to be trusted because they were so liberal, in relation to their reportage on the Jessica Lynch story way back when that was unfolding....and now, curiously, those sources have been proved out by Lynch herself.

America is choking because too many have swallowed the big lie.

[tom_paine]

7. kick

[Nihil]

14. Google can be "played" by webmasters

Please don't forget that Google is not a particularly independent or
unbiased search engine - just a very popular one.

There are different kinds of bias in play, some competing and some in
unintentional partnership. It is possible to "plant" your site at a
higher place in the ratings than would occur naturally. It is also
possible to re-arrange the list order to promote certain products and
certain producers. Finally, it is possible to "degrade" a naturally
occurring site (to put it lower in the ratings than it should be) as
a coarse but effective censoring mechanism.

In this case, the mainstream sources would probably degrade their
rating (to hide their fair and balanced reporting, cough, cough) as
well as WSWS boosting their rating (to get more visibility to an
otherwise comparatively obscure site - no flames please!) and the
end effect is exactly as you say: the majority of reports listed by
Google will be from "those darned commies", thus being filtered out
by the entrained minds of the sheep.

Nihil

[slaveplanet]

8. check it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=22713

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. My Dad is a WWII vet...

..and he told me a while ago that what he fought against in WWII has become our form of Government. This is coming from an 83-year-old guy that voted GOP every election until 2000 when he voted for Gore.

He's not the only WWII vet to make this observation.

I will state that the danger to the nation is coming from those that seized power in 2000. They are the people that occupy key roles in the Junta at this very point in time.

To be sure, some of the people that support the Junta are senior military officers...but I'm not convinced that the entire U.S. military supports the ongoing actions of the Junta. In fact, I also believe that there are strong factions within the intelligence community, the Department of Justice (specifically the FBI and a large faction of Federal judges), the Pentagon, state and local law enforcement, and other organizations that also oppose the Junta to varying degrees.

As the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan worsens, that resistence will grow stronger.

[RainDog]

13. I've also heard this from numerous WW2 vets

in fact, one of the first people to surprise me because he agreed with me was just one such vet.

All the men I know who were in the miltary during ww2, or who were younger but alive during WW2 oppose everything Bush has done and all say that this administration is doing "the same things Hitler did."

[Tyler Durden]

10. NO, the Republic is DOOMED.

Factionalism has become irreversable. Lincoln said we would be destroyed by factions. The Greek, Roman, Venitian, Frence right up to the Weimar (plus the plethora of City-States and leagues that were de-facto republics) have all eventually had their version of Sulla crossing the Rubicon and entering the Capital at the head of his legions.

It always happens: there are not enough protections for the state against the Machievellian machinations of the opposing factions. They believe no one by they are right, correct, and moral, and they brook no competetion.

Is this REALLY max-out doom and gloom? Not really. The Republic was like any other infant: the reverse side of the Birth Certificate was a Death Certificate with the cause filled in: FACTIONALISM. Just the DATE was left blank.

[RainDog]

12. do you know the source for this factoid I heard?

..which is that democracy is threatened when it is attempted in groups larger than x?

I don't think the Republic is doomed. I cannot think that.

or rather, I do not think that the grand experiment is doomed. I do think that those same factions which Lincoln fought to preserve the republic threaten it once again. They have different names, they are an ideological rather than geographical entity, but the tyrannical quality is consistent.

maybe America will go through this hard time and come out as something different, as far as geography is concerned.

that assumes we can survive Bushism and the Bushoviks, of course.

A former military guy who was in the Tet offensive told me the other day that he thinks all this incitement to nationalistic fervor is a prelude to accomodating Americans to the idea of nuking vast swaths of the earth if we are attacked by a dirty bomb or WMD.

I have no doubt Bush could and would do this, even though it could presage the death of humanity, or at least the vast majority of the same.

[RainDog]

11. creeping fascism

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/12/05_Fascism.html


A Brief (But Creepy) History of America's Creeping Fascism

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Maureen Farrell

December 5, 2002

* * *

"Public health officials want to shut down roads and airports, herd people into sports stadiums and, if needed, quarantine entire cities in the event of a smallpox attack".- the Boston Herald, Nov. 8, 2001
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/
americas_new_war/pox11082001.htm

"Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace." -the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14, 2002 http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm

The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system. . . . " - the Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58308-2002Nov30.html

* * *

this commentary on Buzzflash, with links, is a keeper.

[leftofthedial]

15. Franks is the epitome of the military neocon

His statements give lie to any notion that these evil people have the slightest love for America and our republic.

[imhotep]

16. Its already dead.

all thats left is memories.....

[RainDog]

17. Wounded, not dead

The knife in the back which was the soft coup of 2000 was the first blow in this round of the fight to keep America from the fascists. As noted above, American fascists tried to do the same in the 30s but were thwarted by a REAL American hero, General Smedley Butler.

Of course, a Bush ancestor was only ntimately involved in support for fascism then, not its figurehead in this nation. Bush and Harriman's bank was a cover for nazi funding, of course.

Franks, on the other hand, is in league with Bush and no doubt is also afraid that international courts would like to hold the U.S. responsible for this illegal invasion of Iraq, as the charge against him for war crimes which was lodged with the international criminal court in Belgium.

More and more I'm beginning to wonder if the U.S. does not plan to use nukes if another attack occurs. This would explain the "outcry from American citizens" which Franks suggests would allow military rule and the overthrow of the constitution.

We do not have troops to invade every place in the middle east which this administration thinks we should.

We do not have international support, nor are we likely to gain it while Bush is in power and while we continue to allow the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war (that's spin for war of aggression).

But these events are not inevitable, to me, though that's not to say that they will not happen.

To say this or that is inevitable, or that we are doomed, or that the practice of a democratic republic is dead because those in power at this time are holding it hostage is to hold to a very, very ***conservative**** principle that things are pre-ordained by the example of tradition (or history, by other means).

The American Republic did not have many precedents among white Europeans, yet it began.

It has never been perfect, but the reason it could survive was the insistence on the enlightenment ideas that humans could create a system of law, and a rule of law.

That rule of law has had to evolve as our consciousness of the truth of the tyranny of slavery or women's lack of rights or of the danger of corporations which are more powerful than the govt has been accepted by educating citizens, rather than indoctrinating them.

And progress is not always continually forward, as McCarthyism showed, as the rise of fascism after Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting showed, as the current rise of theocrats and fascists also shows.

But we have survived internal attacks on democracy before, and we will again.

However, in order to survive, we must believe and know that it is possible to defeat the forces which are threatening democracy.

And, finally, we must be willing to refuse to live with that tyranny.

There are ways to do this which do not involve violence. Ghandi's example of bringing down the British empire is just as, if not more effective, than any call to violence.

[Silverhair]

19. Good Grief! Get a grip. Be logical.

A power grab, out of the blue, by Bush wouldn't work. It would be an order that would not be obeyed. At every level, from private up, the U.S. military is taught that they don't have to obey unlawful orders and that obedience to blatantly unlawful orders is punishable. Also, the people who serve love this country and want to preserve it.

However, if terrorist were to smuggle a nuke into the country and wipe one of our cities off the face of the earth, the surviving populace would DEMAND to be protected. They would be more worried about survival than their rights.

Or perhaps that is too obvious for the tin foil hat crowd to understand.

[Lars39]

20. Perhaps that's how the military was once taught, but nowadays?????

There's been at least 2 purges of high-ranking military brass since bush took office. They've culled who won't cooperate, and placed those that will. Bush has already grabbed power(2000 elections), now they're consolidating. Doesn't take tin foil to see it either.

[RainDog]

22. Get a Grip! Be logical!

you said-

"However, if terrorist were to smuggle a nuke into the country and wipe one of our cities off the face of the earth, the surviving populace would DEMAND to be protected. They would be more worried about survival than their rights.

Or perhaps that is too obvious for the tin foil hat crowd to understand."

which is what everyone on this thread was talking about. So, you take what we say and then say something else and tell us to be logical?

ummm, okay.

That's the issue...the exact scenario you stated. As Cole stated, such an event would still not warrant a police state/military state.

And as far as a blatant power grab by Bush, were you sleeping for the last two years? If what Bush and his gang have done is NOT a blatant power grab, then I don't know what is.

seems I recall that it's a violation of the 14th amendment to stop tens of thousands of African Americans from voting (as in Florida), not to mention a conflict of interest for supreme court members whose family members were working for a candidate to make a (their words) ONE TIME RULING in his favor.

add to that, as has been mentioned, the purges in the military, combined with things like removing information from govt web sites that they don't like because of a certain ideological base (as in health issues) and a mid-term in which there are more than a few questions about voting machines in GA, for instance.

Bush is only a figurehead for the fascists. He's clever, in a feral sort of way, but stupid as far as issues of democracy and decency go.

Check out last week's New Yorker magazine for a great article about the invasion of Iraq, and how it was lost before it was begun, basically, because of the ideological blinders of Cheney and Wolfowitz and Feith and so many more.

These are the hallmarks of despots, not republicans. Like Stalin's agriculture minister who created a famine in that country because he refused to believe facts and instead insisted that plants would not compete for soil, water, and nutrients.

[RBHam]

21. Y'all were warned

"Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place."

Others have...

"While we prepare for another terrorist attack, we need to understand that it is not a question of if, but a question of when," -Tom Ridge

"In my opinion, the prospects of a future attack against the United States are almost certain ... not a matter of if, but when." -Dick Cheney

"I think we will see that (domestic terror attacks) in the future, I think it's inevitable," FBI Director Robert Mueller

In my humble opinion, War Hero/Criminal Franks is on to his next job : helping to condition the American populace into giving up their constitutional liberties and civil rights for "security".

In other news, an intense, localized earthquake in Oxfordshire, England has been recorded by seismologists at 6.66 on the Richter scale. Local officials say the epi-center of the quake was situated approximately where George Orwell is buried.

http://orwell.ru/bio/grave/english/