Military Dictatorship in the US?

[John Simkin]

Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.

Ms O'Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman supreme court justice, declared: "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary." She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

If I was George Bush I would be very worried if an "honest" Democrat was elected next time. He would be in a position to expose the corruption of the Republican administration. This is what John F. Kennedy tried to do when he was elected in 1960. The full story appears in Clark R. Mollenhoff's book Despoilers of Democracy (1965).

[John Dolva]

An interesting post for me as last night about 1am I happened to view a film on tv starring Sally Field as a woman nominated to supreme court. I didn't pay too much attention as I was busy with autopsy photos, but now I check on the net and this movie was the pilot of a show called "the Court' made in 2002. The description of Sandra Day is remarkably similar to the persona Sally played. Despite enthusistic reviews and positive viewer comments the show was pulled after 3 episodes. So I guess next couple of weeks on early morning wed oz tv could be interesting.

[Robert Howard]

Although the first four years of Mr. Bush's presidency, were not without controversy, (understatement of the year) it appears that the proverbial chinks in the armor are turning into something bigger.

While the (endless) list of nefarious activities, so well elaborated by indy media, shall not be delved into; Starting at Jan 1, 2006 the administration has had its hands full dealing with such matters as shoring up support for the Iraq War, (as of today our British Cousin's are removing a sizeable portion of their troops) while technically the situation there loosely meets the criteria for the term 'civil war.'

1. A Recent poll reflects the majority (67%)of the American people believe that the President does not have a 'clear-cut' strategy for the Iraq imbroglio.

2. There has been two resignations in the Bush Administration, firstly Gale Norton Secretary of the Interior, over perceptions that she was biased against environmental issues to the advantage of the oil and gas industry; Philip Cooney - chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, also resigned, simultaneously with revelations that there were 'deletions' of dire warnings contained in US Government Reports concerning 'global warming.'

3. The Conyers Report it could be argued, could serve as a reference work for the 'Case against George Bush,' and I suspect the Report will become part of the media's rediscovery of 'investigative journalism' as the only work required in the process will be 'reading it.'

4. Senator Russel Feingold D-WI has started a campaign to have the President censured, a word that hasn't been in vogue since the McCarthy Era.

5. Virtually every major city outside of the Southern/Midwest -Red Belt, have enacted resolutions calling for the President's impeachment.

I have left other interesting data concerning approval rating's etc.., out of this post as I felt the above information, speaks for itself.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Robert Howard

[John Dolva]

I find the growing instability of the US government quite worrying.

Attention needs to be seriously brought to bear on the developing scenario.

Winning and losing will increasingly become a topic for discussion.

This will then become a formative era.

Young Children and Youth going through this period will come out the person shaped knowingly and unknowingly) by their elders.

[Antti Hynonen]

Robert Howard Posted Yesterday, 09:05 PM

Although the first four years of Mr. Bush's presidency, were not without controversy, (understatement of the year) it appears that the proverbial chinks in the armor are turning into something bigger.

While the (endless) list of nefarious activities, so well elaborated by indy media, shall not be delved into; Starting at Jan 1, 2006 the administration has had its hands full dealing with such matters as shoring up support for the Iraq War, (as of today our British Cousin's are removing a sizeable portion of their troops) while technically the situation there loosely meets the criteria for the term 'civil war.'

1. A Recent poll reflects the majority (67%)of the American people believe that the President does not have a 'clear-cut' strategy for the Iraq imbroglio.

2. There has been two resignations in the Bush Administration, firstly Gale Norton Secretary of the Interior, over perceptions that she was biased against environmental issues to the advantage of the oil and gas industry; Philip Cooney - chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, also resigned, simultaneously with revelations that there were 'deletions' of dire warnings contained in US Government Reports concerning 'global warming.'

3. The Conyers Report it could be argued, could serve as a reference work for the 'Case against George Bush,' and I suspect the Report will become part of the media's rediscovery of 'investigative journalism' as the only work required in the process will be 'reading it.'

4. Senator Russel Feingold D-WI has started a campaign to have the President censured, a word that hasn't been in vogue since the McCarthy Era.

5. Virtually every major city outside of the Southern/Midwest -Red Belt, have enacted resolutions calling for the President's impeachment.

I have left other interesting data concerning approval rating's etc.., out of this post as I felt the above information, speaks for itself.

Looks like Iran is next on the list. It comes really handy since the troops are already in the region, doesn't it?

Remember, the campaign was launched to create democracy and stability in the region...

Pretty stable chaos if you ask me. Nice going.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Ron Ecker]

The U.S. commander in Iraq is now saying that maybe, just maybe, we will need to keep permanent bases in Iraq.

This is not news, of course. A "permanent military presence in the Gulf region" was part of the PNAC agenda from its inception, and Kerry stated in the 2004 presidential debates that 14 permanent bases were being built in Iraq, a statement that no one saw any need to comment on or rebut. It simply hasn't been talked about by the talking heads on TV (the Bush administration has "downplayed" the prospect, as the article says, IOW the corporate media is not to discuss it), so the American sheeple don't know about it. All they know is what's on TV. But now that the U.S. commander has opened his mouth, there are Democrat politicans saying "Harumph, harumph," pretending to want an answer from Bush about permanent bases that they already know. They're ready now to play party politics over the issue like the utter phonies they are.

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...&archived=False

[John Simkin]

A "permanent military presence in the Gulf region" was part of the PNAC agenda from its inception, and Kerry stated in the 2004 presidential debates that 14 permanent bases were being built in Iraq, a statement that no one saw any need to comment on or rebut.

Built by Halliburton of course.

[Ron Ecker]

And Halliburton already has the contract for detention camps to be built in the U.S. after martial law comes. (As soon as that happens, it will be interesting to see how many Americans will continue to post on forums like this one.)

[Mark Stapleton]

A "permanent military presence in the Gulf region" was part of the PNAC agenda from its inception, and Kerry stated in the 2004 presidential debates that 14 permanent bases were being built in Iraq, a statement that no one saw any need to comment on or rebut.

Built by Halliburton of course.

Yes, they're building bases alright, on a grand scale. The costs are high and rising:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0214-33.htm

Maybe these geniuses in the Bush camp are realising that such spending can't be justified when the popularity of the excursion and the Government are jointly plunging, especially since it's the US taxpayer footing the bill. The way it's going, the Government will end up in such a financial mess that the Corporations may have to buy it out. In a decade's time I see members of Congress being required to wear the appropriate corporate logo.

I agree with John Dolva. We're watching the disintegration of the Bush Government and attention must be focussed on this unfolding catastrophe. The interests of the Bush Government and the American people are diverging rapidly and it has the potential to seriously destabilise the US. If this occurs, the ramifications won't just be felt in the US.

I detect real desperation in the Bush Government's newest global stunt: stopping Iran's nuclear plans. Unlike 1981, when Iraq's nuclear facility was sticking out like a sore thumb, Iran could have facilities hidden or partially underground. Bush will have to invade Iran to ensure success. What mandate will he have for this?

[Ron Ecker]

I detect real desperation in the Bush Government's newest global stunt: stopping Iran's nuclear plans.

Stopping Iran's nuclear plans may be the only legitimate goal the Bush regime has. Iran has been in the terrorism business for decades, apparently for the fun of it. We should let them build nuclear bombs? But it is Israel's more immediate concern (I'm sure that the first nuclear bombs Iran builds will have Israeli place names written on them), and I imagine Israel will have to take care of it. Bush doesn't have enough troops to police Iraq, much less invade Iran.

[Mark Stapleton]

I detect real desperation in the Bush Government's newest global stunt: stopping Iran's nuclear plans.

Stopping Iran's nuclear plans may be the only legitimate goal the Bush regime has. Iran has been in the terrorism business for decades, apparently for the fun of it. We should let them build nuclear bombs? But it is Israel's more immediate concern (I'm sure that the first nuclear bombs Iran builds will have Israeli place names written on them), and I imagine Israel will have to take care of it. Bush doesn't have enough troops to police Iraq, much less invade Iran.

Don't fall for that old chestnut, Ron. If Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, it's the end for Iran. It's suicide. Underground shelters won't save the leadership, because the whole region will be rendered a toxic, radioactive wasteland which will probably encompass many of their Arab neighbours. They're not going to see themselves and their country destroyed just to destroy Israel no matter how colorful their rhetoric, IMO.

The real problem for Israel and America is that if another middle eastern country acquires nuclear capability, they won't be able to throw their weight around in the region so much. America wouldn't dare invade a country with a nuclear capability, like North Korea. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, IMO, and Israel and America know it. They don't wan't the balance of power to be altered, that's why they may pre-emptively attack Iran to prevent it.

They're prepared to endure the greatly increased risk of terrorism which will result from such an action. It will keep the terrorist bogeyman alive and, when it occurs, provide them with a dubious type of retrospective justification for their actions.

[Ron Ecker]

Mark,

I agree it would be suicidal for Iran to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. But setting off a nuclear device in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor would be a different story. Or in a Los Angeles or Chicago pizza parlor. Iran is a terrorist state and does not need nuclear devices (with or without false trails leading to Pakistan or North Korea or wherever).

The U.S. is also a terrorist state, of course, so it's terrorist vs. terrorist, like the old spy vs. spy bit in Mad Magazine. But I don't like being caught in the damn middle. So I'm in favor of Israel keeping the balance of power over there. Which I think it can do without our help, though I'm sure the Bush regime is going to insist on helping anyway. (For Israel to act alone would be politically incorrect or something.)

Ron

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark,

I agree it would be suicidal for Iran to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. But setting off a nuclear device in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor would be a different story. Or in a Los Angeles or Chicago pizza parlor. Iran is a terrorist state and does not need nuclear devices (with or without false trails leading to Pakistan or North Korea or wherever).

The U.S. is also a terrorist state, of course, so it's terrorist vs. terrorist, like the old spy vs. spy bit in Mad Magazine. But I don't like being caught in the damn middle. So I'm in favor of Israel keeping the balance of power over there. Which I think it can do without our help, though I'm sure the Bush regime is going to insist on helping anyway. (For Israel to act alone would be politically incorrect or something.)

Ron

Ron,

I don't see why Iran or any other hostile country would need to obtain a critical mass (ie.a nuclear reaction) in order to wipe out a pizza parlor or a city block. It could be done with high explosives now. In fact, a dirty bomb (high explosives packed with fresh or even depleted uranium) could evacuate a city easily, widespread radiation poisoning spreading with the wind. Depleted uranium could be purchased from countries like North Korea.

I think nuclear weapons are intended for massive explosions, like Hiroshima, only more powerful today by many orders of magnitude. I've read that the Russians had experimental small scale nuclear weapons but I think it's a lot of trouble to make them and conventional explosives or dirty bombs can do the damage anyway.

I agree the US and Iran both possess traits of terrorist states. But 'terrorist states' already possess nuclear weapons. That's why its impossible to logically justify the US having 10,000 nuclear warheads and Iran none. It leaves Iran and other Arab states with terrorism as the only option. The sense of injustice and oppression only feeds on itself, spurred on by fundamentalist fervor, until all that's left is a nation of terrorists.

I believe if Iran had nuclear weapons, America and Israel would have to show more respect to the other nations in the region and I'm optimistic enough to believe that the whole region might start to cool down a little.

On the other hand, invading Iran will only enflame an already precarious situation in the region, with the hope of any meaningful reconciliation with the west receding out of sight, if it hasn't done so already. FWIW.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Trent Adams]

Although I am new to this site, I find that there are many political opinions here that may spawn from the entire spectrum of political thought. Additionally, I may or may not agree with any given opinion expressed by individual members of this forum. For this reason, I do my best to refrain from posting any of my political views here, as I felt there are other "forums" for this on The Education Forum, if I felt the desire to venture into a true political discussion NOT related to the JFK Assassination. I have a great amount of respect for this forum, and for the individuals who participate, and I don't care where they come from, what their personal convictions or affiliations are, as long as they contribute to the discussion with an honest effort or belief in their research, theories, and/or opinions.

This being said, I'm not sure what this thread has to do with the JFK Assassination. I am well aware that John posted this thread, and I have no problem studying/analyzing ANY angle of the JFK Assassination (and related topics), so I have read this several times trying to link it to something. I am not having any luck.

Obviously, this is just my observation, so if somebody could link it to the events surrounding the assassination for me, it would be greatly appreciated. The only thing I can conceivably garner from it is the following:

- an implication that the next Democrat elected President might try to expose things from the Bush Presidency. In turn, this could cause him/her to be assassinated by those who don't want this information exposed.

- an implication that Bush is powerless and has realized that he is at the mercy of others who may have him eliminated if he tries to stop all that is already in progress...no matter how bad or good any of it turns out

- an implication that although some feel there are "things" to be exposed, they never will be, since "the powers that be" will not be honest or forthcoming with this information.

No matter what my opinion(s) is on any of the comments in this thread, I'm just trying to relate it to the JFK Assassination. I'm not questioning John's authority to post anything he wants in the forum, or that of anybody else, but I just need help relating it.

Thanks

[Ron Ecker]

How does this thread relate to the JFK assassination? That's easily answered.

Who was behind the JFK assassination in general? The military industrial complex, to whom Lyndon Johnson, with his lifelong lust for power, legal problems, and need to get rid of JFK, was one of the best things that ever happened. They were partners in crime.

Who runs the U.S. today? The military industrial complex, to whom the neocon PNAC with its 2000 coup and imperialistic foreign policy is one of the best things that ever happened. They are partners in crime.

The same powers that be who got rid of JFK in 1963 are presently bankrupting America, to fill their own pockets, and with the PNAC have taken us to the point that dictatorship looks inevitable. The American people have seemed to be all but asking for it, and it is only more one terrorist attack away.

So in terms of the big picture, this thread is entirely relevant to Dallas. It relates to the decline and fall of the American republic, who brought it down, and who let them do it.