-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 20, 2007 7:50:57 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Say Good-bye To Democracy, the Reign of Terror Is At
Hand
How does one explain the sudden removal of General Peter Pace from
the Joint Chiefs of Staff? For one thing, that clears away one
known obstacle to a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran, increasing the
likelihood of that course of action. The intent to attack Iran
with nuclear weapons might also explain the otherwise inexplicable
"National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive"
that Bush just issued on May 9. Bush's directive allows him to
declare a "national emergency" on his authority alone, without
interference by Congress. Once a national emergency is declared,
Bush takes over all functions of government at every level, has
authority over private organizations and businesses, and wields
absolute power until he declares the emergency over.
Why should such a sweeping "Continuity of Government" directive be
necessary right now?
One possible answer is that, with appropriate propaganda, a state
of panic and chaos would exist after a U.S. nuclear attack on
Iran. The H-bomb arouses the ultimate fear. A U.S. nuclear attack
would send Russian and Chinese I.C.B.M.s into high alert. False
flag operations interpreted as terrorist attacks "by Iran" could be
staged in the U.S. The propagandistic U.S. media would hype such
developments to the hilt, portraying danger everywhere. And after
the regime produces its "national emergency," the threat of the
regime's new detention centers would silence all protest
See what's free at AOL.com.
From: "Jim S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 20, 2007 6:55:08 PM PDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Say Good-bye To Democratic Outcomes: The Reign of Tyrants
Is At Hand
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17902.htm *Say
Good-bye To Democratic Outcomes: The Reign of Tyrants Is At Hand*
By Paul Craig Roberts
06/19/07
"It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to
disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."-- General
Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Press
Club, February 17, 2006.
"They will be held accountable for the decisions they make. So
they should in fact not obey the illegal and immoral orders to use
weapons of mass destruction."-- General Peter Pace, CNN With Wolf
Blitzer, April 6, 2003
"ICH" -- The surprise decision by the Bush regime to replace
General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has
been explained as a necessary step to avoid contentious
confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate. Gen. Pace's
reappointment would have to be confirmed and, as the general has
served as vice chairman and chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the
past 6 years, the Republicans feared that hearings would give war
critics an opportunity to focus, in Defense Secretary Gates words,
"on the past, rather than the future."
This is a plausible explanation. Whether one takes it on face
value depends on how much trust one still has in a regime that has
consistently lied about everything for six years.
General Pace himself says he was forced out when he refused to
"take the issue off the table" by voluntarily retiring. Pace
himself was sufficiently disturbed by his removal to strain his
relations with the powers that be by not going quietly.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page interpreted Pace's removal
as indication that "the man running the Pentagon is Democratic
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. For that matter, is George W. Bush
still President?"
The Wall Street Journal editorial writers' attempt to portray
Pace's departure as evidence of a weak and appeasing administration
does not ring true. An administration that escalates the war in
Iraq in the face of public opposition and pushes ahead with its
plan to attack Iran is not an appeasing administration. Whether it
is the war or Attorney General Gonzales or the immigration bill or
anything else, President Bush and his Republican stalwarts have
told Congress and the American people that they don’t care what
Congress and the public think. Bush's signing statements make it
clear that he doesn’t even care about the laws that Congress writes.
A president audacious enough to continue an unpopular and pointless
war in the face of public opinion and a lost election is a
president who is not too frightened to reappoint a general. Why
does Bush run from General Pace when he fervently supports
embattled Attorney General Gonzales? What troops does Bush support?
He supports his toadies.
There are, of course, other explanations for General Pace's
departure. The most disturbing of these explanations can be found
in General Pace's two statements at the beginning of this article.
In the first statement General Pace says that every member of the
U.S. military has the absolute responsibility to disobey illegal
and immoral orders. In the second statement, General Pace says
that an order to use weapons of mass destruction is an illegal and
immoral order.
The context of General Pace's second statement above (actually, the
first statement in historical time) is his response to Blitzer's
question whether the invading U.S. troops could be attacked with
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But Pace's answer does not
restrict illegal and immoral only to Iraqi use of W.M.D. It is a
general statement. It applies to their use period.
On March 10, 2006, Jorge Hirsch ( http://www.antiwar.com/hirsch/?
articleid=8678 ) made a case that use of nuclear weapons is both
illegal and immoral. Despite the illegality and immorality of
first-use of nuclear weapons, the Bush Pentagon rewrote U.S. war
doctrine to permit their use regardless of their illegality and
immorality. For a regime that not only believes that might is
right abut also that they have the might, law is what the regime says.
The revised war doctrine permits U.S. first strike use of nuclear
weapons against non-nuclear countries. We need to ask ourselves
why the Bush administration would blacken America's reputation and
rekindle the nuclear arms race unless the administration had plans
to apply its new war doctrine.
Senator Joseph Lieberman, a number of neoconservatives, prominent
Jewish leaders such as Norman Podhoretz, and members of the Israeli
government have called for a U.S. attack on Iran. Most Republican
presidential candidates have said that they would not rule out the
use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
Allegedly, the U.S. Department of State is pursuing diplomacy with
Iran, not war, but Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns gives the
lie to that claim. On June 12, Burns claimed that Iran was not
only arming insurgents in Iraq but also the Taliban in
Afghanistan. Burns' claims are, to put it mildly, controversial in
the U.S. intelligence community and they are denied not only by
Iran but also by our puppet government in Afghanistan. On June 14,
Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak told the Associated
Press that Burns’ claim has no credibility.
But, of course, none of the administration's propagandistic claims
that set the stage for the invasion of Iraq had any credibility
either, and the lack of credibility did not prevent the claims from
deceiving the Congress and the American people. As the U.S. media
now functions as the administration’s Ministry of Propaganda, the
Bush regime believes that it can stampede Americans with lies into
another war.
The Bush regime has concluded that a conventional attack on Iran
would do no more than stir up a hornet's nest and release
retaliatory actions that the U.S. could not manage. The Bush
regime is convinced that only nuclear weapons can bring the mullahs
to heel.
The Bush regime's plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons puts
General Pace's departure in a different light. How can President
Bush succeed with an order to attack with nuclear weapons when
America's highest ranking military officer says that such an order
is "illegal and immoral" and that everyone in the military has an
"absolute responsibility" to disobey it?
An alternative explanation for Pace's departure is that Pace had to
go so that malleable toadies can be installed in his place.
Pace's departure removes a known obstacle to a nuclear attack on
Iran, thus advancing that possible course of action. A plan to
attack Iran with nuclear weapons might also explain the otherwise
inexplicable "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential
Directive" (N.S.P.D.-51 AND H.S.P.D.-20) that Bush issued on May
9. Bush's directive allows him to declare a "national emergency"
on his authority alone without ratification by Congress. Once Bush
declares a national emergency, he can take over all functions of
government at every level, as well as private organizations and
businesses, and remain in total control until he declares the
emergency to be over.
Who among us would trust Bush, or any president, with this power?
What is the necessity of such a sweeping directive subject to no
check or ratification?
What catastrophic emergency short of a massive attack on the U.S.
with nuclear I.C.B.M.s can possibly justify such a directive?
There is no obvious answer to the question. The federal
government's inability to respond to Hurricane Katrina is hard
evidence that centralizing power in one office is not the way to
deal with catastrophes.
A speculative answer is that, with appropriate propaganda, the
directive could be triggered by a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran. The
use of nuclear weapons arouses the ultimate fear. A U.S. nuclear
attack would send Russian and Chinese I.C.B.M.s into high alert.
False flag operations could be staged in the U.S. The
propagandistic U.S. media would hype such developments to the hilt,
portraying danger everywhere. Fear of the regime's new detention
centers would silence most voices of protest as the regime declares
its "national emergency."
This might sound like a far-out fiction novel, but it is a scenario
that would explain the Bush regime's disinterest in the shrinking
Republican vote that foretells a massive Republican wipeout in the
2008 election. In a declared national emergency, there would be no
election.
As implausible as this might sound to people who trust the
government, be aware that despite his rhetoric, Bush has no respect
for democracy. His neoconservative advisors have all been taught
that it is their duty to circumvent democracy, as democracy does
not produce the right decisions. Neoconservatives believe in rule
by elites, and they regard themselves as the elite. The Bush
regime decided that Americans would not agree to an invasion of
Iraq unless they were deceived and tricked into it, and so we were.
Indeed, democracy is out of favor throughout the Western world. In
the U.K. and Europe, peoples are being forced, despite their
expressed opposition, into an E.U. identity that they reject.
British P.M. Tony Blair and his European counterparts have decided
on their own that the people do not know best and that the people
will be ignored. As former French P.M. Valery Giscard d'Estaing
told the French newspaper, Le Monde, "Public opinion will be led to
adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present
to them directly." Giscard d'Estaing is referring to the
resurrection of the rejected E.U. constitution camouflaged as a
treaty. Giscard d’Estaing acknowledges that 450 million Europeans
are being hoodwinked. Why should Americans be surprised that they
have been and are being hoodwinked?
Americans might have more awareness of their peril if they realized
that their leaders no longer believe in democratic outcomes.
~~~
[Dr. Roberts is an economist who has held numerous university
appointments and served as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.9.1/857 - Release Date: 6/20/07 2:18 PM
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
