http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/04/far04011.html
April 6, 2004
Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts
Predict a Terrorist Attack by November
by Maureen Farrell
On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist and former Nixon speech
writer William Safire offered his standard New Year’s predictions. This
time, however, one item stood out. In addition to speculating on
everything from which country would next "feel the force of U.S.
liberation" to who would win the best picture Oscar, Safire predicted
that "the 'October surprise' affecting the U.S. election" would be "a
major terror attack in the United States." [Salt Lake Tribune]
While such speculation is hardly worth a trip to the duct tape store,
when combined with repeated assaults to our democratic process and
troublesome assertions from noteworthy sources, it warrants further
investigation.
In Nov. 2003, you might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado
magazine that a major terrorist attack (even one that occurred elsewhere
in the Western world), would likely result in a suspension of the U.S.
Constitution and the installation of a military form of government. "[A]
terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western
world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] 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," he said. [NewsMax.com]
Right around the same time, former Clinton administration official David
Rothkopf made similarly distressing observations. In a Washington Post
op-ed entitled, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," he
described a meeting in which nearly 75 percent of the professional
participants (characterized as "serious people, not prone to hysteria or
panic") also foresaw another terrorist attack occurring on American soil
before the next election. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by
CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of
whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues," he
wrote. "Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United
States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004."
[Washington Post]
Saying that "history suggests that striking during major elections is an
effective tool for terrorist groups," Rothkopf explained why terrorists
will most likely target us soon. And though he and Safire made these
observations months before terrorists changed Spain’s political
landscape, they were not alone in thinking along such lines. "Even
before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that
terrorists might strike the United States before the November
elections," USA Today reported, before commenting on how terrorists
could "try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and
chaos." [USA Today]
The New York Times also reported on the possibility that Al Qaeda would
try to "influence the outcome of the election" by striking U.S. oil
refineries. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas
oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on pipelines and
refineries near the time of the November presidential election," the
Times reported. [New York Times]
MSNBC, CNN and other news organizations also chimed in, raising concerns
about this summer's political conventions. "In the wake of what happened
in Madrid, we have to be concerned about the possibility of terrorists
attempting to influence elections in the United States by committing a
terrorist act," FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN. "Quite clearly,
there will be substantial preparations for each of the conventions."
[CNN]
Right-wing columnists and pundits have since (surprise, surprise) tried
to capitalize on such fears. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S.
three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American
electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most
aggressively antiterror party?" David Brooks opined in the New York
Times on March 16, [Libertypost.org
before Richard Clarke revealed that the Clinton administration was actually
more "aggressively anti-terror" than the bumbling Bushes. (Could that be
why the Bush administration refuses to turn over thousands of pages of
the nearly 11,000 files on the Clinton administration’s antiterrorism
efforts?)
Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our
election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with
the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because
it’s going to happen."
And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be complete without
Rush Limbaugh weighing in? "Do [the terrorists] bide their time and
wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America
before our election?" Limbaugh asked, before revealing how "titans of
industry," and "international business people (who do not outsource, by
the way)" were "very, very, very concerned" that one true party forever
rule the Fatherland.
"They all were seeking from me reassurance that the White House was safe
this year, that John Kerry would not win," Limbaugh said. "Who do you
think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country --
socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his
friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of "if"
but "when," Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the
White House, the terrorists will have won. [RushLimbaugh.com]
Given the bizarre mind-melding between the government and media and the
Soviet-style propagandizing that's been taking place, one has to wonder:
Is there is any significance in the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity and David Brooks are all beating the same tom-tom? As former
White House insider Richard Clarke recently told Jon Stewart, "[There
are] dozens of people, in the White House. . . writing talking points,
calling up conservative columnists, calling up talk radio hosts, telling
them what to say. It’s interesting. All the talk radio people, the right
wing talk radio people across the country, saying the exact same thing,
exactly the same words."
Stewart noted that a 24-hour news network was also making observations
that were "remarkably similar to what the White House was saying."
Even though Andrew Card admitted that "from a marketing point of view,
you don't introduce new products in August," in May, 2002, Wayne Madsen
and John Stanton revealed that the government’s marketing preparations
for the war were already underway, with U.S. Air Force scientists
consulting with CNN "to figure out how to gather and disseminate
information." [CounterPunch.org]
In an article entitled, "When the War Hits Home: U.S. Plans for Martial
Law, Tele-Governance and the Suspension of Elections," Madsen and
Stanton delved into the more frightening aspects of what might be in
store. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a 'dirty nuke' set off in a
small town, may well prompt the Bush regime, let's say during the
election campaign of 2003-2004, to suspend national elections for a year
while his government ensures stability," they wrote. "Many closed door
meetings have been held on these subjects and the notices for these
meetings have been closely monitored by the definitive www.cryptome.org."
To make matters worse, if martial law is imposed, Air Force General
Ralph E. Eberhart will be able to blast through Posse Comitatus and
deploy troops to America’s streets. Gen. Eberhart, yu might recall, is
the former Commander of NORAD, which was in charge of protecting
America’s skies on Sept. 11. But instead of being scrutinized for
NORAD’s massive failures, he was promoted and now heads the Pentagon's
Northern Command. And, as military analyst William M. Arkin explained,
"It is only in the case of 'extraordinary' domestic operations that
would enable Gen. Eberhart to bring in "intelligence collectors, special
operators and even full combat troops" to bear. What kind of situation
would have to occur to grant Eberhart "the far-reaching authority that
goes with 'extraordinary operations’"? Nothing. He already has that
authority. [Los Angeles Times]
Which brings us to the inevitable (and most important) question. How
primed is the American public to accept suspended elections, martial
law, or whatever else the White House decides to "market"?
Consider, for a moment, what an invaluable propaganda conduit the media
was during the lead up to war in Iraq -- and just how weird things have
become since. Howard Stern insists he was targeted by Clear Channel and
the FCC after speaking out against George Bush [BuzzFlash.com]; former White
House Aide Anna Perez (who worked under Condoleezza Rice and served as
former first lady Barbara Bush’s press secretary) is slated to become
chief communications executive for NBC; and MSNBC featured a story
entitled, "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq" on its Web site
only to have it disappear down the Memory Hole in the course of a few
hours. [TheMemoryHole.org]
Moreover, last year’s Clear Channel sponsorship of pro-war/pro-Bush
rallies was so Orwellian, that former Federal Communications
Commissioner Glen Robinson remarked, "I can't say that this violates any
of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline
manufacturing of the news." [Chicago Tribune]
Meanwhile, the mysterious Karen Ryan (of "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan
reporting" fakery fame [Journalism.NYU.edu])
was featured in the New York Times. "Federal investigators are
scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid
people to pose as journalists, praising the benefits of the new Medicare
law. . . , " the Times reported.
Need more proof that something is amiss? As of Feb. 5, 2004, CBS News
was still reporting that one of the hijackers' passports was "found on
the street minutes after the plane he was aboard crashed into the north
tower of the World Trade Center," [CBS] and
for far too long, pundits have taken to spreading White House rumors
without checking facts --while denying any White House connection once
these rumors prove false.
And most baffling of all, whenever anyone does tell the truth, a bevy of
Stepford Citizens reveal that they’d rather hear lies. After Richard
Clarke spilled the Bush beans on 60 Minutes, for example, the mail was
overwhelmingly negative -- with some writing that Clarke should be tried
for treason and others asking CBS, "Why can’t you be 'fair and balanced’
like FOX?" (Perhaps those viewers are denizens of the Free Republic Web
site, where posters actually pondered the question: "Should the US have
elections if attacked?" [FreeRepublic.com]
The most bizarre example of the White House’s dysfunctional domination
of the media, however, occurred last week -- with the surreal
controversy involving David Letterman and CNN. In case you missed it, on
Monday, Letterman showed a video clip which featured a bored, fidgety
kid standing behind George W. Bush, who was giving a speech in Orlando.
The next day, CNN also ran that clip, but anchor Daryn Kagan returned
from commercial break to inform viewers, "We're being told by the White
House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video."
Later, a second CNN anchor said that the boy was at the rally, but
wasn't necessarily standing behind George W. Bush.
"That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was
there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the
videotape," Letterman said on Tuesday.
"Explanations continued through Wednesday and Thursday, with Letterman
referring to "indisputable" and "very high-placed source" who told him
that the White House had, in fact, called CNN. "This is where it gets a
little hinky," Letterman said on Thursday, rehashing the back and forth
nonsense that played like a bad SNL sketch. "We were told that the White
House didn’t call CNN. That was the development the other day. So I’m
upset because I smell a conspiracy. I think something’s gone haywire. I
see this as the end of democracy as we know it; another one of them
Watergate kind of deals. And so, I’m shooting my mouth off and right in
the middle of the show, I’m handed a note that says 'No no no no, the
White House did not contact CNN. The White House did NOT call CNN.’ So
now I feel like "Oh, I guess I’m gonna do heavy time.’
"Ok, so now it gets a little confusing. So, the next day I’m told, 'Oh,
No. The White House DID contact CNN. . . . They WERE contacted by the
White House. They were trying to SHUT CNN up because they didn’t want to
make these people look ridiculous because they were big Republican fund
raisers and you know, I’m going to disappear mysteriously. In about
eight months, they’ll find my body in the trunk of a rental car.
"So now, we’re told, despite what everyone says. . . that this
high-ranking, high placed unidentified source says, "No No The White
House did call them."
Although he displayed his customary wit and joked throughout his
explanation, unless Letterman's acting skills extend far beyond those
displayed in Cabin Boy, there's no doubt that Letterman was serious when
he asserted that "despite what everyone says" the White House was
involved in this fiasco.
Meanwhile, CNN apologized and accepted the blame, letting the White
House off the hook.
While the Letterman episode is a lesson in abject absurdity, nearly two
years ago, Madsen and Stanton warned that following a major terrorist
attack, seditious web sites would be blocked (something that is already
happening to howardstern.com) and "the broadcast media would similarly
be required to air only that which has been approved by government
censors." (How will we know the difference?)
Though it seems surreal that people are actually wagering that another
terrorist attack will occur on our soil by November (and it’s even more
bizarre that on-air personalities are calling for the suspension of
elections), the fact that this un-elected gang who barreled into power
and forever changed the course of a nation, is so completely
untrustworthy makes the situation even more disturbing. On Sept 11,
2003, William Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News asked, "Why don’t we
have the answers to these 9/11 questions?" [The Philadelphia Daily News] before addressing a
variety of concerns, which, thanks to the 9/11 commission, are finally
making their way into our national consciousness. And now that another
whistle blower, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has come forward, saying,
"'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with
airplanes," [The Independent]
it’s clear we’ve been under attack for quite some time. [BuzzFlash.com]
But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarke’s revelations;
before more whistleblowers peeked out from under the muck, David
Rothkopf made everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the "military
officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and others who have
studied [terrorism] for a long time," he explained how the majority of
experts he spoke to not only predicted that the pre-election assaults
would "be greater than those of 9/11," but that any act of terrorism
would work in the President's favor. "It was the sense of the group that
such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President
Bush," he wrote.
Citing how "assaults before major votes have [traditionally] benefited
candidates who were seen as tougher on terrorists," Rothkopf catalogued
events in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining the
symbiotic relationship between terrorists and hardliners. "So why would
[terrorists] want to help [hardliners] win?" he asked. "Perhaps because
terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their
perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in turn empower them
as terrorists. How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it
easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their
methods."
William Safire’s and David Rothkopf's and three out of four experts'
speculations aside, there are those who believe that the Bible predicts
the ultimate battle between good and evil and that George Bush is doing
God’s work. But then again, the Bible also says that "the truth will
make you free."
And according to Bible Code author Michael Drosnin, there is another,
more mystical way to look at Biblical text, and he contends that the
Bible also predicts, you guessed it, that there will be another
terrorist attack in America in 2004.
Personally, I don’t give much credence to predictions, but when this
many people peer into the crystal ball and see Al Qaeda gearing up for
our presidential election, I take note -- especially given what’s
transpired since the last stolen election. [EricBlumrich.com]
So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too. So I’ll go out on a
limb a make a prediction of my own: If the truth continues to seep out
about the way the Bush administration has failed us, suspending the
election may be the only way Bush can win.
My darkest fear is that G.W.'s handlers believe this, too.
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: We're not sure what to make of this, but a BuzzFlash
Reader who works for the U.S. Government recently sent us this note:
"When I attempted to purchase a [BuzzFlash] premium on-line, I have
received the message from our 'computer police' that this site is
considered a HATE site and I am not allowed to purchase this material
online using government computers." Go figure. If anyone can verify this
information, we'd be exceptionally grateful.
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in
helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
