Will Bush push the panic button?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/panicbutton.html

Rivero describes the Bushites as wounded cornered animals who will make last desperate lunges to survive:

History will probably record that the greatest single error the Bush war machine made was to underestimate the impact of the Internet. They didn't understand the Internet, or the Internet culture, its sociology, and most important, how access to the Internet transformed Americans from mere acceptors of broadcast information into active and critical participants in the information process. No doubt there was a tendency to dismiss Internet news sources as just hobbies run by computer geeks for other computer geeks. Certainly nothing to worry about. Blogs were not mainstream media, according to the mainstream media. Bush and the NeoCons didn't really know what to do about the Internet, so wishful thinking made it unimportant. That was their critical error, because while the polls kept showing more people were still getting their news from the TV set than from computers, the margin kept getting smaller. And, the polls didn't reflect the fact that people watching the TV sets were not as mentally involved with the information flow as Internet users were. While fewer in numbers, people who were getting their news from the Internet were more involved with that news... and they were talking to people they knew who did not have Internet feeds.


In the last several weeks, a strange phenomenon has started to happen. Mainstream news sources have become aware that they can no longer avoid reporting the unpleasant news stories, without their avoidance itself becoming news on the blogs. As a result, blogs now drive the mainstream news. The mainstream media have been maneuvered into having to make a choice between continuing to support the agenda of their owners/handlers, or saving what is left of their credibility by running the stories that the public will be aware of anyway through the Internet

Bush may be thinking about hitting the "panic button".
What I refer to is, of course, a last ditch attempt to prop up his sagging poll numbers and revive support for the wars of conquest by staging yet another phony "terror" attack, framing it on the intended invadee. Planes crashing into buildings is now passé, and repeating that stunt would only underscore the utter uselessness of the millions of dollars spent on increased airport security. So, scratch that one. Maybe a truck with a bomb in it on the Golden Gate Bridge? Those San Franciscans got lots of other bridges anyway and there are lots of great places for the news crews to shoot from at the Presidio. Ah, but maybe that's not scary enough. Not every city has a bridge, and Tacoma survived the collapse of "Galloping Gerty" without major trauma. Soooooooooo, mebbe a suitcase nuke welded to the keel of a cargo ship? Not scary enough; most of the nation is landlocked. They don't worry about cargo ships coming into town from far away. So, that leaves us with everyone's favorite boogeyman, BIOLOGICAL TERROR!

Therefore, when Bush hits his panic button, look for a staged terror attack involving a biological threat, possibly Anthrax (of which the US has the largest stockpile in the world) to hit several cities at once coast to coast. Bush and the NeoCons will announce an immediate state of emergency, requiring suspension of all civil rights while house to house searches are made for the "terrorists", who are "known" to be in possession of more of these ampoules of germs. And because the "terrorists" are using the Internet to coordinate the attacks, look for the government to shut down all parts of the Internet that are not running a commercial for some corporation.
I hope I am wrong. And frankly, if I am right I am not sure how Bush and the NeoCons can make this work if the mainstream media has started to split away from the PNAC agenda. But the Bush Administration has shown a blind optimism as to what is really going on, preferring to see the world as they want it to be rather than it is, and I would not be surprised if a last act of desperation is forthcoming from this President.


Pray/hope that this is far-fetched and fanciful.

But I am feeling a wee bit paranoid today. Both Kerry and Laura Bush will be in town today.

did it?

I am amazed, because I expect them to push it again, and only increae the stakes

Still not enough to rescue Bush from his freefall.

If enough people "know" that the administration is planning to create a nationwide terrorist attack of this sort, it makes it kind of difficult for them to actually do it. No?

Makes it harder to put the wool over people's eyes, providing that enough of such stories go around.

Keep talking till we turn blue in the face, gang.

I'm certainly not gonna shut up.

By the way, my husband and I were what-if'ing each other this morning about the sarin "find," and I said I just had this vision of "wouldn't it be funny if somebody spotted kkkarl rove off at a phone booth somewhere out in public, talking to someone. Then a few days later, POOF! A sarin bomb turns up by the side of the road in Iraq! His response? "I was thinking about something along those lines myself..."

You poison the well on this one by throwing trial balloons out there about the possible planting of WMDs. Then when one of those "well, lookie here!" cases turns up, people are ALREADY PREDISPOSED TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF IT. Blunts the impact, but good. The important thing is to do as Johnnie Cochran did in the OJ trial - plant the seeds of reasonable doubt. If there's even a little bit of doubt, it winds up being a punch thrown that doesn't land.

"most Bushies think the nation would rally around the president. "I can tell you one thing," adds the official sternly, "we won't be like Spain," which tossed its government days after the Madrid train bombings."

Complete story:

Washington Whispers by Paul Bedard

From the White House, a nightmare scenario

White House officials say they've got a "working premise" about terrorism and the presidential election: It's going to happen. "We assume," says a top administration official, "an attack will happen leading up to the election." And, he added, "it will happen here." There are two worst-case scenarios, the official says. The first posits an attack on Washington, possibly the Capitol, which was believed to be the target of the 9/11 jet that crashed in Pennsylvania. Theory 2: smaller but more frequent attacks in Washington and other major cities leading up to the election. To prepare, the administration has been holding secret antiterrorism drills to make sure top officials know what to do. "There was a sense," says one official involved in the drills, "of mass confusion on 9/11. Now we have a sense of order." Unclear is the political impact, though most Bushies think the nation would rally around the president. "I can tell you one thing," adds the official sternly, "we won't be like Spain," which tossed its government days after the Madrid train bombings.


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm

BFEE/PNAC Mob brazen enough to discuss this in the open! Really counting on the sheeple to buy it hook, line and sinker!

:puke:

This is just insane.

"Should we have elections if there's another attack?"
I couldn't fucking believe it.

Only now they will strike fear in people by all the hype and "preparation" for an attack.

nt

Is that Bush doesn't even have to plan and execute a fake attack. He can have the real thing by simply ignoring incomming information, very much like he did before 9/11, only now with many more players involved, on both sides. Just what threat do you think he may have been warned against yesterday that he hasn't just decided to let happen? He might just take the mindset that another attack wouldn't hurt his chances anyway and it just might pull him up. Who really cares who pulls off the attack, we'll just go after them like rabid jackels and the nation will line up behind me. He just might think that.

If it happens this way, it would be more hard to "prove" than MIHOP, IMHO.

I cna imagine this scenerio very easily. We know they are capable of sending Anthrax to their political enemies as they have done that already. Why is it the Anthrax attacks of Sept 2001 are not ever mentioned let alone investigated. This is one scary scenerio that I hope does not come to pass but would not put it past them. Our only answer would be that Bush* has failed to protect us once again so let's get rid of him and put someone in who can and will protect us.

He has been evil most of his life and no one called him to task.

He does not know right from wrong.

His gut gives him freedom to abuse.

This is most dangerous person in our history.

in the event of a shut-down of the internet and/or ANY type of declaration that creates martial law:

IF we find ourselves unable to access the internet and a free exchange of information and discourse concerning our government, we have to spread the word that we will ALL TOGETHER meet in D.C.

In this case, it would be the SILENT RIDE OF PAUL REVERE -- that certain events will merely trigger the KNOWING that it's time, and that the attempts have been made to finally destroy what's left of our Democracy, and that we all must ACT.

As citizens, it is our DUTY AND OBLIGATION to mass together and reinstate our Constitution, NO MATTER WHAT ENEMY tries to wrestle it from us. WE, THE PEOPLE, are THE AMERICANS.

The American corporations exist in America because WE THE PEOPLE offer them our labor.

The American congress exists in America because WE THE PEOPLE choose those members to act on OUR behalf, and as stewards of OUR TAX dollars.

There needs to be a PLAN, and the PLAN needs to be the ASSEMBLING of all AMERICANS in D.C. should ANY ENEMY finally attempt to force our silence or self-governance.

:kick::kick::kick::kick:

but in other areas. We need to set up an organized emergency plan for each session for people to meet together when there is a real crackdown (as opposed to a temporary glitch or browndown) on the internet for information.

The “war on terror” and American democracy—some ominous warnings
By Patrick Martin
27 November 2003

Three commentaries published recently in the US media, all by well-connected observers of the US military, have suggested that a major new terrorist attack within the United States could disrupt the 2004 elections and even result in military intervention on the streets of America as well as the suspension of the Constitution.

On Friday, November 21, the right-wing web news service Newsmax.com published an account of the interview given by General Tommy Franks to the lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

Franks said that a terrorist attack employing a weapon of mass destruction and causing mass casualties, either in the United States or against an ally, would likely result in replacing the American Constitution with a military government.

As the commander of CentCom, Franks led US forces in the conquest of Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq earlier this year, before retiring during the summer. In his magazine interview, he outlined this scenario:

“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 unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Frank remains a fervent supporter of the Bush administration, describing Bush as “a very thoughtful man,” and declaring, “Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”

But according to Franks, it may be under the administration of this “hero” 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.”

The retired general placed the responsibility for this possible turn to dictatorship on “our population,” and was silent on what role the military leadership or the Bush administration would play in its establishment. The American media has apparently failed to ask him anything about it since.

more...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/warn-n27.shtml

fall under the clutches of these enemies of democracy and the common man. They will do whatever it takes to hold power. They will not go out by any goddamn ballot box.

either one actually existed.

The best way to win IMHO is to focus on what you can control--what you're going to do personally to help Kerry win. Why focus on what Chimp might do, especially something over which you have no control at all?

An excellent article and followed by thoughtful postings.

So if he did "take down" the internet in the US of A what would be our alternatives. Wouldn't this cause problems for corporations (ad revenue) and what about e-mail? I am on my county's intranet e-mail system yet I can get mail from outside the system. Could the vast internet system be policed? I know places like CHina control access but I don't think as many Chinese are linked to the net as Americans. I mean computers are as common as cars or TV sets here. And if someone my age is on the net well....

If the US of A internet goes down or under govt control the Europeans and others will still be up. Will there be any way to get information from them out to us? Will we have to have contacts? and then like the Russsians use faxes, etc. What about text messaging on cell phones?

time-tested and reliable way to get information to anyplace.

nt