Are we being set up?

I've had this on my mind for a couple of days now. To me, it just seemed strange that the NYT would wait until the Patriot Act was being discussed before releasing the info on the secret NSA domestic spying violation. Perhaps they were trying to make amends for the series of Judy Miller columns that helped push the country into an ill-conceived war - I don't know - maybe that was it. Maybe they really were trying to help put the genie back into the bottle. But, the more I thought about it, the more it didn't make any sense. Since the majority of us regard the NYT as fish wrap (or worse) and complicit enablers of Bush doctrine, I started to look for more sinister reasons for the NSA revelation. I tried a couple of times to post my thoughts here - but invariably I just flushed them when it started to look like I had that tin foil hat on waaaay too tight (which may still be the case). Anyway, I was busy surfing some other sites when I stumbled across an article entitled "Why The Patriot Act Is Intended To Fail" that captured, succinctly, my suspicions on this matter. However, the article is posted over on Prison Planet which, I think, is not well regarded (did I read it was banned here?) - it was linked from another site which is how I managed to stumble onto it in the first place.

In any case, this little set of snippages from the article demonstrates my paranoid mindset:

<snip>
From all the indications we have studied it seems that the Patriot Act is intentionally destined to fail so that when the Globalists carry out a terror attack they can blame 'civil liberties advocates' for preventing them from keeping the general public safe and then reject out of hand criticism of all future police state legislation that they pass.

<snip>
Why do they need the Patriot Act to fail? Because if the Globalists carry out another terror attack right now, people will be inclined to say that the existing Patriot Act powers were in the hands of the government and they failed to protect us, thus discrediting the police state legislation.

<snip>
If for a few months the government can bemoan the fact that they don't have Patriot Act powers to protect the American people, at that time it would be expedient for them to set off the suitcase nuke or release the biological.....

<snip>

I consider DU to be an island of sanity - I can't tell you how many times the sharp edges of this crazy world get "rounded off" after reading some of the posts here - it's good to know there are a lot of people who share my feelings (perhaps not is this case, but most of the time).

So, I ask you - are the neo-cons setting us up? Are they deliberately trying to hamstring the Patriot Act so that, during the debate to "civilize" the Act, they can pull a LIHOP/MIHOP and finally get that martial law they've been hankering for?

Or, have I finally slipped off the edge and become dangerously deranged?

I hope they ask them why. We should demand them to tell us why they waited a whole freakin year. Maybe they were threatned and could now tell. It does make one wonder. I hope we find out.

You've outlined possible outcomes of a failure of the Patriot Act and a subsequent terror attack combined with continuing support for the Bush administration and the neocon agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is any force which, having those outcomes as a goal, is undermining the Patriot Act. There doesn't need to be a hidden hand for those if's to be plausible: just because there are parties willing to take advantage of a terror attack doesn't mean those parties are necessarily behind the terror attacks.

what else can we do but fight the good fight. More people than ever are watching this admin. More people than ever believe the president isn't trust worthy. The President can extend the act for 3 months, thats been offered. The news has been very straight forward that the country isn't ready for the next 9/11 (10/12). They aren't really modifying the Pat act that much. It does seem that the admin wants this fight. And that the admin is letting the Pat act expire.

divulge what they knew. So they are at fault regardless, and I trust that's not the end of that story.
I fault this government who treats American citizens and the Constitution so cavalierly. But have I told anyone lately, we need to move on?

on KGO's news report that Specter wants to wait for hearings on this until AFTER Ailto's hearings. :mad: They're going to let him off!!!

They (the Bush administration) come up with Rube Goldberg conspiracies and they fall apart because they are incompetent boobs.

As crooks go, the Nixon administration was staffed with a much better grade of idiots than Bush.

Doug D.

How do we know the NYT didn't print the spy story on BushCo's orders? This sub-story running around about the NYT meeting at the WH wherein they were told not to run the spy story - but by God they did anyway. Has that been confirmed?

I don't trust the NYT or the Bush Admin. But I agree with the above poster that, if nothing else, at least the Bush Crime Syndicate is being watched more closely than it ever has before.

was tied to the book, by one of the NYT's reporters "STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" was to be released soon. They wanted to get the jump on the story...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-media20dec20,0,7619720.story?coll=la-home-headlines

That's what Bernie Ward was talking about. It was going to come out anyways and NYTimes wanted to break it first. All about raitings and such.

It's certainly a good question. It's good because, as opposed to being merely paranoid, there are groups, both known and unknown (secret/secretive, common/fringe, etc) within and without the goverment that have varying degrees of influence/power (indeed, the neocons themselves are a fine exampe of a lesser known fringe group that finally got it's hands on some real power and in so doing became much more obvious/known, though they're still rather secretive). The fact that these groups exist and pursue their agendas has to be of some concern to citizens who want their government to behave in a proper manner (rather than be subjugated to the agendas of special interests).

Whether or not there is a particular group that has some sort of plans for global domination is not something that can easily be anwered. That such a group could exist, though, seems reasonable. I mean before the neocons (who've been associated in the minds of some with Globalists owing to their behavior), who wouldv'e imagined the U.S. ever doing many of the things it's done and is doing?

The main point in my thinking is that one thing's for sure, and that some of these groups show an uncanny understanding of the psychology of large groups that verges on a sort of thought control. The neocons seem to do many things in a way that seems to be cleverly planned to produce certain resulting thoughts and attitudes among the general population. And there seems to be a sizeable chunk of the population that's easily manipulated by them. For our purposes, that sub-group tends to best be identified by those who call themselves Republicans. Just mention abortion, stem-cell research, terra-ism, government social programs, taxes, etc... and whatever remains of these people's rational minds are co-opted. Why, when they're so engaged, you can pull of things like launching an invasion of another country who's not even able to actually threaten us. This sub-group is also such that they're easily made to feel indignant, angry, violent and scared, such that when faced with a certain kind of event, they'll react strongly and in a very predictable and easily manipulated manner. Hence the neocons arranged (any way you look at it, they had to be complicit--from actually planning and executing it themselves, or by informing, collaborating with, enabling/making possible for, or outright assisting terrorists to pull it off (after all, they had to coordinate with the "terrorists" and time it just right so that NORAD wouldn't have any armed aircraft handy and so it might look like a part of the pretend terrorist attack for the military exercises)) for just such a show, and called it 9/11. Of course, in such a state of shock, outrage, anger and FEAR, a very large part of the population/group would let "our" government do whatever it claimed was necessary to deal with it... and it would also make the lamest President ever appointed (or elected either) to suddenly be popular--a "war" President! And the rest is history.

The point is, someone out there knows how to manipulate many of us. Indeed, one wonders if a large percentage of Congressional Democrats haven't had their thinking/attitudes manipulated likewise. Therefore, since it appears possible to do, it's reasonable to assume someone is doing it. Consequently, "random" events are potentially not random after all.

Thus we come to the question of whether or not we're being set up in preparation for being manipulated into furthering the agenda of some hidden group that wants us to give up our rights and freedoms, to give up our free thought and both be comfortable with and even "want" a "police state" in which we suffer a lack of privacy and have no rights while the "state" literally has the "legal" power to "disappear" you for torture (or disposal?). One certainly couldn't stand up and criticize Bush's war then...

I don't know, but... given the experiences of the last 5 years, it wouldn't surprise me--and it's certainly possible.

Getting 'the drop on' the upcoming book sounds plausible.

However, there are a couple of other things that strike me as odd. I would have expected Bush to be going ballistic over such a leak. I'd also never have expected him to admit anything--even if it was true (especially if true) and even if it would help him.

Though, I must say, given his penchant for imperial hubris, that he didn't deny anything is not so surprising--he thinks he has a "right" to do as he pleases (he's not just the President, but the "War" President--called by God to save America in it's darkest times)(Uh-huh, sure).

then they couldn't entirely "blame 'civil liberties advocates' for preventing them from keeping the general public safe." They'd still be blamed for being asleep at the wheel, wouldn't they?

On the contrary, Bush*'s petulant demand to renew the Patriot Act is what troubled me...give him an inch and he'll take a mile. What does he have planned afterwards?

so it forced their hand... so says the Los Angeles Times ..

sorry i don't have the link ... but's been talked about on the Radioooo.. and i heard it on the tube too.

is highly likely

then, can you imagine what they'll force through to "protect" us?

or whatever it was the other day. I wish I could find the text, but it was more the way he said it, and the look on his face. "If they don't reauthorize the Patriot Act, well....they're gonna be sorry."

I'm surprised it didn't send chills up anyone else's spine (maybe it did, I haven't been here much). Maybe just a good example of hearing something a certain way, just because you're already in a certain mindset?

makes that kind of statement too.

I don't feel so much it's a set up to make us reject the act, but if we do stop what they want in their 'protecting america' demands...
Well for sure an attack would help them then. The hope we rally wound the flag again and they can blame those who resisted their will...and have all the power they want.

I hope that is a flight of imagination. How disgusting to even know it is possible.