The Elephant in the Room That No One Will Talk About

[rhett o rick]

At least no one in Congress.

The last time I posted about this I was ridiculed and the post was moved to never-never land. As I am not very articulate I assume I did a poor job of addressing the issue. I hope this is better.

I believe it is important to anticipate our foe’s (the Neocon-Corporatists Cabal) next move and be prepared. So if you were a Neocon-Corporatist what would your next move be?

I would be willing to go to great lengths to retain the power of the Presidency. I would do this be either: 1) Stealing the election for a Corporatist republican, 2) Supporting a Corporatist sympathetic democratic, or 3) Suspending the 2008 Presidential election (temporarily until the crisis in the middle east is over) using Presidential Directive 51*(the elephant in the room).

Yes I agree that 3) is outrageous but then so was the Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus, instituting torture, domestic spying, rounding up women and children and putting them in detention centers, etc, etc.

Another goal of the Neocons is the expansion of the Iraq war into Iran. Should hostilities breakout between the US and Iran (Cheney is working hard toward this goal) then the President would have justification for initiation of Directive 51.

This is a possible scenario and it is not fear mongering. Nor is this a conspiracy theory. We need to recognize this possibility and Congress should address it now. They need to investigate the legality of Directive 51 and how it would be invoked. Would Congress have any say if invoked? Would Congress be able to counter once invoked? I know impeachment is an answer but it takes a long time. We need to get this out and look hard at it now.

“Freedom is like a sausage. If you think each small slice is not enough to fight for, you may end up with only the string”. Forgive me for butchering this quote but I don’t know the origin and was quoting from memory.

* http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

[welshTerrier2]

1. eternal vigilance is not "never-never land"

is it likely the 2008 elections could be suspended? it doesn't matter ... it's important to ensure it doesn't happen ...

could a national emergency be declared? of course it could. could right-wing Christians marshal their forces and send their Blackwater mercenary killers into the streets? oh no, we all know that could never happen. it would be, well, un-American ... no one would do such a thing ...

it's not clear the military would side with bush/cheney ... it's not clear they would have any real chance of claiming dictatorial powers ... it's not clear how "clear and present" this risk really is ...

to ignore it, however, is always foolhardy ... the greedy and powerful should never be taken lightly ...

[azurnoir]

11. As to BlackWater

who are there more of in the "continental US" combat ready National Guard or combat ready BlackWater troops? Who arrived in NOLA first?

[welshTerrier2]

16. i think that's a false choice

my point was that Blackwater is a highly armed and very dangerous group of mercenaries run by those with a very un-American, anti-democratic ideology.

the measure, in my view, is NOT whether they could defeat the National Guard in an armed insurrection but rather that they might join with SOME National Guard to support a call from bush to suspend the election ... again, i don't see any of this as a likely scenario but that does NOT mean the risks shouldn't be assessed.

i, for one, would like to see Blackwater, or at least its combat component, fully dismantled. i hate the idea of a privatized militia building its power within our borders.

[azurnoir]

38. Think you mis-understood

those were more challenge questions not choices, as far as numbers of BlackWater troops in the US I can not find a dependable number, but they were in NOLA before the National Guard and that is not a healthy sign to say the least

[azurnoir]

37. dupe delete

[Greyhound]

44. The Mormons. n/t

[OregonBlue]

46. I sent this to all the Dems on the Homeland Security Committee yesterday

except Lieberman. Also sent a similar question to several local newspapers but since I live in Eastern Oregon, which is Republican I also brought up the prospect of Blackwater and it's ilk not only cooming into our communities but insisting we give up our GUNS and obey THEIR orders!!!!

Dear Senator __________

I find it very troubling that Congress has chosen not to do an in-depth examination of the President's recent issuance of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial.

Per the directive, apparently the President will coordinate with Congress “as a matter of comity”.

Comity - an informal principle that governments will extend certain courtesies

Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that the President has chosen that word in particular? Should continuation of our system of checks and balances be a matter or COMITY?

Our government is expanding the role of private contractors at an ever increasing rate, while at the same time it is decimating our military and National Guard. As we saw in New Orleans, it will not hesitate to use those private contractors in case of national emergency.

Does this directive include the use of private, paramilitary groups in times of national emergency?

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

Apparently that is a secret. I believe that we, as U.S. citizens have the right to know.

I find it very disturbing that there has been so little interest and no protest over this in the Senate or House of “Representatives”.

This is potentially very dangerous and could strike at the heart of our democracy and yet, it would seem that not one Senator is even curious about just what is planned for our country in the event of a "national emergency".

[CTyankee]

15. During the final days of the Vietnam War, I remember hearing

dire predictions of the same nature as what you are describing. I was working with a group known as Clergy and Laity Concerned which had been against the war since the beginning. We discussed what we would do if Nixon declared martial law and prevented the 1972 election from taking place. I was genuinely scared. Since that time I've heard this discussion from time to time and wondered why somebody during those dark days didn't try to do this.

Actually, Bush has his operators behind the scenes in a far more effective way, from the fraud in voting in Ohio and elsewhere, to the scare tactics to the ownership (almost) of talk radio. I could go on and on.

So my question would be: why would Bush do that when he has amassed all of his power through fraud, trickery, and just plain ignoring the law (signing laws with his own law)and getting away with it because he knows he now has the Supreme Court and when push comes to shove, we are SOL.

[welshTerrier2]

18. you have an excellent memory

the rumor back in 1972 was that nixon had developed a contingency plan to surround the WH with the 82nd Airborne and that he would refuse to leave office if impeached and found guilty ...

as to your theme that bush may have a less combative route to achieve the same ends, i don't at all disagree ... my point isn't that an armed conflict is likely; my point is that we should analyze the risks and act accordingly ...

[CTyankee]

49. I think Corporate America has what it wants and a civil war with

the citizenry would be horrific for the corporations bottom line. The possibility of an armed conflict would be as bad for them as it would be for us. It has been too easy, with a lulled citizenry that won't even vote, much less get up off their duffs and actually fight for rights that they let slip through their fingers.

It's a demoralizing thought, I agree, but I'm still smarting over the lulled citizenry who voted for Joe Lieberman, as well as those that just didn't vote, in CT.

[rhett o rick]

23. "why would Bush do that when he has amassed all of his power through fraud, trickery, and just plain

ignoring the law". The decision will be made by his corporate masters. If they can accomplish 1) or 2) mentioned in my post, they won't have to do 3). As to "why", after they have gone to all the trouble of establishing a unitary executive (read dictator) they (the Neocon-Corporatist Cabal) will not let the power get into the hands of their enemies (progressives).

[rhett o rick]

39. To ignore their autocracies is foolhardy as is under estimating them.

I didn't understand the subject of your reply. When i referred to never-never land, i was talking about the forum that my post was moved to (Sept 11).

[whistle]

2. Only six years ago this was unthinkable and if talked about we would be

...called conspiracy freaks and insane

[venable]

9. so true - who would have predicted...

in 2000, it was sickening and disheartening - the theft and the inauguration - but NEVER in my wildest darkest imaginings would I have dreamed that this country would go so low, so fast.

the OP brings up a legit concern.

god help us.

[rodeodance]

27. Molly Ivans gave up lots of cues.

[venable]

32. yes, she did, but I don't think even she imagined

the complete, radical, total perversion of our rights and a reversal of our historical evolution as a nation.

I don't think this would have happened, by the way, had not Cheney seized control of the government. I think we would have had a hapless, inept, somewhat dangerous, internationally embarassing, language destroying idiocy.

What I'm talking about is the ultra radical right wing revolution that has, in fact, occurred.

I don't think that even Molly assumed the very Constitution would be rendered obsolete.

[acmavm]

3. Who knows, you may not be as far off the mark as some people think.

Just figure it this way, if they lose control not only do their criminal schemes and dreams go down the drain, BUT THE INVESTIGATIONS of what they've done may very well put them in the dock at the Hague. Unless we get another dem corporatist republican lite president like Bill Clinton was and he/she shuts down all investigations into the criminal activity of this bunch. Remember Bill had the chance to save us from a lot of this misery by going forward with the investigations of St. Ronnie and Poopy but chose not to. He said so as not to detract from his economic agenda.

But he sure has turned out to be a good friend to Poopy, hasn't he?

[krispos42]

21. The next democratic president can release tons of documents

that are to date being hidden for various reasons, most of which are almost certainly to avoid responsibility and a trial.

Sounds good to me. I, quite frankly, am getting very tired of this "The American people can't handle ________ " crap. We're a country that thrives on courtroom dramas and daytime soaps. WE CAN FOLLOW IT!!! WE CAN HANDLE IT!!!

Law & Order has been on for, what 18 seasons? And there are two long-running spin-offs as well. NCIS, The Closer, Close to Home, JAG, CSIx3, NYPD Blue, Without a Trace, Homicide: Life on the Street, The Shield, Cold Case... there must be dozens more.

Besides, plenty of networks will do re-creations of the acts in question. Remember when E! hired actors and built a set during the Michael Jackson trial? Court transcripts were rushed from the courthouse to the production studios so they could get reenactment hours after the real thing happened!

Olbermann does his nifty little "puppet theatre" thing as well. We can deal with this.

[northzax]

36. don't get too excited

no one is going to the Hague. Among other things, the US is not party to any treaty allowing a US citizen to go to the Hague. Second off, the Hague is reserved for states that cannot efectively apply law for whatever reason. In order to get to that point, you would need the US government, under a different regime, to have all of the evidence of malfeasance, and the inability to prosecute, which would preclude anyone going to the Hague.

[demigoddess]

4. i'm worried about this too. They seem to have a real lust for fighting Iran

even if it is impossible to do with our military so strained. They probably think they can rely on air strikes. Other wise why did they have this stupid Directive 51 so late in bush's presidency. Seems if they thought it was necessary they would have signed it sooner. They have it now as an 'in case'. And I wonder what the 'in case' is. One way to stop them is impeach and soon and keep them really busy with investigations and cutting the military budget or delaying funding to DOD

[rhett o rick]

5. Is there a chance we can get Congress to address Dir 51? nm

[Phredicles]

14. They'll just say "we don't have the votes" and keep sitting there with

their thumbs up their butts.

I can only say I (and evidently a lot of people) grossly understimated the size and clout of the Democratic Party's "Complicity Wing" in the wake of the 2006 elections.

Still, weren't the 2004 and possibly 2006 elections also going to get cancelled?

[rhett o rick]

19. I admit that i thought the 2004 elections would be suspended.

I didn't know that they decided to steal the election instead. In 2006 they again choose to try, via the US Attorneys, to steal the election. Since the demo's are onto their "stealing" tricks, they will have to try something else.

[calimary]

26. I'd start by nagging.

The votes they should want to have are OURS.

If they think you don't care, THEY WON'T, EITHER!!!

[rhett o rick]

47. I am good at nagging. nm

[Rydz777]

6. If we attack Iran, anything is possible. Lincoln fought the Civil War

without cancelling the Presidential election, but Bush is certainly no Lincoln. If Bush tried it, I think the country would rise up in a demonstration of civil disobedience that would shake the whole corporatist structure.

[rhett o rick]

10. Not so sure Country would rise up as much as you mite hope.

25-30% would openly support the President.
25-30% wouldn't even know what was happening.
25-30% would object but choose to do nothing.
leaving a small percentage, undoubtedly college students, willing to protest.

figures are total my guesses.

[Cleita]

7. "2) Supporting a Corporatist sympathetic democratic"

Most of the candidates are and the top front runners are more so than the rest. Follow the money and see who is getting the most campaign contributions from the corporations through PACs. Since I pointed this out about a favorite candidate some time ago and was treated extremely rudely for it, I will not name names and instead will implore all DUers to study their candidates not only for what they say but whom is supporting them with contributions (htpp://www.opensecrets.org) and their past records that can be found with quick googling.

As for point three it could happen now that we have some really kooky Supreme Court justices appointed by the present King George who could meddle in this next election like they did the last. I hope our Dems have something up their sleeve in case of that contingency.

[rhett o rick]

8. So far the sleeves of the Dems have been empty. nm

[OffWithTheirHeads]

12. Some are paying attention. My response from Zoe Lofgren.

Dear Mr. Gill :



Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about National Security Presidential Directive 51 ( NSPD -51). I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts with me.



I agree that NSPD -51 is very troubling. This directive apparently supplants the National Emergency Act, which allows the president to declare a national emergency but with strict Congressional oversight to nullify the President's decision. Bush's desire to bypass Congressional oversight and not treat Congress as a coequal branch of government has been clear throughout his presidency. However, now with Democrats in control of Congress, Bush is not able to do as he pleases without strict oversight from Democrats. We've been holding hearings on and investigations into the Bush Administration's NSA domestic spying and the political firings at the Department of Justice. You have my commitment to be an active and responsible participant in these efforts.

Again, thanks for being in touch. IF I may be of assistance to you or your family, please don't hesitate to contact me.



Sincerely

Zoe Lofgren

Member of Congress

[rhett o rick]

13. Thanks for sharing. My Congress people havent responded. nm

[rodeodance]

30. yet the response from the congresscritter seems vague to me as he does not say he is specifically lo

[MaryBear]

35. Zoe Lofgren is one we can expect to be a strong courageous patriot.

I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist. However, I have long suspected that Bushco will do anything to remain in power. Time for name calling of each other and attacking less preferred candidates is over.

MB

[Radio_Lady]

43. Great letter -- thanks for sharing. It reminds me that there are brains at work,

albeit slowly, in Congress.

I don't think the U.S. has the stomach for a pre-emptive strike on Iran. This pResident is largely in the area of LAME DUCK -- although I don't discount the terrible legacy that he will leave for the next man/woman.

I wish them much luck in dealing with "WHAT BUSH HATH WROUGHT..."

[krispos42]

17. Remember this post? "Bush proud that elections weren't cancelled"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2695365

From the Resident's post-2006 election radio address...

<snip>

One freedom that defines our way of life is the freedom to choose our leaders at the ballot box. We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war. Our democratic institutions are a source of strength, and our trust in these institutions has made America the most powerful, prosperous, and stable nation in the world.

(boldface mine)

<more>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061111.html

[rhett o rick]

20. How magnanimous of him to allow elections in a time of war.

That paragraph says a lot about his attitude toward the peons.

[krispos42]

22. Scary, isn't it?

And yet the Democrats are the party of civilian disarmament... :eyes:

[rodeodance]

28. yes, very

[pretzel4gore]

24. the sorta painted themselves into the corner

there's an old saying "Nothing fails like success when working for the devil"...years ago, i recall reading a Lewis Lapham lament that, though the left was supposed to prevent something from taking place, nothing happened cuz there was 'no left left' in USA, and the gopigs were a little shocked at their easy victory...that was pre 911, and as yall know, the gloves came off on 911, and ...well, who is losing here? we leftists want the imperialist pig nutted like a rabid dog, made peaceful by any means possible. Maybe the best way to destroy mr pig is give him everything he wants! While this post is made with the sense of the ridiculous up in front, yes, still the apathy we see while everyday very real children are buried alive etc in pursuit of fatso's goals, suggests justice might be a long term effect best served by the right's howling success in the short term- and bush benefits to the extent he gets away with murder, but, but, he destroyed what he was elected to lead! His grandad was hitler's financial helper, fercherissakes! klol.....

[question everything]

25. I think that our boy Bush has had enough

After seeing how Clinton managed to be in control with one hand constantly tied behind his back, Bush thought that being a president would be fun. It is not, and his numbers continue to spiraling so I really think that he will have a big sigh of relief in January 2009.

[illinoisprogressive]

29. I would not laugh at your assessment as we all know what Cheney is capable of

[rodeodance]

31. REC

[rhett o rick]

33. Thank you. nm

[rhett o rick]

34. I think Cheney would love to take over the Presidency.

He and his Neocon friends are tired of the total incompetence of Bush and his cronies. Maybe Bush will resign before 2008. Hmmmm

[LBJDemocrat]

40. I don't think any of the three are likely.

To be sure, the policy will be similar but with a different party (likely) and with a different clique of foreign policy intellectuals. Neoconservatives themselves have very little influence in the Democratic Party, but there are other circles who would advocate the same policies, only with different rationales.

Neoconservatives weren't responsible for Bill Clinton's defense policy.

Let's not forget that it's the big corporations that allow certain intellectual movements to become influential. The neocons have fallen out of favor, and they'll find others.

The neocons will be the scapegoats, and the president who kicks them out will have instant credibility in pursuing whatever plans he (i.e. his backers) want.

[truedelphi]

41. Involving ourselves in Iran is good, according to

The Powers that Be.

And our Iraqi Supplemental Funding Bill, the latest version that was passed, took out the Provision that stated that the President would have to go to Congress before proceeding towards
war with Iran - something that I believe is close to bringing about Armageddon.

Of course that would be a good thing too, don'cha know - we who have lived good lives and voted Republican would all be raptured out of this existence and put in heaven, right next to the terrorist suicide bombers and their seventy two virgins.

[Decruiter]

42. Thank you RHETT O RICK

This is the kind of topic I would like to see more of on DU.
It is not only worthy of the time to cogitate on, but it gives us all a platform where some of DU's best minds can contribute.
:thumbsup:

[Pachamama]

45. I've been worried about Scenario 3 for years now, I just didn't have a name for it...

Now that I know it can be referred to as "Presidential Directive 51", its got a name and I think it is something everyone should be aware of and also challenging.

Like you, I have always believed that you need to think a step ahead and ahead of what your opponent is going to be doing. The opponent being in this case of this administration and the Neo-con cabal that have taken over our country. There is no question in my mind that this administration and the people in power, have no intention of giving up this power. They have also shown such arrogance and confidence about being able to get away with things that it makes one wonder. I have come to the conclusion that they know that they have all the pieces in place and that they are full steam ahead.

So thank you for pointing out the Elephant in the Room that no one is talking about it and should...all Americans should be talking about this and should be stopping this.

[rhett o rick]

48. Vigilance is not enough, action is needed. Write yur congress-critters. nm

[CRH]

50. I don't think the implementation of Presidential Directive 51, ...

is viable for the purpose of canceling the election process. The reason is I think the logic in your post depends too heavily on the 'evil neo con' as being the tap root of all that is wrong with the politics in play. It leans too heavily on the theory that the money behind the politics in this country is captive to the single neo con ideology. I feel a closer reality is that the money behind the politics of the world's largest unregulated free market capitalist economy, can work equally well with the 'new democrat' neo liberal ideology.

The neo liberal platform promoting globalization and free trade, privatization of all of the public sector, corporate person hood, corporate welfare, tax reductions for the wealthiest, global economic and military hegemony, among other issues; all promote a friendly economic environment for the corporatist free market economy of hyper capitalism.

In this circumstance there is nothing to be gained by lending support through acceptance or coercion, of one ideology over the other, as long as the fundamentals of economic subjugation of the masses allows for the consolidation of profits into the coffers of the few. For the power behind the politics, the difference between neoconservative republicans and neo liberal democrats is of little consequence to wealth, but does provide a small amount of entertainment of how the pesky social issues of abortion, religion, racial and sexual discrimination, and the such, play out in our national drama.