I think we are witnessing a military coup

Seymour M. Hersh this morning on Democracy Now talked of how well retired Marine Colonel John Murtha of Pennsylvania is to current Pentagon officials and that he was conveying the real thoughts of the military officers who know what is going on.
I just watched a Rummy news conference where the military officer he was standing with just about put words in Rummys mouth while stating over Rums protest that anyone witnessing abuse must physically stop it. The uniformed man was definitely in charge.
Can it be that Mr. Hershs article in the current New Yorker about *s mental condition is on target and that responsible people in our government are taking control under the radar?

That's a common mis-perception.

but he ain't pushing the buttons.

Cheers
Drifter

but he still can't reach the pedals.

Cheers
Drifter

running the show but as the world saw when that plane veered into White House air space, they didn't even bother to find and protect the little asshole nor did they even tell him. Sort of like he ran around for two days after 911 and Cheney and Co. called the shots.

He's nothing but a pompous little figurehead.

WAKE UP.

Someone was talking on msnbc about some WH "inner circle" sending muted messages to the President through the media. It's possible that there is some concerted effort on a number of fronts to restrain this President...

The real coup was in 2000, let's not forget.

if the military were in fact to dispose a President if a consensus of those in contact concluded the Pres was indeed insane?

Well, actually I think the grunts' oath has a phrase about the president but the officers oath doesn't. Someone posted the two not too long ago.

edit: Given that the Constitution is the priority, I believe it would be ok for the military to 'capture' the president and cabinet or whoever was threatening the Constitution. What the military does after that, is where the trouble lies.

Any Counter-Coup after what happened in 2000 is welcomed by me. Couldn't get any worst.

Civilian Bloodless coups are as bad as it gets...it appears!

for this kind of sentiment

We already had a coup...that's the point.....and not too many seem to mind it all that much.

PS - Pinochet was installed by the U.S. Government ran by Civilians. And Iraq was invaded based on the command and votes of civilians.

Far as I'm concerned, it's the civilians we should be afraid of.

all they need to do is help us have fair elections next year and in 08, and we'll be fine.

Pretty tempting situation for those who have the means to grab the reins.

Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs and Def Sec.

But I think it's true that the military brass do not like the "civilian leadership" in the Pentagon, nor are they fond of the rest of the administration; and I don't think the CIA likes them much, either.

But I don't think there's an all-out rebellion going on at this point.

And currently between Wolf Ticket and Tweety "the president is a swell guy" Matthews...and fatass lazy Tim Russert.....we ain't in the best of shape!

But we should all sit back and think about how bad it's got to be to have both the Pentagon and the CIA pissed off at the Admin. Hell, if they hadn't declared martial law over at the FBI and made them swear loyalty oaths, they would probably be getting in their face, too.

days after Murtha submitted his to congress and not long after Kerry submitted his to the senate.

Coincidence that all these men were also in consultation with each other in early September?

Burt Lancaster's General was the loony one, and Frederik March's Prez was the sane one. In this case the Resident is the one who NEEDS to be relieved. Unfortunately, your post implies that the military is run by "responsible" people. THat's pretty optimistic, IMO.

Like all the Generals who told him he was full of shit for invading Iraq.

Sad commentary on US politics that a military coup would probably be an improvement over the current situation.

Or at least it would have been before Rummy stacked the Pentagon with boot-lickers and smirky yes men. Too many of the officers with integrity have retired or been asked to retire.

If the military officer ranks now reflects the character of Rumsfeld...coup or no coup.....we're still in deep deep doo-doo!

It is entirely possible it isn't the upper echelons that are mad but the everyone else on down, with exceptions of course. If a coup happens it is entirely possible that a group of colonels and Brigadier Generals who flew under Rummy's radar might knock out their superiors first then make a run on DC. That is a mildly disturing possibility.

Keeping in mind the last president who ONLY pissed off the CIA was JFK, and we know what happened there, I don't think there HAS been a pres who has succeeded in doing that with the military. If Bush has both of the rank and file mid-ranking officers and agents pissed he is in such deep shit.

and has a direct line to the Dunce as his senior military adviser. The Dunce, not Rummy, picked him. There is no senior-subordinate relationship with Rummy, in fact, odds are that Pace could get in the Monkey's door easier than SECDEF. He also advises the NSC and the SECDEF. He has NO authority to commit troops, he is a big picture, "strategery" kind of guy.

Look, the country is not set up to do the coup thing. We do not have the internal military infrastructure, the bases, the ability to spread out and take control of the streets. Hell, we couldn't even help friken NOLA when the hurricane hit in a timely manner.

What is happening is that some non-KoolAid drinking flag and general officers in the Pentagon, who know Murtha well because he stays in close touch with them over military issues, have asked Murtha to carry their water for him. Why? Because THE MONKEY DOES NOT HEAR what they say--EVERYTHING is going through the Rummy-Cheney filter, and the gripes are not getting to the top.

What the 'senior military leaders for sanity' did, in essence, was use Jack Murtha to go over the Monkey's head directly to the American people.

Remember the officer's oath--there is NOTHING in it that says they have to support the Pretzeldunce, like there is in the enlisted oath. They pledge fealty to the CONSTITUTION, and it is an IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the (branch of service), as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Monkey is looking a lot like a domestic enemy, if he keeps this shit up with the torture, the foolish adventurism, the abrogation of civil liberties and rights...those officers who approached Murtha are genuine patriots, not faux ones.


Pete and Rummy, today:



Edited because I lazily tried to hotlink and the damned image was ENORMOUS!!!

I think Pace will turn out to be a shitload better than Little Dickie Meyers. The fact that this thing with Murtha happeend now tells me that Pace was part of it. It never happened under Myyers cuz Meyers was a suck-up jerk. Not a bad man, just not a leader. More an administrator. Pace, on the other hand, strikes me as the leader type.

Plus, being of Italian heritage, I'm happy to see an Italian-American in the CJCS slot.

and now a military coup in 2005?

is America dead, long live Murka?

I don't care how bad it is right now, a coup would be worse because it would demolish the whole institutional premises of this country regarding transition of power through elections.

I find people being comfortable with a coup a deeply disturbing phenomenon --- especially on a Democratic discussion board.

Diebold has assured us of that.

:kick:

from someone.

But I don't buy it.
An actual military coup would be worse.

The attitude of your opinion is exactly why I have problems with the emphasis on election fraud.

Of course, election fraud is a major problem, but if there were a military coup everyone would be nostalgic for the days of election fraud.

Also, I am very suspicious of a belief that says we can't do it through elections so let's have a military coup -- that is the implication of your position.
A very dangerous thesis.

& I stand by what I wrote before - I find it very disturbing to see such attitudes on a Democratic discussion board.

Anyone who fantasizes about a military coup is nuts or just plain ignorant.

ditto.
Should be obvious to anyone who thinks.

We have some hyperbole going on here, I hope.

time ago.

But they didn't. I don't think they're very anxious to actually run things. But arguably many in the military and intel agencies are anxious to end the misgovernment we now have.

BUT....I just have to ask what is the problem with removing this nutcase, and his entourage with military force??? I guess I don't have a problem with the military like some seem too?...What is it with the apparent disregard for the military, attitude anyway? What good would it do to impeach * and mr.cheney? and how would you get rid of the whole admin at once, since you can't do it with impeachment? We figure two MAJOR elections have been stolen, along with other ones, in between 2000 and now. We've been lied into a war, that there is NO way out of, the rich got richer by far, while the poor suffer more, an American city was destroyed while our numbskull in chief ate cake, more and more Americans are losing their jobs, and it's just getting harder and harder to make ends meet...How else are you going to change things? You willing to wait 3 more years to see what's left of this country to rescue? You willing to test elections for fairness, one more time? You willing to wait 3 more years to see IF they intend to give up their power willingly, or how much more crooked things can get, or IF anyone/thing survives them?
The military swears to uphold OUR Constitution, that's what their allegiance is to...WHO BETTER to take over, until things can be straightened out? Seems as though we might not trust our own military??? Our Constitution states, that it is OUR RIGHT, no it is OUR DUTY, to remove any government that is no longer doing what we want it to do, and how would we do that w/out the military?...sooooo I don't know...I guess I just don't worry about a military take over, as much as I worry about what's waiting for us down the road 3 more years, with Bush at the helm...and I suppose I could be wrong?
windbreeze

That's why things are as bad as they are.

How do you explain why things are as bad as they are?

The institutional premises have been weakened, not demolished. The idea that the premises have been demolished is very short sighted and is not looking at the big picture.
If you think they're demolished now if there really was a coup you'd see that what has happened up until now is peanuts by comparison.
If the institutional premises had been demolished, to give just one example, none of the Gitmo detainees would have seen a lawyer at all at this point -- but they have.

Things are as bad as they are because you have a combination of people attempting to demolish the institutional premises combined with a fearful and apathetic populace.

I'd hate to see that populace combined with a military dictatorship -- because that's basically what a military coup means - a dictatorship, and if there is fear and apathy (or a sense of powerlessness) now it would be even more so after a coup.

Like another poster said - anyone who is entertaining a wish for a military coup is either nuts or ignorant -- at least in my opinion.

This is not some game on a video screen.

I think I should rephrase what I wrote before, I am not only disturbed, I am appalled at the idea of a military coup happening in this country.

I realize there is a risk of the military actually taking power - and keeping it. But i'd expect them to hand over power to a new civilian government.

At any rate, i think we're moving ever closer to a situation where enough people feel that some radical action should be taken to end this, so that it actually takes place.

Seems to me that if the military was so disillusioned with the processes of the civilian government that they staged a coup, there would be no reason to expect them to hand the power back to a civilian government after a coup.

Not in the real world anyway.

if civilian means representation as a means of self-governance of the people.
In my view, if the military would stage (or assist in) some kind of coup, it would be a counter-coup to reclaim the system of government.

... now wouldn't it?

I agree, the coup already happened....or does this current form our gov't has taken, represent US?...are we thrilled with what they do, in OUR NAMES...and insist that it continue? If that's so, then why do I see so much protesting, bitching and complaining about everything that happens, and people who keep hoping this next scandal will be the one that takes them all down..? yet, they just keep on, keeping on, like nothing, no matter how bad it is, even fazes them...why is that?? Have we admitted the degree of power it takes for them to be able to do this?

A caged animal is dangerous, and they don't fight fair, so I guess we can continue to play nice...but if * declares martial law and suspends the constitution, in the next couple years, in order not to be removed from OUR house on Pa. Avenue, how will we fight then?....

His current stance on Iraq is very telling as to HIS intent....."AS LONG AS I AM CIC, WE WILL FIGHT"..but, but, but, didn't the latest polls show some 70% favor immediate pullout...? IF this doesn't tell us something about his determination to have HIS way, then I admit, I am CONFUSED, and most likely very ignorant and uninformed..!!

Would there be risks to a military take over..sure, but I'd say, our place between a rock and a hard spot is getting tighter every day, and I seem to remember, we were also told by Kissinger and others over the years, that the changes would happen, slowly, right in front of our eyes..and we'd welcome them, in order to feel secure....I actually wish we could almost cast a "no confidence vote"...and oust this bunch...but we can't...nor can we impeach one of them, and leave the rest in power...so what do we do?

I know, let's just sit and wait and trust * to do right by us, or wait for the elections we hold, using rigged voting machines to turn things around for us..but IF that's the only way anyone can see the changes we need happening, or the only way that is acceptable, then I would suggest in the meantime, we also pray fervently and often!!
windbreeze

he treats them like common subordinates.

Look at what he did to Gen Shinseki

Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, 1809:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

==

A good follow up would be:

Fascism Then. Fascism Now?
Published on Monday, November 28, 2005 by the Toronto Star (Canada)
by Paul Bigioni
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1128-24.htm

When people think of fascism, they imagine Rows of goose-stepping storm troopers and puffy-chested dictators. What they don't see is the economic and political process that leads to the nightmare.

Observing political and economic discourse in North America since the 1970s leads to an inescapable conclusion: The vast bulk of legislative activity favors the interests of large commercial enterprises. Big business is very well off, and successive Canadian and U.S. governments, of whatever political stripe, have made this their primary objective for at least the past 25 years.

Digging deeper into 20th century history, one finds the exaltation of big business at the expense of the citizen was a central characteristic of government policy in Germany and Italy in the years before those countries were chewed to bits and spat out by fascism. Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business, and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity.

<more>

PNAC is a bank bought organization?

Is that what you are both saying?

Is that consistent with your opinion?

If so, then where shall we find the evidence to try them with treason?

It can't be that everyone knows this to be true, but that nobody knows where the evidence is.

of a transnational organization involving US and European banks and governments, that is the number one money laundering entity in the world.

Some info on who Indira Singh is, and some other things she has to say (amongst other things she corroberates Sibel Edmonds' story):

Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344


I'll see if i can transcribe some of the radio interview where she revealed the organization i mentioned above.

Besides that, one can deduce; money = power, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. All things war, corruption and related crimes require large amounts of money. Arguably this means that those entities where most money resides, have the most power.

At any rate, for me it is beyond doubt that the neocon gang that currently occupies the WH is not at the top of the food chain. (not that my opinion on this is supposed to convince you of anything).

Terrorists are actually soldiers of fortune working whether knowingly or not for the banks?

The bankers are behind it all? wtf?

And we are here in this sidebar of a thread without the eyes of the world on this?

More evidence and links, please.

No war takes place without financial support - a *lot* of financial support.

Also it isn't so much "the bankers" who are "behind it all" - it's that those people who are behind it all do own/control the banks, much in the same way that they control governments (case in point: the Bush admin), and transnational trade.

"Terrorists are actually soldiers of fortune" - i'd say that's pretty accurate. Indira Singh quotes one of her sources as saying "We're not a country any longer, we're run by a terrorist shell organization".


As to evidence, Indira's testimony before the 9-11 Citizens Commussion is good start, as is much of the other testimony before that commission, and articles by/about Sibel Edmonds. Those are linked in the "Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344

Another good source is the book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by UK journalist Greg Palast.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0745318460/102-2514244-0501739?v=glance&n=283155
www.gregpalast.com

None of these specifically mention banks as "being behind it all" but it does show that the largest economic and financial powers in the world are behind it. To me it speaks for itself that banks are amongst those powers. Come to think of it, Palast does specifically mention the World Bank (and the IMF and the WTO).

===

One particularly interesting case is that of the BCCI - the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which was investigated by John Kerry amongst others:

"The Bank of England was warned by Luxemburg regulators as far back as 1977 about major problems with auditing the collapsed Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a court heard today.
...Then Bank of England Governor Sir Gordon Richardson wrote on a memo about BCCI: 'They are not under effective review.'
http://thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid74568?source=


The BCCI Affair
A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate
By Senator John Kerry and Senator Hank Brown
December 1992
102d Congress 2d Session Senate Print 102-140
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

Appendix
Matters For Further Investigation
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/24appendic.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/01exec.htm


Spies hide as Bank faces BCCI charges
The Observer
Sunday January 19, 2003
By Conal Walsh
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,877668,00.html
“A mega-scandal much older than Enron or WorldCom is about to shake the British financial establishment. More than a decade after the spectacular collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, its creditors are finally to put the Bank of England in the dock. The stakes could not be higher for the Bank of England. It was the financial regulator in 1991 when the BCCI crashed with £7 billion of undeclared debts, and has long been accused of turning a blind eye to fraud at the Middle Eastern bank.
(…)
BCCI was founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a charismatic banker and mystic from Pakistan. It grew rapidly, and would eventually boast offices in 70 countries and 14,000 employees. But from the start, it had a taste for opaque finances. It was incorporated in two tax havens, Luxembourg and Grand Cayman, and used two sets of auditors, allowing it to avoid publishing meaningful consolidated accounts.
(…)

(The court case against the Bank of England has now ended, and nothing came of it.}

===

For now i'll leave you with a few quote from Sibel Edmonds:

"...we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization (Al Qaeda) and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation.

Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money."

"once this issue gets to be investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally," revealing the content of the FBI intercepts she heard indicates that recognizable, very high-profile American citizens are linked to the 911 attacks.

"There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized," further revealing that "some are heads of government agencies or politicians--but I don’t want to go any further than that,"
http://www.fathers.ca/fbi_cover-up.htm

That if he tries to push the button, they won't go along. Kind of like they did in Tricky Dick's last days.

when the military can see through the neocon/CNP-sponsored insanity. Support the troops, not Rumsfeld!

and they have probably had about all they can stomach. Their oaths... to one man or the nation/Constitution? I have a feeling many have weighed that question and made some hard decisions.

When Tenet resigned, I had a hunch it was just the beginning of a chess game. The shrub isn't even suited for checkers and the spooks/military all know it.

Even Darth Cheney cannot stand long if the REAL patriots have decided he is not an honorable master. There are limits to what sort of orders honorable people will follow. The junta has overplayed their hand/

Power is granted only by the consent of the governed. There are limits.
The honorable public servants have only to find a way to restore power to those who can legally wield it under the Constitution. They had best be working on Congress to get about the task of taking out the junta. I would think that effort is likely underway.

with both arms broken so he couldn't wave them in our face during anymore press conferences. And his tongue severely damaged so we would n't have to listen to his double talk about nothing about the unknowns and knowns.

The marine General head of the JCs doesn't seem like the coup type.

In the tiny possibility this was ever to happen in the US the only outcome would be bad.

things are so FUBAR in Iraq it looks like this is how this senior officer is supporting the troops (probably in direct opposition to the civil administration).

Seriously. If the media got behind it (or were simply clamped down on) most of the sheep would probably go along to get along.

Half of the people I see out there are so clueless and so lacking in any sense of outrage that it might not matter to them much, as long as it didn't effect their narrow lives.

What a sad thing to say

They think the CIA and the military are attempting a coup on this fine president of ours'. Check it out:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4988&search=leak

and:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1531867/posts

if only we WERE that powerful.

and the wounding of 17 just might help along the process. Too bad we don't really know who's couping who if it's taking place!

but it looks like it's just a happy (???) dream...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1960369&mesg_id=1960369