WHAT IF...Another 9/11-Like Event Shook America Next Spring?

[Mr. Ected]

And WHAT IF the Repukes began pointing fingers again at the Democratic Party, and called it weak on terror and defense?

And WHAT IF the Bush/Cheney cabal groomed their candidate...say, FRED THOMPSON...to repeat every mantra that we've heard since 2001? Anointed him as the New Bush. Handed the baton to him.

Would that effectively allow Bush to retain his office...albeit by proxy?

Are we about to get set up AGAIN?

That prospect frightens me more than any other.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Even more likely:

He has the power to declare martial law. He can do that and cancel the election all together.

[Mr. Ected]

2. See, I've Thought That Scenario Through

And it dawned on me that that type of power-play may be a bit TOO obvious.

Allowing the elections to take place, but inserting a proxy candidate, is more like those sneaky bastards.

[cali]

8. I don't believe you could effectively

even begin to enforce martial law here. Put aside the fact that we're a country awash in guns. We have laws preventing the use of the military for law enforcement. Even with the law enabling the prez to use the National Guard, this is a huge country. There aren't enough people to do it. Add to that, many Governors would refuse to go along with it.

[Zywiec]

13. I'm with you. Who would enforce martial law? n/t

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

14. Blackwater, NG, Freepers, Dominionist militias, etc...? (nt)

[Zywiec]

16. LOL - OK n/t

[tuckessee]

17. The main line in martial law is your local police.

There's more than enough people to implement martial law. Police of all levels, military, NG, PMC's, small numbers of invited foreign troops, deputized civilians, etc.

There might not be enough to quell a rebellion, but there's more than enough to force martial law on a passive population.

[benEzra]

24. Except that Americans, when pushed hard enough, are not a "passive population."

Martial law would never fly with the vast majority of Americans, or with most servicemen/servicewomen or local law enforcement. It just wouldn't.

Invited foreign troops would be political suicide for any party that tried it. Ditto for trying to institute martial law via a mercenary force.

And if the authorities got the nerve to pulling the round-up-people's-guns thing a la post-Katrina New Orleans, America would abruptly cease to be the "passive population" that you speak of. Americans tend to get uppity about things like that; one might recall some unpleasantness that occurred when British law enforcement tried to sieze some British farmers' guns in Massachusetts a couple centuries ago, as part of a broader attempt at martial law. It was, to say the least, counterproductive for the authorities.

Given that the United States does not have widespread gun registration, and allows free ownership of rifles by the law-abiding as long as they are non-automatic, martial law is not really an enforceable proposition in this country, and until that changes, it won't be. Which is, after all, the purpose of the Second Amendment, IMHO.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. Agreed except irt local law enforcement

They would line up to inflict martial law on us--they've been (pretty much) successfully lobbying to do it for thirty odd years.

[davekriss]

39. I don't see it

"And if the authorities got the nerve to pulling the round-up-people's-guns thing a la post-Katrina New Orleans, America would abruptly cease to be the 'passive population' that you speak of."

Well, guns were rounded up in NO. Were was the rebellion then? We had a successful bloodless coup on December 12 2000, why wasn't there a massive sustained march on Washington to throw the usurper out? A half a million did march on Washington on February 15 2003 to keep Bush from launching his illegal war, but Bush had his war anyway. Bush tortures despite the Geneva Convention and the common morality of the American people. He renders people to black op prisons, disappears others into Guantanamo, spys on American citizens, yet outside the free speech zones of the internet there's hardly a peep. I think your confidence in an abrupt change in the passive American population is wishful thinking. It can happen here, we can and are mimicking the Wiemar Republic.

[benEzra]

45. Had it not been stopped almost as soon as it was started,

the New Orleans door-to-door confiscations could have gone very badly, once the word got out what the CHP/DEA were doing. Some of the first responders in NO post-Katrina are members of a gun forum I frequent (both police and Guard units represented), and there were a LOT of police and NG who basically said "hell, no" when the order came down. The only units that actually carried out any door-to-door confiscations in New Orleans, AFAIK, were the California Highway Patrol, one Oklahoma state guard unit, and some Drug Enforcement Administration agents, but the above were basically loose cannons and got shut down almost immediately.

And the only way they were able to do as much as they did was because by and large, honest people trusted them. Once word got out, that trust wouldn't have lasted, and in a future disaster there would probably be a lot more skepticism of the authorities' intentions. Which, ultimately is yet another sad commentary on just how badly the Katrina fiasco was handled.

I do agree with you that the threshold for people getting uppity is pretty high--and rightly so--but there are some things that would cross that line. Mass arrests of dissidents would, I think; attempts at gun confiscation would; and I think depending on the scenario, some "martial law" scenarios would, depending on the measures implemented (not mere curfews and such, though).

I do see the similarities to the Weimar Republic--and they are alarming (not only the sociopolitical similarities, but the economic ones). But at some point--1938, 1939, 1940--I think there might have been uprisings, had the Nazis' victims retained the means to do so. Warsaw comes to mind, and had Warsaw been repeated a thousandfold, the entire Wehrmacht would not have been able to do what the SS and Gestapo did in Germany and the occupied countries, IMHO.

[davekriss]

52. "hell, no" is encouraging

Buzzflash posted an interesting interview with Naomi Wolf on Tuesday, available here:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/077

I pluck out a few paragraphs (I recommend reading it as a whole):

We have a mindset, which is that democracy is the resilient rule. Historically it is fragile exception. Democracies take nurturing. They're easy to pull down. The Founders understood that. It's a very dangerous time.

In Italy, in the early 1920s, people just couldn't believe it. And in Germany, from 1931-1933, they just couldn't believe it. You read the memoirs, and people were saying, surely, no one's going to go for this. Surely, this can't last. Surely, no one will put up with these thugs marching in the streets like this. Surely, we will all come to our senses.

The trouble is, this mindset is very, very dangerous when it's a different game being played. There is this scene in which Mussolini is marching on Rome, and the members of Parliament are still trying to negotiate with him -- offering him various cabinet positions. They think it's still a democracy, and he just waits for them to get it.

<snip>

There's a kind of hypnosis that invoking the war on terror, invoking 9/11 in the mass media, creates. That's why Congress has been so cowed. Off the record, they say to us that they can't be more aggressive because they're afraid of being seen as soft on terror. They can't be more aggressive about liberty, and protecting liberty, and preventing these power grabs, because they don't want to be seen as soft on terror. That's why it's so important for people to understand that, historically, it is an absolute constant for a would-be tyrant to invoke a terrorist threat -- often, a real terrorist threat.

The national socialists continually invoked Bolshevik terrorism and violence. And there was Bolshevik terrorism and Bolshevik violence. There were communist terrorists. By the same token, Pinochet eased his way in by telling Chilean citizens about insurgents who were going to engage in this spectacular act of terrorism, a mass assassination, and he showed citizens the purported weapons caches on television. He used fake documents to hype a real threat, which again is quite common in history -- like the fake documents the White House relied on to lie to us about the yellowcake threat.

It's absolutely standard for would-be dictators to invoke a terrorist threat, and it can be a real terrorist threat. What they'll do is they'll hype it, or manipulate the information. Or heighten the fear level. The reason is it enables them to subdue people.

I share only to entice you to read the whole interview. Quite chilling, what's clearly underway in the U.S. More chilling is the realization what transpired in each of Naomi's historical references: There is no easy way back to democracy from the point we've reached.

[yardwork]

18. I think that a combination of martial law and propaganda has already worked well.

We already have martial law. It's just invisible to most people. That's how fascism begins. By the time it dawns on most people that they've been fooled into supporting martial law, it's too late to struggle against it.

[HughBeaumont]

22. Like loading up both sides with pro-corporation candidates?

And marginalizing or Wellstoning those who pose a threat to the bloodbath gravy train?

[yardwork]

23. Yes.

[Mr. Ected]

29. By Using the Old Argument, "If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Don't Have To Worry"

Except that EVERYONE has something to hide.

[warren pease]

27. No more laws preventing military use for law enforcement...

There used to be the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 to prevent that very thing. It states:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Which means that the federal government can't use federal troops -- or federalized state troops, i.e., Guard units -- as a national law enforcement agency, except under certain exceptions which must fall under Constitutional law or be OKed by Congress.

Unfortunately, Posse Comitatus died in a little-known provision of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, signed Oct. 17 last year. This was unremarked upon, and of course unreported, because Bush signed the Military Commissions Act on the same day, which took this country all the way back to the 12th century be repealing habeas corpus.

Also, governors no longer have a say in how their guard troops are deployed. Thanks to the FY 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, which amends the 1807 Insurrection Act (ironically conceived as a way to limit presidential power by relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection) by inserting this language:

"Clarifying the President's authority, under section 33 of chapter 15, to use the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, without a request from a State governor, to restore order and enforce Federal laws in cases where, as a result of a terrorist attack, epidemic, or natural disaster, public order has broken down."

Finally, it's only a huge country geographically. Lock down the population centers -- major metro areas -- and the job's pretty much done. You can always deal with the rural population later, since they're relatively isolated, their numbers aren't particularly significant compared with urban populations and a certain percentage of them are BushBots anyway.


wp


Links here: http://tinyurl.com/2uaa2b

and here: http://tinyurl.com/ymfztb

and here: http://tinyurl.com/2jowmu

and in finer stores wherever google is sold...

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. But, the terrorists would BE HERE with chemical/biological weapons and,...

,...martial law would be necessary for our protection and our freedom and our way of life.
:silly:

[Individualist]

34. That's what the MSM would be spewing 24/7,

along with "it's your patriotic duty to support martial law". Far too many would obey the teevee.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

36. If the next attack involves any biological or chemical agent, fear will be used to,...

,...manipulate the masses. Why figure any different? :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. How many contractors are in Iraq?

And they are being kicked out, if the Iraqis get their way.

I honestly don't believe Bush is crazy enough to do this, but he absolutely CAN if he wants to.

[Prophet 451]

54. About those guns

I've often wondered this: How many of those guns belong to Bush-loving Freeper types (i.e. the remaining 22% of die-hard Bush supporters)?

[nashville_brook]

3. an expansion of the war would have the same effect.

[Warpy]

4. It's even money at this point that it would backfire

because people would realize that Stupid & Co. have done NOTHING to protect us and bin Laden is still on the loose, thanks to them.

Still, no executive of any country has amassed the kind of power Stupid has and left office gracefully at the end of his term.

We might indeed have to figure out a way to throw him out.

[Mr. Ected]

7. The American People Have Been Duped Time and Time Again

The politics of fear tend to cause people to abandon reason and believe the propaganda.

[renie408]

49. Can you cite something other than your own paranoia? If we could hold an election in 1864

We can hold one in 2008, no matter what is going on.

[MadHound]

5. Then our country's history as a democracy will be dead

As Bushco will declare martial law, and the people in this country, out of fear and stupidity will welcome it with open arms.

I saw a poll here on DU a few years back stating that something like seventy percent of the population would want martial law declared in the case of another attack. Sad how fear has deprived this country of all reason.

Frankly, I'm expecting another "attack" for just that very reason, sometime before next fall. Call me a cynic, but the sad thing is my cynicism is surpassed by actual events time and again.

[shadowknows69]

26. I heard that

when does our cynicism become prophecy? After the fact I suppose.

[againes654]

6. We would be in deep...well you know

:hide:

[babylonsister]

9. Can you say 'coup'?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x310208

[Bitwit1234]

10. IF we had an attack - this time it would defiantly be the bush

administrations fault...they have been given, money, laws, cooperation and they still let it happen...they wouldn't get out of that one.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. They would, most likely, try to blame the Democrats, but I think

this time it would land squarely at their feet.

[bpeale]

12. i think you could safely say BULLSHIT

two hits on america on THEIR watch

[Mr. Ected]

15. Never Underestimate the Gullibility of the American Public

Despite all evidence to the contrary, I'm not at all convinced that the American people would turn their back on their "sincerely despondent" POS President. Nope. They've been duped before, and they'll be duped again.

[truebrit71]

19. They wouldn't declare martial law...too big of a task...i DO believe that they would make sure the

rethuglican candidate was fully on board, most likely PRIOR to the attack, and come out in full support of that candidate whilst lambasting the Dems for being weak on terror...

I think an attack is probable, but martial law/staying in office is unlikely...They will use the attack to try and destroy the Dems and whip up favourable sentiment to nuke Iran...kinda like 9/11...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. The examples set by Argentina and Uruguay are not promising

In the 1970s, some Argentine student radicals killed a few people, and in Uruguay, a group known as the Tupamaros kidnapped and killed a U.S. official widely known to be CIA.

The military in both countries declared martial law and were welcomed by the majority of the population.

Even after the Argentine generals extended their repression beyond the student radicals to anyone who might have known a student radical and then to anyone who protested the repression (an eventual total of 30,000 people killed in secret), the majority of the population went along with it until--get this!--the Argentine military was defeated by the British in the battle over the Falkland Islands in 1983.

Yes, repression and murder of their fellow citizens was just fine, but to embarrass the country by losing a silly war over a couple of windswept islands? Oooh, bad.

[davekriss]

42. A functioning police state needs no police

"A functioning police state needs no police."
-- William S. Burroughs

Of course they won't declare martial law until they believe it will be, if not welcomed, at least passively accepted by the majority of the population. That's how these things are done. And I believe we're almost there.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. next spring? then it would be Bush's fault?

Dems need to look strong and GOP weak. I'm sure the GOP will try anything to cling onto power.

[warren pease]

25. As you may have seen posted elsewhere... (a long and winding essay; don't attempt to read if drowsy)

All your "what ifs" seem entirely reasonable, given BushCo's uncanny ability to ratchet up the fear that seems to have replaced common sense and rational behavior in large segments of the American public. And I certainly don't think they're above using another "attack" on the US as the excuse to nuke Iran, declare a de facto dictatorship and anoint whoever they hell they please (or just keep the current winning team in place). I think the possibility exists well before next spring, too.

Those of us in and around Portland, Oregon are a bit troubled by the upcoming massive "anti-terrorism exercises" scheduled to begin Oct 15 in Portland, Phoenix and Guam. Portland seems to be the hub of activity; a FEMA news release says more than 15,000 security types working for the federales (DHS, NSA, FBI, DoD, Oregon Guard, etc.), dozens of NGOs (could be Red Cross, could be Blackwater), and local public health agencies will be involved. This is the largest such exercise ever staged on US soil, according to a DHS news release and fact sheet.

The exercises are called TopOFF 4 (for "Top Officials") and Vigilant Shield 08. TopOFF 4 simulates the detonation of a "dirty bomb" in Portland and how responding agencies deal with the subsequent infrastructure damage, health and safety consequences, general public chaos and telecom capability maintenance, to name a few. Vigilant Shield 08 is an exercise that simulates imposition of martial law as part of the organized response to the dirty nuke event.

As the Overlord himself said (who will be in Portland 10/16, btw), "The greatest threat now is 'a 9/11' occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities… it’s a very real threat." Dick Cheney, April 15, 2007. I'm sure it is, Dicky, if your pudgy little hands are all over it.

On the surface, this looks like nothing worse than an impending traffic nightmare. But nothing is "face value" when it involves BushCo. Recent political developments, as well as recent history, suggest the chance of far more sinister outcomes, including the possibility of this being a "false flag" operation, perpetrated by government-funded covert operatives piggy-backing on a scheduled exercise, mirroring the scenario being played out in the simulation, then using the exercise as cover to stage a bogus terror attack, which is then blamed on whatever "patsies" happen to be the current objects of national fear and hatred – since 9/11/01, that's been Osama bin Laden and the shadowy Al Qaeda terrorist group (which may or may not be a BushCo creation). Such a false flag op means this exercise would "go live," exactly duplicating the exercise scenario, as did training drills on 9/11/01 and 7/7/05 (the London train bombings).

Evidence is, of course, all circumstantial, since the DHS hasn't had the decency to issue a news release that says, "Oh, by the way, you in Portland -- we're going to kill or irradiate as many of you as possible and use your death and suffering as the excuse to transition from a dying democracy to an emerging dictatorship."

However, here are a few things that people out here have been connecting:

- The template seems to work. For example (and skip this part if you already know about it), on the morning of 9/11/01, Cheney was running at least five different war game scenarios, at least one of which involved hijacked airliners running into skyscrapers and various DC government buildings. One result was that NORAD jet interceptors, which would have been deployed in minutes at the first hint of a hijacking – much less four of them – had been sent to Alaska or northern Canada as part of the exercise. Meanwhile, NORAD radar screens, as well as those of civilian air traffic controllers, showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD and the FAA had been briefed that this was part of the exercise and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.

As we all know, after having lived in the post-9/11 world for far too long, that "attack" was the single catalyzing event that made the Bush administration's entire criminal assault on decency, legitimacy and the Constitution possible. Is it out of line to hypothesize that those who benefited most from the crime should at least be on the list of suspects?

- The false flag game was played to perfection in London on 7/7/05, when three underground train stations were bombed, along with an off-course city bus. There were mock terror drills of the exact same scenario – bombs in the subways and on a wayward bus – going on at the exact times and locations that the real bombings occurred. Surveillance cameras in nearly all the bombed subways and the bus were conveniently turned off or out of order. Witnesses and physical evidence indicate that the bombs were not brought aboard in backpacks by "terrorists" but actually attached underneath the trains, indicating a level of access to the train cars unavailable to outsiders. Bruce Lait, an injured witness said, “The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train.”

And, as in the US, the British public was indoctrinated through fear and terror to support measures to restrict their own liberties and submit to their government’s will in return for “protection.”

- And you've heard of Operation Northwoods? According to ABC News, "In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: 'We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,' and, 'casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.'"

So the notion that there are some things so disgusting that even governments won't touch doesn't wash.

Most of us know that we are, in fact, governed by madmen who are guided by the PNAC agenda, driven by lust for ever more power (along with the money that power brings to themselves and their cronies), and seemingly OK with risking WW III to bring Iran the same freedoms we brought to Iraq. All this coupled with a pathological aversion to criticism, which impels them to enact increasingly harsh measures to punish domestic dissent, and we've got a pretty volatile mix -- just in time for TopOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield 08 to hit town.

We're also concerned about predictions of and calls for new "terrorist" attacks on the US by some GOP higher-ups apparently seeing such attacks as a way to save the Bush presidency and the GOP. These warnings and wishes include the rumblings of DHS secretary Michael Chertoff's gut, former senator Rick Santorum pining for an attack to recharge the GOP's batteries, and Dennis Milligan, head of the Arkansas GOP, who actually said "… I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on , and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

The venerable Ann Coulter, ever quick with a quip, narrowed it down to an attack on a single person. On the Good Morning America TV show back in June, Coulter wished for the death of a Democratic presidential candidate, saying, "If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” All with her usual flair and style, mysterious adam's apple bobbing away.

Meanwhile, right wing columnists and pundits have been beating the drums for another "terrorist attack on America." Stu Bykofsky, writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, titled a recent column "To save America, we need another 9/11." He went on to claim that, "It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."

Bykofsky later appeared on Fux Nudes "The Big Story," where host John Gibson agreed with and validated Bykofsky’s thesis. “I think it’s going to take a lot of dead people to wake America up,” said Gibson. Just what this country needs: a lot of dead people.

In conclusion, we hope with all our hearts that we're wrong, and that this upcoming set of exercises and simulations is exactly what we've been told it is. We would much rather be labeled paranoid loons than watch as the worst case becomes reality. But it would be naïve to trust an administration that has proven time and again that it exists solely to perpetuate its own power, further enrich itself and its cronies in the petroleum and armaments industries and crush the cries of those whose outrage is only a mild impediment to implementing their malevolent agenda.

So that's the sentiment out here, at least among the paranoid loon contingent. You can have a look at this website and decide for yourselves whether we're just idiotic fantasists with too much time on our hands, or if there's legitimate grounds for concern. http://tinyurl.com/25lak4

I'd go on, but I just got this important email message from:
THE DESK OF DR.RAMADAN ABDU
BILL AND EXCHANGE MANAGER,
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
OUAGADOUGOU, BURKINA FASO.

He's proposing an incredible business partnership that could net me millions. I need to follow up immediately. See you later.

wp

[Mr. Ected]

28. I Don't Think It's A Matter of "If", But Rather "When"

And I believe that's EXACTLY what the Bush/Cheney cabal and all their sycophants have been telling us for years now.

But I also think that most DU-ers believe that Bush will somehow declare martial law and postpone elections and retain the presidency indefinitely. That is a distinct possibility...but my gut tells me that elections will take place...and a Bush clone...and Thompson fits that mold...will take over where Bushco left off.

[spanone]

30. now that blackwater is getting domestic contracts.....

they were hired for NOLA

scary shit.

[Kelly Rupert]

32. WHAT IF...it didn't? n/t

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ezlivin]

35. DU would make another dungeon...er, forum, for those who thought it was LIHOP/MIHOP

You could go there and read endless debates that largely amount to "he said, she said" and see fuzzy video clips purporting to solve the puzzle.

[renie408]

50. AMEN. n/t

[Emit]

38. They can't give it to Thompson

They've already promised it to Rudy.

[slackmaster]

40. You seem to be lost

The tinfoil hat form is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

[Mr. Ected]

41. I'm Assuredly Not Lost

But go ahead and believe in this government as long as you wish.

[slackmaster]

43. Oh, so not buying into wacky conspiracy theories means I believe in the .gov?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Mr. Ected]

55. What Part of the OP Relies On Conspiracy Theories?

Strange. I wrote it. And yet I cannot, for the life of me, discern from those few words the inference that Bush/Cheney would be behind another 9/11-type attack.

I raised the question...IF an event took place...would the Repukes be able to recreate the "Dems are soft on terror" campaign that suited them so well in 2002 and 2004?

And would they be able to skirt the whole martial law thing by using a puppet...THOMPSON, for instance?

Please learn to read more carefully before ridiculing.

[Bucky]

46. Oooh, and WHAT IF it starts raining meteors on Blue States on election day?

Man, we'd be totally screwed then.

[renie408]

51. God, the next thing I am going to read is a thread started about the meteor conspiracy. n/t

[earth mom]

47. It may be much sooner than you think.

:scared:

[renie408]

48. No. That is silly. It would have happened on HIS watch.

And I honestly don't think there is any point at which the American people are going to stand for something like a President staying after his official time is up. It may give us a hard time when it comes to the election, but George has to leave when his terms run out.

[robertpaulsen]

53. Under that scenario, they wouldn't push Thompson. It would be Gingrich. n/t