Iran, the sacking of Peter Pace, nukes, unfettered presidential power, and martial law

i really need to stop reading paul craig roberts... he takes all the creepy-crawlies that start skittering around in my mind when i stand back and look at what is really happening and puts them in black and white...

(btw, not meaning to break my arm patting myself on the back, but i offered the very same rationale for pace's sacking back on june 9... i also posted on NSPD 51 and HSPD-20 back on may 20 and commented on how nicely they seem to fit with the martial law provision of Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act, another post i put up back on april 25...)

"It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."

General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Press Club, February 17, 2006.

"They will be held accountable for the decisions they make. So they should in fact not obey the illegal and immoral orders to use weapons of mass destruction."

General Peter Pace, CNN With Wolf Blitzer, April 6, 2003

[...]

The Bush regime has concluded that a conventional attack on Iran would do no more than stir up a hornet's nest and release retaliatory actions that the US could not manage. The Bush regime is convinced that only nuclear weapons can bring the mullahs to heel.

The Bush regime's plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons puts General Pace's departure in a different light. How can President Bush succeed with an order to attack with nuclear weapons when America's highest ranking military officer says that such an order is "illegal and immoral" and that everyone in the military has an "absolute responsibility" to disobey it?

An alternative explanation for Pace's departure is that Pace had to go so that malleable toadies can be installed in his place.

Pace's departure removes a known obstacle to a nuclear attack on Iran, thus advancing that possible course of action. A plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons might also explain the otherwise inexplicable "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" (NSPD-51 AND HSPD-20) that Bush issued on May 9. Bush's directive allows him to declare a "national emergency" on his authority alone without ratification by Congress. Once Bush declares a national emergency, he can take over all functions of government at every level, as well as private organizations and businesses, and remain in total control until he declares the emergency to be over.

Who among us would trust Bush, or any president, with this power? What is the necessity of such a sweeping directive subject to no check or ratification?

[...]

A speculative answer is that, with appropriate propaganda, the directive could be triggered by a US nuclear attack on Iran. The use of nuclear weapons arouses the ultimate fear. A US nuclear attack would send Russian and Chinese ICBMs into high alert. False flag operations could be staged in the US. The US media would hype such developments to the hilt, portraying danger everywhere. Fear of the regime's new detention centers would silence most voices of protest as the regime declares its "national emergency."

This might sound like a far-out fiction novel, but it is a scenario that would explain the Bush regime's lack concern that the shrinking Republican vote that foretells a massive Republican wipeout in the 2008 election. In a declared national emergency, there would be no election.

As implausible as this might sound to people who trust the government, be aware that despite his rhetoric, Bush has no respect for democracy. His neoconservative advisors have all been taught that it is their duty to circumvent democracy, as democracy does not produce the right decisions. Neoconservatives believe in rule by elites, and they regard themselves as the elite. The Bush regime decided that Americans would not agree to an invasion of Iraq unless they were deceived and tricked into it, and so we were.

[...]

Americans might have more awareness of their peril if they realized that their leaders no longer believe in democratic outcomes.

i really wish i didn't agree with him... the kind of scenario roberts spells out is PRECISELY the kind of scenario that nobody in this country chooses to see or, more accurately, hasn't paid close enough attention to to understand how carefully the stage has been set for it to play out... using roberts' term, the bush "regime" - precisely the correct word imho - is extraordinarily dangerous, not only for this country but also for the world... i think these criminals are both perfectly capable and perfectly willing to carry out such a catastrophic plan... i would sincerely hope, however, that prior to its execution, the enormity of it would leak out and inspire our somnolent populace to finally undertake to throw the bastards out so we can start with the hard work of getting our country back...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet