April 06, 2004

Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because itís going to happen."

Someone should remind Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest
of the "vast reich-wing conspiracy" Little Goebbels
air men that in the documents seized in Spain reveal
that it is Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) that Al
Qaeda fears, not the _resident. (Search the LNS database for the story.)
They want the _resident. Why not? He has poured gasoline on the
trash heap and set it on fire. He has fulfilled the
paranoid fantasies of the Islamic fundamentalists and
exalted Osama bin Laden in the process. Iraq has
slipped into chaos. Over sixty hundred US soldiers
have died. No WMD were found. The Taliban and Al Qaeda
have been allowed to regroup in Afghanistan. The US
economy is going sideways at best. Three million jobs
have been lost. There is a seven trillion dollar
national debt and a federal budget deficit of over
five hundred billion dollars. The hot white light of
former national security council official Richard
Clarke's sworn testimony has revealed the disturbing
dimensions of the Bush cabal's pre-9/11 incompetence
and post-9/11 cover-up. The _resident's CREDIBILITY is
NIL. The _resident's numbers are cratering, even in
the cooked polls of the Corporatist "US mainstream
news media."

Yes, beware the Franks Factor...

Maureen Farrel, www.buzzflash.com: In Nov. 2003, you
might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado
magazine that a major terrorist attack (even one that
occurred elsewhere in the Western world), would likely
result in a suspension of the U.S. Constitution and
the installation of a military form of government.
"[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event
somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the
United States of America -- [would cause] our
population to question our own Constitution and to
begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a
repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event," he
said. [NewsMax.com]
Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because itís going to happen."

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


April 6, 2004

Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November

by Maureen Farrell

On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist and former
Nixon speech writer William Safire offered his
standard New Yearís predictions. This time, however,
one item stood out. In addition to speculating on
everything from which country would next "feel the
force of U.S. liberation" to who would win the best
picture Oscar, Safire predicted that "the 'October
surprise' affecting the U.S. election" would be "a
major terror attack in the United States." [Salt Lake

While such speculation is hardly worth a trip to the
duct tape store, when combined with repeated assaults
to our democratic process and troublesome assertions
from noteworthy sources, it warrants further

In Nov. 2003, you might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told
Cigar Aficionado magazine that a major terrorist
attack (even one that occurred elsewhere in the
Western world), would likely result in a suspension of
the U.S. Constitution and the installation of a
military form of government. "[A] terrorist, massive,
casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western
world -- it may be in the United States of America --
[would cause] our population to question our own
Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in
order to avoid a repeat of another mass,
casualty-producing event," he said. [NewsMax.com]

Right around the same time, former Clinton
administration official David Rothkopf made similarly
distressing observations. In a Washington Post op-ed
entitled, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004
Election," he described a meeting in which nearly 75
percent of the professional participants
(characterized as "serious people, not prone to
hysteria or panic") also foresaw another terrorist
attack occurring on American soil before the next
election. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by
CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government
executives, many of whom are specialists in security
and terrorism related issues," he wrote. "Almost
three-quarters of them said it was likely the United
States would see a major terrorist strike before the
end of 2004." [Washington Post]

Saying that "history suggests that striking during
major elections is an effective tool for terrorist
groups," Rothkopf explained why terrorists will most
likely target us soon. And though he and Safire made
these observations months before terrorists changed
Spainís political landscape, they were not alone in
thinking along such lines. "Even before the bombings
in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that
terrorists might strike the United States before the
November elections," USA Today reported, before
commenting on how terrorists could "try the same
tactics in the United States to create fear and
chaos." [USA Today]

The New York Times also reported on the possibility
that Al Qaeda would try to "influence the outcome of
the election" by striking U.S. oil refineries. "The
Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas
oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on
pipelines and refineries near the time of the November
presidential election," the Times reported. [New York

MSNBC, CNN and other news organizations also chimed
in, raising concerns about this summer's political
conventions. "In the wake of what happened in Madrid,
we have to be concerned about the possibility of
terrorists attempting to influence elections in the
United States by committing a terrorist act," FBI
Director Robert Mueller told CNN. "Quite clearly,
there will be substantial preparations for each of the
conventions." [CNN]

Right-wing columnists and pundits have since
(surprise, surprise) tried to capitalize on such
fears. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three
days before an election, does anyone doubt that the
American electorate would rally behind the president
or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?"
David Brooks opined in the New York Times on March 16,
[Libertypost.org] before Richard Clarke revealed that
the Clinton administration was actually more
"aggressively anti-terror" than the bumbling Bushes.
(Could that be why the Bush administration refuses to
turn over thousands of pages of the nearly 11,000
files on the Clinton administrationís antiterrorism

Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are
attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not
so sure that we should go ahead with the election," he
reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because
itís going to happen."

And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be
complete without Rush Limbaugh weighing in? "Do [the
terrorists] bide their time and wait, or do they try
to replicate their success in Spain here in America
before our election?" Limbaugh asked, before revealing
how "titans of industry," and "international business
people (who do not outsource, by the way)" were "very,
very, very concerned" that one true party forever rule
the Fatherland.

"They all were seeking from me reassurance that the
White House was safe this year, that John Kerry would
not win," Limbaugh said. "Who do you think the
terrorists would rather have in office in this country
-- socialists like those in Spain as personified by
John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or
George W. Bush?"

Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a
question of "if" but "when," Limbaugh concluded that
should anyone but Bush occupy the White House, the
terrorists will have won. [RushLimbaugh.com]

Given the bizarre mind-melding between the government
and media and the Soviet-style propagandizing that's
been taking place, one has to wonder: Is there is any
significance in the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity and David Brooks are all beating the same
tom-tom? As former White House insider Richard Clarke
recently told Jon Stewart, "[There are] dozens of
people, in the White House. . . writing talking
points, calling up conservative columnists, calling up
talk radio hosts, telling them what to say. Itís
interesting. All the talk radio people, the right wing
talk radio people across the country, saying the exact
same thing, exactly the same words."

Stewart noted that a 24-hour news network was also
making observations that were "remarkably similar to
what the White House was saying."

Even though Andrew Card admitted that "from a
marketing point of view, you don't introduce new
products in August," in May, 2002, Wayne Madsen and
John Stanton revealed that the governmentís marketing
preparations for the war were already underway, with
U.S. Air Force scientists consulting with CNN "to
figure out how to gather and disseminate information."

In an article entitled, "When the War Hits Home: U.S.
Plans for Martial Law, Tele-Governance and the
Suspension of Elections," Madsen and Stanton delved
into the more frightening aspects of what might be in
store. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a 'dirty
nuke' set off in a small town, may well prompt the
Bush regime, let's say during the election campaign of
2003-2004, to suspend national elections for a year
while his government ensures stability," they wrote.
"Many closed door meetings have been held on these
subjects and the notices for these meetings have been
closely monitored by the definitive www.cryptome.org."

To make matters worse, if martial law is imposed, Air
Force General Ralph E. Eberhart will be able to blast
through Posse Comitatus and deploy troops to Americaís
streets. Gen. Eberhart, you might recall, is the
former Commander of NORAD, which was in charge of
protecting Americaís skies on Sept. 11. But instead of
being scrutinized for NORADís massive failures, he was
promoted and now heads the Pentagon's Northern
Command. And, as military analyst William M. Arkin
explained, "It is only in the case of 'extraordinary'
domestic operations that would enable Gen. Eberhart to
bring in "intelligence collectors, special operators
and even full combat troops" to bear. What kind of
situation would have to occur to grant Eberhart "the
far-reaching authority that goes with 'extraordinary
operationsí"? Nothing. He already has that authority.
[Los Angeles Times]

Which brings us to the inevitable (and most important)
question. How primed is the American public to accept
suspended elections, martial law, or whatever else the
White House decides to "market"?

Consider, for a moment, what an invaluable propaganda
conduit the media was during the lead up to war in
Iraq -- and just how weird things have become since.
Howard Stern insists he was targeted by Clear Channel
and the FCC after speaking out against George Bush
[BuzzFlash.com]; former White House Aide Anna Perez
(who worked under Condoleezza Rice and served as
former first lady Barbara Bushís press secretary) is
slated to become chief communications executive for
NBC; and MSNBC featured a story entitled, "White
House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq" on its Web site
only to have it disappear down the Memory Hole in the
course of a few hours. [TheMemoryHole.org]

Moreover, last yearís Clear Channel sponsorship of
pro-war/pro-Bush rallies was so Orwellian, that former
Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson
remarked, "I can't say that this violates any of a
broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like
borderline manufacturing of the news." [Chicago
Tribune] Meanwhile, the mysterious Karen Ryan (of "In
Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" fakery fame
[Journalism.NYU.edu]) was featured in the New York
Times. "Federal investigators are scrutinizing
television segments in which the Bush administration
paid people to pose as journalists, praising the
benefits of the new Medicare law. . . , " the Times

Need more proof that something is amiss? As of Feb. 5,
2004, CBS News was still reporting that one of the
hijackers' passports was "found on the street minutes
after the plane he was aboard crashed into the north
tower of the World Trade Center," [CBS] and for far
too long, pundits have taken to spreading White House
rumors without checking facts --while denying any
White House connection once these rumors prove false.

And most baffling of all, whenever anyone does tell
the truth, a bevy of Stepford Citizens reveal that
theyíd rather hear lies. After Richard Clarke spilled
the Bush beans on 60 Minutes, for example, the mail
was overwhelmingly negative -- with some writing that
Clarke should be tried for treason and others asking
CBS, "Why canít you be 'fair and balancedí like FOX?"
(Perhaps those viewers are denizens of the Free
Republic Web site, where posters actually pondered the
question: "Should the US have elections if attacked?"

The most bizarre example of the White Houseís
dysfunctional domination of the media, however,
occurred last week -- with the surreal controversy
involving David Letterman and CNN. In case you missed
it, on Monday, Letterman showed a video clip which
featured a bored, fidgety kid standing behind George
W. Bush, who was giving a speech in Orlando. The next
day, CNN also ran that clip, but anchor Daryn Kagan
returned from commercial break to inform viewers,
"We're being told by the White House that the kid, as
funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later, a
second CNN anchor said that the boy was at the rally,
but wasn't necessarily standing behind George W. Bush.

"That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The
kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing
everything we pictured via the videotape," Letterman
said on Tuesday.

"Explanations continued through Wednesday and
Thursday, with Letterman referring to "indisputable"
and "very high-placed source" who told him that the
White House had, in fact, called CNN. "This is where
it gets a little hinky," Letterman said on Thursday,
rehashing the back and forth nonsense that played like
a bad SNL sketch. "We were told that the White House
didnít call CNN. That was the development the other
day. So Iím upset because I smell a conspiracy. I
think somethingís gone haywire. I see this as the end
of democracy as we know it; another one of them
Watergate kind of deals. And so, Iím shooting my mouth
off and right in the middle of the show, Iím handed a
note that says 'No no no no, the White House did not
contact CNN. The White House did NOT call CNN.í So now
I feel like "Oh, I guess Iím gonna do heavy time.í

"Ok, so now it gets a little confusing. So, the next
day Iím told, 'Oh, No. The White House DID contact
CNN. . . . They WERE contacted by the White House.
They were trying to SHUT CNN up because they didnít
want to make these people look ridiculous because they
were big Republican fund raisers and you know, Iím
going to disappear mysteriously. In about eight
months, theyíll find my body in the trunk of a rental

"So now, weíre told, despite what everyone says. . .
that this high-ranking, high placed unidentified
source says, "No No The White House did call them."

Although he displayed his customary wit and joked
throughout his explanation, unless Letterman's acting
skills extend far beyond those displayed in Cabin Boy,
there's no doubt that Letterman was serious when he
asserted that "despite what everyone says" the White
House was involved in this fiasco.

Meanwhile, CNN apologized and accepted the blame,
letting the White House off the hook.

While the Letterman episode is a lesson in abject
absurdity, nearly two years ago, Madsen and Stanton
warned that following a major terrorist attack,
seditious web sites would be blocked (something that
is already happening to howardstern.com) and "the
broadcast media would similarly be required to air
only that which has been approved by government
censors." (How will we know the difference?)

Though it seems surreal that people are actually
wagering that another terrorist attack will occur on
our soil by November (and itís even more bizarre that
on-air personalities are calling for the suspension of
elections), the fact that this un-elected gang who
barreled into power and forever changed the course of
a nation, is so completely untrustworthy makes the
situation even more disturbing. On Sept 11, 2003,
William Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News asked,
"Why donít we have the answers to these 9/11
questions?" [The Philadelphia Daily News] before
addressing a variety of concerns, which, thanks to the
9/11 commission, are finally making their way into our
national consciousness. And now that another whistle
blower, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has come
forward, saying, "'I saw papers that show US knew
al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes," [The
Independent] itís clear weíve been under attack for
quite some time. [BuzzFlash.com]

But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard
Clarkeís revelations; before more whistleblowers
peeked out from under the muck, David Rothkopf made
everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the "military
officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and
others who have studied [terrorism] for a long time,"
he explained how the majority of experts he spoke to
not only predicted that the pre-election assaults
would "be greater than those of 9/11," but that any
act of terrorism would work in the President's favor.
"It was the sense of the group that such an attack was
likely to generate additional support for President
Bush," he wrote.

Citing how "assaults before major votes have
[traditionally] benefited candidates who were seen as
tougher on terrorists," Rothkopf catalogued events in
Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining
the symbiotic relationship between terrorists and
hardliners. "So why would [terrorists] want to help
[hardliners] win?" he asked. "Perhaps because
terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash
out against their perceived enemies and empower the
hard-liners, who in turn empower them as terrorists.
How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it
easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their
causes and their methods."

William Safireís and David Rothkopf's and three out of
four experts' speculations aside, there are those who
believe that the Bible predicts the ultimate battle
between good and evil and that George Bush is doing
Godís work. But then again, the Bible also says that
"the truth will make you free."

And according to Bible Code author Michael Drosnin,
there is another, more mystical way to look at
Biblical text, and he contends that the Bible also
predicts, you guessed it, that there will be another
terrorist attack in America in 2004.

Personally, I donít give much credence to predictions,
but when this many people peer into the crystal ball
and see Al Qaeda gearing up for our presidential
election, I take note -- especially given whatís
transpired since the last stolen election.

So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too. So
Iíll go out on a limb a make a prediction of my own:
If the truth continues to seep out about the way the
Bush administration has failed us, suspending the
election may be the only way Bush can win.
My darkest fear is that G.W.'s handlers believe this,

* * *

BuzzFlash Note: We're not sure what to make of this,
but a BuzzFlash Reader who works for the U.S.
Government recently sent us this note: "When I
attempted to purchase a [BuzzFlash] premium on-line, I
have received the message from our 'computer police'
that this site is considered a HATE site and I am not
allowed to purchase this material online using
government computers." Go figure. If anyone can verify
this information, we'd be exceptionally grateful.


Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who
specializes in helping other writers get television
and radio exposure.

© Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell

Posted by richard at April 6, 2004 04:27 PM