![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
Nov. 29th, 2003 12:10 pmA few days ago I read this story, and it chilled my blood. Tommy Franks is a scary motherfucker, and I couldn't shake the feeling that the interview was one of those times when BushCo members pretty much tell the truth, open text, no bullshit, because the US media in the last 25 months has finally provided an answer to the question of "what happens if a politian tells the truth in the forest, but the primetime corporate news outlets do not amplify the sound." It does not register as a blip on the radar of public consciousness. Does the public remember about Paul Wolfowitz admitting that oil was the real reason for the war? Is there righteous outrage about Donald Rumsfield's thoughtful comment that 9/11 was "a blessing in disguise"? No and no, respectively. Tommy Franks' interview in which he says that he "doubt[s] that The Constitution would survive a WMD attack" is in the new lifestyles magazine called Cigar Aficionado, which is simultaneously weirdly appropriate, and obviously intended to be circulated among...well, cigar aficionados, draw your own conclusion about the kind of class consciousness likely to be pervasive among the magazine's target demographic. And how large that target demographic is. Also, the creme de la creme of BushCo, in addition to being devoted understudies for the Four Horsemen, are all classical Freudian hysterics to boot, which means that telling the truth through lies is part of their modus operandi:
Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy
casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple
of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”>
He then proceeds to talk about the aftermath of such a hypothetical attack "in a practical sense":
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes 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. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
So, framed by a lie about how awful the obliteration of the Constitution would be emerges a truthful scenario implicit with obvious benefits for The Cabal. It's kind of like at the end of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" when Hugh Grant woos Andy McDowell through negative statements which signify his desire for the very things that he is verbally negating--"would you consider not marrying me and not spending the rest of your life with me"? Only this is less performative and without a framework of a verbal game understood by both interlocutors (in this case BushCo and the American public).
So, ever since I read that article, I have been waiting for an article like this, just as vague as I thought it was going to be, under the headline Official: Al-Qaeda plans something big.
What's your favorite part? My favorite part, both for the total Amistad contained within the last sentence of the quote below, and the relevance to Tommy Franks' Book of Revelations is this:
"Intelligence reports suggest that some of the network's operatives think that an attack using chemical or biological weapons could be a way to top the 9/11 attacks, the official said.
Such weapons can be difficult to use, but al-Qaeda has sought them for years."
So, the way things are going now, with partial success of nation-wide implementation of Diebold electonic voting machines, the Administation right-hand/left-hand machinations, i.e. announcing projected withdrawal from Iraq in June while deploying thousands of reservists there, escalating rumors of the draft, Bush's sinking approval polls and BushCo's unsuccesful Weekend-at-Bernie's-type machinations with the economy, using "defense spending" to inject the corpse with some zombie juice, I would say that there is a 100% chance of another Code Orange before November 2004, 50% chance of a Code Red culminating in a prevented "clear and present" danger, and about 35-40% chance of something big actually transpiring, resulting in Code Red: Martial Law version. Either Syria or Iran will be blamed, whichever comes up next in the PNAC game of eenie meanie meini mo, and every US city will become like Miami during the FTAA protests last week. But that wasn't on TV either.
Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy
casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple
of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”>
He then proceeds to talk about the aftermath of such a hypothetical attack "in a practical sense":
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes 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. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
So, framed by a lie about how awful the obliteration of the Constitution would be emerges a truthful scenario implicit with obvious benefits for The Cabal. It's kind of like at the end of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" when Hugh Grant woos Andy McDowell through negative statements which signify his desire for the very things that he is verbally negating--"would you consider not marrying me and not spending the rest of your life with me"? Only this is less performative and without a framework of a verbal game understood by both interlocutors (in this case BushCo and the American public).
So, ever since I read that article, I have been waiting for an article like this, just as vague as I thought it was going to be, under the headline Official: Al-Qaeda plans something big.
What's your favorite part? My favorite part, both for the total Amistad contained within the last sentence of the quote below, and the relevance to Tommy Franks' Book of Revelations is this:
"Intelligence reports suggest that some of the network's operatives think that an attack using chemical or biological weapons could be a way to top the 9/11 attacks, the official said.
Such weapons can be difficult to use, but al-Qaeda has sought them for years."
So, the way things are going now, with partial success of nation-wide implementation of Diebold electonic voting machines, the Administation right-hand/left-hand machinations, i.e. announcing projected withdrawal from Iraq in June while deploying thousands of reservists there, escalating rumors of the draft, Bush's sinking approval polls and BushCo's unsuccesful Weekend-at-Bernie's-type machinations with the economy, using "defense spending" to inject the corpse with some zombie juice, I would say that there is a 100% chance of another Code Orange before November 2004, 50% chance of a Code Red culminating in a prevented "clear and present" danger, and about 35-40% chance of something big actually transpiring, resulting in Code Red: Martial Law version. Either Syria or Iran will be blamed, whichever comes up next in the PNAC game of eenie meanie meini mo, and every US city will become like Miami during the FTAA protests last week. But that wasn't on TV either.
