Even More

[solarbird]

elfs pointed me at this here. I'm elevating it. So much for my holiday.

Family Security Matters is a sockpuppet organisation of the Center for Security Policy, and its influential National Security Advisory Council. Note the partial lists of members of the latter two organisations. Note their various positions in the Federal government, past and present. Sadly, the lists are out of date.

On 3 August 2007, Family Security Matters posted an article by FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson calling explicitly for a coup d'etat to keep Chief Executive Bush in office indefinitely. (Backup link here.) FSM have since disappeared the article (note the   in the Must Read Articles list on their frontpage) and are in the process of disappearing the contributing editor and his other articles. Here is another cached copy of the article calling for a Bush dictatorship.

I care very much about the list of members in FSM's parent Center for Security Policy, and very much that an organisation with this many people at this level of government could publish an explicit call for coup d'etat and the establishment of a dictatorship. If you don't, then what the fuck is wrong with you?

[ETA: Free Republic reposts a lot of FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson's stuff, and notes that he is, in fact a contributing editor. I was trying to find his FSM bio cached somewhere, but haven't succeeded. Link courtesy risu.]

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

You know, fortunately for us, Mister Dumbshit Atkinson didn't complete his history lesson. Caesar crossed the Rubicon, yes. But that action didn't start the Roman Empire; it was his superior generalship before that stupid act that kickstarted the Empire. Crossing the Rubicon ultimately netted Gaius Julius a knife in the back, and plunged Rome into civil war. I daresay if the current occupant tries any such, it will end any different.

No rest for us patriots. Not, at least, until 2009. When we successfully inaugurate a new President, one hopefully worthy of the name (and save one candidate, the slate looks the best it has since... before either of us were born, for sure), then we can have an ever-lovin' PARTY. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

(That said, I think finally there are enough folks that some of us can afford to stand down a day or three without the world ending. Thank $DEITY for that.)

Crossposting with commentary to my journal, thanks.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Sorry about your stress level. FSM probably figured out that Atkinson was "way over the line" and too willing to spill the beans too soon about things usually said in private after a few highballs.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Won't ever happen. Sorry, it just won't. I don't know why everyone thinks Bush wants to be President for Life (and funny the same people ignore Chavez who is actually MAKING himself that), but in our country the Military would not support it. And without the military it just isn't going to happen. Period, end of story.

I'm more worried about Hillary getting elected. Why? Well because for the last TWENTY YEARS two families have controled the Whitehouse. Do we want to try for Twenty eight? No, I don't think so. I don't want to see another Bush or another Clinton in the Whitehouse anytime this century, if indeed ever.

[solarbird]

Yes, Mr. Bush has lost the support of the military; he won't be pulling this off. But that isn't really the point. The point is the authoritarian movement behind him, and the extent up the chain of power it runs. They'll rally as quickly behind anyone else of their own in power just as easily.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Imagine this group with a President Giuliani. This guy has never met a reduction in civil liberties that he doesn't like, he tried to delay elections in New York City after 9/11 longer than necessary, and his entire persona is built upon putting security above the Constitution.

That's the guy who I think *does* want to be President for Life. The only upside of him was his previously liberal record on social issues, which he has been jettisoning right and left during his campaign.

Or you can have John McCain, a nice guy with an admirable biography of courage who nonetheless rolled over when Bush legalized torture, and who has been coddling the theocons, and surely views himself as the rightful commander in chief. I'm not so certain he wouldn't get off on dictatorial powers, either.

Of the front-runners, Romney actually comes off as slightly sane, and he's the guy who wants to "triple Guantanamo."

And don't get me started on the longshots like Huckabee, Hunter, and Tancredo. Even Paul, once you take away his well-placed support of Constitutional rights, is a pro-life, Christian-nation spouting militia nut.

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

And sadly, Paul is the guy I like the most hate the least.

He's the only one, from both parties, that I'd vote for and merely need a shower, not a full decon afterwards.

I'm still waiting for a candidate to step forward that I would actually support.

[meowse.livejournal.com]

If you're willing to take the time, I'd honestly like to know which aspects of Obama's platform you find so objectionable.

Thanks!

[banner.livejournal.com]

I don't think Bush has 'lost the support of the Military'. I see this kind of talk all the time from people who've never actually been -in- the military and who think that the people who serve in our armed forces are no different than the people who serve in say Venezula or Cuba.

It's one thing to support a President, it's an entirely different thing to want to overthrow the government in this country. Yes there are probably people in uniform who would think a coup is a good idea. There always are no matter who is President. There are without a doubt people in Uniform who hate Bush's guts (just like there were ones who hated Clinton) and ones who love him (same for Clinton).

But people who join the military, as a rule, do it because they love our country and want to serve it. Yes there are other reasons as well, but you will find that sentiment present in nearly everyone to some degree or other. Especially in officers. And the people in the military are very smart, on the average they are smarter, and more educated, than your average college graduate. Do you think any of these people want to live in a dictatorship?

I remember discussions about leftists when I was in the Air Force, yeah we hated hearing assholes going off and saying all these nasty things about America, and all the other Bullshit they'd spout. But we'd be damned if we were going to ever let anyone take away their right to say it. We've all seen exactly where that has led to in other countries. That's why I oppose hate speech and other 'hate' laws. They're just an excuse to take away people's rights and have nothing to do with crime at all.

And I also think you're just listening to too many sufferers of BDS who attribute all of the most evil plans to Bush (when they're not going on about how stupid he is - all the time missing the conflicting nature of their beliefs) now that you're in college again. I honestly do not believe that Bush has any thought or desire to staying past the end of his second term. He doesn't strike me as the type. Bill Clinton was (and continues to be) that's why he won't shut up and is pushing his wife for President. I suspect Bush will be rather quick to fade into retirement like most Republican Presidents have.

[solarbird]

What I was referencing in that was that Mr. Bush has lost majority support in polls of the armed forces, and as such, even if he wanted - hypothetically - to take such an action, he'd be aware he has no chance whatsoever, given the low levels of support.

As for the rest, again, I speak more to the movement behind this - the authoritarian movement, and I have no intention of backing off from that, given that this is not the only call for this I've posted about, though it is the most direct. At this moment is worshipping Mr. Bush, but it'll switch its love to the next Strong Leader they decided is anointed. (Mr. Giuliani is a good candidate for this. He's even tried to delay elections. They'll lap him up.)

It's not so much the individual; it's the authoritarianism.

(Sorry about the repost, missed a close tag.)

[meowse.livejournal.com]

banner, thanks for making that point. It's important (especially for liberals like me, who dislike war and militarism even while we honor those who serve our country on the front lines) to remember that our military is staffed almost entirely with people of honor and conscience, who have far better reasons than "I don't like his politics" for refusing to support a coup.

But I don't worry about a blatant coup--I worry about a staged terrorist event, and a reasonably plausible use of "emergency powers", and postponed elections, and election fraud and indirect intimidation during the passage of an emergency constitutional ammendment to permit Bush to continue in office "for the duration of the present emergency", which, somehow, never seems to end.

And it's that scenario which makes me relieved that Bush has consistently screwed over the army in so many ways. Because an army which had received the support they need and deserve over the past 7 years would be far more likely to look favorably on Bush remaining in power--and the army we have, which has been under-equipped and under-staffed while watching Haliburton enrich themselves with billions of dollars of fraud in Iraq, while its veterans come home to rat-infested hospital rooms and inadequate treatment, is far less likely to turn a blind eye, even accidentally, to a questionable and quasi-legal power grab.

So--yes, you are right, our army would never support a blatant coup, no matter how much they liked the person attempting it. But no, I don't think that makes the alienation of the army irrelevant, because I don't think Bush would ever try a blatant coup--and the alienation of the army might well play a role in making a "plausible" coup untenable.

Thanks for listening!

[avram]

I agree with you about Hillary and the dangers of presidential dynasticism.

I also don't think it's actually likely that Bush will try to become President for life. But what's this about Chavez? Why do you expect Americans to care as much about Venezuelan politics as they do about American politics?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Changing the subject is a sign that you're on shaky ground with the current one.

In any case, the main difference between Chavez and Bush is that Chavez is popular and gives a damn about people other than his cronies. He'll bend the rules to help himself, but he's also helping other people in the bargain who appreciate it. Bush is Chavez minus the principle and popularity (and with less than half the wit).

[banner.livejournal.com]

In any case, the main difference between Chavez and Bush is that Chavez is popular and gives a damn about people other than his cronies.

Prove it.

Chavez isn't helping anyone but himself. He is using historically proven methods to gain power for himself, just like Hitler, Castro, and every other tinpot dictator that has ever been. Your claiming he has noble sentiments and wishes to help the 'poor down trodden' just shows that you have a very poor understanding of dictators and history.

I brought up Chavez merely to highlight the absolute hypocracy of people who think Bush a villian and Chavez a saint when one is actively in the process of making himself a dictator and the other isn't.

You need to get over your rather extreme BDS and open your eyes. Say what you want about Bush, but Chavez is an evil man. And history will side with me on this once he goes to war.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I don't expect them to care so much, as I expect them to at least realize what's going on in the rest of the world.

As a liberal...

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

1. I, for one, am not ignoring Chavez's attempt to become a self-styled benevolent dictator. I think it's very bad for him to try and overthrow term limits, and undermines what little credibility he has left. He's a rockstar that's taken advantage of a lucky situation to preach ideology. Third world liberals aren't particularly much like American liberals, in the same way that Republicans aren't usually the equivalent of their Military Dictators. I don't know if I've ever seen any prominent liberals praise Chavez for anything other than an amusing chutzpah and shared loathing of Bush - he doesn't get kudos for policy. This is a strawman.

2. I agree that Bush for Life is not going to happen, and is so far away from happening that even the people who want it wouldn't attempt it. I'm pretty sure this was never the plan - they wanted the neocon rise to control the Republican Party, sure, and to be able to nominate the next president, but that's hardly an unusual goal for a political faction, or even an unsavory goal. I'm not entirely happy with all their methods, but at least it seems to have failed.

3. I know you're using hyperbole, because really, do you think that having someone subvert the constitution to the degree of setting themself up as dictator for life is actually worse than Clinton being elected? That's, um, extreme wignuttery, and though I don't know you, I can't believe it. I'd rather Jeb Bush get elected than see Bill Clinton as President For Life. You throw out just so much of what's good about the last 225 years of social advancement when you start converting democracy back into empire in that way.

4. On the other hand, point taken about the rise of 'American Royalty'. We're increasingly putting more and more power into fewer and fewer hands, both politically and economically. This is a bad trend. I don't feel nearly as strongly anti-Hillary as you do - Bill Clinton was actually good at slowing down this trend economically - but it's enough to give me pause. I think having lived as an adult who is not wealthy is a very good thing in a politician. Bush's views of the middle class are necessarily academic, second hand at best, and most of the current candidates can say the same, and that's not a plus.

5. One point not to be neglected, though, is that this is a proposal, written without obvious satire, by someone who actually has power and influence. Someone with views this extreme should not be considered as a reasonable man that folks listen to. Yet he is. Correcting this perception is a good idea. That's the point of backlash, not that we're actually afraid that Bush will actually crown himself King. He won't, and we should really not keep listening to the people who wish he would. Their goals do not align with the best interest of the people of this nation.

Re: As a liberal...

[banner.livejournal.com]

do you think that having someone subvert the constitution to the degree of setting themself up as dictator for life is actually worse than Clinton being elected?

I think you missed my point. I'm more worried about Hillary getting elected because I know the president for life thing is not possible. To compare: I'm more worried about being car accident when I drive, than I am about an asteriod hitting my car as I drive.
The first is a possibility, the second is pretty much impossible.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I don't actually think Bush wants to be president for life; in fact, from his manner, I don't think he much likes being president at all. For him, it's the idea of the presidency and what it says about his own importance and approval from others that drives him, not the job itself.

However, I can tell you where the fear that he might want this comes from.

There has been talk from the Republicans (including Karl Rove) about working toward a permanent majority for their party. Obviously, most Democrats and independents have a problem with this idea, but your example of Chavez helps make a point: even extremely popular and capable presidents and parties should not have permanent power in a democracy. To give Republicans the benefit of the doubt, something they never do in return for Democrats and/or war opponents, let's just say they think that the GOP can keep winning elections. Even if that could happen through democratic means, as it is happening for the most part in Venezuela, would that be a good thing? I say not just no but hell no.

The fact is that the GOP is currently NOT limiting itself to democratic means to hold power. They are deliberately suppressing voter turnout in elections, they are using US attorneys as political appointees to pursue partisan investigations about elections, they are eroding basic Constitutional guarantees of liberty, they are torturing people, and they are advancing an idea of unitary executive power which is a thin rewrite of the principle of the divine right of kings. So when those same people talk about a permanent majority, it makes all of us who are not Republicans nervous, even when we think the most extreme outcomes are highly unlikely if not paranoid.

What makes us even more nervous is seeing likely criminals in the White House brazenly ignore Congressional oversight, as if they feel they can never be held to account for their alleged crimes, or even questioned about them. If Democrats win the White House and hold onto Congress, people like Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzalez could end up being indicted. That they don't seem the least bit concerned about this suggests they're confident they won't win the next election. Looking at the polls, that confidence is unfounded. So where does it come from?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

er, I meant to say "...confident they won't lose the next election." or "...confident the Democrats won't win the next election."

[banner.livejournal.com]

They are deliberately suppressing voter turnout in elections,

Prove it.

they are eroding basic Constitutional guarantees of liberty,

Prove it.

The Democrats had a 'permanent majority' for 50 years. If they're winning elections because people want to vote for them, well there's nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral about it.

There is no 'Congressional Oversight' of the Whitehouse. Go re-read the constitution, you won't find that in there anywhere.

[ckd]

Habeas corpus is one of the basic Constitutional guarantees.

"Scooter" Libby's sentence was commuted because it was "excessive". Jose Padilla spent more time in a military brig, without any charges being filed, than Libby would have if he served the entire sentence. Charges were only filed when it looked like the Supreme Court might have to rule on the case.

That's pretty damn eroding.

I think I'm being trolled but I'll bite a little.

[leohat.livejournal.com]

Some how I doubt you'll actually read the following links but here goes anyway.

Emails detail RNC Voter Suppression in Five States (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072607A.shtml)


None dare call it voter suppression and fraud (http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983)


Voter Suppression (http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/20070621_supressing_the_vote_2004.html)


Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html)
Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070720-4.html)



I'd find more but its late and I'm pretty sure I'm being trolled.

[riverheart.livejournal.com]

I note that another thing that article calls for is for Iraq to be emptied of Iraqis: genocide.

[meowse.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I honestly didn't find his article that disturbing, because he's so obviously a nutbar. "We should have nuked Iraq. Now, we should just kill off every single Iraqi, and move in permanent American colonists." (emphasis mine)

Oh, yeah, that'd stabilise the Middle East, all right. "Hey, everyone! Give us your oil, or we'll commit genocide and then colonise the empty land with our surplus population!"

Of course, America doesn't have a surplus population, but that's a separate issue.

Seriously. The guy's insane, he posts an article calling for a coup to make America a dictatorship and advocating genocide and setting up an American colony in the Middle East, and the site owners quite sensibly take it down as soon as someone notices, and distance themselves from him as fast as possible. I don't see a problem here, honestly.

[solarbird]

I can see that viewpoint, w.r.t. the yanking. I'd be much less concerned if:

1. This was the first time I'd seen any of this; it's not.

2. The organisation was actually saying, "Sorry, we didn't know this guy was crazy. He's gone." They're just disappearing him. That's different, you know?

3. The list of people involved with running the organisation (and its parent) wasn't so disturbing.

4. They'd taken it down on their own, rather than being found out after it had been online for several days. (Five, I believe.)

There's a difference between an embarrassment and a trial balloon.

[solarbird]

There are commenters on this discussion thread who have called for a genocide of Muslims in general. I have argued with them over it, so I work with the other material.