I'm interrupting your coup d'etat for my coup d'etat

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.”

“Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November [1]”

Reading this article it seems that having a Republican CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of an electronic voting machine manufacturer [2] isn't enough for President Bush, so the prudent thing is to have a backup plan. Good thing too, because of recent developments on the Diebold front [3].

Am I concerned that President Bush might try to suspend elections? Well, we were in the midst of the Civil War in 1864 and the US managed to hold an election (although a Republican did win … ). But the article is alarming to say the least and it's all too easy to get wrapped up in the thought that we might not see another election any time soon (at least, an election at the Federal level). And there are people with very deep pockets that want President Bush out of the White House (Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush) [4] and you know, just know, that President Bush knows this, and knows that his father wasn't re-elected [5] even though he too, was a war time President. So yes, reading that, I was concerned.

But … a search for “Bush suspend elections [6]” reveals a bunch of sites, most of come across as one step short of the deep end [7]. And then the clincher:

JUNE 8, 2004 1600 PDT (FTW)—Why did DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) George Tenet suddenly resign on June 3rd, only to be followed a day later by James Pavitt, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)'s Deputy Director of Operations (DDO)?

The real reasons, contrary to the saturation spin being put out by major news outlets, have nothing to do with Tenet's role as taking the fall for alleged 9/11 and Iraqi intelligence “failures” before the upcoming presidential election.

Both resignations, perhaps soon to be followed by resignations from Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, are about the imminent and extremely messy demise of George W. Bush and his Neocon administration in a coup d'etat being executed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The coup, in the planning for at least two years, has apparently become an urgent priority as a number of deepening crises threaten a global meltdown.

Based upon recent developments, it appears that long-standing plans and preparations leading to indictments and impeachment of Bush, Cheney and even some senior cabinet members have been accelerated, possibly with the intent of removing or replacing the entire Bush regime prior to the Republican National Convention this August.

Via Metaphorge [8] , “COUP D'ETAT: The Real Reason Tenet and Pavitt Resigned from the CIA on June 3rd and 4th [9]”

President Bush has pissed off the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) [10].

The CIA. Rumored to help remove governments even mildly disinterested to US (United States) interests. Rumors they were involved in Dallas [11]. This is not a department you want to be on the business end of.

If this is true, then it's ironic to think that the CIA may attempt to overthrow our own government to save our own government. Even more ironic when El Presidente's father used to run the CIA. I'm not sure what I make of the CIA trying to oust President Bush. On the one hand, it makes them the Good Guys. On the other hand, they are known to be involved in several coup d'etats (Venezuela [12], Chile [13], Iraq [14] (yup—back in 1996) and Haiti [15] to name a few) and the propped up governments didn't exactly have democratic leanings. On the gripp ing hand [16] President Bush may even be a greater evil than C'thulu [17].

Things are messy indeed, so messy that President Bush has hired a private attorney (The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation) [18] due to the Plame Investigation [19] (oddly enough, involving our friends, the CIA). The tone people are taking when talking about President Bush hiring a private attorney is that of “Hey, Bush? Why ya hiding if you aren't guilty?”

**Fourth clue:** Bush and Cheney have both hired or consulted private criminal defense attorneys in anticipation of possible indictments of them and/or their top assistants in the Plame investigation. On June 3, just hours before Tenet suddenly resigned, President Bush consulted with and may have retained a criminal defense attorney to represent him in the Plame case.

“Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November [20]”

Quite a different change from the normal government attempting to intrude on the lives of citizens by asking “What do you have to hide?”. Refreshing even. But what these people seem to have forgotten though, is that this standard operating procedure for sitting Presidents, both Republican and Democratic:

Faced with possible prosecution in the Whitewater probe, Clinton initially turned to the White House counsel for help, believing his consultations would be kept secret under traditional attorney-client privileges. Previous administrations shared that belief. Only Richard Nixon, Rothstein said, hired a private attorney to advise him in the face of a government investigation into Watergate, which ultimately led to his resignation in 1974.

But two federal appeals courts ruled in 1997 and 1998 that presidential communications with the White House counsel weren't privileged when they were about personal, rather than governmental, matters. Clinton was forced to hire his own attorneys, and the rulings changed the presidency forever.

“It means the president needs his own lawyer if he's going to talk about personal liability, whether it's civil or criminal,” Rothstein said.

White House officials declined to explain why Bush contacted a private lawyer. They also refused to say whether other top administration officials had sought legal advice.

“Bush gets a lawyer in case of questions [21]”

Am I still concerned about an “October Surprise [22]?” Not as much as I used to, given the large number of players trying to outdo the others, such as:

In 1988 in Los Vegas, a DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) [23] agent was convicted of illegal wiretapping but his conviction was overturned when it turned out that the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) [24] had illegally put a video camera in his office.

A few years ago the left-wing government of Angola employed Cuban troops to defend US oil refineries against a Maoist revolutionary supported by the Reagan Administration. It's hard to be politically correct when the world starts to look like “Monty Python's flying Circus.”