Please send as far and wide as possible.



Thanks,  Robert   Sterling   Editor,   The   Konformist

http://www.konformist.com



Why 3 Out Of 4 Experts Predict Terrorist Attack By Nov.

By Maureen Farrell BuzzFlash.com 4-7-4



On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist  and  former

Nixon speech writer William Safire offered his standard

New Year's 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 Tribune]



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

investigation.



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

Spain's 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

Times]



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 administration's antiterrorism efforts?)



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

it's 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.   It's

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 government's  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." [CounterPunch.org]



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  America's

streets. Gen. Eberhart, you might recall, is the former

Commander of NORAD, which was in charge  of  protecting

America's skies on  Sept.  11.  But  instead  of  being

scrutinized  for  NORAD's  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  operations'"?

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 Bush's 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 year's 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

reported.



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  they'd

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 can't you be 'fair and balanced'  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?"

[FreeRepublic.com])



The  most  bizarre  example  of   the   White   House's

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 didn't  call

CNN. That was the development the  other  day.  So  I'm

upset because I smell a conspiracy. I think something's

gone haywire. I see this as the end of democracy as  we

know it; another one of them Watergate kind  of  deals.

And so, I'm shooting my mouth  off  and  right  in  the

middle of the show, I'm handed a note that says 'No  no

no no, the White House did not contact CNN.  The  White

House did NOT call CNN.' So now  I  feel  like  "Oh,  I

guess I'm gonna do heavy time.'



"Ok, so now it gets a little confusing.  So,  the  next

day I'm 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 didn't want to  make

these people look  ridiculous  because  they  were  big

Republican fund raisers and  you  know,  I'm  going  to

disappear mysteriously. In about eight months,  they'll

find my body in the trunk of a rental car.



"So now, we're 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 it's 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  don't  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]  it's

clear we've been under  attack  for  quite  some  time.

[BuzzFlash.com]



But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarke's

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 Safire's 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

God's 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 don't 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   what's

transpired   since   the    last    stolen    election.

[EricBlumrich.com]



So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too.  So

I'll 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,

too.