Trek234 post: First stages of a US coup? Redux...

[wyldwolf]

I wanted to start a new thread on this so the information I;m reminding all of you of wouldn't get lost in the 200+ post thread already running on the topic.

Some of you may recall this story from Jan. 22, 2003:

Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger coalition in the Middle East.

“This is not Desert Storm,” one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. “We don’t have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don’t have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we’re advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies.”

Intelligenced sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."

An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be “extremely angry” at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.

“The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1587.shtml

[whoYaCallinAlib]

1. Okay, so please connect the dots for me.

I'm open minded. Please get from here to "coup".

[greyl]

3. let's start with defining the terms...

coup

n 1: a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force 2


coup d'é·tat
n. pl. coups d'état (k) or coup d'états (d-täz)
The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

4. That part I knew. But thanks.

Where I'm having trouble is getting from point A, replacement of some generals, to point B, the beginning stages of a coup. I love mystery and intrigue, but I need a story line that I can follow. I'm just not seeing it yet.

[greyl]

6. Apparently you didn't.

The 2000 election qualifies, does it not?
But anyway, I wasn't posting the definitions for your benefit only.
Arguments are helped when those involved know what the fuck they're talking about. Correct?

[whoYaCallinAlib]

9. Such language.

[wyldwolf]

7. Ok, let's do...

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

The FIRST definition of coup is: "A brilliantly executed stratagem; a triumph."

Nothing "sudden" about it by this definition.

Replacing generals who have shown signs of bucking the system and who could eventually openly oppose a leader's will is, as the original poster pointed out, a classic maneuver for an eventual power grab.

No evidence that this is the case but we DO know, based on the Capitol Hill Blue story, that the pResident and Rumsfeld were not at all pleased about the Generals' defiance over Iraq.

At the very least, the purge is punishment. At the most, they're getting rid of folks who will oppose the administration in further misdeeds down the road.

[greyl]

10. That's not the definition we are using here.

We aren't using these definitions either:

n. 1. A single roll of the wheel at roulette, or a deal at rouge et noir.

2. Among some tribes of North American Indians, the act of striking or touching an enemy in warfare with the hand or at close quarters, as with a short stick, in such a manner as by custom to entitle the doer to count the deed an act of bravery; hence, any of various other deeds recognized by custom as acts of bravery or honor.

[wyldwolf]

13. Well, since I started the post...

..and the dictionary thought enough of the definition to list it first, I think the definition is fine.

Bu thank you. :)

[greyl]

19. See

why it's important to define the terms? ;)
Sorry about the mistaken identity.

[Dhalgren]

2. So who is in the first stage of a coup here?

The Joint Chiefs? Powell? The Emperor has already staged his coup witht he hep of the feloneous five in the SC. So which coup is this?

[havocmom]

5. Coup took place in dec. of 2000

it is just now coming out of the closet.

[wyldwolf]

8. OK

Replacing generals who have shown signs of bucking the system and who could eventually openly oppose a leader's will is, as the original poster pointed out, a classic maneuver for an eventual power grab.

No evidence that this is the case but we DO know, based on the Capitol Hill Blue story, that the pResident and Rumsfeld were not at all pleased about the Generals' defiance over Iraq.

At the very least, the purge is punishment. At the most, they're getting rid of folks who will oppose the administration in further misdeeds down the road.

[BigMcLargehuge]

11. Grab power from who?

The idiot is already in the White House... He already has more power than anyone in the world...

The coup occured in December 2000...

What this suggests is a consolidation of power by removing potential adversaries in the military leadership.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

12. Now that makes more sense to me.

Where were you last night when I was getting hammered for not seeing that replacing these generals was the beginning stages of a coup?

[BigMcLargehuge]

14. Sorry whoYaCallinAlib, I was in the lounge

and watching Adult Swim...

By the time I saw the orignal thread It was already 100 or so posts long and I needed sleep.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

17. I'll forgive you just this once.

[BigMcLargehuge]

23. Thanks :)

.

[robcon]

15. What part of this is a coup

It seems like the restoration of the power of civilians over the military, as the Constitution requires. Not a problem with me.

The policy may be wrong, but the process is correct.

[orangecoloredapple]

18. Not a restoration of the power of civilians -

simply a replacement of people who will go to bat for you when the next problem occurs.

If it is the beginning stages of a coup, that would mean only that they are bracing and maneuvering for the possibility of a revolt on some level. Another pre-emptive strike.

side note: How many people voted for this admin because Powell was there and, at the time, was well respected? His leaving will not be good, but it is another indicator of the need for them to rid themselves of dissenting opinions within. Their little world gets smaller all the time.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

20. That's just the point. It is not a coup to replace generals.

Some are concerned that this move may be a precursor to a coup. I don't see that. I do see Rummy consolidating his power by finding new generals who are more receptive to his views on how we should fight wars in the future.

[BigMcLargehuge]

24. Right!

Let's say you OWN a baseball team.

You fire the pitching staff...

Who now owns the team?

You do...

This is not a coup.

Give em hell whoYouCallinAlib

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Wrong

The Executive Branch is not "the government", much as the current one is confused on this point.

They're cashiering anyone who opposes their policies. Some of their policies are flat-out illegal (see my post below) and people who might balk at their criminality are to be removed. They are politicizing the military.

By terrifying all careerists in the military and the intelligence community that they will be financially and personally ruined should they not march in lock step, the Executive Branch is subverting the Constitution. There's a Congressional oversight to these positions, and that's being removed by the de facto "ruination by fiat" of this Junta.

This is a purge. This is a direct attempt to terrorize our military. For what reason? What will they be asked to do?

As Pete Stark said to Denny Hastert's face (turning around to do so) at the end of his speech where he declared himself against the Iraq resolution: "The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not trust this President and I do not trust his advisors."

Please read my response to Mr. Definitely not a lib before replying.

Please do reply.

The baseball analogy is glib, but inappropriate: the government is not a privately held corporation.

[orangecoloredapple]

46. Fascist - Coup - Choose your terminology

you forgot to mention what happened when Daschle and Leahy when they received their packets of anthrax. They fell down and turned into a scared rabbits.

[wyldwolf]

27. ...or to hold on to power...

... let's look a year down the road... summer 2003... and let's just ASSUME Bush's re-elect numbers are still in the toilet... but further down the pipes.

Based on what we know from prior experience, it would be in character for this administration to do something to bring the numbers up. Another war. The staging of a national emergency. Something that could be cause to postpone elections.

With no dissenters in their ranks, it starts to look like a coup...

[BigMcLargehuge]

28. consolidation of power

a coup means to take power... they already have the power... The SCOTUS took it from us when they installed him. That was the coup.

Aren't you listening?

It's happened. They have the power already. They circumvented the will of the electorate twice, in 2000 and 2002...

The coup happened... it happened... it happened...

(thumps head on desk)

2004 will be an attempt to extent their stay in power... But that ISN'T a coup. That's staying in power.

[Lars39]

32. With the high ranking military people being pretty unhappy with the

direction that this administration is trying to take the country, ie continual war, the possibility existed that the military would overthrow the administration. Rumsfeld getting rid of the top brass pre-empted such a possibility, so this move could be seen as a further step in the coup. I'd call it a purge, though, but the result is the same---loyal tools.

[Trek234]

40. "a coup means to take power"

Exactly. Should 2004 come, Bush looses the election, and Bush decides he doesn't like the idea of being replaced by the newly elected Democratic president - then it will be a coup, as he will under law have lost power, but will be acting to take it back.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. I'll address you, and I dare you to answer this

Much as many don't seem to grasp it, the Government of the United States is not the President. The rest of the Government is not just group of his ladies in waiting merely vying for morsels of attention and existing at his whim.

The government of the United States is the Constitiuton and its embodiment through its elected and appointed officials, with jurisdictions cited in the document. Congress decides whether we go to war, and it has oversight over Executive Adventurism. Admittedly, the President is Commander in Chief, but if he gives an order that is unconstitutional, we've got a problem.

We are kidnapping women and children in Iraq to get their wanted males to turn themselves in. This is against international law. If you don't want to do it, well...

How do we know what the true issues were? If the military was just controlled by stodgy old coots who didn't accept modern fast, light and high-tech warfare (as Rummy contends) that's one thing, but it's ridiculous: it was these people who forced Rummy to go in with a much larger force than he wanted, and WE NEEDED IT. So the military was proven right in this last war, and Rummy was proven wrong. If it was just a dispassionate clinical "business" kind of decison, nobody'd be going anywhere except perhaps Rummy; HE was the one who was wrong.

These people (the administration) brook no dissent. Admittedly the military is there to follow orders, but it also is obligated to STAY WITHIN TREATY OBLIGATIONS. This is something Rummy doesn't want to hear.

Once again: a Coup d'Etat is the overthrow of Government or the drastic reallignment of it. This may be on the outskirts, but it is one step short of having the military swear an oath to God and George Bush. This is how Hitler consolidated power: he got rid of his scary gay and criminal thugs in the S.A. in return for the military agreeing to let him get rid of pesky officers and have everyone swear an oath to him personally.

This is what I hate about "level headed" anti "tin-foil hat" ridiculers: everything's black and white. No, this doesn't mean the knock's coming on your door tonight. It does mean that there will be less questioning about killing prisoners, assasinating political rivals, running covert military operations against neutrals and nations with whom we're at peace, and whatever else they can conjure up.

More than anything else, it is a slap in the face to remind the entire military that they are to unquestioningly obey or be ruined.

It is most definitely the latter; there is no question about that. They're yanking the choke collar to bring the beast to bay. This cannot be good: these are bad, evil people who now run this country; make no mistake about that.

Do you trust these guys? Do you not see this as another move to crush dissent? The Government is not the sole plaything of the President; to move to bully everyone into accepting his unquestioned primacy IS A COUP of sorts. It's better described--as it has been--as a purge to consolidate power. Not recognizing this as a power grab and an attempt to further control a military that is increasingly our tool-of-choice for "diplomacy" is foolhardy.

I know you're "not a lib", but what are you? Are you a self-styled "realist" who poo poos all conspiracies?

[whoYaCallinAlib]

44. I will surprise you here . . . I agree that Rummy is consolidating

his power. He is increasing his influence and reach. Okay.

[PurityOfEssence]

47. Is he not also subverting the constitution, and ain't it coup-ish?

Just what is it that the others won't go along with? Regardless, isn't it a real ball grabber to show everyone that they survive at the behest of a tyrant? There hasn't been a shakeup like this since Marshall jumped Eisenhower over many superiors.

What's up?

It's not good.

The sky may not be completely falling, but big honkin' huge chunks of it sure as hell are.

Remember: it happens by degrees.

Call me "Chicken Medium-Large", but this is not good, and it is the harbinger of things to come. Is there anything that could come out of this mob that's "good"?

I think they're ginning it up for an attack on Syria. Sounds crazy, I know, but we'll see. That's definitely the wildest thing they'd do; perhaps we're just gearing up for a better stab at Venezuela, covert, that is...

[wyldwolf]

16. The American people perhaps?

I dunno, seems if there was a REAL takeover of the country, we would be the ones who lose, not any political party.

As many here have pointed out, elections can be cancelled in national emergencies...

Go back in time and ask me three years ago if I thought the Repugs could steal an election like they did in 2000. My reply would be much like yours. "Connect the dots for me..." "you're paranoid." etc.

[BigMcLargehuge]

21. comments below

I dunno, seems if there was a REAL takeover of the country, we would be the ones who lose, not any political party.

You don't think we've lost?

As many here have pointed out, elections can be cancelled in national emergencies...

This is a consolidation of power issue not a coup issue.

Go back in time and ask me three years ago if I thought the Repugs could steal an election like they did in 2000. My reply would be much like yours. "Connect the dots for me..." "you're paranoid." etc.

That was the coup. I am not arguing with you there... But there isn't any more power to grab, at least not political and at least not from us. They can't do anything overt like shut down offending media outlets BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY.

I never put anything past anyone with a power woody. The mid-term elections provided the first real opportunity to consilidate power under the current admin. With electronic voting inconsistencies completely ignored by the mainstream press, the WH admin easily maneuvered its underlings into majority position.

Like i said. It's been done. You're calling the fire department after the house has burned down and the ashes blown away.

What they can do, now that their coup is successful, is redistribute the average wealth upwards and put the bill for future deficits on the sefdom.

[wyldwolf]

29. Here is where I disagree...

You don't think we've lost?

Only until the next election. Our destiny is still in our hands as long as there is free and fair elections. If you'll research coups throughout history, this reading like a script. National tragedy. War. Purge of opposition. More war.

The coup, based on the definition you adhere to, began in 2000 but won't be complete until the power grab is complete. There is PLENTY of power still to grab - long term power.

[BigMcLargehuge]

30. Lemme type it really slow for you

t-h-i-s
i-s
a
c-o-n-s-o-l-i-d-a-t-i-o-n
o-f
p-o-w-e-r
n-o-t
a
c-o-u-p

coup happend, the event happened in 2000. Everything else is consolidation of power...

for future discourse I will simply reference this post because I am tired of repeating myself.

[wyldwolf]

33. Well, since we're dispelling with pleasantries...

...and you wish to treat me as a child, I'll return the favor:

j-u-s-t
b-e-c-a-u-s-e
y-o-u
s-a-y
s-o
d-o-e-s-n-'-t
m-a-k-e
i-t
s-o

As mentioned several times over, the definition is "A brilliantly executed stratagem; a triumph."

Which could mean the coup is ongoing and it not yet complete. Which could mean the Pentagon purge is an integral part of an ongoing coup.
Which definitely means the 2000 election alone wasn't the coup -since we still have benefit of a democratic process to remove this government. (if you don't agree, why bother voting?)

Please don't bother to reply other than to reference you're above post as you indicated you would.

Have a nice day. :)

[BigMcLargehuge]

34. not dispensing with pleasantries, just venting frustration

you don't think 2000 was a brilliantly executed strategem? That was the coup.

The length of the stay in power is irrelevant.. Look at what happened to Hugo Chaves. Out for three days. That was a coup too. It didn't last, but it was a coup. It didn't last bacause they couldn't cement their power.

[wyldwolf]

35. .

[BigMcLargehuge]

37. tastes great, less filling

not a question of being diagreed with... you keep using the same arguments to support your position.

You're wrong. The coup happened. The 2002 mid-terms, firing generals, and devising a Dr. Evil-like plan to circumvent the 2004 election is consolidation of power.

Now, how do be prevent that consolidation... that's the real question. Let's work on that problem rather than arguing semantic.

[wyldwolf]

38. ha ha ha ha ha ha!

"you're wrong."

Oh, that is so rich.

I keep using the same arguments to support my position because the arguments are sound.

You, on the other hand, should only be referencing post #30 in your replies which, by the way, is using the same arguments to support your position because, I know... You're RIGHT and I'm WRONG! :eyes:

[BigMcLargehuge]

39. have a nice day

.

[wyldwolf]

36. We're quibbling with definitions here...

... but I sense your frustration stems from being disagreed with? I respect you opinion and knowledge in the area but must insist you do the same for the DU'ers here who disagree with your assessment. We don't need anything s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t for us.

[gristy]

31. I agree with most everything here but

But there isn't any more power to grab, at least not political and at least not from us. They can't do anything overt like shut down offending media outlets BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY.

There's lots more power that * still lacks and desires a great deal. Certainly the media has a long ways to go before they are no longer offensive at all to him.

A plutocrat never has enough power or money. He always strives for more.

[quinnox]

22. Great, just great

I bet the first act of Bush will be to order all Democrats to "re-education" school.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

25. Ha! Very good.

But it's call "re-edumacation skool".

[BigMcLargehuge]

26. don't misunderstimate the high-pie of redjumakation!!!!

So sayeth the leader

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. If People Really Believe So Strongly That This Coup

is going to take place it is incumbent upon them to take every action to stop it.

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

-Edmund Burke

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in a time of great moral crisis."

-Dante Alighieri

The "coup" stoppers should write editorials to their local papers and contact sympathetic elected officials.

To believe the coup is about to occur and do no less is treasonous.

[RainDog]

45. the coup occured in 2000

it was a "soft" coup- no military used, just a brother and his whore who disenfranchised tens of thousands of people who mostly vote democratically.

when this was not sufficient, five supreme court "justices" made what they called a ONE TIME RULING which installed the Bush junta.

With 9-11, the Bush junta pulled out the already existing USA "Patriot" Act and when Congress didn't want to go along, two dems were sent anthrax, Congress was kept up late into the night and I wonder if anyone read the whole thing before it passed.

They already had the plan to attack Iraq in place as well. Again, so coincidental that 9-11 gave them a "new Pearl Harbor" to enact their Machiavellian schemes.

Since then, whenever Bush pushes the buttons of the American public with orange warnings which coincidentally, occur at the same time he wants the right wing repukes to gain control of both legislative branches, as well as the executive and the judiciary.

in the meantime, Bush accrues more and more power to the executive branch at the expense of the legislative. pre-emptive war allows him to attack Iraq, in violation of the Nuremberg principles our country helped to write.

Rummy and his and Wolfowitz's Office of Special Projects cooks intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq, over the protests of State dept. and military and other intelligence, ambassadors...

they don't care. they are gonna get their war on.

Rummy forces out a general who tells the truth about the amount of forces and time needed to invade Iraq. Rummy is an idiot who believes his own press.

but Rummy is part of the cabal, and the one thing they know how to do is exercise raw power. So now Rummy is "downsizing" the military and putting in the people who will agree with his looney intelligence assessments.

Dr. Strangelove, anyone?

So, this firing is not a coup.

the coup against Chavez failed because someone warned him and he stationed 200 troops in the presidential palace, left the place, and called to let the coup plotters know they were about to be toast if they didn't leave. they left.

I have been contacting my reps since the 2000 coup. for the first time in my life I got out to protest a war before we attacked. They don't give a damn what I think.

I've written letters which were published in my local paper...one, on the anniversary of 9-11 mentioned that the Saudis, not Saddam, were allied with Al Q, as was/is Bush. I called for Bush to resign.

apparently 14 million people around the world are not signficant to the Bush junta...not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Americans alone.

What am I supposed to do against this abuse of power, then?

vote and hope that diebold doesn't count too many votes in this country?

What are our elected representatives in Washington to do? What are they there for? I thought they were supposed to be the defense against tyranny, via upholding the Constitution.

I thought this was a representative democracy, even with the abuses.

Obviously I was wrong.