| |
|
The mid-term elections in the US were sculpted to be pro or con Homeland
Security and War on Terrorism. Anyone opposing the Bush Administration was
soft on security and terrorists, regardless of their argument. Those who
had experienced combat and the horrors of war, surviving maimed, were
termed terrorist huggers if they did not rubber stamp the Bush
Administration’s plans, drawn up by civilians and combat avoiders such as
the current US President himself. Anyone questioning the treatment of US
citizens, not granted rights in being detained endlessly in questionable
quarters without being charged, was a terrorist hugger. Thus, civil rights
out the window and the Constitution and Bill of Rights used as toilet
paper. Given the horror of 911, the first attack on the continental US
ever, and the drum-beat of accusations of anyone opposing the
Bush Administration for any reason, the voters decided to give
the President the benefit of the doubt and empower him. Now what?
Those who have discerned that the Bush Administration has an agenda, not
spoken but hidden behind the bluster, are now seeing an administration
that stole an election from Gore, the popularly elected President, and is
so casual about civil rights that they are frankly breaking the law by
their imprisonment of innocents, without charges, are horrified. Will war
with Iraq not proceed, a virtual martial law in the US be imposed, even
without the formality of pronouncing this? To put this into perspective,
it should be stated that the President had the right to
instigate war with Iraq before the elections, even without getting
Congressional approval, if he could explain this in terms that include
national defense. The President had the ability to imprison
innocents without charges, despite international bluster and national
complaints within the court system, as the memory of 911 was so recent
that all who opposed this imprisonment were termed terrorist huggers. The
President also had the ability to impose martial law, via FEMA,
as man conspiratorialists have enunciated, the US Presidential directives
having put this in place years ago, in anticipation of the pole shift end
times. So, has anything changed?
At the time of the mid-term elections, the world stands united against
the Bush Administration for its plans to attack Iraq on slight excuse.
Terrorist attacks have not been traced to Iraq instigation, countries such
as Korea have the bomb but are being excused, and Russia uses chemical
weapons on its own citizens without umbrage. The world is united against
the Bush Administration plans to start a war with Iraq, and even their
ally Israel is having domestic problems with the hard liners. The US
economy, despite an artificially maintained Stock Market index, is in the
tank, with economic indicators steadily worsening. Earthquakes
under-reporting is finally being noticed, with the quakes now creating
devastation that cannot be ignored. The weather has reached the point of
being beyond argument, with the common man wondering what will come next,
at this rate. Those in the US Military who have experienced combat are
horrified at the prospect of a casual war with no grounds except ambition,
while the Bush Administration is attempting to supplant the military
command with those clubby with Bush, civilians or those without combat
experience at all. Given that the arrogant and ambitious Bush
Administration can be expected to assume a Bush Mandate, what is likely to
occur?