July 24, 2007 (the date of publication in Russian)
Alexander Rudakov
YEAR 2008 CONSPIRACY EXPOSED
Ronald Reagan's associate urges US military to stifle the Bush-Cheney coup d'etat
The very suggestion of an impending military dictatorship in the United States, raised last autumn by RPMonitor, seemed absurd. The proposed scenario of a coup d'etat, ripening from inside the US establishment, was perceived by readers rather as a fancy futurological concoction. Today, we encounter the fact that our concerns are shared by a quite serious American – not an ultra-leftist antiglobalist militant and not a maverick alarmist but a renowned economist from the core of the Republican Party.
Paul Craig Roberts is esteemed as one of the architects of Robert Reagan's economic policy, dubbed Reaganomics. For years after he left office, he has never performed as a conspiracy theorist. His forecasts of a possible dictatorship in the United States are based upon analysis of particular policy moves of George W. Bush's Administration, especially in the financial sphere.
On July 17, George W. Bush signed an executive order authorizing the US Secretary of the Treasury to seize and confiscate financial assets of any person suspected of underground assistance to "subversive activities in Iraq". Though backers of Iraqi rebels in the United States are hardly numerous, the act allows practicing confiscation extrajudicially, just under authority of a simple recommendation from the Secretary of Defense, or Secretary of State. Thus, Bush's executive order theoretically enables the President to peep into the purses of all Americans. In this way, the principle of inviolability of private property, fundamental for the American social philosophy and political system, is put under question.
Raising alarm over this executive act, Paul Craig Roberts, an economist and once Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, reminds that "the American people don't quite recognize the menace they are facing", characterizing Bush's directive is a move towards "total, absolute power of a single individual".
Interpreting Bush's executive act, Roberts suspects that the White House "is of desperate need of some dramatic events instrumental for intimidating the American people and forcing the Congress to concede for a police state". He also warns that the recent statements of Home Security Secretary Michael Chertoff may indicate that Americans are going to witness a series of staged terrorist operations "under a false flag".
On July 19, Michael Chertoff claimed that according to his "internal feeling", terrorist actions are most probable during this summer. Admitting absence of any clues, the Home Security boss referred to the "torrent of threats from terrorist leaders" and to statistics indicating that terrorist acts more frequently take place in summer months.
Roberts believes that the menace to the United States should be detected in a different direction. He believes that George W. Bush is actually consolidating all possible resources for a personal dictatorship, preparing draft executive acts which are to be enacted at the moment when he decides to introduce martial law. In other words, Roberts made clear that Bush and Cheney may organize terrorist acts in the United States for the purpose of introducing of a state of emergency, abrogation of elections, and usurpation of power. According to Roberts' forecast, "both figures of the Administration and prominent Republican Party propagandists are preparing for a new 9/11-like event or to a series of such events as a pretext for seizing power and immediately launching an assault on Iran".
In this context, Roberts doubts the capability of the US House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Supreme Court to protect American democracy. He lays all his hopes on the US military who are likely to reject the role of the action agency for unlawful designs of today's White House. "The military are already sick and tired of Iraq, and they may openly disobey", the ex-Deputy Secretary said in a radio interview, re-broadcasted by over 50 radio stations.
What does that mean? First of all, Roberts' statements indirectly suggest that some team of US policymakers traces the background of the September 11 tragedy in the contradictions inside the US establishment, and therefore raises concerns over the possibility of a "second edition" of 9/11, followed with a breakdown of US democratic institutions. On the other hand, this team does not rely upon the return of the Clinton era, especially in the conditions of the impending monetary crisis. In the situation of choice between a peaceful version of globalization (with a risk of transformation of the US into a Hispanic nation and change of the cultural predominant) and a military version (with a coup d'etat suppressing civil rights and liberties and neglecting private ownership), this team proposes a rather reasonable "third option" of militarized isolationism.
We have already emphasized that the contrast between the power potential of the US military circles and their access to public administration is one of the most critical domestic problems of the United States. In the previous text, focused on potential changes in the US political system, we have already mentioned the fact that the levers of political power in the United States are today in the hands of financial oligarchy which freely manipulates policies and information. In case of a breakdown of the US monetary system, the financial elite will have to yield power to a military government, buttressed by military industrial tycoons and top generals. This process of change may take years – or hours, in the form of an abrupt demolition of the American political system.
Which prospect is the least traumatic for the US society? The most reasonable option is to present the evolutional scenario to the top military circles before a new 9/11 could happen. This is the objective, obviously pursued by Paul Craig Roberts.
Foreseeing an attempt to utilize US military for an anti-constitutional dictatorship, Roberts actually proposes an alternative scenario of the military's political self-actualization. In this alternative scenario, the army would perform not as the "Praetorian guard" of the globofascists, occupying the White House, but as a shield for traditional political values, the ideals of America’s Founding Fathers, and the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence. In this version, the US military community would elevate its status on the basis of constitutional law, becoming – like in Turkey – an "armed guarantor of democracy". The military are proposed a more decent mission, exercising their power for deterrence of extremist political groups which are ready to victimize basic principles for some irrational requirements or egocentric purposes related to the 2008 Presidential elections.
This scenario seems to be the most reasonable for the United States, and at the same time, the least troublesome for the rest of humanity. However, the White House's executive orders and statements Roberts is warning about in public indicate that the "second 9/11" anti-Utopia with the following attempt of global warfare (exceeding assaults on Iran and Pakistan) is highly probable. A healthy instinct of self-protection would help Russian politicians to lift the taboo on discussing this menace, and elaborate a number of scenarios of adequate response. In any case, protection of national sovereignty and assurance of national security should be regarded as the utmost priority of Russian policy.
Number of shows: 1153
ENG 
