Rethinking the 2000 coup d’état

In the post below regarding the 2000 election I wrote

The 2000 election: Al Gore won, so that the ascension of George W. Bush was yet another coup. I have no regard for Al Gore, and so don’t imagine the policy differences that resulted from Bush holding office over him mattered much, but I stand to be educated.

In other words, there were no history-changing differences between the two aristocrats that were involved in the 2000 coup. Had President Al Gore been aboard Air Force One that day has it flew at low altitude around the country without fighter jet protection, having been given an ultimatum complete with nuclear launch codes to demonstrate the power behind it, he too would have capitulated.

But the coup plotters had apparently been planning 9/11 since at least 1997, so getting their team into office was probably seen as essential to get the right people in position to pull it off. There had to be moles in place throughout the military and in various civilian agencies for the plot to succeed as it did.

Would they have been able to pull it off without having captured the presidency in 2000? I do not know, of course. But I suspect, given that they went so far as to threaten the Supreme Court into making one of the most embarrassing and baseless rulings in American history to get Bush in power, they thought it mattered.

I do not for a second think that George W. Bush was trusted with any information surrounding 9/11. He was a deer in the headlights. Cheney? Perhaps. But this is the United States of America. We do not investigate these crimes, and so will not know for many years to come the manipulations behind that event.

If ever.

18 thoughts on “Rethinking the 2000 coup d’état”

  1. I disagree, Toke. Continuity of command would have remained intact and the dots would have been connected had Gore survived the SCOTUS ruling. Instead of planes allegedly hitting the WTC there would have been a blurb in the media about some plot being uncovered.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Pulleeze! 9/11 was the (necessary catalyst) means to sway public opinion to rally overwhelmingly in support of an unprovoked military invasion of the ME. To this day, when asked who is responsible for 9/11, Sadam and Osama, two wrong answers, will be the two most popular choice. Totally brainwashed to this day.

      Regime change in Iraq was specifically agreed to in 1998 without objection from Gore.

      See: H.R.4655 — Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
      “SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.
      It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

      The “color revolution” failed, which was followed by invasion/occupation. This has been the pattern of U.S. “humanitarian intervention.” Has this same pattern not been consistent in the ME, first with the Brits, then the U.S. and Israel as a tag team after the sun finally set on the British Empire?

      Like

      Reply

    2. Larry, I think that speculation about who would have done what is unknowable. We can only look at two factors, in my view anyway: The past performance of the man, and the state of the office itself. Gore had never measured up and always gone along before, and anyway, the office of the executive was trashed and neutered as far back as Ike.

      Even given all of that, Gore might have manned up under the pressure of the coup brought about that day. If so, Air Force One would have been shot down. That was the whole point of “Angel is next.”

      Like

      Reply

      1. What i’m saying is: if SCOTUS would have heard the case and ruled for Gore rather than uphold Jeb’s secretary of state the entire head-lopping W performed on the chain of command would have been avoided. Gore would have retained Clinton’s security agency as the intelligence apparatus was connecting the dots Mossad and IDF were leaving ahead of the event. Angel would not have been in the air that day if the plot had been uncovered.

        That the buildings were dropped into their footprints with explosives during what you describe as a coup are entirely plausible.

        Like

        Reply

        1. That is all possible, though unknowable. The office of president has been emasculated over the decades, so that if you are assuming that Clinton was more in charge than anyone in the post war era, I think you’re wrong. He wanted to invade Iraq too, as I recall, but could not mobilize public opinion.

          If you’re a reader, you might enjoy Where Did The Towers Go?, by Dr. Judy Wood. “Bombs in the buildings” has long been shown to be impossible.

          http://wheredidthetowersgo.com

          Like

          Reply

          1. Been all over that. Your focus on the 9/11 event rather than on Gore’s defeat by the apparatus is looking up a dead horse’s ass.

            Direct me to your coverage of Bush v. Gore, por favor?

            Like

            Reply

          2. Was Bush v Gore an essential part of 9/11? Apparently.

            And the answer above was

            But the coup plotters had apparently been planning 9/11 since at least 1997, so getting their team into office was probably seen as essential to get the right people in position to pull it off. There had to be moles in place throughout the military and in various civilian agencies for the plot to succeed as it did.

            Would they have been able to pull it off without having captured the presidency in 2000? I do not know, of course. But I suspect, given that they went so far as to threaten the Supreme Court into making one of the most embarrassing and baseless rulings in American history to get Bush in power, they thought it mattered.

            Like

            Reply

  3. Mark, please do me a favor and ask on Don’s site just exactly why I have been banned. That’s pure bullshit. No contrary opinion allowed on Montana blogs any more. I suspect that AbNorma has been Lewisnskying Don or sumthin’. It’s a sad day on the Montana blogs when you can’t even speak TRVTH to bullshit any longer without offending the inbreds. thanks in advance.
    LK

    Like

    Reply

      1. But ya know, when I got banned at the Cowturd site, suddenly, outta nowhere, these inbreds who had NO history on the blogs starting showing up and complaining about my writing like the so called montana mommy person. I suspect that they’re rightwing plants inserted to take out specific writers. I didn’t think that Don of all people would fall for it. I just lost all respect for the dude. Incredible how scared some folks are of free speech.

        Like

        Reply

        1. It seems like folks like me now belong to the crazy demographic. I can sympathize with the guy in this article, for I too am a Nam vet who is unable to not call bullshit bullshit. And for that we are banned and dragged outta hearing rooms. I’ve been kicked outta more than one public meeting myself. Crazy old people, the only truth tellers left who aren’t afraid to speak out.
          http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/63538/elderly-man-disrupts-business-as-usual

          Like

          Reply

          1. Relax. These things don’t last forever. Don usually draws about three comments a week, two of them from Talbot.

            Thanks again, by the way, for steering me towards Unspeakable. Did I tell you my cousin was mentioned in the acknowledgements? I was visiting her and he called, as they are friends, and she put me on the line. Nervous, I was. Very nice man.

            Like

            Reply

            1. You’re welcome. My parents met Kennedy three times. They got an invite to his inaugural I could have met him too, but hell, I was a kid and more into kid stuff. My parents were devastated when he was killed. We loved JFK. He was Irish, Catholic, and one of us. Of course, I was too young to understand all the forces at play at the time, but now that I’m older, I hate the fascist bastards who murdered him and stole our country from us with a passion that most people could not possibly understand.

              BTW, it looks as if Don has turned the site over to Petey. And that is NOT a good thing. The one thing that Petey lacks is cojones. MAN that guy has gotta be a weenie!

              p.s. I gotta tell ya that I’m a reader as are you. I used to love to read fiction, but sumthin’ happened to me after the Pubbies tried to impeach Clinton for a blow job. I haven’t read a novel since, and I HATE the ReePubes for that. I knew that our country was in very serious trouble at that time. And therefore, I now read only non-fiction dealing with current events and history. Books like the JFK and the Unspeakable which most folks can’t make it through, I read with pleasure! Over and over again. And I analyze them! I hate the fascist bastards that much! For I have seen first hand the suffering their coup has caused. And blame it on my Catholic upbringing, but I can NOT abide it!

              Like

              Reply

Leave a comment