Richard Cook Crisis in the U.S: “Plan B”?


Richard Moore


I recommend this article. Mr. Cook expands his 
canvas beyond his last few articles which were 
more limited to the financial domain.


Original source URL:

Crisis in the U.S.: "Plan B"?

By Richard C. Cook

Global Research, November 11, 2007

       Strange events are taking place in the U.S.

       By August 2007, a lot of very smart people 
were reading the tea leaves, convinced that the 
upper echelons of the U.S. government had their 
own hidden reasons for forecasting an event even 
more heinous than the attacks of September 11, 

       President George W. Bush, Vice President 
Richard Cheney, and Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff had been 
hinting that another 9/11 could be coming.

Figures from the U.S. military had also projected 
a 9/11-type event. On April 23, 2006, for 
instance, the Washington Post published a 
statement by an unnamed Pentagon source that, 
"Another attack could create both a justification 
and an opportunity that is lacking today to 
retaliate against some known targets."

       9/11 was a turning point in history, and 
not just because it provided a pretext for the 
Bush administration to use off-the-shelf plans to 
invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The 9/11 Commission 
criticized the government for failing to do 
enough to act on danger signs that attacks may 
have been afoot. But a movement has formed which 
argues that the reality was worse-that 9/11 was 
an inside job staged to further the geopolitical 
ambitions of an elite seeking to use U.S. 
military power to advance its own imperialistic 

       What is indisputable is that from the 2000 
presidential election through the 9/11 attacks 
and their aftermath, what New York Times 
columnist Paul Krugman termed a "revolutionary 
power" took control of the U.S. government.

       Krugman's statement, contained in the 
introduction to his 2005 book The Great 
Unraveling, has not been taken seriously enough. 
George W. Bush had lost the popular vote to Al 
Gore but was named to office by a Supreme Court 
that rubber-stamped what Greg Palast and others 
have proven was an extended process of electoral 
fraud in Florida. The subsequent actions and 
policies of the Bush/Cheney administration have 
been in accord with its dubious beginnings.

       From the emergence of the Neocons as an 
ideological power base dominant over U.S. foreign 
policy, to destruction wreaked on the Bill of 
Rights by illegal surveillance of citizens, to 
the senseless creation of the bureaucratically 
monstrous Department of Homeland Security and 
passage of the Patriot Acts, to the initiation of 
"wars of choice" leading to the devastation of 
two nations and the killing or displacement of 
perhaps a million Middle Eastern non-combatants, 
to violation of international treaties and 
conventions against wars of aggression and 
torture of prisoners, to presiding over an 
economy ruined by the continued export of 
manufacturing jobs and the creation and deflation 
of the housing bubble, to the wrecking of the 
federal budget by over a trillion dollars of 
wartime expenditure, to the abandonment of the 
city of New Orleans during and after Hurricane 
Katrina, to tax cuts for the most wealthy while 
the income of the middle class has drastically 
eroded, and to threats to start another war, this 
time against Iran, based on deceptions similar to 
those which preceded the Iraq invasion, the 
Bush/Cheney administration has brought the U.S. 
to the brink of catastrophe.

       What is now being asked is whether there 
was a plan that was to take place in 
September-October 2007 whereby the rest of the 
job would have been done. Speculation was that a 
nuclear device was to have been detonated in a 
U.S. city, perhaps one of the six attached to 
cruise missiles that were "inadvertently" carried 
by the Air Force B-52 bomber that flew from South 
Dakota to Louisiana just before Labor Day.

       Check this link from the Arkansas Democrat 
Gazette for the official explanation of the 

According to the Air Force's report, the missiles 
were being mothballed due to "a treaty," but 
ground personnel at Minot Air Force Base "grabbed 
the wrong ones" and loaded missiles with nuclear 
warheads by mistake.

       Some have argued that these nukes were 
secretly bound for Iran to prepare for a nuclear 
attack on that country. But would such a Keystone 
Cops routine have been necessary to prepare for 
military action as a contingency to implement a 
possible decision coming from the highest 
political levels?

       Suppose, on the other hand, that one of the 
nukes was targeted for a false-flag domestic 
attack, perhaps a city like Portland, Oregon, 
where military exercises simulating a major 
terrorist incident had been scheduled and where 
residents actually were warning each other to 
leave town.

       Was the attack to trigger an economic 
collapse, leading as a side-effect to a payoff of 
billions of dollars for the placers of the "bin 
Laden bets" that were reportedly made in the 
financial markets anticipating a fifty percent 
decline in stock prices? Of course such an attack 
would be blamed on foreign terrorists. The trail 
of the explosion would be found to lead to Iran, 
resulting in war against that nation. Would the 
Constitution then have been suspended and martial 
law declared? Would citizens have been rounded up 
and herded into prison camps?

       Such a scenario seems unfathomable, 
horrendous, even incredible. But it still may 
have been in character for a regime whose actions 
have led the world to view the U.S. as the 
greatest existing threat to peace. Rumors about 
such possible events have been churning on the 
internet for months.

       But the rumors have not been confined to 
"conspiracy theorists." Regarding President 
Bush's commitment to the sanctity of 
constitutional processes, Congressman John Olver 
expressed the prevailing view in government 
circles when he told twenty of his constituents 
at a private meeting in Massachusetts on July 5, 
2007, that he could not support a movement to 
impeach Bush. According to an attendee, the 
reason the Congressman gave was that, "The 
President would declare a national emergency, 
institute martial law, and suspend the 2008 

       Therefore we might ask if it is true, as 
some sources have alleged, that the reason these 
events have not taken place was that there was a 
revolt by the U.S. military, which refused to 
carry out the false-flag attack that may have 
been intended?

       What then has happened differently which 
indicates that events may have altered or 
postponed such a sinister denouement to the 
nightmare of the last seven years?

       What has happened appears to be that the 
U.S. establishment has decided to move to "Plan 
B." This may be defined as a decision that the 
sway of the Bush/Cheney regime must end and that 
some semblance of normality should be restored, 
at least in appearance, by making Hillary Clinton 
the next President.

       Of course part and parcel of any Hillary 
Clinton presidency would be the presence and 
participation of her husband, former President 
Bill Clinton. We may rightly speak of "the 
Clintons" as a unit in this context.

       The signs that Hillary Clinton is the 
President-designee have been appearing in droves. 
These include her rise in the polls, especially 
in Iowa, the emergence of an anti-Bush surge in 
the mega-media, especially on MSNBC, and the 
appointment of Democrats with ties to the 
Clintons at the Defense and Treasury Departments. 
Other signs include the emergence of a campaign 
by certain well-connected websites to keep tabs 
on pro-Neocon news commentators and offensives 
being launched against some particularly 
obnoxious right-wing media figures such as Bill 
O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

       The way Hillary Clinton is being portrayed 
in the mega-media is of decisive importance, 
because media-owning conglomerates such as GE, 
Viacom, and Disney serve the interests of the 
establishment, not the public. Nothing makes it 
to the airwaves without the approval of the 
financial interests which control these giants. 
Also decisive was the appearance of Hillary and 
Bill on the cover of the October 6 edition of The 
Economist, long the keystone publication of the 
Anglo-American international financial empire.

       The Washington Post, another establishment 
house organ, has noted that Hillary herself is 
couching her election in terms of "when, not if." 
The theme she is projecting is that of an 
anointed insider calling for "national unity." 
For this she is being duly attacked by her 
competitors, most notably John Edwards.

       The best example of how the mega-media is 
telegraphing establishment intent was Chris 
Mathews' lead story on Hardball on Monday night, 
November 5, which displayed MSNBC's "Power 
Rankings" for presidential candidates. The 
segment began with an adulatory profile of 
Hillary's campaign. Mathews then set a record for 
premature declaration of victory by predicting 
her as "the most likely winner of the Democratic 
nomination and presidential election" a full year 
before the election is even to take place.

       Mathews repeated his judgment several times 
in what was obviously rehearsed language, even as 
the members of his three-person panel of 
commentators were trying in vain to raise 
objections, including the view that Hillary might 
not even win the Iowa caucuses or the New 
Hampshire primary. Mathews repeatedly overrode 
his own experts with his insistence that Hillary 
was the MSMBC pick.

       Oh yes, we will have the formality of a 
presidential election. Doubtless some fur will 
fly, because Hillary will always be the Clinton 
the right-wing most loves to hate. So we won't 
see a coronation.

       It is certain, however, that the current 
regime will exact a price for accepting at least 
temporary defeat. So far the price seems to be 
agreement by Hillary Clinton that the conquest of 
Iraq is a fait accompli, that the building of the 
Baghdad supersize embassy will continue, that 
permanent military bases in Iraq will be 
maintained a lá Korea, and that the option of an 
attack on Iran will remain "on the table."

       She has not raised her voice against any of 
this. The vehicle by which Clinton signed on to a 
possible attack on Iran was her vote in favor of 
the Senate resolution naming the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist sponsor. 
Perhaps there is also an understanding between 
the Clintons and the Bush/Cheney camp that the 
latter will not be prosecuted for crimes 
committed in office.

       No matter who becomes president in 2008, 
that person will be left with a nation in 
disarray. This includes a foreign policy that has 
been sacrificed to militaristic interests, the 
rise of a militant Russia now allied with China 
through the Shanghai Cooperative Organization, 
and a Latin America in open revolt against U.S. 
domination. Even maintaining a post-Bush foreign 
policy will be a challenge, given Condoleezza 
Rice's legacy of a State Department whose morale 
is in shreds due to a vicious Neocon takeover of 
the foreign service that will persist for a 
generation or more.

       Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is a wreck, 
with out-of-control debt, the housing collapse in 
full flower, continued erosion of manufacturing 
jobs, a sinking dollar, a crumbling physical 
infrastructure, soaring oil and food prices, 
out-of-control illegal immigration, and hordes of 
well-heeled foreigners buying U.S. assets with 
rapidly depreciating dollars.

       The economy is in much worse shape today 
than when Bill Clinton took over from George H. 
W. Bush in 1992. It will be a miracle if the next 
president is able to keep the U.S. from sinking 
into a depression. The only qualification to this 
assessment lies with the large companies heavily 
invested in the growing Chinese economy-GM, GE, 
IBM, etc. But a majority of the stock of these 
and other corporations is owned by financial 
institutions, while the trickle-down effect of 
dividends will provide only a fraction of the 
purchasing power needed to keep the U.S. economy 

       While the views of the American public 
still seem to register to a slight degree, the 
Democrats have failed to respond to their 
restoration by the electorate to power in 
Congress by ending the Iraq War. But by their 
votes in 2006 and by consistently giving George 
W. Bush such low ratings in the polls, Americans 
have delivered a message. So have the many 
internet sites covering the real news of the war 
and the economy.

       As well have the two maverick presidential 
candidates, Ron Paul the Republican and Dennis 
Kucinich the Democrat, who have been saying 
things not heard in the supine world of American 
politics for a long time. Things like getting rid 
of the inept handling of credit by the Federal 
Reserve and stopping the war in Iraq by exiting 
right now, without any more lies or excuses.

       But it is by no means certain that there is 
much immediate hope of salvaging the nation from 
the current debacle. The interests of millions of 
Americans have been severely damaged by the 
financial and political malfeasance that has gone 
on for so long. Abroad, the deaths or ruin of 
large numbers of people in the Middle East must 
be accounted for. That region is now less stable 
than ever, as the situation in Pakistan shows. A 
negotiated two-state settlement between Israel 
and the Palestinians seems a distant dream. 
Finally, sane multilateral systems for sharing of 
the world's resources among nations or dealing 
with global warming are nowhere in sight. And a 
nuclear holocaust involving the U.S. vs. Russia 
and possibly China is a growing danger.

       Further, the U.S. economy can't simply be 
"fixed." It is too far gone for that. The elite 
began their takedown of the economy during the 
1970s and show no signs of being able to reverse 
course. It started with the removal of the 
gold-peg to the dollar in 1971 and continued with 
the explosion of U.S. currency on the 
international scene due to the petrodollar, 
soaring trade and fiscal deficits, action to 
permanently mortgage us to military-backed 
dependence on imported Middle Eastern oil, a 
permanent tilt in favor of Israel vs. the Islamic 
world, and, finally, the galloping 1970s 

       These events led to the Fed-induced crash 
of 1979-83 which left us with today's travesty of 
a "service" economy. Now in 2007 the Fed is 
trying to engineer a "soft landing" of an economy 
trapped in unsustainable debt and collapsing 
bubbles, at least until the 2008 election. But 
everyone knows a crash is coming, particularly as 
China and other nations dump the plummeting 
dollar as their reserve currency.

       So what are the Clintons and their 
government-in-waiting planning? You would think 
they had something in mind. But maybe not. During 
the 1990s, Bill Clinton acted in full accord with 
the globalists' agenda by continuing with the 
Reagan/Bush I privatization of the economy, with 
downsizing of government, and with promotion of 
the bubble that ended with the 2000 
market crash. Unfortunately, it will not be as 
simple to engineer a repeat performance of even 
the ephemeral prosperity of the 1990s when what 
is lacking today is a real economic driver.

       The grievous condition of the U.S. is 
reflected in an epidemic of mental and emotional 
illness and a rising violent crime rate. It is 
reflected in a USA Today poll, where 72 percent 
of Americans say the nation is moving in the 
wrong direction (74 percent in a Washington 
Post/ABC News poll). And who knows what disasters 
global warming has in store?

       To face all this will require a decisive 
reorientation of U.S. governance. There is little 
in the history of the Clintons, their 
opportunistic style, and their passivity to the 
financier elite that justifies this much 
optimism. The financial controllers today exert 
more power over the U.S. economy and the nation's 
politics than at any time in history. They are 
not giving up this power. In fact, Hillary is 
their "safest" choice among the Democrats in 
maintaining control.

       Perhaps we may want to indulge in a sigh of 
relief at how much worse things could have 
been-or may still be-if Bush/Cheney unleash even 
more disasters. But stay tuned. The next four 
years are likely to be decisive-particularly 
because the plan to elevate Hillary Clinton may 
be a trap by which she is left holding the bag 
for an economic collapse that would make it much 
easier than at present for the Neocon storm 
troopers to rush back in.

       What is absolutely certain is that the 
people of the world do not want war, regardless 
of their religion, race, or nationality. The 
people of the world want economic fairness. The 
people of the world want to live by honest labor, 
not bank credit. And the people of the world want 
an environment that is clean and safe for future 
generations. The only people who do not appear to 
want these things have been those who are 
currently in charge of the U.S. government.

       The question now is what are the American 
people willing to do to assure that what is truly 
in the best interests of the nation will prevail? 
Will they continue to be manipulated by the fear 
which has been the basis of the Bush/Cheney mode 
of governance? Will they continue to act as 
obedient puppets as it becomes harder and harder 
to earn a living and raise a family in an economy 
throttled by debt and a declining standard of 
living? Will they simply vote for whom they are 
told to support by the media and the pollsters? 
Or will some decide that enough is enough and 
resolve to take America back in 2008?

       But even if they do, can they succeed?

       While Hillary Clinton is likely the 
designated Democratic nominee, Rudy Giuliani 
leads the polls for the Republicans. Giuliani, 
with his own group of Neocon advisers and his 
militant outbursts promising more war, is the 
ideological godson of Bush/Cheney.

       Whoever is pulling the strings behind the 
scenes, it is likely obvious to them that to 
allow a character like Giuliani to step in while 
so many raw nerves are exposed among the American 
populace could lead to a premature explosion. 
Especially since Giuliani spent most of his adult 
life as a prosecutor putting people in jail. It's 
hardly a time in the nation's life when what is 
needed as head of state is an expert at slamming 
people into detention.

       So what if Giuliani actually threatens to 
defeat Hillary while the establishment has 
decided to support her, perhaps just to buy time?

       The establishment is taking precautions. It 
seems to be doing so by starting to promote a 
plan that could see Ron Paul running as a 
third-party candidate. You can see this 
unfolding, for instance, in his favorable 
treatment on CNN's "Situation Room." And could 
Dr. Paul really have begun suddenly to raise 
enormous amounts of campaign cash without someone 
in the establishment giving a green light?

       Ron Paul as a candidate would obviously 
generate enormous excitement. But he could end up 
playing the same role as Ross Perot in the 1992 
election, where Perot allowed disgruntled voters 
to let off steam while drawing enough votes to 
allow Bill Clinton to defeat George H.W. Bush.

       One way or the other, the fix is on.

       Finally, we should note that the 
"revolutionary power" Paul Krugman refers to is 
not just the Bush/Cheney/Neocon regime. They are 
only the most visible recent manifestation.

       The true "revolutionary power" is much less 
visible but may reasonably be identified with the 
higher echelons of the "financier elite" and 
"establishment" referred to throughout this 
article. The underlying agenda of this group 
seems to be to destroy the U.S. as the world's 
greatest industrial democracy, turn it into a 
province of a globalist system under their 
control, and use its land and population as 
muscle for world monetary and military dominance.

       Can anything be done? Of course. The 
underlying problem is that the power and wealth 
acquired by the U.S. after World War II has 
eroded-has perhaps been squandered-as the rest of 
the world has grown up. Certainly, if the right 
people were in charge the U.S. could accept the 
inevitable, rebuild its failed domestic economy 
on democratic principles, and assume its rightful 
place as one of several major world powers, with 
the responsibility this would entail. Instead, we 
have been trying to hold onto what has slipped 
away by a continued resort to financial 
aggression combined with force of arms, rather 
than altruistic action based on enlightened 

       It's a failed mission. What has happened to 
America in the last decade is turning into the 
greatest tragedy of modern history.

       And what can ordinary people do while all 
this is unfolding? The best advice seems to be 
not to try to hoard paper assets, which the elite 
are able easily to manipulate or devalue. It's to 
get out of debt, hone our manual skills, invest 
in a small business, grow our own food, stay 
positive, help others, work hard, eschew the 
consumption lifestyle, pray and meditate, be 
sober, and learn to think for ourselves. We might 
try to work within the political system if we can 
and want to, but should not count on easy 
successes, because, as the man said, "It's a hard 
rain's gonna fall."

Richard C. Cook is a retired federal analyst, 
whose career included service with the U.S. Civil 
Service Commission, the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Carter White House, and NASA, 
followed by twenty-one years with the U.S. 
Treasury Department. His articles on economics, 
politics, and space policy have appeared on 
numerous websites. He is the author of Challenger 
Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan 
Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the 
Space Age, called by one reviewer, "the most 
important spaceflight book of the last twenty 
years." His website is at

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article 
are the sole responsibility of the author and do 
not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for 
Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original 
Global Research articles on community internet 
sites as long as the text & title are not 
modified. The source and the author's copyright 
must be displayed. For publication of Global 
Research articles in print or other forms 
including commercial internet sites, contact: 
•••@••.••• contains copyrighted 
material the use of which has not always been 
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. 
We are making such material available to our 
readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of 
political, economic and social issues. The 
material on this site is distributed without 
profit to those who have expressed a prior 
interest in receiving it for research and 
educational purposes. If you wish to use 
copyrighted material for purposes other than 
"fair use" you must request permission from the 
copyright owner.

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright Richard C. Cook, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is:

© Copyright 2005-2007
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

Posting archives:

Escaping the Matrix website:
cyberjournal website:

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework:

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)