new thread - a WAKE UP call

[mhgaffney]

Paul Craig Roberts, a Republican, and a former high official in the Reagan administration, also a former editor of the Wall Street Journal -- among many other accomplishments -- learned long ago that the neo cons are not to be trusted. They gave us 911 -- and may well be preparing another surprise.

Roberts has attempted to wake up our country men -- so far with little success.

If this board is any indication, Americans (and esp Democraps) are sitting ducks for what is coming. Roberts probably has it right. MHG

A Wake-up Call

By Paul Craig Roberts

07/19/07 "ICH" -- -- This is a wake-up call that we are about to have another 9/11-WMD experience.

The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally seventy-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government’s protection.

Intelligent observers are puzzled that President Bush is persisting in a futile and unpopular war at the obvious expense of his party’s electoral chances in 2008.

In the July 18 Los Angeles Times (“Bush the Albatross”), Ronald Brownstein reminds us that Bush’s behavior is disastrous for his political party. Unpopular presidents “have consistently undercut their party in the next election.” Brownstein reports that “88% of voters who disapproved of the retiring president’s job performance voted against his party’s nominee in past elections. . . . On average, 80% of voters who disapproved of a president’s performance have voted against his party’s candidates even in House races since 1986.”

Brownstein notes that with Bush’s dismal approval rating, this implies a total wipeout of the Republicans in 2008.

A number of pundits have concluded that the reason the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush’s follies is that they expect Bush’s unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory next year.

There is a problem with this reasoning. It assumes that Cheney, Rove,and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts or are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his warmonger-police state fling. “After me, the deluge.”

Isn’t it more likely that Cheney and Rove have in mind events that will, once again, rally the people behind President Bush and the Republican Party that is fighting the “war on terror” that the Democrats “want to lose”?

Such events could take a number of forms. As even diehard Republican Patrick J. Buchanan observed on July 17, with three US aircraft carrier battle groups in congested waters off Iran, another Tonkin Gulf incident could easily be engineered to set us at war with Iran. If Bush’s intentions were merely to bomb a nuclear reactor, he would not need three carrier strike forces.

Lately, the administration has switched to blaming Iran for the war in Iraq. The US Senate has already lined up behind the latest lie with a 97-0 vote to condemn Iran.

Alternatively, false flag “terrorist” strikes could be orchestrated in the US. The Bush administration has already infiltrated some dissident groups and encouraged them to participate in terrorist talk, for which they were arrested. It is possible that the administration could provoke some groups to actual acts of violence.

Many Americans dismiss suspicion of their government as treasonous, and most believe conspiracy to be impossible “because someone would talk.”

There is no basis in any known fact for this opinion.

According to polls, 36% of the American people disbelieve the 9/11 Commission Report. Despite this lack of confidence, and despite the numerous omissions and errors in the report, it has proven impossible to have an independent investigation of 9/11 or to examine the official explanation in public debate. Even experts and people with a lifetime of distinguished public service are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” “kooks,” and “traitors” if they question the official explanation of 9/11. This despite the fact that war in the Middle East, a long-planned goal of Bush’s neoconservative administration, could not have been initiated without a “new Pearl Harbor.”

That powerfully constructed steel buildings could suddenly turn to dust because they were struck by two flimsy aluminum airliners and experienced small fires on a few floors that burned for a short time appears unexceptionable to a majority of Americans.

Moreover, people have talked. Hundreds of them. Firefighters, police, janitors, and others report hearing and experiencing a series of explosions in upper floors and massive explosions in the underground basements. This eyewitness testimony was kept under wraps for three or more years until the official explanation had taken root. The oral histories were finally forced loose by freedom of information act suits. The eyewitness reports of explosion after explosion had no effect.

Larry Silverstein, who received billions of dollars in insurance payments for the destroyed buildings, talked. He said on public television that the order was given “to pull” building 7. His stunning admission had no effect.

The Bush administration is preparing us for more terrorist attacks. The latest intelligence report says that Al Qaeda has regrouped, rebuilt, and has the ability to come after us again. “Al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here,” says the report.

Security operatives, such as Michael Chertoff, and various instruments of administration propaganda have warned that we will be attacked before next year’s election. Chertoff is not a person who wants to be known as Chicken Little for telling us that the sky is falling.

Bush has the Republican Party in such a mess that it cannot survive without another 9/11. Whether authentic or orchestrated, an attack will activate Bush’s new executive orders, which create a dictatorial police state in event of “national emergency.” [See http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=6134 ]

The UK government is hand-in-glove with the Bush administration and will provide cover or verification for whatever claim the Bush administration advances. So will the right-wing governments in Canada and Australia. That takes care of the English-speaking world from which contrary explanations might reach the American people.

It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario. If so, then my prediction prior to the invasion that the US invasion of Iraq will destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement will be proven true. The Democrats’ strategy of doing nothing except making sure Bush gets his way will produce the landslide that they expect.

However, this assumes that Cheney, Rove, and their neoconservative allies have lost their cunning and their manipulative skills. It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous assumption for Democrats and the American people to make.

Once the US experiences new attacks, Bush will be vindicated. His voice will be confident as he speaks to the nation: “My administration knew that there would be more attacks from these terrorists who hate us and our way of life and are determined to destroy every one of us. If only more of you had believed me and supported my war on terror these new attacks would not have happened. Our security efforts were impaired by the Democrats’ determined attempts to surrender to the terrorists by forcing our withdrawal from Iraq and by civil libertarian assaults on our necessary security measures. If only more Americans had trusted their government, this would not have happened.” And so on. Anyone should be able to write the script.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario. If so, then my prediction prior to the invasion that the US invasion of Iraq will destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement will be proven true. The Democrats’ strategy of doing nothing except making sure Bush gets his way will produce the landslide that they expect.

I do think this will be the case. If anything were to happen, I do think a majority will be quite suspicious and not as quick to accept what the White House might have to say about it.

I listened to a radio interview with this man on my drive into work. I sure hope he is wrong. And a part of me believes he may be. But I can also be an optimist to a fault.

[codeman]

The probability of another terrorist attack is high. My opinion is that conspiracy theories will point them at the nearest person or administration that is available. I'll be interested to see the spin put on an attack that happens after GWB is no longer president, especially if Billary is in office.

There is no conspiracy, there was no conspiracy and there will be no conspiracy with the exception of those that have to find something other than what is presented to them.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by codeman

There is no conspiracy, there was no conspiracy and there will be no conspiracy with the exception of those that have to find something other than what is presented to them.

Accepting what is presented with no 2nd guess?

This is a slave's mentality

[baja]

The amazing thing mhj is the chances of your scenario being right are greater than they being wrong in my mind at least.

[theAPAOps5]

mhg has posted so much crap out there that one of his things might actually be right and then he will be like ohohoh see I told you. Buts like buying $100 worth of lotto scratch tickets. You are going to get something but its minimalized by the fact that you spent $100.00. mhg has said so much stuff that its borderline worthless. Like Bob except I still think mhg has more credibility and he is nuts!

[baja]

Seems to me he is saying 9/11 was a false flag and a desperate administration is preparing another false flag so they can say mission complete (attack Iran)

What else has he said?

[codeman]

Originally Posted by RkyMtnThunder

Accepting what is presented with no 2nd guess?

This is a slave's mentality

From what I saw the second guessing arose long after the events of 9/11 and the videos I've seen as proof do not match the videos I taped live when the events were happening.

There were some subtle edits to the videos to prove their point. If you have to change history, at lease do it so it can't be detected.

Slaves mentality? I don't think so. Being able to see the lies of the conspiracy theorists is a prime factor for my beliefs. After all, they've been claiming mini-nukes for cripes sake. Even a small neutron bomb leaves a very tracible and substantial radiological footprint.

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by baja fan

Seems to me he is saying 9/11 was a false flag and a desperate administration is preparing another false flag so they can say mission complete (attack Iran)

What else has he said?

Its mostly about 9/11. Supposedly Cheney was flying around in sooped up 747 and remotely flew the jet into the pentagon. Then mini nukes were used on the towers. The Russian general who said we are attacking Iran, but that was coberated by others so that is not a ding. Now Bush is going to become dictator after staging another attack. You can only cry wolf so many times.

[baja]

So he is throwing out possible theories as to how 9/11 was accomplished as a false flag orp. with some of them being far fetched. Is that a fair statement?

[Bob]

10 years from now after we are hit with something horrific, there will always be the blind minority who first think that aliens, or the ghost of JFK, or the developmentally disabled, yet selectively gifted ex-president Bush had a hand in the holy war against the West.

Freaking morons.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Bob

10 years from now after we are hit with something horrific, there will always be the blind minority who first think that aliens, or the ghost of JFK, or the developmentally disabled, yet selectively gifted ex-president Bush had a hand in the holy war against the West.

Freaking morons.

Given current events how can you be so sure of this?

Do you not sometimes wonder what this administration is capable of?

Does not the fact that Pat Buchanan, a poster boy for conservatism is publicly questioning bushco's motives concern you in the least?

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5

Its mostly about 9/11. Supposedly Cheney was flying around in sooped up 747 and remotely flew the jet into the pentagon. Then mini nukes were used on the towers. The Russian general who said we are attacking Iran, but that was coberated by others so that is not a ding. Now Bush is going to become dictator after staging another attack. You can only cry wolf so many times.

Did you read the article Apa?

Roberts is merely pointing out the obvious. Bush's war in Iraq has doomed the neo cons to losing the next election. This is the standard group think. So why are the Bushes and Cheneys not in the least concerned?

Do you think maybe because they know something? Abother 911 and they can stampede the Amercan people to do whatever they want -- irregardless of the present polls

As for the sooped up 747 -- No you apparently don't read. Soon - I will post the stunning new CNN photos -- pulled from some raw 911 footage that's been gathering dust in the CNN archives for 6 years. It's never been on US TV or on the internet -- yet.

The footage proves that the world's most advanced warfare plane -- an E-4B - was circling above the White House on 911 at the time of the Pentagon attack.

Apa, Cheney wasn't in the E-4B -- he was in the White House bunker, where he reaffirmed the stand down order. This was heard by Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation. Mineta couldn't help but hear it -- he was standing right beside Cheney when it happened.

This is why Cheney did damage control very soon after 911 -- why? because Norman Mineta was a civil servant -- not a neo con -- hence could not be trusted.

The White House spun the story by lying about the time Cheney entered the bunker -- to morph the stand down order into a shoot down oder.

It's intersting how they did this. They claimed Cheney didn't arrive until 10 AM and that he was talking about Fl 93 -- not Fl 77. These are very sneaky bastards. They fed the lie to Bob Woodward at the Washinton Post who repprted exactly what they told him. Woodward -- recall -- was the hero of Watergate. Some hero -- mouthing propaganda about 9/11 as if it were real history. The purpose of the lie was to distance Cheney from what happened.


I found the spun story recently. It aired in the Wash Post in January 2002. This is the version that later was adopted as truth -- and became the basis for the 911 Commission Report. Read it yourself. Here's a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jan26.html

[yavoon]

I love the ass covering conspiracy nuttery.

"It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario."

JUST INCASE U KNOW!

[codeman]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Did you read the article Apa?

Do you think maybe because they know something? Abother 911 and they can stampede the Amercan people to do whatever they want -- irregardless of the present polls

As for the sooped up 747 -- No you apparently don't read. Soon - I will post the stunning new CNN photos -- pulled from some raw 911 footage that's been gathering dust in the CNN archives for 6 years. It's never been on US TV or on the internet -- yet.

The footage proves that the world's most advanced warfare plane -- an E-4B - was circling above the White House on 911 at the time of the Pentagon attack.

New stunning photos that have been in the process of being edited to make the conspiracy seem truthful. What a crock of garbage.

What I find hard to believe is that so many people actually fall for this stuff. People that are supposed to be educated have taken the bait, hook line and sinker.

[TheDave]

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Did you read the article Apa?

Roberts is merely pointing out the obvious. Bush's war in Iraq has doomed the neo cons to losing the next election. This is the standard group think. So why are the Bushes and Cheneys not in the least concerned?

Do you think maybe because they know something? Abother 911 and they can stampede the Amercan people to do whatever they want -- irregardless of the present polls

As for the sooped up 747 -- No you apparently don't read. Soon - I will post the stunning new CNN photos -- pulled from some raw 911 footage that's been gathering dust in the CNN archives for 6 years. It's never been on US TV or on the internet -- yet.

The footage proves that the world's most advanced warfare plane -- an E-4B - was circling above the White House on 911 at the time of the Pentagon attack.

Apa, Cheney wasn't in the E-4B -- he was in the White House bunker, where he reaffirmed the stand down order. This was heard by Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation. Mineta couldn't help but hear it -- he was standing right beside Cheney when it happened.

This is why Cheney did damage control very soon after 911 -- why? because Norman Mineta was a civil servant -- not a neo con -- hence could not be trusted.

The White House spun the story by lying about the time Cheney entered the bunker -- to morph the stand down order into a shoot down oder.

It's intersting how they did this. They claimed Cheney didn't arrive until 10 AM and that he was talking about Fl 93 -- not Fl 77. These are very sneaky bastards. They fed the lie to Bob Woodward at the Washinton Post who repprted exactly what they told him. Woodward -- recall -- was the hero of Watergate. Some hero -- mouthing propaganda about 9/11 as if it were real history. The purpose of the lie was to distance Cheney from what happened.


I found the spun story recently. It aired in the Wash Post in January 2002. This is the version that later was adopted as truth -- and became the basis for the 911 Commission Report. Read it yourself. Here's a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jan26.html

Gaff I have said I can see the current administration ignoring certain events and using things to their advantage. I can see them doing it again but I just don't buy into your theories I think they are borderline paranoia. Another reason the E-4B was up flying was b/c it was a national emergency. I just don't think it was an inside job. I find that laughable in fact.

[codeman]

Originally Posted by TheDave

Dave! That's an extremely good picture of you. The background could be better.

[W*GS]

That Roberts, in talking about 9/11, uses all the same nonsense that gaffe-ney has posed here time and again, makes his cred disintegrate.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by codeman

The probability of another terrorist attack is high. My opinion is that conspiracy theories will point them at the nearest person or administration that is available. I'll be interested to see the spin put on an attack that happens after GWB is no longer president, especially if Billary is in office.

There is no conspiracy, there was no conspiracy and there will be no conspiracy with the exception of those that have to find something other than what is presented to them.

Oh i guess maybe chertoff's "gut feeling" comment followed up by the Fed's drill won't ease anything.

Besides, conspiracy is just another word for coalition.

[mhgaffney]

From Apa's commments -- and from others it's clear many people still don't understand how the official 911 narrative was born. I mean the official version of events.

The Washington Post played a key role in this. No one reads it outside the beltway -- but the Post is an important paper, nonetheless, because it reflects the US government position.

Here, for example, is the version of Cheney's 911 role as reported by Bob Woodward in the Post in January 2002. According to Woodward's story, the following occurred at 9:55 AM, when Cheney supposedly arrived in the White House bunker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...02Jan26_4.html

I'm bolding the verbatim text:

In the White House bunker, a military aide approached the vice president.

"There is a plane 80 miles out," he said. "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?"

"Yes," Cheney replied without hesitation.

Around the vice president, Rice, deputy White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, tensed as the military aide repeated the question, this time with even more urgency. The plane was now 60 miles out. "Should we engage?" Cheney was asked.

"Yes," he replied again.

As the plane came closer, the aide repeated the question. Does the order still stand?

"Of course it does," Cheney snapped.

The vice president said later that it had seemed "painful, but nonetheless clear-cut. And I didn't agonize over it."

But Woodward did no research of his own. He merely regurgitated what his sources at the White House told him. Woodward's 2002 book, BUSH AT WAR, has not even one footnote. Clearly, the White House used Woodward as a mouth piece to rewrite history, in order to protect Cheney.

The cover up was necessary -- because Norman Mineta just happened to be in the bunker -- and the neo cons were aware that he heard the incriminating exchange with the young man, which Mineta later duly reported to the 911 Commission. Here is the video of Mineta's testimony before the commission in May 2003. Compare the following with the manufactured Post account above. Mineta makes it clear that Cheney arrived by 9:20 AM -- much earlier -- and that the exchange had to do with Fl 77 -- NOT fL 93. In other words, it was a stand down order -- NOT a shoot down order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUqbOgFiPDI

Yet, Mineta's testimony was excluded from the 911 commission report. Instead the commission embraced Woodward's version of the same events. This is how the cover up was born.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by codeman

New stunning photos that have been in the process of being edited to make the conspiracy seem truthful. What a crock of garbage.

What I find hard to believe is that so many people actually fall for this stuff. People that are supposed to be educated have taken the bait, hook line and sinker.

The jpgs we pulled are too large for this board -- or I would have posted them already.

But soon the complete CNN video will be posted on the internet. At that point I will post a link here so you can watch it. This is unedited footage from 911. It proves that the world's most advanced electronic warfare plane circled over Washington at the time of the Pentagon strike.

It will be fun to watch codeman eat his own words.

[Hotrod]

Geez Mini-nukes do you actually believe even half the crap you post? If so surely you have a underground bunker under your house and some spare duct tape. Can you give us your address just incase we need to go underground with you someday

[Garcia Bronco]

The probablity of a terrorist attack in this country is low. statistically speaking Americans have a better chance of getting struck by lightning.

[alkemical]

Garcia, you aren't scared of the boogey man?