Are acts of terrorism against us good? Prior to Sept 11, some terror cheerleaders in America were hyping for more terrorism, more disasters, more mayhem, bloodbaths, and death.

Problem is, they were high level U.S. foreign policy advisors.
Sounds like a "Strike America First" policy, doesn't it?

Why doesn't everyone already know this ...?

If you overheard someone advocating the vital need for a terror strike on American soil (to spark a global war), would you report them to the authorities?  What if they were the authorities?

"lucky" "providential" - M. Ledeen @ American Enterprise Institute, - re hoped-for future attack on US soil, like "Pearl Harbor"

"catalyzing and catastrophic event, like Pearl Harbor" - PNAC members, on what was needed to convert public/Congress resistance to wars to broad support, mainly Iraq, vital for ongoing global hegemony

democracy is "inimical to imperial mobilization" - Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, discussing Elites' problems with ruling the rabble

"a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat" and "a sudden threat or challenge to the publics sense of domestic well-being"- Grand Chessboard, what's needed for "consensus on foreign policy" on the "pursuit of power"

"clear and present danger" "renewed threat to American security" would "DO THE TRICK" - CFR member, on what would replace "apathetic internationalism" (i.e. "vietnam syndrome", revulsion for wars of aggression) with aggressive internationalism

"BinLaden should stay free" - fmr CIA Dir Krongard

"not too interested in him" - Bush

Ordered to NOT kill BinLaden by higher ups - Dalton Fury, Spc Forces


You've heard that "Liberals" and "Antiwar activists" "want America to lose" or "want Al-Qaeda to win".

Did you know ...

US foreign policy Elites, government officials and quasi-government reps, during the months and years before Sept 11, stated in writing how LUCKY and GREAT it would be if a "CATASTROPHIC EVENT" hit America. They stated that random civilians needed to suffer a horrific attack, and that this was of vital importance to their plans and goals.

The innocent slain at Ground Zero were described in terms of sacrificial "props" for selling govt-corporate war policies -- long before the event.

There's a phrase to describe people who discuss a major crime or disaster, before it happens:  primary suspects.   Another term: possible conspirators.  (Or clairvoyants.)

This was not written on a napkin or whispered in a men's room.  These assertions were published through various Public Relations outfits and Lobby groups in Washington DC. How secret was that?

How did our patriotic media like Fox and CNN miss that?  What about that brazen critic, Keith Olbermann?  What about Limbaugh?  What about O'Reilly?  What about any of them?

What does that mean that our entire media system is oblivious to un-secret public statements advocating for terror attacks on the United States?

Some stated that their plans for war were vital to American hegemony and to global "stability", i.e. elite control over other "rogue" populations and states.  They wanted the USA to launch massive military operations, quickly.  They stated that the window of opportunity was brief and closing.  Their plans might never be implemented unless innocent American people (we, the Vulgar Many) were struck with a massive
Shock and Awe terror event.  They needed a frightened, cowering populace for their plans, so they needed many random innocent Americans needed to die on a sunny Tuesday morning, in a fierce display of pyrotechnics.
(Well .. to be fair, they were merely 'hoping' that happened. Do 'winners' rely on 'luck' or 'create their luck'?)

Stunned. Terrified. Helpless. Rage and Anger. Grief-stricken. Compliant. Obedient. Passive dependence on government protection from the "bad guys" and "evil ones", whoever they might be.  They wanted approval and unquestioning support, total patriotism, for both our government leaders and our military leaders. 
You might remember when Ashcroft @ DoJ or was that Ari Fleischer warned us on TV against asking wrong questions or making rash statements -- people "need to watch what they say."
This was to be a very long war, so they needed to 'engineer' the American citizens into the right mood to consent to mass murder, vast spending, and willing "human sacrifice".  Dissent needed to be silenced, as much as feasible, or broadly condemnned.

A more blatant recent example, from 2009. (updated:  July 18, 2009)
More recent examples:

At least
seven well-known interrelated groups were represented by these views back in 1999 - 2000:

  • American Enterprise Institute (Reagan praised them heavily, launched with Bradley Foundation cash, sister org of Heritage Fnd)
  • Brookings Institution (a 'liberal' think tank group, partnered with Harvard, AEI, etc)
  • Heritage Foundation (younger or older sister of AEI, launched by Tim LaHaye who published "Left Behind" series feat. vigilante action against "Sinners" in US Cities, and Richard Vigurie, a Christian direct mailer) (backed Islamic Mujahideen Afghani warlords in the 80s,)
  • Project for a New American Century  (PNAC, neo-con pressure group, housed in same office as AEI, formed by William Kristol son of Irving Kristol, with money from Bradley Foundation)
  • Trilateral Commission (co-founded by David Rockefeller and his handpicked political rep, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Rocks essentially 'own' Exxon-Mobil and JP Morgan-Chase.)
  • Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, older sister of TLC, launched in the era of Woodrow Wilson)
  • Foreign Affairs (publication arm of the CFR)
These are actual organizations, not some fantasy or conspiracy theory.  They have phone numbers, fax numbers, street addresses, and websites, and some members appear often on TV.

This amounts to a rough total of a few thousand people, over 150 in PNAC alone.  One cannot prove that each and every member of these groups approved of these pro-terror statements, but these 'official statements' represent the groups. 

None has publicly denounced these views.

Their strong assertions were published mostly in scholarly journals and books that few ordinary people read.

Some of these spokesmen also worked "inside" the Pentagon, acting as political functionaries who direct the Pentagon.
They do not work in remote mountain caves, if you get my drift.
They mostly work in the Belly of the Beast, in Washington DC.

One or more were on the Defense Policy Board, one or more served periodically as National Security consultant, one was a former National Security Advisor who addressed the US Senate for 20 minutes on Feb 1, 2007. Some worked in the Defense Dept for Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Carter.  Many formed the core of the 2nd Bush administration.

They claim to be protecting us.

Each wants:
War for USA or Western or G-20 hegemony, imperial mobilization, intimidation, "faster, please" military aggression, global REVOLUTION ... for corporations & military, and many say "for Israel" as well.

Each blames:
public disinterest or apathy or revulsion, as the main obstacle to waging aggressive war.  Opposition to murder, death, sacrifice, waste, a.k.a. 200 million+ human Americans (and allies).  Our disgusting ideology of Democracy and Self-Rule, independence, compassion, a desire for nice and easy and prosperous "vulgar" lives. (See what Straussians really believe about us.)

Solutions to their problems include:
  • stunning events from outside like Pearl Harbor
  • catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like Pearl Harbor
  • shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
  • a clear and present danger
  • a threat to American security
  • conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being
  • a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat
  • a "casus belli" ("cause for belligerence")
  • a horrible BLOODBATH
  • clever propaganda, ongoing hysteria, encouraging "passivity and defeatism", domestic submission to authority, a sense of dependency on the State for "security", a clamoring for more authoritarian "security" measures
Does that sound like a PARTY that you'd want to attend???
Did YOU experience any of that on September 11?
That's three "Pearl Harbors" cited, a vision of a bloodbath, an orgy of death.

I mean isn't that GROTESQUELY UNPATRIOTIC and TREASONOUS to say that you wish to see thousands or millions of fellow Americans burn, shredded, killed, even if the reason is to achieve an orgasm of political unity?
Which city should be sacrificed? Which people should die?

Many of the complete quotes are lengthy and convuluted verbiage, and above 8th grade reading level
Interesting, to say the least, that our Media shows NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER.

Support for Radical Islam, both military and financial, had been an explicit policy of successive administrations of both major parties.
continues, as radical violence in Islamic nations is financed/provoked/pruned, as needed.

Both 'liberal' Trilateralists like Brzezinski
, and neo-con groups like PNAC and AEI, all cited the need for a "LUCKY" security disaster
Rumsfeld even predicted an attack that morning.  Of course, none of that proves anything.

Cops and courts would need far less to issue indictments.
Secret Service harasses 14-year old girl over My Space threats
WOW!   Julia Wilson.  Now she's a real theat ... maybe to lonesome teenage boys.
What about officials INSIDE the Pentagon threatening mass killing?
Why aren't these guys being tortured until they tell what they know? ;-)

Bush filled his cabinet positions with genuine terrorist sympathizers and supporters, by his own definition.  How come John Kerry never said that in 2004?

None of this absolutely proves beyond a shadow of a doubt they were involved.
That's for the detectives and prosecutors.
On the other hand, sometimes the absence of evidence IS the evidence, to paraphrase Rumsfeld.
The "absense of evidence" IS:  Why has the media NEVER mentioned this, not EVER?!!
Not scandalous enough??

Get Your War On - Megaphone
Get Your War On bullhorn

A few fringe types also cheered on blogs on 9-11 because "Jew York City" got hit, but you'd expect that from them.

Some Israeli spies were apparently also cheering and filming in NY that day, per Fox News.  Israelis also lived across the street from or next door to various of the alleged hijackers. I wonder why Fox, an avid cheerleader for Israel, would be the only TV station to do a series which slams Israel. For various detailed reasons, I disbelieve that Israel was the primary actor that operated against the interests of American elites.  Israeli Intell and CIA have been working on various murder projects for decades.  Anything's possible, but many facts contradict that view, including imperialist plans and actions in America that preceded Israeli or Jewish influence by many decades. Ever heard of the Baghdad Pact a.k.a. CENTO in the 1950s?

Here's some of the key pro-terror spokesmen:
Notice the numerous front groups they represent, how they seem to be stating the same points.  Secondly, recognize them as a single unified ruling class voice, because they are often beneficiaries of the same grants from private tax-free Foundations. These shocking ideas and quotes are just the tip of a very dirty iceberg.

James M. Lindsay (bio below) - fmr Council on Foreign Relations, fmr Brookings Institute, now professor at U of Texas
Michael Ledeen (below, longer bio, page) - Heritage Foundation, "adjunct Scholar" at American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Richard Perle, William Kristol, and other members of the Project for a New American Century (below)
others related to them, a political-military-corporate elite that rides on corporate foundation grants, most with less visibility.
Zbignew Brzezinski (bio below, page) - Tri-Lateral Commission (membership), Council on Foreign Relations, fmr Nat Security Advisor, wrote book Grand Chessboard commissioned by "Foreign Affairs" magazine of the CFR.
Fox News, Jon Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, and others who might say their words were 'misconstrued'.
Here's a couple clips of Fox News talking all "patriotic" about a helpful attack on America.

Al-Qaeda is our enemy -- except in Bosnia-Kosovo-Macedonia in the late 1990s and beyond, according to the Republican Senate.

Seymour Hersh on US support for Al-Qaeda AGAIN.  YouTube.
Hersh on US Support for Terror groups in Lebanon - CNN  (local) (wmv)
One thing he's wrong about: The USA actually backed the Muj in 1979 not late 80's, to 'encourage' the Soviets to invade.
Hersh: US is funding Al-Qaeda to counter Iran - DemoNow!
(local) (wmv)

In 2000, PNAC (Bush advisors) wrote their Agenda,
In particular, we need to:
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars
Read that.  This was not a case that "we must be prepared to win, if a war somehow becomes inevitable."  It was "we need to go get ourselves into a war."
List of 156 PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers

Here's a sample of longer quotes by various persons with POWER in the USA, if not officially "in office". These statements might sound like offhand intellectual musings but at least one was attached to a specific, official Defense Policy statement of Objectives, which the Bush admin later adopted almost verbatim. These were and are HUGE plans, many Trillions of Dollars in transfers to private military contractors, and whatever is left over to enlistees.  Trillions in new contracts for themselves and/or colleagues.  The most important and larger goal was for ongoing Western hegemony led by the US, both economic and military hegemony, regardless of the domestic sacrifice.  They lamented that their pre-planned war strategies were on [Pause] until some "MAJOR CATASTROPHIC EVENT" would permit them to press [Play], to release the funding and kick-start the action.

Statements before 9-11

Michael Ledeen of American Enterprise (AEI) and Heritage, 1999: “…of course, we can always get LUCKY. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor (laziness), and demonstrate the need for reversal (from peace), as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”
Translation:  A hypothetical future event (9-11) would be "lucky" and "a blessing from God" ... "a miracle".
Was Pearl Harbor a "lucky day" for America?

Everyone "knows" that Osama Bin Laden issued a "fatwa" calling for an attack on the United States, echoed by his cronies, like Zawahiri.
Few people know that Michael "Bin" Ledeen issued a similar "fatwa" echoed by many of his cronies.  Nor do people realize that Heritage Foundation, which is the sister org of Ledeen's American Enterprise Institute (same office building, AEI was source of Kagan's "surge" theory for Iraq), also housed three Lobby groups for the Afghani Islamic mujahideen operation, run by Gullbidin Hekmatyar and Osama Bin Laden.

In short, Ledeen's people were financing and promoting Al-Qaeda a few decades ago, though it was technically not yet called Al-Qaeda.  It was under Carter that the CIA gave birth to the Islamic Radical project, as part of a Cold War strategy, but it was the Reagan-Bush admin that raised the image of Islamic Radical guerilla terrorists to the level of AMERICAN HEROES, even giving them a national holiday of recognition, dedicating the Space Shuttle to them, and other honors.

Michael Ledeen has aptly described the
principles of AEI as 'universal fascism': a revival, in principle, of the goals of the Nazi Waffen-SS.

"Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically."  (we do?)

"Peace increases our peril  ...  Peace . . . is a dream . . . and would undermine the power of the state."  Fascism means everything for the State, individuals must sacrifice for the State.  How conservative is that?  No, it's NEO-conservatism. [wink]

"Lying is central to the survival of nations..."  (lying to whom??)

James M. Lindsay (click for full quote) formerly of CFR and Brookings, 2000: "But how to raise the political stakes in foreign policy? A renewed threat to American security would clearly do the trick."  (do the trick?) (to overcome "apathetic internationalism")

"Absent a clear and present danger, the temptation to dismiss foreign policy as a trifle will remain powerful."  (echoes the neo-cons' "Committee on the Present Danger" hype)

WaPo, James Fallows, 1991: "I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to "invent a security threat" and turn the job over to the military." (He wants let the military take over America and have an 'efficient' military police state, like fascist Italy or Germany, Fallows also worked for Nader's Public Citizen and was Carter's speechwriter.)

PNAC, 2000their ambitious military and foreign policy plans ('process of transformation') will be interminably delayed, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing eventlike a new Pearl Harbor."

('process of transformation' refers to over 70 pages of detailed planning for massive military expansion, spending, and pre-planned wars, combined with four or five years of documents
and articles pressuring Clinton to invade Iraq)
Brzezinski, 1997 and earlier: "The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being."

"... that America is too democratic ... this limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation"

"... we may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

"The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”  (in context of the problem of generating that kind of support)

"... aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason."  "... to return to a measure of 'passivity and defeatism'(public defeatism is great for illegitimate authority - their vision of democracy)

Brzezinski acknowledges the fact (echoed in "On Killing" by Col. Dave Grossman) that most normal people don't like to die or be injured nor to sacrifice their well-being.  Besides that, most people also have a strong innate moral aversion to killing other humans or to even tolerate murder (except real sociopaths), but people can be manipulated into doing those things, under certain circumstances, including fear, rage, self-defense, and through high-tech training methods that Grossman developed.
Throughout history, rulers have always called their wars 'defense' against a threat.

Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and other presidents, political rep for Rockefellers and Wall Street, top Cold Warrior, and unofficial advisor to Barack Obama:

"This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government.
National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept."

"All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." 
 -- David Rockefeller, speaking  at the United Nations  (This is an NWO of "security" for corporate rule.)

Samuel Huntington recommended that democracy and economic development be discarded as outdated ideas.

"We have come to recognize that there are potential
desirable limits to economic growthThere are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy."

"A government which lacks authority will have little ability
short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary." (or unnecessary sacrifices?)

William Casey, CIA Director,1981"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt’s personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows:

“[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no — it must — invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all — let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.”

Another of Sharett’s Diary entries for June 1955: ‘Ben Gurion himself said it would be worthwhile to pay an Arab a million pounds to start a war. What a slip of the tongue!’

So were the comments that preceded Sept 11 mere coincidence?  Luck?  Premonition?  Parasitic Opportunitism?  Disaster Capitalism?
Serendipity: The faculty of making fortunate discoveries of things you were not looking for.

Or evidence of Pre-Planned staged events?  Well, maybe that's just me being paranoid.  However, it certainly warrants a discussion in our media and some investigation .... like this one, or deeper.  But there are ZERO television specials on this.

Hey Matt Taibbi:  You did a fantastic job pulling back the curtain on Goldman-Sachs.  Why were you unwilling to look this hard at Sept 11?

After 9-11

Ruth Wedgwood, PNAC"9/11 attacks were an unfortunate but necessary event to awaken the United States to the need for more intrusive law enforcement."

Gen. Tommy Franks was obliquely alluding to a "Second 9/11" terrorist attack, which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of a military government and police state.

Let bin Laden stay free, says ex-No. 3 CIA man   (A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard) (pdf - Acrobat) (copy - Firefox needs MHTML add-on)

a NEW 9-11?

Stu Bykofsky | To save America, we need another 9/11

Jon Gibson, Fox News: "I think it's gonna take a lot of dead people to wake America up."
"We NEED another 9-11." more + video below

Rumsfeld says a new 9-11 would help the Republican Party and their goals. Global Research. Rumsfeld's Mind
Rummy also says that Iraq could use a Syngman Rhee-type dictator (because that's what democracy smells like!).  For those who don't know, Syngman Rhee was about 10x more brutal and dictatorial than Saddam.

Newt Gingrich recently said:
"the better they've done at making sure there isn't an attack, the easier it is to say, 'Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.' And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through, just to remind us."
The head of the Arkansas Republican party said:
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]" so people appreciate Bush.
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star that

"The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."

And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline.

Is that All just Hot Air?

Catastrophic Emergency
"Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

"Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response: We must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to them." (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007)

The sheer absurdity that Al Qaeda might have advanced capabilities to wage a nuclear attack on America is, nonetheless, pervasive in US media reports.  Moreover, numerous drills and exercises, simulating a terrorist attack using nuclear devices, have been conducted in recent years, creating the illusion that "the threat is real":

"What we do know is that our enemies want to inflict massive casualties and that terrorists have the expertise to invent a wide range of attacks, including those involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons. ... [E]xploding a small nuclear weapon in a major city could do incalculable harm to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to businesses and the economy,...(US Congress, House Financial Services Committee, June 21, 2007).


Consistently since 911, the Bush administration has repeatedly reminded Americans of the danger of a "Second 9/11"

It's now the Height of
Patriotism to DEMAND a BLOODBATH, the mass murder of innocent Americans.
Most statements were published openly, but in books and journals that "nobody" reads.  More clarification below.

The former Assistant Secretary of Treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said:
"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?"
Paul Craig Roberts goes on to say:

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

yet:  Secret Service harasses 14-year old girl over My Space threats
California 14-year-old girl quizzed over threats to Bush she posted on MySpace page
... texting back her mom:  “Are you serious!?!? omg. Am I in a lot of trouble?”

“I wasn’t dangerous. I mean, look at what’s (stenciled) on my backpack — it’s a heart. I’m a very peace-loving person,” said Wilson, an honor student who describes herself as politically passionate. “I’m against the war in Iraq. I’m not going to kill the president.”

Moments later, Kirstie Wilson received another text message from her daughter saying agents had pulled her out of class.
Julia Wilson said the agents threatened her by saying she could be sent to juvenile hall for making the threat.
“They yelled at me a lot,” she said. “They were unnecessarily mean.”

My point is, if they think a 14-year-old girl is a threat, what about officials INSIDE the Pentagon threatening terrorism?

What does this tell you about our media that this "odd coincidence" is not even mentioned, let alone a scandal that everyone knows about?  Why has no Congressman or Senator or even "The Decider" mentioned this? 

(Well, most of these people are part of Bush's war team, and anyhow positioning the public mind for the Iraq War started way back in 1991, with plans to seize Middle East oil going back decades. Bush Sr. authorized the CIA to hire the Rendon Group for $360k per month to begin anti-Iraq propaganda in 1991. Rendon Group launched the Iraqi National Congress headed by Chalabi.)

September 11 was NOT a Secret Conspiracy
September 11 was a conspiracy -- even if you believe Al-Qaeda attacked us, then at least Al-Qaeda conspired.

On the other hand, even if seen as an "inside job", Sept 11 should not really be called a secret conspiracy, per se, because the plans for it were published fairly openly, prior to the event.

Staging Sept 11 was a component of National Policy decided amongst the Ruling Class, particularly the Neo-Conservative faction.
  But I have since verified that at least some top Neo-cons worked for the Trilateralists, the Liberal Establishment.
In particular, Dick Cheney worked for David Rockefeller as President of the CFR.  Search on YouTube.  Richard Perle was a member of that liberal clique too, the Trilateral Commission.

Neo-Conservatives had a blueprint for urgent and imperative War in the Middle East and the overthrow of Saddam, as quickly as possible.  Many people now know that this National Policy and Wolfowitz Doctrine was the written into Bush National Security policy,
long before Iraq was given a chance to prove they had disarmed (,
long before Sept 11.
It was official policy on the day Bush took office,
solidified before Bush was elected,
germinating since 1996 (and before) when PNAC was formed and started badgering Clinton on Iraq,
even going back to 1991 when Bush Sr. enlisted the CIA in creating an "oust Saddam" propaganda in London via the Rendon Group and Chalabi, or
even going back to the contrived Gulf War (April Glaspie, Santa Fe Drilling was sold to Kuwait to steal Iraq's oil), or
even back to the "Seizing Arab Oil" article in Harper's in 1975 (that plan favored hitting the Saudis), or
even back to George Kennan circa 1945 "The Middle East is one of the greatest material prizes in world history".

The moment Bush was picked as the leading Republican candidate and the "liberal" media started fawning over him and complaining about Gore's suits and Gore's lying, the PNAC policy was fully operative.

As a matter of fact, PNAC and other Neo-cons went to Texas and recruited Bush to be their front man.

Anyone bothering to read the PNAC blueprint (now on under would know that PNAC members published hundreds of articles pressing for war on Iraq in the form of letters to Clinton and editorials in top newspapers.

Sept 11 was every bit as much a part of the core National Policy as the "War on Terror", because an attack on America was claimed by them to be a necessary pre-cursor event for the rest of National Policy (wars) to commence.

They said they needed one for the other.

I do concede to one conscious secret conspiracy: the role of the media to avoid reporting this.

The "Iraqi National Congress" opposition party was created by an 'ad agency', like "Ronald McDonald" was created to represent a hamburger chain.

May 1991: President Bush Authorizes CIA to Create Conditions for Removal of Saddam Hussein

President George H. W. Bush signs a covert “lethal finding” authorizing the CIA to spend a hundred million dollars to “create the conditions for removal of Saddam Hussein from power".  The CIA forms the Iraqi Opposition Group within its Directorate of Operations to implement this policy. Awash in cash, the agency hires the Rendon Group to influence global political opinion on matters related to Iraq.

According to Francis Brooke, an employee of the company who’s paid $22,000 per month, the Rendon Group’s contract with the CIA provides it with a ten percent “management fee” on top of whatever money it spends. “We tried to burn through $40 million a year,” Brooke will tell the New Yorker. “It was a very nice job.”

The work involves planting false stories in the foreign press. The company begins supplying British journalists with misinformation which then shows up in the London press. In some cases, these stories are later picked up by the American press, in violation of laws prohibiting domestic propaganda. “It was amazing how well it worked. It was like magic,” Brooke later recalls.

Another one of the company’s tasks is to help the CIA create a viable and unified opposition movement against Saddam Hussein (see June 1992). This brings the Rendon Group and Francis Brooke into contact with Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi.  Later, Brooks and his family moves into a Georgetown townhouse with Chalabi and lives there for free.  Brooks advocates removing Saddam "even if it means killing every Iraqi", because his Christian beliefs tell him that Saddam is "evil".

2001 Judith Miller, same crap.

So:  "Al-Qaeda" is not the only group that says terrorism is a good political tool.

Jane's Intelligence Review:
Don't forget that
Al-Qaeda began as a clandestine/covert US intell asset, beginning before the Soviet invasion. 

Chossudovsky cites evidence this continued throughout the 90's under Clinton, and into Bush's term, including July and even October 2001.)
Also note, this is a global phenomenon, not just Bush, not just America.  All major and minor countries are on the same page, with their pre-planned "domestic security" measures.  It's a global "war on terror", much bigger than Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney.

Even the Pat Buchanan-linked says:
Today there is ample evidence that, when it comes to the freedom of women, education levels, governmental services, relations among different ethnic groups, and quality of life –
all were infinitely better under the Afghan communists than under the Taliban or the present government of President Hamid Karzai, which evidently controls little beyond the country's capital, Kabul. [...]  Simply put, "Charlie Wilson's War" is imperialist propaganda, and the tragedy is that four-and-a-half years after we invaded Iraq and destroyed it, such dangerously misleading nonsense is still being offered to a gullible public. [...] "Charlie Wilson's War isn't just bad history; it feels even more malign, like a conscious attempt to induce amnesia."

Forgotten Coverage of Afghan "Freedom Fighters"
Villains of today's news were heroes in the '80s

If you pulled names out of Rolodex of Neo-Cons, PNAC, Bush, Clinton, CIA, etc, *ALL* were at least 6 billion times more integral to aiding Al-Qaeda than John Walker Lyndh or those sheep-herders and taxi drivers in Guantanimo.  Why are we not torturing THOSE CULPRITS to tell us Osama's location?

These experts and others wrote of their long-standing agenda to reverse "Vietnam Syndrome" (a social "sickness" characterized by distrust of authority, aversion to war, death, murder, maiming), to repress democratic institutions and reduce prosperity, to create economic crises, to sideline actual democracy locally and globally in gradual steps, to build more internal "security" and militarization, to implement a more effective Class War (gap btw wealth and poverty expected to widen dramatically, chaos and drugs going epidemic), and to roll out Imperial Global Warfare. In other words, to turn the world into more of a global prison labor camp like much of the Third World, under corp state-capitalist control.  (Selectively dehumanizing of "the enemy" - including domestic populations - is a key propaganda tactic.)

But a democratic society would never willingly accept such sacrifices -- so wrote Brzezinski -- at least not without plausible justification and distraction.

Pimpin' for Terrorism
Zbig Brz had bragged in 1998 about setting up "Al-Qaeda" back in 1979, before the Soviet invasion.

What if some house-liberal like Michael Moore had a pro-terrorism movie or quote?

What if Cindy Sheehan, God Bless her, really promoted Al-Qaeda? 
Would you hear about it?

Some current Republicans stated that a terror attack in 2006 would help them win votes.  Even Rumsfeld cited a new attack, to turn the public around.  RUMSFELD ON TAPE: TERROR ATTACK COULD RESTORE NEO-CON AGENDA

Top Dems are 'with' them:
Dem House Officials Lied and Broke Rules by Recruiting Wealthy Conservatives to crush popular Antiwar Candidates

Some of them also want the option to preemptively destroy China and Russia with our nuclear 'primacy'.

Thomas P.M. Barnett stated that China was one miltary target in meetings that came before Sept 11.  Now it's more a matter of playing chess with China over oil.

This is the ruthless Straussian-Neocon agenda, and Tri-Lateralist-CIA agenda of global business.
Hermann Goering once stated it this clearly.

, Ledeen, Lindsay, and the
PNAC group each made these assertions. Many later pretended shock and outrage at the "surprise attack" which was their "dream-come-true". also here  here  here  here  here  here  here  here

Why is nobody upset, concerned, or even aware of this "coincidence" of a convergence of experts on the need for terrorism on US soil?
Why has the MEDIA NEVER reported this oddity?  How could they not know about all these statements?!!  These are not classified documents like the Pentagon Papers.  These are published openly.  These persons-of-interest often appear on Fox, CNN, and other media-news channels as "experts".

It took me years to discover the bits and pieces, but I'm Nobody. Washington policies and players was not my specialty.
The CIA-controlled military-industrial-intelligence-security-entertainment-corporate-finance complex media certainly knows.  If I know, key Media personalities must also know. It's just nunna your bizness.

One might argue that these people are merely guilty of 'tasteless' musings. That would be bad enough.

Please understand: These advisors do more than merely 'advise'. They collectively design, craft, and sculpt policy -- and publish plans on "how to manage the herd". They are DO-ers, executives who execute, who occupy big offices, who control big money, and who MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. They don't passively wait for "luck".  (George Carlin on ruling class.)

These pro-terrorism anti-terrorism experts were aggressive in the push for a Middle East War since the mid 1990's and before, and they are architects of our foreign policy now.  Neo-Con policy proposals were copied-and-pasted into U.S. National Security Doctrine.  How lucky could they get?

"Winners" create their own luck --- that's the aphorism or "saying". (They had been heavily hyping the "Islamic threat" since the mid '70's and 80's, the need to create a bogeyman in the Middle East.  Movies and TV helped this process.)  Category of Terror

WHO is really "anti-American"?  People with left-liberal political antiwar views?? Or people who STATED that a bloodbath in America would be GREAT?

Secondly, consider that these American pro-terrorists do not reside in a remote mountain cave or secret camp, unless it's one designed by FEMA (which was discussed during Iran-Contra hearings by Sen. Jack Brooks .. almost).
Oliver North Questioned - Rex 84 Exposed During Iran Contra    Ollie North covering War in Iraq

Thirdly, consider what it could possibly mean that the deepest dreams of these 'thinkers' and policy makers just happened to dovetail perfectly with those of Osama bin Laden, former CIA-Military Cold War asset.

Maybe there's a perfectly Reason-able explanation why the media has not mentioned this serendipity.

This is despicable and outrageous, to DEMAND a BLOODBATH on Americans and then to accuse DECENT people of "hating America".  Fox News Corporation authorized or even advised their 'journalist' to say that, twice. What's even more frightning, Fox News in general, and Jon Gibson in particular, are a mouthpiece for the Military and for the Republican Party, which now holds all PowerIn light of this, these people are literally making terrorist threats on TV, like Al-Qaeda broadcasts, not only against innocent civilians worldwide, but against random American civilians as well.

In months following Sept 11, Cheney and others around him
promised new terrorist attacks if ALL their legislative demands were not met.  One congresswoman complained "they won't take 'yes' for an answer", i.e., they want more power.  (They even threatened more attacks with Anthrax, which scientists said came from inside the USAOperation Artichoke.) 

They are holding ALL of us hostage, both wishy-washy complacent Democrats and our general population.

Were these statements merely a weird way of stating a valid observation?
Wasn't Cheney and team merely stating warnings?  Wishful thinking? 

That's in the eye of the beholder --- YOU --- but both these relationships of power PLUS the phyical evidence provide AMPLE evidence that we were all terrorized by the WH and some branch of Intelligence, Covert Operations.

Nowadays, Patriotism
means it's OK to openly promote a terrorist attack against Americans, for political reasons.
This is sickening enough, and brutally honest that they'd be so blatant about it.

The co-opted "antiwar movement" is crippled, because too many Americans still accept the major September 11 premise about Al-Qaeda and Osama and 19 hijackers at face value.

If you accept this paradigm,  the military answer is at least reasonable, except maybe to pacifists and 'nitwit liberals'On a positive note,  these ruthless serial killers have completely exposed who they really are, and can no longer hide their rottenness behind piety and patriotism.

Coincidentally, Sept 11, 1973 was the date the CIA, Kissinger, Nixon, and Pinochet violently destroyed democracy in Chile, to impose "free trade" policies.  Before the coup, right wing fascists were intimidating progressive Chileans, "Watch out, Jakarta is coming!".  Jakarta, Indonesia, was where the CIA helped a Whabbi Muslim dictatorship stage a coup, killing between 1 to 3 million Leftists, in a few months.  Smell the freedom.

Stu Bykofsky | To save America, we need another 9/11  2007
Bykofsky says his editor wrote that title.  Here's what he wrote:  (local copy)
"One month from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve?
America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41."
(I thought 12/7 was a terrible day for America!  I guess I was wrong.)

(OMG, another "New Pearl Harbor" quote, just like PNAC and Ledeen below, now in a mainstream paper.)
(Of course, by "united", he means "united in war-hysteria", not "united in sanity and peace".)

Gibson brings on Stu Bykofsky to defend column, Jon Gibson pines for another 9/11
Gibson -  "I think it's gonna take a lot of dead people to wake America up."

Gibson disses Jon Stewart -   (last 10 seconds)  "We NEED another 9-11."

Gibson_Fox_mocks_Jon_Stewart_911.avi (last 10 seconds)  "We NEED another 9-11."
Gibson and Bykofsky plus dissing Jon Stewart.avi
(last 10 seconds)  "We NEED another 9-11."

That's a threat. These guys are TERRORISTS, threatening us. They want to create 'more victims', they want more attacks against -- US -- 'the enemy' -- because they recognize that Bush and the foreign policy elites need more anger and a resurgence in jingoism and war fever, and any critics need to be SHUT UP forcefully!  So 3 thousand, 10 thousand, maybe a million American victims would accomplish this goal.

Both Fox News and Osama Bin Laden helped Republicans immensely.  If Bin Laden didn't exist, they would have had to create him.  Wait a minute ... they DID create him!!  Republicans like Reagan and Bush funded Al-Qaeda!  (Dems first secretly funded the Mujahideen in 1978, it goes both ways, soft cop, hard cop, like on tv shows.)

re: Freedom's Watch:  Justin Raimondo of the popular, libertarian website wrote: "In a disgusting display of mendacity not seen since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, a pro-war advertising campaign spearheaded by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer is buying $15 million worth of 30-second television spots that repeat the lies linking 9/11 to Iraq—and explicitly threatening another terrorist attack in the United States if we 'surrender.'  It's the first storm in a season of fear."

Nothing new, by the way. People like this were planning to instigate a "winnable" nuclear war with the USSR in the 1960's, even if it took staged terrorist attacks.  Millions of Americans would die and many U.S. cities would be destroyed, but we would be 'victorious'.

The details about Katrina, FEMA pointing guns at bootstrapping volunteer doctors and rescuers to make them stop helping, as well as short-changing needed repairs beforehand, shows this disaster to have been intentional too. 

Likewise, the "debacle" in Iraq closely matches an Israeli plan formed with Neo-Con consultants called "Clean Break". This term refered to making a clean break from diplomacy, to total war. The plan included expectations of civil war in Iraq, the desire to break up Middle East countries, confirmed by Cheney's assistant David Wurmser.  If they did not plan it this way, this must the stupidest bunch of multi-millionaire war profiteers and corporate criminals in world history. They managed to run up a $2T tab for themselves and their friends, and stick us with the bill. How dumb they are!
Once you realize the vast sums of money and the decades of work and planning and lobbying to make the "War on Terror" happen, LIHOP (the argument that Bush "let" 9-11 happen on purpose) doesn't make much sense.
With such a big investment at stake, do you think they would allow the success/failure rest on the will of some Arab hijackers?
First, they'd have to
stop drinking, cocaine, and getting lapdances, typical behaviors for CIA cutouts/patsies.  Then they would have to go kill themselves.  What if they chickened out?  You'd have to postpone the war and stage new attacks.

Or wouldn't it be smarter to trick some men to get on the planes -- maybe lead them to believe they were on some CIA mission, or at least rig the appearance that they boarded -- but use Remote-Control Flight technology, like was succesfully tested by NASA way back in 1984?   Just asking ...
The other loose end would be getting honest FBI agents to believe they were tracking real hijackers.

Did you know Al-Qaeda had office space at Heritage Foundation?  see below

Regarding Iran and Amadinejad:

I will offer a source I consider reliable -- former Mossad Agt named Ari Ben Menashe -- who was exonerated in US  Federal Court for selling weapons to Iran, during the Hostage Crisis. He was able to provide documentation proving he was working in official capacity for Mossad when he sold those weapons, though by then they had dumped him and denied knowing who he was.

In his book, Profits of War, he describes taking a suitcase filled with $56 million of the CIA's money, from the Saudi Ambassador in Guatemala, to a Swiss bank, for Iranians to buy weapons. Current Defense Secretary Robert Gates (former Deputy Dir CIA under Bush Sr.) met him at the Miami Airport.

This was one of MANY similar operations he ran to procure overpriced used weapons for Iran, from Poland, North Korea, Uganda, and other locations.  The Mossad plan was to use Iranian soldiers in place of Jewish soldiers, as a proxy response to Iraq, at the same time as the US was arming Iraq and goading them to attack Iran. The profits were used for a Mossad "slush fund".

(So in one sense, Israel was secretly working against the US, and when Carter was tipped off, he was reportedly outraged with Begin.  On the other hand, Israel was cooperating with Republicans.  Kissinger suggested that it be best that both Iran and Iraq "bleed each other white", making each country weaker due to millions of deaths. That's some real ruthless realpolitik.)

Ben Menashe also describes personally watching Casey and Bush Senior exit different elevators in a European Hotel, walk into a conference room with the Iranian Mullahs, and shut the door. This closing act occurred after a long dragged-out delay in concluding pending weapons deals, a short time before Reagan was inaugurated.  (Obviously, this was LONG before Iran-Contra. Ollie North got exposed in the press trying to open up his own "back-channel" for selling overpriced weapons to Iran, years before the Hasenfus plane crashed in Nicaragua, officially blowing the operation.  Why is North held in esteem as a patriot, if Amadinejad is damned?  North was committing treason, not Iranians.)

During the repeated delays, Ben Menashe's moderate Iranian counterpart expressed extreme frustration at being forced to KEEP the hostages beyond their sell date. They wanted weapons, not humans, not hungry and needy prisoners which they needed to at least feed and watch. The prisoners had become a burden, but the Republicans were offering them a better deal.  And these Iranian colleagues understood American politics well enough to grasp WHY the delays from Bush and company.

Robert Parry in the US covered the same info on Consortium News, and he uncovered documents about the coverup of arming Iran during the Hostage Crisis, but the Democrats and Liberal Media squashed him in defense of the Republicans.

Feeling insufficiently patriotic lately?  Defensive?
There's been a lot of talk about the "Blame America First" crowd.  But were you aware that "blame America first" is a reverse-pun on the original 'patriotic' "America First Committee" which had strong crossover with the pro-Hitler movement in America and with the American Nazi Party and "Christian" right?  The American Liberty League really wanted America to LOSE ... and thereby win ... by becoming a military dictatorship, run by a hero like Hitler. ('Heroes' is a big PR theme, especially World War 2 heroes, even though a wing of the Ruling Class supported the Nazis before, during, and even after the War.  When Germans were killing US soldiers, American elites were funding their progress.)

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH (PBS): Qadi met Osama bin Laden in Jeddha in the 1980s, and then again in Afghanistan.
YASIN QADI: My uncle took me, at that time, for so-called... To help the warlords to get together. So I was young; he took me with me... with him, and I think I saw Osama at one meeting in that. But that's... You know, how many American officials saw Osama?How many people from Europe saw Osama? How many politicians saw Osama?

SITE Institute, host of the 2007 Bin Laden tape, was formed by Rita Katz, who previously worked to expose alleged terror financers in the US linked to Islamic Middle East groups.  Ironically, she and her investigators were tailed and harassed by CIA or FBI, and blocked by members of the Bush DoJ like Michael Chertoff, while one of their targets Ptech got private meetings with Robert Mueller at FBI.  I cannot reconcile what this means, because Katz seems to be too much of a team player to be harrassed by the US govt, but it sure stinks.

Senator John McCain lauded Pat Tillman: "I don't think there will be any doubts about [Private Tillman's] capabilities as a soldier, but also as a recruiting tool."  "He'll motivate other young Americans to serve as well." (Thanks to idealistic chaps like Tillman, America can continue to pick up its warriors on the cheap.)
Not anymore, McCain.  Sorry to Tillman's mom and bro and fam and friends, no disrespect intended.
And what's this about? Army doctors say it looks like Tillman was assassinated. Because he openly opposed the Iraq war and was planning to meet with antiwar activists like Chomsky? That would have been a PR disaster for the Pgon.

Homeland Security Michael Chertoff: Another 911 coming, unless REAL ID is accepted
Chertoff tries scare tactics on Congress
Chertoff's real role in the War on Terror (my local compilation)
Cheney plays politics with Terrorism
Rove admits GOP will play politics with 'war on terror' 
political advisors pray for a
new terrorist attack to justify the paranoia

Rudy Giuliani 12 Step Program
Add Samuel Huntington to this list.  Also SAIC officials, like David Kay who apologized for being 'wrong' about WMDs.
Thomas P.M. Barnett of the Pentagon lectures at the Army War College promoting a new "global multi-national Army", with allusions to Karl Marx's vision of Global Communism - but for corporations, not for any 'proletariat' workers. 

Christian Patriot website Liberty Gun Rights about Executive Order 13286 and the transformation of America's military to a global military force unanswerable to the American people.

Ruth Wedgwood (of PNAC) argued that the 9/11 attacks were an unfortunate but necessary event to awaken the United States to the need for more intrusive law enforcement. Wedgwood served on UN Human Rights Council. With irony?)

Dr. Frankenbacher
Huntington Beach Congressman Dana Rohrabacher helped arm the terrorists accused of attacking New York and Washington, D.C. Now hes got a new plan to save the world
Published on October 04, 2001
Danas Follies
February 27, 2003
Mr. Taliban
December 25, 2003
Daddy Rohrabacher Says He Knows Best In Afghanistan, Again
March 4, 2009
Rogue Statesman - Dana Rohrabacher
A veteran U.S. foreign-policy expert told the Weekly, "If Dana's right-wing fans knew the truth about his actual, working relationship with the Taliban and its representatives in the Middle East and in the United States, they wouldn't be so happy."
After I left the White House and was elected to Congress, but before I was sworn into Congress, I knew I had that two months between November and January to do things that I could never do once I was elected to Congress. I chose to hike into Afghanistan as part of a small Mujahedin unit and to engage in a battle against the Russian and communist forces near and around the city of Jalalabad.

During the summer of 2001, Rohrabacher took a trip to Qatar that was paid for by the Islamic Institute and the Government of Qatar, according to Rohrabacher’s financial disclosure forms. While in Qatar, Rohrabacher, Grover Norquist, and Khaled Saffuri met with Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil. Wakil reportedly asked for help in increasing the amount of foreign aid sent by the United States to Afghanistan, apparently in exchange for U.S. oil company UNOCAL being allowed to construct of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. If Rohrabacher was conducting diplomacy, he was in violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits citizens from doing so if not in an official capacity. Rohrabacher told wire service reporters who were present in Doha, Qatar at the time that he had discussed a “peace plan” with the Taliban. But Norquist, a close associate of Rohrabacher, said that the meeting happened accidentally and that it included Rohrabacher yelling at them about blowing up the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Rohrabacher claimed that the attacks were caused by incompetence on the part of the Clinton administration.

In fact, Rohrabacher's post-Sept. 11 finger-pointing was a fraud designed to distract attention from his own ongoing meddling in the foreign-policy nightmare. Federal documents reviewed by the Weekly show that Rohrabacher maintained a cordial, behind-the-scenes relationship with Osama bin Laden's associates in the Middle East—even while he mouthed his most severe anti-Taliban comments at public forums across the U.S.

There's worse: despite the federal Logan Act ban on unauthorized individual attempts to conduct American foreign policy, the congressman dangerously acted as a self-appointed secretary of state, constructing what foreign-affairs experts call a "dual tract" policy with the Taliban.  (oil deals)  What they won't mention is that Rohrabacher also once lobbied shamelessly for the Taliban.

Evidence of Rohrabacher's attempts to conduct his own foreign policy became public on April 10, 2001, not in the U.S., but in the Middle East. On that day, ignoring his own lack of official authority, Rohrabacher opened negotiations with the Taliban at the Sheraton Hotel in Doha, Qatar, ostensibly for a "Free Markets and Democracy" conference. There, Rohrabacher secretly met with Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, an advisor to Mullah Omar. Diplomatic sources claim Muttawakil sought the congressman's assistance in increasing U.S. aid—already more than $100 million annually—to Afghanistan and indicated that the Taliban would not hand over bin Laden, wanted by the Clinton administration for the fatal bombings of two American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. For his part, Rohrabacher handed Muttawakil his unsolicited plans for war-torn Afghanistan. "We examined a peace plan," he laconically told reporters in Qatar.
Rohrabacher's statement to the House

Julie Sirrs:  I guess I would disagree with that not only because just the fact that it happened indicates that it was a failure, unless it was something that we wanted, which I certainly don't believe(Julie raises the issue of the possibility that our "failure" on Sept 11 was intentional, while denying that she actually thinks that.  Cool by me, Julie [wink!].)  (Julie Sirrs was fired from DIA for exposing Osama links to the Taliban before Sept 11.)

"if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured" - Leo Strauss, neocon philospher

Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), the Cold War-era anti-communist group was revived in 2004.
Advocate of nuclear superiority, the CPD helped to create the myth of U.S. nuclear inferiority and the concept of "windows of vulnerability."  The goal? More military spending, eliminate any possible rivals or independence.

John Bolton even threatened Great Britain to tow the line, or else become a future enemy.

These "pragmatists" think of "America" and "terrorism" in the most abstract, political, utilitarian, and "symbolic" termsTo them, 3000-7000+ actual dead American human beings and their loved ones are mere PROPS and symbols (and a MILLION dead Iraqis and Afghanis are completely inconsequent.)  The dead and maimed Soldiers are mere mascots for marketing corporate/media/intelligence and the military-industrial-security complex. Their bottom line

"Security" is a euphemism for "social control", and that's in their own words, particularly Brzezinski's words.  (Brzezinski has since publicly 'rebelled
IS the bottom line, cash-money. ' against Bush Doctrine. American 'dupes' are beginning to wise up. Maybe that's too risky.)

James Fallows of the Washington Post (a CIA front, exposed in 1975) was REALLY thinking ahead.  He spoke of this in 1991, saying maybe we need to "invent a security threat" so the Military can take over America.  "Military Efficiency," Atlantic, Aug 1991  (from an Army War College "future retrospective" on the Origins of the coup of 2012)

"According to our economic and political theories, most agencies of the government have no special standing to speak about the general national welfare. Each represents a certain constituency; the interest groups fight it out. The military, strangely (?), is the one government institution that has been assigned legitimacy to act on its notion of the collective good. "National defense" can make us do things--train engineers, build highways--that long-term good of the nation or common sense cannot."

"I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to invent a security threat and turn the job over to the military."

About a decade before Fallows' article appeared, Congress initiated the use of "national defense" as a rationale to boost military participation in an activity historically the exclusive domain of civilian government: law enforcement.  Congress concluded that the "rising tide of drugs being smuggled into the United States . . . presented a grave threat to all Americans." Finding the performance of civilian law enforcement agencies in counteracting that threat unsatisfactory, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981.  In doing so Congress specifically intended to force reluctant military commanders to actively collaborate in police work.

"National Defense" was how Eisenhower sold the national highway system, a free gift to automakers and oil companies. The Internet was created for National Defense. Anything America spends money on must have a military angle. Militarised Technology.

As confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.  It was called the Strategy of Tension.
As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."


Jonah Goldberg of the far right National Review also wrote an article about paraphrased "Dems need to win in '08 so they can get slapped with their own 9-11."  Inherit the Wind:  What if it takes a Democrat?
"If you believe that the war on terror is real — really real — then you think it is inevitable that more and bloodier conflicts with radical Islam are on the way ...
Democrats have to be forced to take the wheel ... 
Democrats need to be slapped out of their anti-Bush hysteria by real life.
But what happens when a President Clinton or Obama has a 9/11 — or worse — on her or his watch?"
In other words, just maybe, thousands of Americans NEED to be murdered to convince the rest of us to SHUT UP and obey the foreign policy dictates of our rulers.  What is the definition of a terrorist threat?

Goldberg says terrorist attacks are necessary to dissuade liberals from focusing on bothersome issues like jobs and poverty and a possible economic crash tied to housing.  This is from the Third Reich SS how-to manual.

By the way, if the past is any consideration, when future attacks are blamed on Shiite groups, who will Washington hire and arm and train to counter them?  Right, Al-Qaeda-related Sunni groups. 

According to Seymour Hersh and his ex-CIA contacts, hiring Sunni terrorists IS the current U.S. policy in Shiite locations.

Hersh on US Support for Terror groups in Lebanon - CNN  (local) (wmv)
One thing he's wrong about: The USA actually backed the Muj in 1979 not late 80's, to 'encourage' the Soviets to invade, according to the guy responsible for that, Brzezinski.

Hersh took a long car ride while blindfolded to meet with Nasrallah of Hezbollah.  Ballsy old man.

Hersh: US is funding Al-Qaeda to counter Iran - DemoNow!
(local) (wmv)

Osama & Al 'Qaeda's Afghanistan escape  local AVI, lo-fi WMV

Seymour Hersh's recent report that Iran-Contra veterans working out of Dick Cheney's office are using stolen funds from Iraq to arm al Qaeda-linked groups and foment a larger Sunni-Shia war --- this is a very big deal.

The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney.  The Mahdi Army may be openly hostile to American interests, but other Shiite militias are counted as U.S. allies. Both Moqtada al-Sadr and the White House back Maliki.

“The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Eliot Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress.
As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found:
“One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”.

According to ace Neocon Max Boot, it's good policy to hire the terroristic Stalinist political cult MEK in the War on Terror.  We need to work with terrorists MORE!  Quit worrying about namby-pamby ethical concerns!

This is a recipe for Endless War, lasting 100 or more years. Bush and Cheney do LIE, but not about that plan!

see below:  Guns and Butter - Ground Zero 911, Blueprint For Terror
interview with a JP Morgan software security architect about Ptech links to Sept. 11 at the highest levels of govtFoxNews once showed how Israelis -- like Saudi-owned Ptech -- had "infiltrated" FBI, CIA, and DEA, but I don't take Fox's exposé at face value, because Fox is neo-con central.  Must be some other agenda going on.


did you know Al-Qaeda once had office space at the Heritage Foundation?

WACL was the core of the domestic "lobby" in the USA for Al-Qaeda.
Ronald Reagan backed these pre-Taliban "freedom fighters".
Proclamation March 21, 1983.  Afghanistan Day.

Heritage hosted an office for the WACL.  WACL was pro-Taliban and pro Al-Qaeda, because WACL is anti-communist (by name) and Al-Qaeda is also anti-communist.  Al-Qaeda is "free market", not socialist.  A match made in heaven, and in Washington.  (As Victor Ostrovsky, dissident Mossad agent, stated:  Islam and Marxism don't mix.)

Anderson, Scott and Anderson, John Lee. Inside the League. 1986. 322 pages.
The World Anti-Communist League (WACL) was founded in 1966 as a public relations arm for Taiwan and South Korea. WACL didn't attract much notice in the U.S. until John Singlaub's United States Council for World Freedom, the American branch of WACL, was launched in 1981 with a loan from Taiwan and soon began raising money for the contras.

Singlaub and his supporters also operated through a network of similar groups: Western Goals, Council for the Defense of Freedom, American Security Council, Council for Inter-American Security, and the Conservative Caucus. But WACL is particularly known for its international conferences that attract "American congressmen and senators, archbishops, members of Parliament, bank presidents, and scientists.

There, they have been in the company of Nazi collaborators, Japanese war criminals, Latin death squad leaders, disciples of Moon's Unification Church, and fugitive Italian terrorists."

There's even a CIA connection. Ray Cline, station chief in Taiwan from 1958-1962 and later deputy director for intelligence, attended conferences in 1980, 1983, and 1984. The authors believe that covert U.S. funding played a role in the establishment of WACL, and note that Cline was in a position to be helpful when preparatory meetings were held in 1958.

WACL is an anti-communist front, formed with help from actual US fascists from Japanese fascist war criminals
and Euro fascists and U.S. Nazi lovers, with paramilitary ties to the Pentagon, CIA, some funding from Rev. Moon. WACL operates partly underground, but some members like Singlaub (detailed link) openly interfaced with US govt.  WACL and friends assisted Latin American death squads.

"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out."

CIA's violent history. For example: Rep. Robert Torricelli revealed that Guatemalan Colonel Julio Alberto Alpirez had been on the CIA payroll for years. Alpirez was implicated in several cases of torture and murder, including that of American citizen Michael Devine. More importantly, the CIA supported and participated with the Guatemalan military in murdering more than 110,000 people.  This is the ideology of "anti-communism", at it's finest.

Al-Qaeda itself (to the degree it exists now as a movement independent of covert Western funding see Power of Nightmares), and it's large parent group Muslim Brotherhood, were supported by the USA as anti-communist watchdogs for decades, even before WW2.  M.B. has been described as Islamo-fascists ... in ideology, the kind of Islamists we LIKE.  To varying degrees, Islamists hate communism, Liberalism, some hated democracy, anything that puts Man above Allah.  (Many Americans also hate "ungodly" Liberalism.)  We also helped a murderous Wahabbi coup take over Indonesia.  Just like Wall Street and many politicians backed Hitler. (come back to this point later)

[I]n Sayyid Qutb's version of the ideal Islamic society, the ruler would have absolute authority over education and legislation, over property and natural resources, who would preside over a society permanently on a war footing, even at times of peace. The legislation is dressed up with Islamic elements, but essentially what Qutb is arguing for is a fascist or totalitarian state after the 1920s and 1930s European model.

[I]n twentieth century Europe each of the totalitarian movements entertained a grand vision of modern civilization and of despeerate predicaments and utopian destinies. Each of the totalitarian doctirnes of Europe expressed that vision by telling a version of the ur-myth, the myth of Armageddon. So did Qutb.

With him, too, there was a people of God. They happened to be the Muslims. The people of God had come under insidious attack from within their own society, by the forces of corruption and pollution. ... There was going to be a terrible war against them, led by the Muslim vanguard. ... [The reign of God] was going to create a perfect society, cleansed of its impurities and corruptions -- as always in the totalitarian mythologies.

However, Muslim Brotherhood has apparently become accomodating to some Westernism, involved in politics and elections (democracy), causing some members to flee to even MORE radical versions of Islam.  MB has denounced violence and even made advanced towards putting Jews (not Zionists) in a good light, both in Arabic and in English.

1945, Rise of the National Security State. U. S. intelligence "struck a secret deal with the devil...we hired Nazis as American spies." (Bill Moyers, The Secret Government). Communism was seen to be like a virus, capable of infecting anyone who came in contact with it. Up against such an enemy, an open democratic society was seen as a liability. Iran-Contra and Consistent Themes During the Cold War

Afghan Mujahideen and Reagan Posted by Zack at zackvision
One learns something new everyday, sometimes from weblogs. Here's an excerpt from Juan Cole about Reagan's role in support of the Afghan Mujahideen fighting the communist Afghan government and the Soviets in the 1980s.

In fact, of course, Ronald Reagan bears substantial responsibility for September 11. He and his administration were so gung ho to roll back Communism that they funneled billions of dollars to scruffy far rightwing radical Muslim mujahidin in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Orrin Hatch even flew to Beijing for Reagan in 1985 to ask the Chinese to pressure Pakistan to allow the US to provide the Mujahidin with ever more sophisticated weaponry. Even the Pakistani military had initially balked at this crazy idea, knowing who the Gulbuddin Hikmatyars and Usama Bin Ladens really were (unlike clueless(?) Reagan, who called them freedom fighters). But the US twisted the Pakistanis' arms, and they gave in.

Reagan forced the timid Saudis to match US contributions to the Mujahidin. (And then after Sept. 11 the former Reagan officials who had twisted the arms of the Saudis, like Richard Perle, turned around and blamed Riyadh for spreading radical Muslim ideas!!) It was the CIA that first established terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to hit the leftist government in Kabul. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the camps used by al-Qaeda had been built originally by the Reagan administration.

(I didn’t know that the US government was more enthusiastic about the Mujahideen than Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.)

When the CIA was busy doling out an estimated $2 billion to support the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden and his colleagues were hailed as anti-communist freedom fighters. During the Cold War, U.S. national security strategists, many of whom are riding top saddle once again in your administration, didn't view bin Laden's fanatical religious beliefs as diametrically opposed to Western civilization.

As Steve Coll reported in his superb book Ghost Wars, for instance, "Under ISI [Pakistani intelligence] direction, the mujahedin received training and malleable explosives to mount car-bomb and even camel-bomb attacks in Soviet-occupied cities, usually designed to kill Soviet soldiers and commanders. [CIA Director William] Casey endorsed these despite the qualms of some CIA career officers."
Similarly, in the early 1990s, the Iraq National Accord, an organization run by the CIA's Iraqi exile of choice, Iyad Allawi, evidently planted, under the Agency's direction, car bombs and explosive devices in Baghdad (including in a movie theater) in a fruitless attempt to destabilize Saddam Hussein's regime.

Celebrate Reagan's AL-QAEDA and TALIBAN DAY on March 21
Reagan even dedicated the launch of NASA's Columbia Shuttle (avi)to these warlords.  (wmv)

The Christian Coalition and other rightwing religious groups supporting Reagan even had a “biblical checklist” by which they wanted all senators and congressmen to be judged. And one of the items in the “biblical checklist” was “support for the Afghan ‘freedom fighters.’ The rightwing Christians were saying in the 1980s that if you didn’t support al-Qaeda and its Mujahidin allies, you didn’t deserve to be in Congress!

Paul Weyrich, co-founder of Heritage Foundation has often acknowleged that he does not intend to "conserve" anything."We are different from previous generations of conservatives," Weyrich explained."We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of the country."

Heritage Foundation is seeped in the Intelligence and Fascist community, where CIA intersected with Nazis and Japanese fascists, as well as military fascists in countries all over the globe.
Many called Heritage the "shadow government" of the Reagan admin.
Crossovers between Heritage and the govt probably number in the hundreds

The original funding and office space for the mujahedeen support group, Committee for a Free Afghanistan, came from Heritage. (It's purpose was to overthrow the leftist govt in Kabul and replace it with the Islamic terrorist freedom fighters.)
Heritage's senior public relations counsel, Hugh C. Newton is listed as principal contact for Behind the Lines, a monthly newsletter dedicated to support of the Afghan contras.
The Heritage Foundation also houses Howard Ruff's rightwing group, Free The Eagle.
Free The Eagle in turn provides office space to the
Federation for American Afghan Action.

John Singlaub is founder and chairman of the U.S. Council for World Freedom. He also has served on the boards of the Council for National Policy; Refugee Relief Intl, a subsidiary of Soldier of Fortune; Western Goals, a group involved in surveillance of the U.S. left; Committee for a Free Afghanistan, a right-wing group supporting the mujahedeen rebels; and, Western Goals in the United Kingdom, a group set up with the specific task of undermining the radical left in that country.

The chairman of the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, Major General J. Milnor Roberts has been on the board of USCWF.  Roberts attended WACL conferences in 1980, 1983, and 1984. He has been a professor at Georgetown University when it was associated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  Ray Cline, on the USCWF board, has had a close association with WACL since he was stationed in Taiwan from 1958 to 1962 as CIA station chief. He was a deputy director of the CIA from 1964 to 1967.

Sayid Khybar, author of "The Afghan Contra Lobby,"
considers WACL a major factor in the preservation and power of the political rightwing. He wrote in 1988 that .".. it (WACL) is a coalition of three principal groups: Asian gangsters backed up by the remnants of the Japanese arm of the Axis and the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, former West German Nazis and their former East European collaborators, and elements from the Western intelligence community who were anxious to reorganize the fanatical refuse salvaged from the Hitler coalition for a new anti-Communist crusade."

A Heritage spinoff is AEI, whose "adjunct scholar" Michael Ledeen hoped for a LUCKY future event like Pearl Harbor, back in 2000, in order to justify aggressive US foreign policy plans AND a global military fascist state, a vision "modeled after the Waffen SS".

Heritage is also host to Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who is the replacement for Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and Buddha, and Heritage backs the World Anti-Communist League, a bunch of overground/underground death squad commanders, founded by this head Moonie along with Japanese Fascist war criminals plus Americans.

The foundation received $2. 2 million from the Federation of Korean Industries in the early 1980s. Initially it was believed this donation came from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (which would make the Heritage Foundation a foreign agent of Korea), but the Federation later stated that the donation came at the encouragement of the KCIA, not from the KCIA directly.

President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters from Reagan Library online

Michael Ledeen of AEI and Heritage wrote in 1999:   …of course, we can always get lucky.  Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor (laziness), and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”

So condescending.  We of the "Vulgar Many" and our silly "soothing dreams" of peaceful existence.  Thank goodness we have "Wise Elites" like Ledeen who are willing to lie to us and manipulate us with bold myths and scare stories to keep us on track, until our suffering can "ennoble" us.

Neoconservatives are literally opposed to neutrality and peace, on general principle that such things are bad for character and weaken State power. 
He literally advocates GLOBAL FASCISMFaster, please  He's for Empire and grit and conquest and bloodshed (not his blood), and had stated that the only legitimate role of a "Prince" or leader (like Bush) is to wage total war.

Everything You Need to Know About Michael Ledeen  local copy
Leo Strauss believed that religion was the means to inculcate the desired ideas into the minds of the masses. He didn’t care what religion—just as long as it was a religion that could link itself to the political order.

Here's Ledeen on Sept 11AEI_Code_Alpha_Ledeen.mht  or  Code Alpha on the AEI website challenging Bush to go bomb a country ... Iraq.
"They should ask Laurie Mylroie (of Benador Associates), author of The Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America, who for years has been collecting the evidence showing Saddam’s involvement in the first bombing of the World Trade Center, all overlooked by the spooks."  (No, "spooks" orchestrated the bombing.)
(The FBI actually travelled around the world, comparing DNA, to track down one of the central claims of Myroie's book, an argument about the real identity of a terrorist held in prison, which "proved" that Saddam Hussein was behind the 1993 attack.  FBI found her allegations to be false and nonsensical.)

Who is Laurie Mylroie?
Who is Benador Associates?
A consulting firm created to develop another neoconservative argument to attack Iraq.
See below LOOTING

Project for a New American Century in 2000:  likewise foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” (Rebuilding America's Defenses, p.51, p.63 in Adobe) that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential 'rival.'   ("rival" is in quotes -- they state that America really has no military rivals, hell we spent $12 Trillion since 1945 to be invulnerable, but we can still manufacture some rivals, by propaganda and by covert action .. create them out of "potential threats" (local.)  Operation Cyclone.

the National Security Strategy – promulgated by the Bush Administration in September 2002 – now included attacking possible future competitors first, assuming regional hegemony by force of arms, controlling energy resources around the globe, maintaining a permanent-war strategy, etc.

"I'm not making up this stuff.  It's all talked about openly by the neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century – who now are in charge of America's military and foreign policy – and published as official U.S. doctrine in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America."  Once presented with it, a conservative icon understood immediately the implications.
When it's your kids' schools being short-changed, and your state's and city's services to citizens being chopped, your bridges and parks and roadways and libraries and public hospitals being neglected, your IRAs and pensions losing their value, and your job not being as secure as in years past – in short, when you can see the connection between Bush&Co.'s expensive military policies and your thinner wallet and reduced social amenities, true voter-education becomes possible.  It's still the economy, stupid.

William Kristol
Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a nonprofit organization whose declared aim is "to promote American global leadership."
"PNAC, working with a compliant news media, developed, sold, enacted, and justified a war with Iraq."   Regardless of PNAC's actual role in shaping policy, the group was arguably the most effective proponent of neoconservative ideas during the period between President Bill Clinton's second administration and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

PNAC's efforts in the 90's were to urgently PUSH Bill Clinton to wage a war on Iraq.  But Clinton had not yet found a good enough justification for full-scale war, for sending troops.  He could only toss devastating bombs at the people of Iraq and starve 700,000 children and kill hundreds per day with disease, while overseeing the 1993 WTC bombing and other attacks.

January 26, 1998: Neoconservative Think Tank Urges US to Attack Iraq

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretaries of State Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, and George W. Bush’s special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Other signatories include William Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan (surge author), William Kristol, Peter Rodman, William Schneider, Vin Weber, and James Woolsey.

In 1998, paralleling a similar initiative at the time organized by neoconservatives at the then newly created Project for the New American Century, CPSG drafted a letter to President Bill Clinton to endorse attacking Iraq. The letter said:
"We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish."

Among the letter's signatories were several prominent national security militarists and rightist figures, including Frank Gaffney, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Joshua Muravchik, Donald Rumsfeld, Frank Carlucci (head of Carlyle group w a Binladen and Bush Sr.), Caspar Weinberger, and John Bolton, as well as a few putative liberal internationalists, Stephen Solarz and Robert Pastor (father of the North American Union).
Other signatories were: Richard Allen, Richard Armitage, Jeffrey Bergner, Stephen Bryen, Richard Burt, William Clark, Paula Dobriansky, Fred Ikle, Zalmay Khalilzad (set to run Afghanistan), Sven Kraemer, Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Frederick Lewis, Jarvis Lynch, Robert McFarlane, Martin Peretz, Roger Robinson, Peter Rodman, Peter Rosenblatt, Gary Schmitt, Max Singer, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Leon Wieseltier, David Wurmser, and Dov Zakheim
("Open Letter to the President," February 19, 1998).

(many were involved illegally arming Iran in the 80s, Iran-Contra, and some were involved in funding Al-Qaeda for the Cold War)

A Cowering Superpower July 30, 2001 - case for attacking OBL and Saddam (connected) by PNAC.

September 20, 2001 Letter of PNAC to President George W. Bush  asking to invade Iraq and back Israel
signed by
William Kristol, Gary Bauer, Jeffrey Bell, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, Eliot Cohen, Seth Cropsey, Midge Decter, Thomas Donnelly, Aaron Friedberg, Hillel Fradkin, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Jeffrey Gedmin, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Charles Hill, Bruce P. Jackson, Eli S. Jacobs, Michael Joyce, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, John Lehman, Clifford May, Richard Perle, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, William Schneider, Jr., Richard H. Shultz, Henry Sokolski, Stephen J. Solarz, Vin Weber, Leon Wieseltier, Marshall Wittmann.

CENTER for SECURITY POLICY - a Cheney outfit, parallel to Project for a New American Century.

These people were tied to Reagan and Bush Sr.
Bush picked them for his cabinet.
But really, THEY contacted Bush to run for President.
So Bush getting 'selected' meant the Iraq War was almost inevitable.
But even then, Bush could not start it without the justification.
This would lead to the conclusion that Al Gore's 5-4 'defeat' was also inevitable, because the rulers needed America to be led by a 'war president' and by neo-conservative Republicans. Gore had the wrong 'image' to attack Iraq.

4/18/03: Tens of thousands in Baghdad call for end to occupation
“This homeland is for the Shia and Sunni,” in a sign of unity among the two groups."

Skip down for Agenda of PNAC and members of PNAC

now this part is a little more difficult prose, takes a minute to absorb his "vision"

Brzezinski (bio)said:  "It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instinctsDemocracy is inimical to (our goals of) imperial mobilization."
—from The Grand Chessboard

Look at that quote again:  What is he saying they want? War.  What are the barriers? Public disinterest. What do they need to overcome those barriers? 
sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of well-being
truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat
shock effect of Jap attack on Pearl Harbor
or click HERE for more

In other places he explains what he believes about Democracy, besides the fact that a "sudden threat" can be used to manipulate the teeming "rabble":

"In the technetronic society, the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason."
1970, Between Two Ages : America's Role in the Technetronic Era

Order (control by them) depends on somehow "compelling newly mobilized strata" (Vietnam Syndrome veterans and activists) to return to a measure of "passivity and defeatism".

Zbignew Brzezinski [za BIG new, bruh ZIN skee] also bragged about funding and arming the Mujahideen and Al-Qaeda, with help from the CIA, to overthrow the Liberal government in Kabul and let the Islamic Fundamentalists run wild.  He even told them   GOD was on their side!  Well, CIA says they only funded the psychotic Mujahideen, not the Al-Qaeda forces ... which were fighting right alongside them.  (The US also funded the Taliban, via Pakistan. Here's one of their promoters.)

In 1975, shortly after Brzezinski began touting the Technetronic Era about applying new societal/mental controls to the US population, his buddy Samuel Huntington (also at Trilateral) was also calling for a "cataclysmic crisis" for reasons of social control in his book/paper/report "Crisis of Democracy".  This basically stated, 'American people are too uppity and meddlesome for a "democracy" to operate.  They are developing too much defiance and want real access and input', in political and especially economic matters.

per the late William Cooper (he's a little soaked in Illuminati lore for my tastes, but seems to know some accurate history too):
A key to the danger presented by the Trilateral Commission is its "seminal piece", written for them by a Harvard Professor in the mid '70s. In the paper Professor Huntington recommended that democracy and economic development be discarded as outdated ideas. He wrote as co-author of the book The Crisis of Democracy,
Huntington is a member of the Tri-Lateral Commission along with founder Rockefeller, co-founder Brzezinski and all their colleagues.

How many people do you know who really BELIEVE in the ideas about a Clash of Civilizations, another book written by Samuel P. Huntington about "Christianity vs. Islam - The Death-match"?  Plenty, I'll bet.

It's a simplistic, exciting East vs. West drama, with black turbans and white hats, being directed on the world stage by powerful leaders.  Instead of Mother Russia, the Soviet Union, it's now Orwell's "East-Asia" ... who "we've always been at war with" ... the entire Islamic world and it's billion inhabitants (some who actually happen to be Christians and Jews, but f#ck it, toss them in the fire too).

And maybe we'll still have to attack Mother Russia, since Vlad Putin mildly and politely disagreed in public with some of Emperor Bush's policies, like placing USA weapons right smack on Russia's border.  China too.
(Of course that media charade is partly meant just for public consumption.  Certainly Vlad knows that Emperor Bush is a total puppet emperor, a sock-puppet with his finger on the nuclear button, strings pulled by other more powerful people ... like his dad, for one.)

Samuel Huntington is a man with a history. In 1993, the Harvard academic and one-time member of the United States National Security Council published an essay entitled The Clash of Civilisations.

In it, he reasoned that in the new post-Cold War world, the "fundamental source of conflict will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural". He identified Islam, with its population bulge and transnational appeal, as the most likely source of this conflict.

The world took notice. An academic storm brewed, which became a media storm. In 1996 Huntington wrote a book with the same title and, with the World Trade Centre attacks of September 11, 2001, he had his personal perfect storm.

Just one more very LUCKY guy!!!

If you agree with Huntington's "War with Islam" views, so do you also agree that YOU have too much freedom and democracy?  And if you think you have too much democracy and freedom, aren't you saying that your own opinion is irrelevant?
If you agree with him, then who gives a crap what you think?!!  Their point is that YOUR opinion is irrelevant. If you agree, then you're right, it is irrelevant.  You just have to be kept stupid and kept entertained.
"We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth.
There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy. A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary."  (written in the era of "Vietnam Syndrome")
(Well, maybe we need limits to the rampant destruction by criminal corporations for whom Huntington and his friends front, but if technology can do it, on what basis does he want to consign everyone to permanent poverty?  Working people don't have time for revolt.  Necessary?  People tend to accept necessary sacrifices.  How about unnecessary sacrifices?)

Ahh, so elites' imposing their will on ordinary people is problematic.  Gosh, I sympathize.  Boo friggin' HOO!
So if you got conned into the "Clash of Civilizations" do you also accept The Crisis of Democracy that the elites need to halt and crush economic growth in America and crush democracy (the "proles" meddling in politics and exercising a desire for self-rule)?? 
Notice how way back in the 70's, these ruling elites envisioned a BIG SOLUTION for too many uppity, angry, disobedient American "subjects" exercising their God-given rights, such as their refusal to kill and die in Vietnam, their courage in accusing the naked rulers of not only LYING but willfully causing the mass murders of both American people and Vietnamese people, by ordering the continuation of a war which was never legal, and was at it's core based on lies and deception (Tonkin) and pure greed in conquest of resources.
These elites were sick of people clamoring for justice and fairness and other principles, such as the limits placed on government by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution (who were not very democratic either, but at least they sought to restrict govt tyranny). 
Pres. Eisenhower had been semi-honest when in describing the 'communist threat', he also stated that America was going to interfere in Vietnam --- and thus murder 58,000 American boys and maim many more, while killing millions of primitive people who use animals for travel --- in order to obtain cheaper prices on tungsten, tin, and rubber.
Damn, discount prices that are worth death and murder.  That must be some helluva discount(The people benefitting from the discount are not the same folks doing the dying.)
That wonderful political solution these bastards recognized was a "cataclysmic crisis", a catastrophe, a disasterDo YOU look forward to disasters and mayhem?   Huntington obviously does --- but only as "necessary", only when useful, only when people start to get out of line.  Disaster as a tool to kick Americans in the teeth and make them obedient serfs again.  For these reasons, these people LOVE useful disasters ... like Sept 11, for example.

When Bremer Ruled Baghdad
How Iraq was Looted

Carroll Quigley
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers."

"Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." {p.1247}
Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America
In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various national security procedures were put in place which focused on the eventuality of a "Second 911". These initiatives in the area of Homeland Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America. 
Under martial law, the military would take over several functions of civilian government including justice and law enforcement. [...] Gen. Tommy Franks was obliquely alluding to a "Second 9/11" terrorist attack, which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of a military government and police state.

It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on the role of a "massive casuality producing event". This concept is part of the tools of US intelligence, implemented through covert operations.  Franks' statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, on the concept and application of a "massive casualty producing event" as well as onhow events might unfold in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency".

Exhibit #A
Magazine: Foreign Affairs (CFR publication)
Issue: September/October 2000 (Volume 79, Number 5)
Title: The New Apathy: How an Uninterested Public Is Reshaping Foreign Policy
Author: James M. Lindsay

Here's the original full article in the web archive.
Hey, now Google finds the original again.
My copy of full article if it's 404'd.

James Lindsay left the
Brookings Institute in 2003 to become vice president and director of studies at the CFR
or Council on Foreign Relations. Lindsay is the director of the Robert S. Strauss Center and is the inaugural Tom Slick Chair for International Affairs at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin.


Apathetic internationalism is reshaping American foreign policy in three ways.

First, apathetic internationalism encourages politicians, who naturally gravitate toward issues that matter to the public, to neglect foreign policy.

Second, apathetic internationalism empowers squeaky wheels.

, apathetic internationalism makes it harder for presidents to lead.

... growing politicization of foreign policy ...

(in other words, politicians are limited in imperialist war by what is politically viable with the public -- just like Brzezinski says -- so make it politically viable)

The key to fighting apathetic internationalism is persuading the public to act on its internationalist preferences. ...

But how to raise the political stakes in foreign policy?

A renewed threat to American security would clearly do the trick. So might a recession.

"do the trick"?  what is he saying here?  He WANTS more 'aggressive internationalism', i.e. WAR.  But that policy channel is blocked and constipated by a hard reluctant public which is hesitant about war.  He has the perfect laxative in mind.  If a renewed security threat just happened to occur, this would cause people to "shit their drawers". 

A severe recession (like this stock market and bank blowout that was
engineered by removing limits on short-term speculation) could persuade Americans that murdering other people is necessary to maintain our prosperous lifestyle, and Americans could thereby be persuaded to support wars the elites want for a variety of reasons, such as power, greed, and geostrategic designs.

Our "national interests", yada-yada.  Pretty smart cookie.
Lindsay continues ..

Just as people appreciate the wonders of indoor plumbing only when it breaks down, tough economic times will drive home to many Americans just how much their prosperity depends on an internationalist (violent) foreign policy."

Sounds like "tough economic times" justifies armed robbery.

Even under the best of circumstances, however, civil society can do only so much. The ultimate responsibility for convincing the public to act on its internationalist beliefs lies with the White House.

Absent a clear and present danger, the temptation to dismiss foreign policy as a trifle will remain powerful.

Hmmm.  "Clear and present danger." That's the title of a Tom Clancy book and movie about Colombian drug lords (terrorists). The top guys with links to the USGov are protected.  Also an acceptable justification for suspending the First Amendment, by law and by force, during "times of war", regardless of details.

Now that's pretty damn ruthless.  He says American people need to face serious or horrifying threats to make us consent to or even demand aggressive wars.  Seems to be true.  Sounds like a PLAN.

Typical for Machiavellian rulers, from the ancient times through today.

This guy is not some "nobody", like me.  He does not live in a "remote mountain cave" on a kidney dialysis machine.

This should not be TOO much of a surprise ...
Four Bushes profiting from wars, four Bushes arming both sides.

Exhibit #B -
PNAC membersPNAC Profile (local mhtml copy from Rightweb)
PNAC Signatories to various documents chart  - PNAC Signatories (local copy from Rightweb)
includes Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Dick Armitage, Gary Bauer, others from the CNP,  Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle, James Woolsey (CIA), Caspar Weinberger, many more famous names

Why didn't the
news media let everyone know that ALL these guys were being 'elected' along with Bush, and that their pre-determined agenda was to wage wars?  also Abram N. Shulsky  Richard Pipes  
William Kristol
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

As for potential enemies, the article suggested that ultimately the United States would need to devise an "overall strategy for containing, influencing, and ultimately seeking to change the regime in Beijing." In the meantime, however, the main enemy was internal.

"it is time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism." They added: "In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness."

"Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," served as a precursor to the formation of PNAC.
... support from Rupert Murdoch of Fox ...
... willingness to use force unilaterally and preemptively ...
"Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity", a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.  (particularly those of conquering Iraq)

Kristol was the cofounder (along with another neocon scion, Robert Kagan) of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a pressure group created in the late 1990s by a passel of prominent neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.

During the lead up to the Iraq War, PNAC was one of several so-called letterhead groups led by neoconservatives—others included the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, for which Kristol served on the advisory board, and Americans for Victory over Terrorism—that helped promote public and official acceptance of an aggressive "war on terror" aimed at reshaping the Middle East.

In his 1993 book Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (hawk himself, once close friends with Irving Kristol and the young William Kristol) wrote of the neocons: "They wished for a military posture approaching mobilization; they would create or invent whatever crises were required to bring this about."

The 2000 election of George W. Bush enabled PNAC to advance its agenda for the "New American Century." Many PNAC principals moved into the Pentagon, vice president's office, and State Department.
It was not, however, until after 9/11 that the PNAC agenda was fast-forwarded.

On September 20, 2001, PNAC sent an open letter to Bush that commended his newly declared war on terrorism and urged him not only to target Osama bin Laden but also other supposed "perpetrators," including Saddam Hussein and Hezbollah. The letter made one of the first arguments for regime change in Iraq as part of the war on terror. According to the PNAC letter, "It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."  MORE:

PNAC agenda from

"Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century"

In 2000, one year before September 11, PNAC published a book and a report, both of which were designed as blueprints for a new U.S. foreign and military policy: Present Dangers included work from many PNAC associates and other neoconservatives; "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

The gist of it is:  Here's our very ambitious and detailed plans.  They included invading and occupying the Middle East. These plans are vital and urgent.  (skip down)
However, we cannot proceed unless we first scare the living shit out of Americans, then threaten and berate them.
(But we know Americans are too cynical. Words alone won't suffice, will they? We know we need to see a lot of blood and horror and grief, before we respond, right?)

"In particular, we need to:  (URGENTLY)
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;  (global policeman)
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:

MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.

RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.

REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia(hello George Orwell)

MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine Corps.  (let's go shopping)

CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.

DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world..

CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.  (Iraq and Afgh have been attacked by satellite-based tech.)

EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.

INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually."  (shop til you drop!)

(outlays for Perle and his friends, Bush has now doubled defense spending, and whereas Joe Stiglitz was mocked for saying the Iraq War would cost $1 Trillion, that was an underestimate, probably well over $5 Trillion)

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one (a slow slog thru political obstructionism), absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."  /quote

(Notice the [...] ellipsis above.  The last statement is not on the same page as the big plan, but a full reading of the document, if you have time, will reveal that the big military plans are not disconnected from the statement about needing a Pearl Harbor event.)

Roger Barnett
U.S. Naval War College
Alvin Bernstein
National Defense University
Stephen Cambone
National Defense University
Eliot Cohen
Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Devon Gaffney Cross
Donors' Forum for International Affairs
Thomas Donnelly
Project for the New American Century
David Epstein
Office of Secretary of Defense,
Net Assessment
David Fautua
Lt. Col., U.S. Army
Dan Goure
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Donald Kagan *
Yale University
Fred Kagan *
U. S. Military Academy at West Point, AEI
Robert Kagan *
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, AEI
Robert Killebrew
Col., USA (Ret.)
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard, neocon rag, plus PNAC

* Kagans at AEI are authors of Bush "Surge" and much of the Iraq War planning and PR

Mark Lagon
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
James Lasswell
GAMA Corporation
I. Lewis Libby
Dechert Price & Rhoads
Robert Martinage
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment
Phil Meilinger
U.S. Naval War College
Mackubin Owens
U.S. Naval War College
Steve Rosen
Harvard University
Gary Schmitt
Project for the New American Century (founder)
Abram Shulsky
The RAND Corporation
Michael Vickers
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Barry Watts
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Paul Wolfowitz (SECDEF)
Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Dov Zakheim
System Planning Corporation

* The Wolfowitz Doctrine, published in 1992 for fiscal 1994, specifically calls for invading and conquering Iraq.

Richard Perle and his people, 'just advisors' he says, have direct access to classified documents, with which they 'advise' the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense on where to wage wars and what weapons to purchase.

NOTE that fmr. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld belonged to the very same PNAC group that hosted his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and many other cabinet members. (See member list at the top of this box.)

Perle was sending investment letters to a Saudi arms investor, citing "fear of terrorism" as a profit lever.

He sent out investment letters for his company Trireme, which invests in the Military Industry, explaining how 'fear of terrorism will drive up profits'. (see Adnan Khasoggi article below)
Then Perle
promotes 'fear of terrorism' in TV news interviews and talk shows, so news pundits like Hannity can echo him and their friends.  What a 'can't lose' formula!

Trireme Partners LP is a limited partnership venture capital company that invests in technology, goods, and services related to homeland security and defense. Company chairman is Richard N. Perle while Henry Kissinger is a member of its advisory board.

Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi? (Saudi arms dealer)
by Seymour M. Hersh, 2003

The Defense Policy Board is a Defense Department advisory group composed primarily of highly respected former government officials, retired military officers, and academics. Its members, who serve without pay, include former national-security advisers, Secretaries of Defense, and heads of the C.I.A. The board meets several times a year at the Pentagon to review and assess the country’s strategic defense policies.

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs/Advisory Boards August 2000 & March 2003  (JINSA)

see more: on Economic Ties to 9-11
Guns and Butter - Ground Zero 911, Blueprint For Terror - interview with a software architect about tech and finance ties to Sept 11 at the highest level. 
She sure ain't no slouch.  indira_singh_bio.pdf   LOCAL COPY
Indira is an IT professional who started First Boston's Information Technology Group in 1970 and had worked on Wall Street up until 2002. She has been an IT consultant for Bank Trust, the U.N., JP Morgan, and American Express. In 1988 she started TibetNet, a derivative of the Defense Advanced Research Project (DARPA) Internet, the service on which you are likely reading this report at the moment.

Article  "Ptech had all the markings," said Indira Singh. All the markings of a CIA front company.  "What I do know, what the money trails do show, is that the Saudi's are complicit. In other words, the ones that are extremely fundamentalist, the ones that promote Wahabiism - I'm not saying it's all of them, but parts of them--are working hand-in-hand, lock step with elements within American intelligence whether it's official or unofficial. There's proof of that."  (LOCAL COPY)
FBI’s role in 9/11 investigation needs investigation as reported in the Boston Globe
• There's something different about the FBI's Boston office.
• What does the Ptech story have to do with a two-year inquiry of the House Government Reform Committee?
• Hint: the committee’s final report said this about the Boston FBI: “Their conduct must be considered one of the greatest failures in the history of federal law enforcement."
• Dark hints about why the Boston FBI’s seeming “incompetence” may have been intentional.
PTECH, 9/11, and USA-SAUDI TERROR - from the wilderness
FTW: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings, you mentioned - it's on page 139 of transcript - that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.
Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that.

July 20th, 2005
About this program:
Ground Zero 911, Blueprint For Terror, Part Two
PART 2 is the "meat" but you might want to start with Part 1 below for consistency and to get a feel for who she is, her background, work qualifications, experience central to security issues. If you have time, listen to Part One below first.

Indira Singh worked on Wall Street from 1975 Until June 28th, 2002 when she was summarily terminated due to her investigation into a computer software company, Ptech.  (Investigating possible risks of security breaches was the whole point of her job.)

In Part One, She described her harrowing experience as a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician at Ground Zero, and she began to describe her professional work for JPMorgan Chase (as Risk Technology Architect) and her first client meeting with software engineer, Ptech.  (Her responsibility was computer security, yet she was terminated for exposing a breach in security.)

Listening Options:
April 27th, 2005
Ground Zero 911: Blueprint For Terror, Part One
With 911 whistleblower, Risk Technology Architect and Ground Zero Emergency Medical Technician, Indira Singh.
Listening Options:
Website for Streaming part 1:
Download part 1:

Here is a letter to FBI/Customs re: Greenquest and a company called Ptech which handles our highest level security installations incl. DOE (nuclear), NATO, etc. owned by a Saudi named Qassin al-Kadi, who possibly tied to Al-Qaeda financing (as our leaders are). No answers.

Makhtab al-Khidimat (MAK),
1985-1989: Precursor to Al-Qaeda Puts Down US Roots

Ali Mohamed  here
the "mastermind"


Scholarly journals and books.
For one example, The American Journal of Medicine is a scholarly publication, and the name of a group which compiles it.  The average person does not read the American Journal of Medicine.  The fact that it's not widely read by the public, and that it's filled with dense technical jargon and info, does not mean the AJM does not exist, nor that AJM is a "conspiracy theory".

There are dozens of elite scholarly organizations dealing with foreign and domestic policy, often interlinked, as if each org is a separate "project" or "front".  Most  publish reports and articles, and some arrange TV appearances. They get massive corporate  or private funding, and they have addresses and phone numbers and websites. Some hire 'experts' and 'scientists' as TV spokespersons.

There are many (rightwing) conspiracy theories about the Council on Foreign Relations as a communist New World Order scheme.  In a definition of "communism" which means favoritism to private money and multi -national corporations, maybe this is a plausible view.  CFR will not be leading a proletariat uprising anytime soon (though they could engineer a fake prole uprising, I suppose).

CFR was founded by wealthy and powerful elites in the early 1900's to "advise" the US govt.  CFR is an international "Chamber of Commerce".  It has ties to British elites, etc. hence "one world government". (One of it's founders named, Col. House, wrote a book about world domination, with himself as the leader.  Col. House was Pres. Wilson's top advisor and alter-ego, like a Karl Rove.)

David Rockefeller, the oil and banking billionaire, later served as president. You can go to the CFR website or phone them up and order a subscription to their pub, Foreign Affairs. (see below)

Poli-Sci students and professors have doubtlessly studied some of CFR's reports and know of them.

Most US Presidents and many Cabinet members and CIA directors are also CFR members.  CFR is one more of many public relations and political arms of Wall Street, finance, and industry, probably the biggest.  A lot of this is like "One Degree of Separation", not six. 

Despite CFR having so much apparent power and influence, it is nearly anonymous to the gen. public, hidden in plain view.  It's meetings are not totally secret, it's conclusions are not secret, but much of the who's who and what they discuss IS very secret, like a private company, even though they are nearly an office of govt.  Major media personalities are also members.

The first rule of Fight Club is "you don't talk about Fight Club".  Kinda true for CFR too. Ever heard Tom Brokaw talk about being on CFR's Board of Dir?  Or Dan Rather, or Brinkley, or Diane Sawyer, or Jim Lehrer talk about their membership?

A CFR spinoff, founded by Rockefeller and Brzezinski in 1973, is the Tri-Lateral Commission.  That's not a conspiracy theory.  TLC has a website, street address, phone, and publishes many reports and studies on how the world should be run. TLC involves the interests of the wealthy in three economic regions, Asia (Japan), North America, and Europe (the EU). Most US Presidents are also members of the TLC.  Reagan was not, but his cabinet was.  Jimmy Carter 'studied' a few years with Brzezinski, and became the first "TLC-groomed President" in 1976.

Not "secret" but also low profile, esp for a group with SO much influence. There are estimated 300 TLC core members, 1200 CFR members.

Fake "Christian" leaders also stated that "America" deserved terrorist attacks (mass murder, collective punishment) for being "sinful".  Well, Falwell and Robertson are just fringe whackos ... or are they?

Jonah Goldberg Democrats should win 2008. The reason is that so "if" there are also published an article in 2007 which suggests that new (hoped for) terrorist attacks on America, then "liberal" Dems will be "punished" by that crisis, and such a disaster will vindicate the neo-Conservative agenda ... and Bush supporters.  These are top national experts, highly respected in their circles, reporting on Fox and CNN.
What if a "liberal" hate symbol like Michael Moore or Pelosi or John Kerry ruthlessly suggested that a new successful Al-Qaeda attackwelcome event, because it would demonstrate Republicans' incompetence and help Dems win?  Would you hear about that?

Of course the DLC, the Hegelian "loyal opposition", is just as dishonest about the "War on Terror", and not truly against the main Bush agendas.  They just are re-defining it based on their own nuanced script, to signal political turnover without any actual change.

The allegation that this is a key tenet of the wealthy elites who truly own Washington comes from right wing conspiracy theories at least  partly makes sense.  I think it's obviously true, regardless who else is promoting it for whatever agenda.

The Secret Government  MUST SEE 22 min  (longer movie BELOW is worth it)
It aired on PBS in 1987 and is as good as anything on the tape (must see). Moyers is a very respected TV journalist who also worked for Lyndon B. Johnson and has a very professional approach. He interviews many different people involved with the CIA and other government agencies. His documentary gives quite an overview of what has actually happened in the last 50 years regarding the CIA and the cold war (including Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Viet Nam and Chile). He features such people as Ralph McGeehee and Phil Retinger (both former CIA agents), Rear Admiral Gene La Rocque (Ret. U.S.N.), Theodore Bissell (active in the CIA at the time), Sen. Frank Church and many others. - this segment is edited by Frank Dorrel to 20 minutes.

For anyone who just does not realize how criminal the US govt can be, this is a mainstream report, Bill Moyers is establishment, he used to work under Kennedy and Johnson, and maybe Nixon too, so everything he's saying, it's probably actually much worse than that.

quoting Moyers: ANYTHING can come back to haunt us.  Mentions the sale of arms to terrorist groups.
Notice John Kerry talking like a real leader in 1986, unlike in 2004.
The Secret Government  MUST SEE full 90 min: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers
This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive ... all Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people. The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the PATRIOT act which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing.

HOME PAGEHome (start) Page 1
Home Page 1-A (extension)
Home Page 1-B (extension)
INDEX2 9-11 & Fourth Reich, Nazi history
INDEX3 blackbox voting, peak oil, other issues
Site Map
Video-Aud List
KEY issues covered up by DISINFO
a website dedicated to the convergence of real conservative and real Leftist thought and action

End Game? Global Conquest