Decoding Scheuer’s Call for Osama to Kill More Americans
“War on Terror” advocates want civilians to die to justify “War on Terror”
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
6 July, 2009

CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s recent call for bin Laden to kill more Americans would be shocking if we hadn’t already heard it dozens of times before from other “War on Terror” advocates. “It’s an absurd situation,” Scheuer told FOX News personality Glenn Beck on his program last week. “Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.”

The comments have provoked much shock and outrage among pundits and websites like Jon Stewart and NewsHounds who may have considered him to be on their side. After all, he seemed to be a vociferous and effective critic of the neocons, having authored books like Imperial Hubris and having supported Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential debates by asserting that 9/11 was merely blowback for American interventionism in the Middle East. With his latest comments, Scheuer is now relegated to the ignoble company of neocon shills like Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who dreamed of another terrorist attack back in 2007 to rally people around the flag (and, presumably, George W. Bush) once again; Donald Rumsfeld, who complained in 2006 that the Bush regime was a victim of its own success in the “War on Terror” and that another terrorist attack was needed to remind people that the war was still necessary; and indeed the entire neocon establishment, who in their 2000 white paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses called for “a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor” to mobilize the public to get behind their goal of projecting American military influence around the globe for another century. Despite his surprisingly unhelpful attempt to clarify his remarks, Scheuer is now—like all of those who have said that terrorism is needed to bring about political support for their idea—a terrorist himself by very definition.

Read the rest of this entry »

Glenn Beck Agrees: “The only chance we have as a country right now is” for bin Laden to “detonate a major weapon” in U.S.

“Glenn Beck nods and agrees with his guest Michael Scheuer that the only way to “save” the US (from illegal immigrants, of course) is for Osama bin Laden to succeed in detonating a weapon on American soil. Scheuer and Beck hit all the conservative buttons, from Mexicans to the mainstream media and the worst of all, Europeans. From the June 30th, 2009 Glenn Beck on Fox News.”

“Last night Glenn Beck’s guest was ex-CIA person Michael Scheuer, who stated that the only hope for the country was for Osama Bin Laden to “deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Seriously.”

http://gawker.com/5305274/what-this-country-needs-is-a-good-terrorist-at…

YouTube viddy cribbed from: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906300039

McCain Campaign Hopes For Terror Attack To Swing Vote
More dead Americans on U.S. soil would be “big advantage” says top strategist
by Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, June 23, 2008

Top McCain strategist Charlie Black tells Fortune Magazine that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would aid the Arizona Senator to overturn Barack Obama’s lead and be a “big advantage” in helping him become President.

In an article entitled The evolution of John McCain, Black notes that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December “helped” the McCain campaign because it gave the Senator an opportunity to grandstand as a tough would-be Commander-in-Chief.

Black then brazenly points out that another 9/11-style attack would give the McCain campaign the boost it needs to claw back Barack Obama’s estimated 7 per cent lead over the Senator.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.

In response to the comments, CNN’s Jack Cafferty today asked his audience if Black should be fired.

“Who says this stuff? Black has already come under fire for his work on behalf of an international assortment of goons, thugs, autocrats, and dictators… from whom he took tons of money in exchange for arranging access to the power corridors of Washington. Black has resigned from his work as a lobbyist,” writes Cafferty.

“Here’s my question to you: Should McCain adviser Charlie Black be fired for saying a terrorist attack would help McCain’s chances?”

Black’s comments follow a lineage of outrageous statements on behalf of Neo-Cons and administration officials who yearn for terror as a means of entrenching political power.

In a Washington Times report last month, national intelligence spooks all but promised that history would be repeated for a third time running, and the new President of the United States will be welcomed into office by a terror attack that will occur within the first year of his tenure.

In addition, shocking excerpts of confidential recordings recently released under the Freedom of Information Act feature former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking with top military analysts about how a flagging Neo-Con political agenda could be successfully restored with the aid of another terrorist attack on America.

Numerous Neo-Con’s morbid fascination and bloodlust for terror attacks and dead Americans to rescue their flagging political agenda has spilled out in public statements over the last year.

The real terrorists are coming out of the closet as they can no longer conceal their desire to see more carnage in U.S. cities.

The latest example was former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who during a Long Island bookstore appearance stated, “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, 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.”

In August last year Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky openly called for “another 9/11″ that “would help America” restore a “community of outrage and national resolve”.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star last July that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

Also in July 2007, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum suggested that a series of “unfortunate events,” namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen’s perception of the war.

And the month before that, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

Also See: McCain strategist: Terrorist attack ‘would be a big advantage’ in election (Raw Story)

National “The Shell Game” Week of Truth – April 16th – 22nd
A Major Nationally
Coordinated 9/11 Truth Effort to
BREAK THE CORPORATE MEDIA BLOCKADE!

www.weekoftruth.org

Week of Truth
April 16th – 22nd

This is the first in a series of Week of Truth events to coalesce the power of the national truth movement. Following this Week of Truth action, we will draw attention to two major 9/11 conferences in the Northeast to be tentatively scheduled in the month of May.The current installment of the Week of Truth features New York Times Best Selling Author, Steve Alten and his new book, The Shell Game. Our effort is to be a focused, movement wide attempt to bring The Shell Game into the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List.

Our Goal

To propel The Shell Game into the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List. To achieve this URGE all your contacts to buy multiple copies of 9/11 truth telling novel – The Shell Game – between April 16 to 22nd, the focused week when the NY Times list will count those sales.Reading the book will be an eye opener for those Americans who have never been exposed to 9-11 truth. Being in the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List will bring 9-11 truth to many more readers but additionally, has far more potential in the form of positive media exposure.

An author who finds his/her book in the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List has many perks and opportunities which perpetuate and expand on the success of the book. For example:

1. Top 10 books and authors get premium placement and shelf space in the front of the store.
2. Major merchandise outlets like Wal-Mart and drug chains purchase their inventory directly off the the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List.
3. Mainstream television and radio shows shop for guests from the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List. Top 10 status will generally get the author mainstream television and radio exposure. Steve Alten has pledged to bring 9-11 truth to the audiences of these programs if given the opportunity.

Due to the fact that Steve Alten has interwoven key 9-11 facts into his novel, a successful campaign of this sort will bring the issue of 9-11 to the forefront of the minds of many Americans. Steve has pledged that if given the opportunity, he will do just that. Take a look at his recent appearance on The Coffee Shop with Monica Malpass on ABC Channel 6 in Philadelphia. We can expect a lot more of this if The Shell Game reaches the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List.

Read the rest of this entry »

Congress, the Bush Adminstration and Continuity of Government Planning–The Showdown

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2008040182600233

March 31, 2008
by Peter Dale Scott

In August 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the House that he and the rest of his Committee had been barred from reviewing parts of National Security Presidential Directive 51, the White House supersecret plans to implement so-called “Continuity of Government” in the event of a mass terror attack or natural disaster. (1)

Norm Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, commented, “I cannot think of one good reason” for denial. Ornstein added, “I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House.” (2)

The story, ignored by the mainstream press, involved more than the usual tussle between the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government. What was at stake was a contest between Congress’s constitutional powers of oversight, and a set of policy plans that could be used to suspend or modify the constitution.

There is nothing wrong with disaster planning per se. Like all governments, the U.S. government must develop plans for the worst contingencies. But Congress has a right to be concerned about Continuity of Government (COG) plans refined by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld over the past quarter century, which journalists have described as involving suspension of the constitution. (3)

In the 1980s, a secret group of planners inside and outside the government were assigned, by an Executive Order, to develop a response to a nuclear attack in which the U.S. government had been decapitated, forcing an alternative to the constitutional rules of succession. Two of these planners were Dick Cheney, then a Congressman, and Donald Rumsfeld, then a private citizen and CEO of the G.D. Searle drug company.

“One of the awkward questions we faced was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack.It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them,” said one of the COG planners in the 1980s, who spoke to James Mann (The Rise of the Vulcans, 141-42). James Bamford reported the same remark in his book Pretext for War (p. 74).

After the end of the Cold War, the urgency of coming up with plans faded. The COG nuclear planning project “has less than six months to live,” reported Tim Weiner of the New York Times. (April 17, 1994). Mann and Bamford concluded, wrongly, that all the COG planning of the Reagan era had been abandoned.

Read the rest of this entry »

A VITAL PLEA from Steve Alten, author of The SHELL GAME

To the 9/11 Truth Movement

I know you are probably getting tired/annoyed at hearing from me — my humble apologies. But something is happening in DC that EVERYONE must be aware of, because it will affect all of us:

A few days ago, Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, essentially told reporters that he fears the next 9/11, which could be a suitcase nuke. Yesterday, in threatening to veto a waterboarding ban, Bush said, and I quote, “terrorists are planning new attacks on our country… that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison.”

If this plot isn’t straight out of The SHELL GAME then you haven’t read the book. Now add this little tidbit: Executive Order 12919 (pushed through by the Bushies) would place the United States under total Martial Law and Military Dictatorship in the event of another attack. This Executive Order allows the President to declare a National Emergency at any time, and freeze everything…including a national election. Congress is powerless to prevent such an Executive Dictatorship, as long as the President advises Congress in a timely matter.

I realize all of you have very important 9/11 projects you are working on, books and rallies, etc, but if we learned anything from 9/11 then maybe it is time to focus on the next false flag operation. By doing so, we might actually be able to reach the mass media AND bring attention to the lies behind the last event. See, the media want TODAYS NEWS, not YESTERDAYS. And this is today’s news that ties back to 9/11/01.

I can help you gain mainstream attention in a big way…but I need your support.

Guys, in the last 11 years I have published eight books, hit every best seller list, optioned a book as a movie (twice), sold two scripts, and have two more books set for publication in 2009. To be honest, I knew little about the 9/11 Truth Movement until sometime around October/November when The SHELL GAME went to print. I quickly realized that this loosely-connected group of people, often vilified by the media, were in fact ordinary citizens doing extraordinary things. They were the Davids facing off against the Goliaths. THEY were America’s true Patriots.

And suddenly The SHELL GAME took on a new meaning for me. Because I knew it could break through a barrier that has held your movement back. Because the book is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I also knew from insider sources that the fiction could become true.

Read the rest of this entry »

Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo”

by Arabesque

Webster Tarpley supplies us with an ad-hominem filled commentary on the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy on his radio show:

“Who opposes the Kennebunkport warning? We discovered going through this that if you take all the slanderous filth, counter-organizing, disinformation and so forth, about two-thirds of it comes from about half a dozen people as far as I can see. And let’s tell you who they are. First of all, you have to look at the site called truthaction.org. As far as I can see about two-thirds of the site appears to be devoted to slanders and vilification of the Kennebunkport Warning. This shows what one can only call the typical style of the counter-gang. In other words it takes elements from lots of people’s work including my own. They talk about truth squads, they have a candidate tracker, they talk about a general strike, they take things from Ron Paul, they take things from We Are Change, but then they mix in a huge dose of anonymous slander, vilification, denigration, calumny, libel, and defamation. The leading poison pen seems to be an individual called Cosmos. Now this I think is extremely objectionable. Here is somebody who will not tell you his real name but he demands the right to be a poison pen. Anonymous slanders are his stock and trade. He wants to slander you and vilify you from the shadows, spread disinformation, distortions. These are the venom-mongers, the merchants of pus who like to operate from behind the scenes. These are the wreckers and saboteurs, and of course the question is posed: Is this COINTELPRO? Is this the conform of the FBI counter-gang? Those are interesting questions. I can’t answer them, but they are very interesting.

Then we have somebody else called Colonel Jenny Sparks in quotation marks. She shows herself as a cartoon figure prancing in an abbreviated costume before the Union Jack. Another poison pen slanderer, another wrecker and saboteur. The only questions we have are, is this COINTELPRO, is this the current style of the FBI counter-gang?

So here we have Cosmos who shows you he looks like he’s trying to imitate Che Guavara or a member of the Sons of David baseball team. He’s hiding behind a huge beard, looks like the Italian aviators in A Night at the Opera. He’s got this army fatigue cap pulled down over his eyes so you can’t see him, he might as well be anonymous. Jenny Sparks completely anonymous.

Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11. He appears of course in shades, he’s got some cool shades on, he doesn’t want you to see him. Remember visibility911.com is not the same as 911visibility.org. 911visibility.org is a reputable website; you have Janice Matthews and many others who work there. This is visibility911.com with Michael Wolsey.

Read the rest of this entry »

Editors Note: Whatever the case with regard to the signatures of Dahlia Wasfi, Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, and Ann Wright, it has been alleged, by these 4 signers, that they signed something else and not the so called “Kennebunkport Warning”. It doesn’t matter why they are making these claims and it’s not for anyone to make the determination that they are “liars” and “wretched individuals”. My question is this: If these 4 (and possibly others) claim that they didn’t sign the “Kennebunkport Warning”, then why not just remove their names and move on? If it were me and I was circulating something that “signers” had denied signing, I would remove their names immediately. That is the honorable thing to do. Why have the authors and purveyors of this “document” insisted on attacking and causing division and strife within our movement, something that is most dis-honorable? This is key in understanding the possible true intentions of the authors and those pushing this issue despite obvious and articulate denials of endorsement by the most prominent of the “signers”.

-Michael

The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax
By Arabesque

August 31, 2007
Updated: September 2, 2007

The Kennebunkport Warning claimed that a group of 9/11 and anti-war activists joined together to sign a document warning of a false flag terror attack and resulting war with Iran. Like most, I first believed that the Kennebunkport Warning and the signatures were legitimate.

We now have very strong evidence it is a hoax.

While the warning may be valid, the signatures of Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, and others appear to have been unethically used without their permission or knowledge.

When initially released, the warning claimed “massive evidence” without supplying any. Curiosity was justifiably invoked, so I independently provided a link to my own research. A few days later, Tarpley supplied his evidence, which included a fake “90 days” warning by FOX news—an exact word for word reprint of an article published in 2005.

While I strongly agree that there is a serious risk of an attack on Iran (and by extension a “trigger” to justify it), I strongly disagree with the unethical use of signatures to support such a warning. I do not know when or if another false flag attack will occur, but there is very strong evidence that the Bush administration intends to go to war with Iran.

Read the rest of this entry »

Stu Bykofsky | To save America, we need another 9/11
August 9, 2007
ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I’m thinking another 9/11 would help America.

What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically – thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq – that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O’Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.

Iraq has fractured the U.S. into jigsaw pieces of competing interests that encourage our enemies. We are deeply divided and division is weakness.

Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?

Not because Americans are “anti-war.”

Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don’t have the patience for a long slog. We’ve been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Pentagon’s “Second 911″

Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets
by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, August 10, 2006

With all the fear mongering in the mainstream media today, this article may well be more relevant today than when it was written almost one year ago. -Ed.

One essential feature of “defense” in the case of a second major attack on America, is “offense”, according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: “Homeland security is one piece of a broader strategy [which] brings the battle to the enemy.”(DHS, Transcript of complete March 2005 speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff)

In the month following last year’s 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States”. Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

This “contingency plan” uses the pretext of a “Second 9/11″, which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran’s involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Read the rest of this entry »