Now that Ron Paul has reaffirmed the neocon fantasy version of nine eleven events, stating during the so-called debate earlier this week that we were attacked by “al-Qaeda” and Osama bin Laden, when in fact there is no evidence to validate this fairy tale, the “liberal” corporate media, as represented by CNN’s Roland S. Martin, has decided to give the “blowback” theory legs.
Now that Ron Paul has reaffirmed the neocon fantasy version of nine eleven events, stating during the so-called debate earlier this week that we were attacked by “al-Qaeda” and Osama bin Laden, when in fact there is no evidence to validate this fairy tale, the “liberal” corporate media, as represented by CNN’s Roland S. Martin, has decided to give the “blowback” theory legs.
“Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror,” writes Martin. “Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn’t his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.”
In fact, the problem was indeed “his analysis,” as it accepts as conclusive the mendacious fairy tale contrived by the neocons. From the obvious demolition of Building Seven, not mentioned in the official “faith-based” 9-11 Omission Report, to the plethora of scientific evidence indicating it was impossible for jets alone to bring down the WTC buildings, and beyond to the glossed over testimony of Norman Mineta implicating Dick Cheney and the highly unlikely NORAD and National Reconnaissance Office exercises and war games coinciding with the events, it should be apparent to a grade school kid there is something rotten with the official version.
And yet both Ron Paul and Roland S. Martin accept it as fact.
Both Paul and Martin tell us it was “proper for the United States to respond to the attack,” even though the government offered no compelling evidence of who might be the culprit. In a matter of a couple hours after the attack, Senator Orrin Hatch told the media, after a briefing “by the highest levels of the FBI and of the intelligence community … that this looks like the signature of Osama bin Laden, and that he may be the one behind this.” General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO and mad bomber of Serbia, told the media: “Only one group has this kind of ability and that is Osama bin Laden’s.” Meanwhile, an aide to Donald Rumsfeld wrote a now infamous note, declaring: “Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” Bush supposedly scribbled in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.… We think it’s Osama bin Laden.” It is hardly coincidental this is the same “Pearl Harbor” event, required to unleash war in the name of Pax Americana, mentioned prior to nine eleven by the PNAC boys, including William Kristol, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Frank Gaffney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other key neocons.
On September 23, 2001, Colin Powell declared the neocons would “put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case that … it is al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, who has been responsible” for the attacks. “He said the evidence will embrace new information gathered by law enforcement and intelligence agents on the attacks, as well as material used in indictments against bin Laden in the bombing of U.S. embassies in east Africa in 1998. It may also cite leads developed in the investigation of the bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen last October,” the Seattle Post Intelligencer reported at the time.
Of course, this so-called “evidence” was not shared with “the American people,” as Powell promised. “Since the first demands for ‘evidence,’ the U.S. government has busied itself preparing a laundry list of suitable accusations and diplomatically correct labels to hurl at bin Laden and his terrorist cells. The mysterious ‘proof’ of his guilt has been shared, we’re told with Allied leaders in Europe, as well as with various Pakistani and Afghan (rebel) authorities. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson later characterized a secret U.S. briefing as offering ‘clear and compelling evidence,’ while Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced he was ‘quite satisfied’ the information ‘proves’ bin Laden’s involvement,” Time Magazine reported on October 30, 2001. “To date, very little evidence has been made public, for obvious security reasons, so any discussion has been necessarily relegated to the realm of speculation.” Moreover, the “evidence” is not “of the type that would stand up in an American court of law.”
Indeed, the “realm of speculation” is the only “evidence” we have, and it was offered by a coterie of neocons who have since demonstrated their skill at manufacturing lies and cobbling together fantastic fabrications in order to invade and occupy Iraq, killing nearly a million human beings in the process. It is, to say the least, remarkable Ron Paul would believe such people.
It is also remarkable the so-called truth and patriot movements have not bothered to call Ron Paul out on any of this. It would seem they are so desperate for a presidential candidate, one who plays footsy with the likes of the nine eleven criminal Rudy Giuliani, they have swept aside the glaring incongruities of the “blowback” theory.
But then, I suppose, elections do funny things to the best of us, including the spectacle of having good people once again allow themselves to be so easily played for fools by our rulers.
“Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror,” writes Martin. “Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn’t his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.”
In fact, the problem was indeed “his analysis,” as it accepts as conclusive the mendacious fairy tale contrived by the neocons. From the obvious demolition of Building Seven, not mentioned in the official “faith-based” 9-11 Omission Report, to the plethora of scientific evidence indicating it was impossible for jets alone to bring down the WTC buildings, and beyond to the glossed over testimony of Norman Mineta implicating Dick Cheney and the highly unlikely NORAD and National Reconnaissance Office exercises and war games coinciding with the events, it should be apparent to a grade school kid there is something rotten with the official version.
And yet both Ron Paul and Roland S. Martin accept it as fact.
Both Paul and Martin tell us it was “proper for the United States to respond to the attack,” even though the government offered no compelling evidence of who might be the culprit. In a matter of a couple hours after the attack, Senator Orrin Hatch told the media, after a briefing “by the highest levels of the FBI and of the intelligence community … that this looks like the signature of Osama bin Laden, and that he may be the one behind this.” General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO and mad bomber of Serbia, told the media: “Only one group has this kind of ability and that is Osama bin Laden’s.” Meanwhile, an aide to Donald Rumsfeld wrote a now infamous note, declaring: “Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” Bush supposedly scribbled in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.… We think it’s Osama bin Laden.” It is hardly coincidental this is the same “Pearl Harbor” event, required to unleash war in the name of Pax Americana, mentioned prior to nine eleven by the PNAC boys, including William Kristol, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Frank Gaffney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other key neocons.
On September 23, 2001, Colin Powell declared the neocons would “put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case that … it is al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, who has been responsible” for the attacks. “He said the evidence will embrace new information gathered by law enforcement and intelligence agents on the attacks, as well as material used in indictments against bin Laden in the bombing of U.S. embassies in east Africa in 1998. It may also cite leads developed in the investigation of the bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen last October,” the Seattle Post Intelligencer reported at the time.
Of course, this so-called “evidence” was not shared with “the American people,” as Powell promised. “Since the first demands for ‘evidence,’ the U.S. government has busied itself preparing a laundry list of suitable accusations and diplomatically correct labels to hurl at bin Laden and his terrorist cells. The mysterious ‘proof’ of his guilt has been shared, we’re told with Allied leaders in Europe, as well as with various Pakistani and Afghan (rebel) authorities. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson later characterized a secret U.S. briefing as offering ‘clear and compelling evidence,’ while Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced he was ‘quite satisfied’ the information ‘proves’ bin Laden’s involvement,” Time Magazine reported on October 30, 2001. “To date, very little evidence has been made public, for obvious security reasons, so any discussion has been necessarily relegated to the realm of speculation.” Moreover, the “evidence” is not “of the type that would stand up in an American court of law.”
Indeed, the “realm of speculation” is the only “evidence” we have, and it was offered by a coterie of neocons who have since demonstrated their skill at manufacturing lies and cobbling together fantastic fabrications in order to invade and occupy Iraq, killing nearly a million human beings in the process. It is, to say the least, remarkable Ron Paul would believe such people.
It is also remarkable the so-called truth and patriot movements have not bothered to call Ron Paul out on any of this. It would seem they are so desperate for a presidential candidate, one who plays footsy with the likes of the nine eleven criminal Rudy Giuliani, they have swept aside the glaring incongruities of the “blowback” theory.
But then, I suppose, elections do funny things to the best of us, including the spectacle of having good people once again allow themselves to be so easily played for fools by our rulers.
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 8 comments