August 5, 2007

The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack

The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack

By Arabesque

August 2, 2007

Updated: October 16, 2007

The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%eight, zeroof any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.[1] Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst in the film 9/11: Press for Truth

Note: See Kennebunkport Warning Controversy


The Iraq/Al-Qaeda Disinformation


National Intelligence Estimate

Fake Warnings

Our Pals, Al Qaeda

The Iraq “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Hoax

Predictions of a “New 9/11” before November 2007

Vacuous Fear Mongering

Reactions to the Warnings

Motive for the Next 9/11?  2008 Elections, Oil, Iran, Continuity of Government, Civil Liberties, and Power


The “Terrorist Contingency Plan” to Strike Iran—Before it Happens?

The Iran Agenda: The US Administration Wants Another War, Possibly Nuclear

US Administration Declares Iran’s Army a “terrorist” organization

The Iran/Iraq Disinformation

The Iraq Quagmire

There will be Another “Terrorist” Attack, whether it’s “Manufactured or Real”?

With “Government Officials” like These, Who Needs “Terrorists”?

A “New 9/11” Will Create a “Dictatorial Police State” and Result in Cancelled Elections

Posse Comitatus Law and Martial Law

Continuity of Government after the “new 9/11”?

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

After the “New 9/11”?

What Does it All Mean?

What Can Be Done to Stop Another 9/11?  Impeachment



We’re an Empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.[2] “Senior Bush Advisor”, New York Times, October 17, 2004

"This is a battle… for the future of civilization."[3] Dick Cheney, February 15, 2006

In every State of the Union Address since the attacks on 9/11, the President has raised the specter of another attack.[4] Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Robert Byrd, July 19, 2007

“Bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else.”[5] Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson

“The goal has never been to get Bin Laden.”

The Iraq/Al-Qaeda Disinformation

There is ‘no credible evidence’ that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the [9/11] commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.[6] Washington Post, June 16, 2004

What did Iraq have to do with… [9/11]?  Nothing![7] George Bush, August 21, 2006

Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.[8] Associated Press, April 6, 2007

Those who want the United States to stay in Iraq indefinitely and those who want to widen the war into Iran… constantly [try] to obscure the nature of the violence in Iraq. Foremost among this crew of charlatans is President George W. Bush who (along with members of his administration) runs around telling the American public that the United States is primarily fighting al-Qaida, or, as Bush put it in a recent press conference, ‘the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.’ [9] This is an absurd statement for multiple reasons: It ignores the true nature of the violence… it implies that Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9-11 (it didn't) and it implies that al-Qaida was in Iraq before the U.S. invasion (it wasn't). Nevertheless, it is used by war supporters to try and trump up support for staying in Iraq permanently.[10] Jason Stahl, July 18, 2007

Stranger still is [Bill] Kristol's speculation that, had Saddam been left in power, ‘his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.’ Connections with al Qaeda? Just this April, the Washington Post (yes, the same paper running the Kristol piece) ran an A1 article about a declassified DoD report from before the war stating that Saddam was not working with al Qaeda. What about Zarqawi, you ask? He went to Iraq in 2002, but only joined bin Laden's al Qaeda network after the U.S. invasion.[11] Carolyn O'Hara, July 16, 2007

A newly formed non-profit organisation made up of former Bush administration officials is to spend $15 million to run pro-war television and radio ads in more than 20 states which falsely link the 9/11 attacks to the war in Iraq in an effort to strong arm Congress into withdrawing support for a de-escalation.”[12] Infowars, August 23, 2007


Al Qaeda is a creation and a tool of our own CIA. The CIA through the Pakistani Intelligence Bureau called the ISI funds it. The facts are that we wired $100,000.00 to ISI that has links to al Qaeda . In late September 2001 there was an FBI source that published a report that determined that the FBI and CIA were linked to the ISI. General Ahmad, the head of the Pakistani ISI wired $100,000 to al Qaeda, in fact, to Muhammad Atta, the leader of the group that staged the 9/11 attacks. This was in the Summer of 2001. This was in a press report that was covered by the MSM, and talked about the ‘money man’ that financed and supported the 9/11 hijackers. This General Ahmed was in Washington when the attacks on 9/11 occurred. He met with George Tenent, Richard Armitage and Senator Joe Biden.[13] Tim Gatto, August 17, 2007

War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (9/11)

National Intelligence Estimate

The July 17 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)… [is] a tour de force of misinformation disguised as fact… It is possibly no coincidence that there has been a significant increase in the anti-Iran rhetoric emanating from both the Bush administration and Congress over the past few weeks, mostly seeking to establish a casus belli by contending that Iran is masterminding lethal attacks against US troops in Iran and NATO forces in Afghanistan.[14] Philip Giraldi, July 19, 2007

Fake Warnings

Keith Olbermann has detailed many fake terror warnings that have occurred and have been exploited to create fear in the Main Stream Media since 9/11.[15] 

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.[16] Fox News, July 13, 2005

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.[17] Fox News August 2, 2007

In an attempt to reverse plummeting approval ratings, the Bush administration is mounting an unprecedented, sustained campaign of disinformation on the terrorist threat confronting the United States.  Even the mainstream media has noted how the White House has attempted falsely to tie al-Qaeda to the war in Iraq, with President Bush increasing the number of references to the group in speeches made during the month of July.[18] Philip Giraldi, July 31, 2007

Not a day goes by without suggestions by Bush or top Homeland Security officials that an attack perhaps on the scale of 9/11, or worse, is being prepared. As always, the mass media dutifully report such claims as authoritative, without questioning the lack of evidence beyond the bald assertions of intelligence and other government officials… The terror scare serves three basic political functions: to divert public attention from the disaster in Iraq and the social crisis within the US, to justify a foreign policy based on militarism and war, and to provide a pretext for police state measures at home.[19] Jerry White, July 27, 2007

Our Pals, Al Qaeda

Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network has been active in the Balkans for years, most recently helping Kosovo rebels battle for independence from Serbia with the financial and military backing of the United States and NATOThe United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo.[20] National Post, March 15, 2002

The American people have been seriously misled about the origins of the al Qaeda movement blamed for the 9/11 attacks, just as they have been seriously misled about the reasons for America’s invasion of Iraq.  The truth is that for at least two decades the United States has engaged in energetic covert programs to secure U.S. control over the Persian Gulf, and also to open up Central Asia for development by U.S. oil companies. Americans were eager to gain access to the petroleum reserves of the Caspian Basin, which at that time were still estimated to be ‘the largest known reserves of unexploited fuel in the planet.’[21] To this end, time after time, U.S. covert operations in the region have used so-called ‘Arab Afghan’ warriors as assets, the jihadis whom we loosely link with the name and leadership of al Qaeda.[22] In country after country these ‘Arab Afghans’ have been involved in trafficking Afghan heroin.[23] Peter Dale Scott, July 9, 2005

The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.  One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being ‘run’ in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.[24] Raw Story, April 13, 2006

‘The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan,’ the London Telegraph reported yesterday.  Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror.[25] Prison Planet, May 28, 2007

The Iraq “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Hoax

Consider, for example, the daring recruitment in mid-2002 of Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was ‘turned’ into working for the CIA and quickly established his credibility. Sabri told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  My former colleagues, perhaps a bit naively, were quite sure this would come as a vast relief to President George W. Bush and his advisers. Instead, they were told that the White House had no further interest in reporting from Sabri; rather, that the issue was not really WMD, it was ‘regime change.’ (Don't feel embarrassed if you did not know this; our corporate-owned, war-profiteering media has largely suppressed all this.)[26] Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, August 22, 2007

Predictions of a “New 9/11” before November 2007

"The greatest threat now is 'a 9/11' occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities… it’s a very real threat."[27]  Dick Cheney, April 15, 2007

A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.  ‘This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001,’ the official told[28] ABC News, July 1, 2007

Officials in Germany have publicly warned that [America] could face a major attack this summer, also comparing the situation to the pre-9/11 summer of 2001.[29] ABC News, July 1, 2007

I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk… Summertime [2007] seems to be appealing to them."[30]  Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, July 11, 2001

"I believe there are cells in the United States, or at least people who aspire to create cells in the United States.  To assume that there are not those cells is naive and so we have to take that threat seriously.  Am I concerned that this will happen this summer, I have to be concerned that it could happen any day." Air Force Gen. Victor "Gene"[31] Renuart, July 24, 2007

Al Qaeda terrorists are continuing to plan attacks against the United States and are seeking nuclear and other unconventional arms for the strikes, a senior Pentagon official told Congress yesterday… ‘Al Qaeda has and will continue to attempt visually dramatic mass-casualty attacks here at home, and they will continue to attempt to acquire chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials.’[32] The Washington Times, July 26, 2007

Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.[33] Roll Call, August 2, 2007

Two congressional representatives were meeting with Capitol Hill security officials Friday as workers dealt with an increased security presence related to unspecified al-Qaida threats as the sixth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks approaches.  The fears were stoked Thursday when Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said it would be a good thing for congress to leave town until September 12.[34] ABC News, August 3, 2007

Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo [said] the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina. Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday that he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.”[35] CBS News, August 3, 2007

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey tells NewsMax in an exclusive interview that terrorists could strike the American homeland — possibly with a weapon of mass destruction — this summer or early fall.  He also warns that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it.  ‘I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real,’ Woolsey said. A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons was ‘a real possibility.’”[36] NewsMax, August 7, 2007

The two sales are being referred to by market traders as "bin Laden trades" because only an event on the scale of 9-11 could make these short-sell options valuable. The entity or individual offering these sales can only make money if the market drops 30%-50% within the next four weeks. If the market does not drop, the entity or individual involved stands to lose over $1 billion just for engaging in these contracts!  Clearly, someone knows something big is going to happen BEFORE the options expire on Sept. 21 Bear in mind that the last time anyone conducted such large and unusual stock option trades (like this one) was in the weeks before the attacks of September 11.”[37] Marc Parent, August 26, 2007.  Possibly related, Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers says, "I do not think we yet have… a basis of making a prediction that there will be a recession, but I would say that the risks of recession are now greater than they've been any time since the period in the aftermath of 9/11."[38] August 27, 2007

“To the American people, and to peace loving individuals everywhere: Massive evidence has come to our attention which shows that the backers, controllers, and allies of Vice President Dick Cheney are determined to orchestrate and manufacture a new 9/11 terror incident, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation over the coming weeks and months. Such events would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext for launching an aggressive war against Iran, quite possibly with nuclear weapons, and for imposing a regime of martial law here in the United States. We call on the House of Representatives to proceed immediately to the impeachment of Cheney, as an urgent measure for avoiding a wider and more catastrophic war. Once impeachment has begun, it will be easier for loyal and patriotic military officers to refuse illegal orders coming from the Cheney faction. We solemnly warn the people of the world that any terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction taking place inside the United States or elsewhere in the immediate future must be considered the prima facie responsibility of the Cheney faction. We urge responsible political leaders everywhere to begin at once to inoculate the public opinion of their countries against such a threatened false flag terror operation.[39] THE KENNEBUNKPORT WARNING, A Group of US Opposition Political Leaders Gathered in Protest at the Bush Compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, August 24-25, 2007 

Vacuous and Nebulous Fear Mongering

Fearing a possible coded signal to attack, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are studying an unusual pattern of words in the latest audiotape from al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri‘Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness.  Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness.  Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness.’”[40] The Blotter, July 13, 2007

“These unprecedented [warnings of a new attack] are based on the realization that al-Qaida has achieved its goal of developing nuclear and radiological weapons for a simultaneous attack on seven to 10 American cities… News of the American Hiroshima—the plan to detonate seven nuclear devises in seven major U.S. cities—was uncovered from the laptop of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaida's military operations chief, who was arrested in Karachi on March 2, 2003.[41] NewsMax, July 16, 2007

“’Their intentions are mass casualties larger than 9/11 inside the United States… A very large building. The Sears Tower, or some large building in Seattle or L.A. or Dallas."[42] The Blotter, July 20, 2007

It’s hard to argue that Al Qaeda in Iraq is separate from bin Laden’s Al Qaeda when the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.[43] George Bush, July 24, 2007

“[If al-Qaida does launch an attack inside the U.S]… it will be much bigger than 9/11.[44] retired CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, July 25, 2007

A new al Qaeda propaganda ad, headlined ‘Wait for the Big Surprise’ and featuring a digitally altered photograph of President George Bush and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf standing in front of a burning White House.”[45] The Blotter, August 1, 2007

Reactions to the Warnings

People like Santorum and Milligan (and Dana Rohrabacher, the stupidest consequential public figure not named Bush or Hannity) ache for disaster. They pant after it with vulgar, undisguised lust. They are tremulous with unconsummated desire for validation in the form of dead Americans and ruined cities.  Revolting and vile as this is, it is not unique. In fact, these repellent people are firmly and squarely in the interventionist tradition of American politics, in which cheerfully anticipating the death of Americans has a long and venerable history.[46] William Norman Grigg, July 11, 2007

 “With a great deal of evidence suggesting that the American people were fooled over the 9/11 attack in 2001… Indications that a new attack (equally horrific) might be on the way…  Many leading figures in the government (and military) have been hinting at such an event, and if we are to believe the signs, this could happen in just a matter of weeks.[47] Ian Brockwell, July 22, 2007

Half of the American people believe that the Bush administration is on the hunt for Al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. Another half believe that 9/11 was a Bush administration inside job, attributable not to Al-Qaeda, but to ‘Al-CIA-duh.’ Both halves, though, agree on one thing, and aren’t shy about saying it: This summer we are likely to suffer another terror attack, a ‘911-2B.’”[48] Eric H. May, August 6, 2007

More adults in the United States believe their country will be targeted by terrorists soon, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 57 per cent of respondents think it is very or somewhat likely that there will be another terrorist attack in the U.S. within the next few months.[49] Angus Reid Poll, July 24, 2007

Deluded supporters of the Democratic Party may soon have to throw away their pathetic countdown clocks, those self-consoling little devices that remind them of how much time remains until noon on January 20, 2009, the moment when it is thought that Bush will finally leave office. These countdown clocks make no provision for the Cheney doctrine, which calls for a new super 9/11 with weapons of mass destruction in the US, to be used as the pretext for a nuclear attack on Iran and for martial law at home… Any military debacle by the US forces in Iraq would be immediately blamed on Iran, and would infallibly be seized upon by Cheney as a pretext for massive retaliation against Iran.[50] Webster Tarpley, July 21, 2007

NOBLE RESOLVE is too dangerous to allow in Oregon. This exercise, drilling War of Terror scenarios in Oregon, comes just as the media is filling up with warnings of a new 9/11 and the recent Presidential Executive Orders: NSPD 51, 5/10/07, "…allows the sitting president to declare a ‘national emergency’ without Congressional approval…" It's looking more and more like a perfect storm of terror, treason and totalitarianism. Drills like these have a history of going live (e.g. 09/11/01 & 07/07/05) and now we have NSPD 51 — the equivalent of Hitler's Article 48.[51] Aayers, 911blogger, July 27, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House. ‘It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again.’”[52]

Motive for the Next 9/11?  2008 Elections, Oil, Iran, Continuity of Government, Civil Liberties, and Power

Recent events have put a great deal more pressure on President George W. Bush, who has shown little regard for the constitutional system bequeathed to us by the Founders. Having bragged about being commander in chief of the ‘first war of the 21st century,’ one he began under false pretenses, success in Iraq is now a pipedream… Things are going to hell in a hand basket for this administration, and Bush/Cheney have shown a willingness to act in extra-Constitutional ways, as they see fit…[53] Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, July 27, 2007

[After 9/11] it became clear that the political right would try to substitute the 'global war on terrorism' as an excuse not only for keeping the national security state intact but for undermining the political institutions of the old democracies. I was terrified that the Bush administration would carry American public opinion with it, and would succeed in brushing the liberties of the citizen aside… sooner or later, some terrorist group will repeat 9/11 on a much grander scale. I doubt that democratic institutions will be resilient enough to stand the strain."[54] Philosopher Richard Rorty, Summer 2007

In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fear mongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor ‘politics as usual,’ but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate — which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.[55] John S. Koppel, civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981, July 5, 2007

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not feel bound by the law or the Constitution when it comes to the war on terror. It cannot even be trusted to properly use the enhanced powers it was legally granted after the attacks… This is not, and has never been, a debate over whether the United States should conduct effective surveillance of terrorists and their supporters.  It is over whether we are a nation ruled by law, or the whims of men in power. Mr. Bush faced that choice and made the wrong one. Congress must not follow him off the cliff.[56] New York Times Editorial, August 3, 2007

While Constitutional experts and even sectors of the corporate mainstream media have denounced the latest power grab by the Bush administration as ‘unnecessary and highly dangerous’, the President himself has confirmed that he will seek even more authority from Congress and will attempt to pass more legislation aimed at granting the government unquestionable power over the people.”[57] Steve Watson, August 7, 2007

[“War on Terror” is] a Bush-created political phrase…  This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do.  It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans.[58] John Edwards Rejects the "War on Terror", May 2, 2007

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.  President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming ‘ex-president’ Bush or he can become President-for-Life’ Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."[59] Philip Atkinson, Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy, The Family Security Foundation, Inc., August 3, 2007


"These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001.”[60] Judicial Watch, July 17, 2007

“Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry.”[61] Top 25: 2006 Censored Stories

The “Terrorist Contingency Plan” to Strike Iran—Before it Happens?

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.[62] The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons… 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.”[63] Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi, August 1, 2005

The Iran Agenda: The US Administration Wants Another War, Possibly Nuclear

See also: Raw Story, The Build Up To Iran Timeline (2000-January 2007)[64]

The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran, US foreign policy experts and former US intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.”[65] Raw Story, August 18, 2006

The Bush administration has confirmed that it contemplates the possible use tactical bunker buster nuclear bombs to ‘take out’ Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons' facilities.  An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.[66] Michel Chossudovsky, June 2007

The Democrats certainly don’t contest Bush’s Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran… The Democrats don’t really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they did they would have halted its funding long ago. Likewise, if they really preferred to challenge the Bush falsehoods regarding Iran, they would do so. Instead the Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of holding Iran accountable for the killing of US soldiers, seem to want to handle Iran militarily.[67] Dissident Voice, July 19, 2007

Several candidates referred to the Iranians killing American soldiers, an allegation that has been around for some months and is clearly becoming the focal point for efforts to create a consensus that Iran must be stopped, no matter the costs or consequences. The rhetoric is particularly significant in that it parallels recent developments in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, where hope springs eternal that Iran will be nuked before the sun sets on the Bush administration. Cheney is reportedly very interested in obtaining definitive evidence confirming that Iran is arming the Taliban against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and it appears that he has been sending his staffers to get the goods by attending the weekly Afghanistan Interagency Operating Group.[68] Philip Giraldi, June 13, 2007

In spite of repeated Pentagon denials that a military option is imminent, the United States is again putting pressure on Iran that could easily lead to an armed conflict, a conflict that is desired neither by the American nor Iranian peopleIt is widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser David Wurmser have deliberately limited the playing field because they have no desire to engage Iran amicably and are instead fixated on regime change in Tehran as the only acceptable solution to the ‘Persian problem.’ Cheney has been ably seconded by fellow hawk Elliot Abrams at the National Security Council, who has been working to undercut Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to avoid a war. Wurmser, meanwhile, has been advising the like-minded at the American Enterprise Institute that Cheney does not believe in negotiations and has promised that the Bush Administration will deal with Iran militarily before its term of office ends… The Cheney-Wurmser-Abrams axis is opposed to Administration figures like Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the intelligence agency chiefs, all of whom are reluctant to do a replay of Iraq in Iran… The [Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007] also calls on the President to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group [note: this prediction came true—see below] and to block assets of any entity providing support to it. That is in spite of the fact that the Revolutionary Guards constitute an integral part of the Iranian government and have never attacked the United States or US citizens.  It would enable the Department of the Treasury to block accounts and transactions relating to the normal operation of the Iranian government and to pressure other countries and banks to do likewise, a very dangerous step that could again escalate into something unintended, forcing Iran to react in ways that might be unpredictable.[69] Philip Giraldi, July 10, 2007

Why attack Iran? War hawks in Washington are having trouble answering that question. Even their dire warnings about Iran's nuclear program have not been enough to alarm Americans already weary of Middle East conflicts… The Bush administration is testing a new rationale for attacking Iran: We must strike because Iranians are killing our soldiers in Iraq.  This is not simply a charge made by one state against another in the hope that a misguided policy will be changed. It is also part of a calculated effort to find an argument for bombing Iran that Americans will accept… Not even Americans are likely to swallow that one. Most reject the various rationales the Bush administration has so far offered to justify a possible attack on Iran. If they remain hostile to the idea, President Bush will eventually have to ask himself a fateful question: Should I attack anyway?[70] The Guardian, July 11, 2007

One recalls that it was in August 1964, after the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred… As Congress prepares for its August recess, the probability of U.S. air strikes on Iran rises with each week. A third carrier, the USS Enterprise, and its battle group is joining the Nimitz and Stennis in the largest concentration of U.S. naval power ever off the coast of Iran.[71] Pat Buchanan, July 16, 2007

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran.  A well-placed source in Washington said: ‘Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.[72] The Guardian, July 16, 2007.

It is appalling, if unsurprising, to read the neoconservative cheerleader Oliver Kamm arguing… the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran… The ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the treaty, the US, and the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory, Israel, are contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear limitation.[73] The Guardian, August 7, 2007

Some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes [against Iran].”[74] McClatchy Newspapers, August 9, 2007

 “Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the [Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard], maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities. An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will. But frankly they're guessing; after Iraq the White House trusts no one, especially the bureaucracy… And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. ‘IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran.’[75] Former CIA field officer Robert Baer, August 18, 2007

Karl Rove… behind President Bush’s races for the White House and an adviser with unparalleled influence over the past 6½ turbulent years, announced his resignation.[76]Finally, Phil Giraldi, in his regular feature ‘Deep Background’ for The American Conservative revealed several months ago that within Bush’s the inner circle, it was Karl Rove who had been consistently serving as the anti-Cheney with regard to expanding the Middle East quagmire into Iran. It seems Rove understood that nearly five years of killing people, destroying infrastructure and practicing creative puppetry with regional and factional leaders in Iraq wasn’t working – and probably shouldn’t be complicated by attacking the neighbors.”[77] Retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, August 20, 2007

In short, it seems a good bet that Rove, who is no one’s dummy and would not want to have to ‘spin’ an unnecessary war on Iran, lost the battle with Cheney over the merits of a military strike on Iran, and only then decided to spend more time with his family… Whatever else Rove has been, he has served as a counterweight to Dick Cheney's clear desire to expand the Middle East quagmire into Iran… As for White House spokesperson Tony Snow, it seems equally possible that, before deciding he has to make more money, he concluded that his stomach could not withstand the task explaining why Bush/Cheney needed to attack Iran… The lead editorial in Tuesday's Washington Post regurgitates the unproven allegations that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is ‘supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq;’ that it is ‘waging war against the United States and trying to kill as many American soldiers as possible.’ It's as though Dick Cheney is again writing the [Washington] Post editorials. And not only that, arch neocon James Woolsey has just told Lou Dobbs that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program. As Woolsey puts it, 'I'm afraid within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they could have the bomb…' The latest is also rubbish. And Woolsey knows it. And so do the reporters for the Washington Post, who are aware of, but have been forbidden to tell, a highly interesting storyIt is a scandal that the congressional oversight committees have not been able to get hold of the new [National Intelligence] estimate, even in draft. For it is a safe bet it would give the lie to the claims of Cheney, Woolsey, and other cheerleaders for war with Iran and provide powerful ammunition to those arguing for a more sensible approach to Iran.[78] Ray McGovern, August 22, 2007

John Bolton appeared on Fox News and was asked a question based on Bob Baer’s report. Bolton ‘absolutely hopes’ it is true that bombs will start falling on Iran within six months… Fox News is intimately intertwined with the Administration’s propaganda machine, as a study of its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War shows (and similarly, its decision to all but pull the plug on more recent coverage of the dismal situation in Iraq).[79] Harper’s Magazine, August 23, 2007

If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration.”[80] Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, August 28, 2007

FOX News Attacks Iran

Bolton’s calls for strikes against Iran mirror those of other neocons, such as Bill Kristol and Michael Rubin, who also pushed for the Iraq invasion. Bolton’s claim that “Iran is interfering in Iraq and is posing a direct threat to our troops” is not a reason to strike the country. In reality, both Gen. Peter Pace and the National Intelligence Estimate have confirmed that Iran is ‘not likely’ to be a major driver of violence in Iraq.[81] Think Progress, August 22, 2007

Another former CIA case officer with experience in the Middle East said that some in the administration have continued to make a case for limited or surgical strikes inside Iran, and that preparations are well underway for such an operation to occur before next year’s presidential election. ‘If you were to report that a US surgical strike against key targets in Iran were to happen sooner rather than later, you would not be wrong,’ said this source, who wished to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of the topic… Some officials speculate that the administration is trying to provoke the Iranians into an incident that will justify an airstrike in response, suggesting that the combined effect of circumstantial evidence tying Iran to the IEDs and an event or incident involving the Iranian Revolutionary Guard might ‘just be enough’ to justify military action against Iran.’”[82] Raw Story, August 24, 2007

This administration has a track record of doing what it thinks is right, and doing it regardless [of the facts]The debate is far less about 'Can it be true?' or 'Can it not be true?' says Parsi. The bigger picture, he says, is a regional power struggle between a strengthening Iran and an America weakened by debacle in Iraq.[83] Christian Science Monitor, August 24, 2007

The problems of the Middle East and Islamic civilization have the… potential to engulf the world."[84] U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad, August 27, 2007

Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al-Quds camps for months.[85] Patrick J. Buchanan, August 28, 2007

[French] President Sarkozy called Iran’s nuclear ambition the world’s most dangerous problem yesterday and raised the possibility that the country could be bombed.”[86] The Times, August 28, 2007

US Administration Declares Iran’s Army a “Terrorist” Organization

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a ‘specially designated global terrorist.[87] Washington Post, August 15, 2007

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) called the Administration's latest idea to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization another step in the lead-up to war with Iran.  ‘The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is inevitable,’ Kucinich said. ‘This is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet another war - this time with Iran,’ Kucinich concluded.[88] Congressman Dennis Kucinich, August 15, 2007

A U.S. decision to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization fuelled speculation yesterday that the White House is laying the groundwork for air strikes against the hardline Islamic nation before President George W. Bush leaves office.  Foreign policy analysts were surprised yesterday by the reported White House decision, which would mark the first time in history that the U.S. has formally declared the armed forces of a sovereign nation to be terrorists. ‘The United States has chosen to up the ante against Iran. This is a warning, or an indicator, that a major policy shift is unfolding within the Bush administration,’ said retired U.S. air force colonel Sam Gardiner, an Iran policy specialist and former war games planner at the National War College. ‘From a policy perspective, it's huge.  Never in the history of warfare has another country declared another's armed forces to be a separate instrument from the state.’”[89] Ottawa Citizen, August 16, 2007

State Department officials and foreign diplomats see Rice's push for the declaration against the Revolutionary Guards as an effort to blunt arguments by Vice President Dick Cheney and his allies for air strikes on Iran. By making the declaration, they feel, Rice can strike out at a key Iranian institution without resorting to military action while still pushing for sanctions in the United Nations.[90] McClatchy Newspapers, August 17, 2007

The Bush administration has leaped toward war with Iran by, in essence, declaring war with the main branch of Iran's military, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which it plans to brand as a terrorist organization… With the window of opportunity for Bush to use the ‘military option’ closing because of the US presidential elections next year, the administration's hawks – ‘it is now or never’ - have received a huge boost by the move to label the IRGC as terrorists. It paves the way for potential US strikes at the IRGC's installations inside Iran, perhaps as a prelude to broader attacks on the country's nuclear facilities. At least that is how it is being interpreted in Iran, whose national-security concerns have skyrocketed as a result of the labeling.[91] Asia Times, August 18, 2007

The Iraq/Iran Disinformation

“’In an effort to build congressional and Pentagon support for military options against Iran, the Bush administration has shifted from its earlier strategy of building a case based on an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program to one invoking improvised explosive devices (IEDs) purportedly manufactured in Iran that are killing US soldiers in Iraq.  According to officials—including two former Central Intelligence Agency case officers with experience in the Middle East—the administration believes that by focusing on the alleged ties between IEDs and Iran, they can link the Iranian government directly to attacks on US forces in Iraq.’”[92] Raw Story, August 24, 2007

Iranian Parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel... told reporters that the U.S. president’s attempt to convince U.S. public opinion that one guilty party or another is responsible for its failures in Iraq has become a comedy'The Americans, who always try to accuse others… are now blaming a government which has come to power through the vote of the majority.’ However, the invasion of Iraq is the root cause of the U.S. failures, he observed.  The White House neocons, who were too 'proud and intoxicated', spurned the warnings of all the 'wise people' in the world about the danger of invading Iraq.[93] Tehran Times, August 28, 2007

The Iraq Quagmire

It was also reported that senior British officers are urging the Prime Minister to pull out the 5,500 troops without delay because there was ‘nothing more’ they could achieve in Basra.[94] Telegraph, August 20, 2007

Gordon Brown is on a collision course with Washington as senior British military commanders urge him to pull out of Iraq while the Americans believe it would be ‘ugly and embarrassing’… A senior US officer close to General Petraeus has been quoted as saying: ‘The short version is that the Brits have lost Basra. They're just sitting there. The situation gets worse by the day.’”[95] Daily Mail, August 20, 2007

There will be Another “Terrorist” Attack, whether it’s “Manufactured or Real”?

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large.  A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.[96] The National Security Advisor to former President Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007  

"I definitely think that is a distinct possibility, that there will be some kind of attack whether it's manufactured or real… I think it's really possible that these people will do that—why would he [Bush] put in that presidential directive if he didn't need to use it—I think it's really really frightening.  Does anybody think that [Bush's] recent presidential decision directive wasn't for declaring martial law and suspending elections—that's why they have to be stopped.  The culture of corruption doesn't stop at the Republican party and people need to realize that Democrats are not our saviors."[97] Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan, July 12, 2007

The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran.  Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling… Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.—possibly with nuclear weapons.  I am concerned… that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.[98] 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, January 11, 2007.

The government of the United States sees and hears all, with or without legal authorityThey can prevent any attack on their people, unless there is some imperial need to deliver a bang so that they can carry on with and justify the brutal war which has been declared against the culture, religion, economy and independence of other peoples.[99] Fidel Castro, July 15, 2007

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future…  Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued… False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.[100] Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts, July 17, 2007

Today, we see the signs of two parties operating as two pockets of the same pair of political pants, walking all over the constitution and the will of the American people. We don’t have much time left. A staged ‘terrorist’ attack on this nation just prior to the election would create an immediate condition of martial law.[101] Mike Green, August 2, 2007

They still need a trigger [to attack Iran] and I would not be surprised if we will see some event in Iraq which implicates the Iranians. They need a pretext.”[102] Raw Story, August 24, 2007

The War Party is thus seeking an excuse to launch air strikes on Iran, as that would trigger Iranian counterstrikes on our forces. Then they will have their long-sought casus belli for U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities… If there is a rush to war here, it is not on the part of Iran.  As Bush is preparing for war on Iran, if he has not already decided on war, where is Congress, which alone has the constitutional power to authorize a war?[103] Patrick J. Buchanan, August 28, 2007

With “Government Officials” and “War Promoters” like These, Who Needs “Terrorists”?

Just who are the “terrorists” here?[104]

But I am sure that I reject the absolutist grandstanding of so many of the president's critics, who would turn international law into a suicide pact. That such views are now espoused even by some supporters of the war on terrorism is a sign of how complacent we have become. I hope it doesn't take another 9/11 to alert us to the mortal danger we still face.[105] Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations, January 20, 2005

Another tool would have our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes.[106] Former US Justice Department Lawyer John Yoo, July 13, 2005

Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets."[107] Washington Post, 23 April 2006

I hope it's your family members that die when terrorists strike.[108] US Representative Dana Rohrabacker, April 25, 2007

“Iran is the central banker of international terrorism. And I hope it's not going to take another 9/11 to wake us up.”[109] Josh Bolton, June 4, 2007

It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago, he says.  If nothing happens, it will be harder still to say [Canadian forces in Afghanistan are] necessary."[110] Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, July 8, 2007

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]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."[111] Chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, June 3, 2007

Confronting Iran in the Middle East as an absolute linchpin for our success in that region… And while it may not be a popular thing to talk about right now, and I know public sentiment is against it [namely, the war in Iraq and expanding the conflict to Iran]… between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view[112] Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, July 7, 2007

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater. What would sew us back together? Another 9/11 attack.[113] Stu Bykofsky, August 9, 2007

We need the half of the country that doesn’t believe we are under threat from global jihad to wake up and smell the suicide bomb smoke.[114] Michelle Malkin, August 10, 2007

In that spirit, the best terrorist plan I have heard is one that my father thought up after the D.C. snipers created havoc in 2002. The basic idea is to arm 20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrange to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country."[115] Steven Levitt, August 8, 2007

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and ‘restore his image as a leader of the American people.’ The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to ‘unite the country’ in a ‘time of national shock and sorrow.’ The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. ‘The President’s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,’ admits one aide. ‘Americans band together at a time of crisis.’”[116] Capitol Hill Blue, November 10, 2005

A “New 9/11” Will Create a “Dictatorial Police State” and Result in Cancelled Elections

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."[117] George Bush, December 18, 2000

This is a wake-up call that we are about to experience another 9/11-WMD experience. The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective…Security operatives, such as Michael Chertoff , and various instruments of administration propaganda have warned that we will be attacked before next year's election. Chertoff is not a person who wants to be known as Chicken Little for telling us that the sky is falling.  Bush has the Republican Party in such a mess that it cannot survive without another 9/11. Whether authentic or orchestrated, an attack will activate Bush's new executive orders, which create a dictatorial police state in event of ‘national emergency.’[118] Craig Paul Roberts, July 20, 2007

It is time to think about the "unthinkable." The Bush Administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election… The real question is not how or when they might do it.  It's how, realistically, we can stop them… What's also clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution.  When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement.  Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn't they? …Today we must ask: who would stop this administration from taking dictatorial power in the instance of a "national emergency" such as a terror attack at a nuclear power plant or something similar?[119] Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis, July 30, 2007

[Congressman John Oliver] is deeply concerned whether we will actually have an election in Nov. '08, as he believes this administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections.[120] Bob Feuer, July 5, 2007

A lot has happened over the past two years, most of it aimed at amassing greater power for the government while undermining the rights of American citizens… President Bush quietly claimed the authority to allow government agents to open the private mail of American citizens, proclaimed his right to assume control of the federal government following a ‘catastrophic emergency,’ and assumed the power to declare martial law and use the military as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any ‘other condition.’”[121] John W. Whitehead, August 4, 2007

Every would-be dictator claims that his authoritarian measures are taken to ensure national security. Everything else must be sacrificed, including democratic rights. This is the basic line that has been utilized by the government since 9/11 to lay siege to constitutionally protected democratic rights, in the name of the ‘war on terror.’”[122] Joe Kay, July 16, 2007

A Pastor has come forward to blow the whistle on a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to ‘obey the government’ in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.[123] Prison Planet, May 24, 2006

Could martial law ever become a reality in America?  Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger just that.  KSLA News 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us.[124] KSLA News 12, August 23, 2007

Posse Comitatus Law and Martial Law

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.”[125] Frank Morales, October 27, 2006

Members of the 1st Battalion 265 Air Defense Artillery have mobilized and are on a plane headed first to Ft. Bliss, then for federal active duty in the capital region. The troops will be deployed for a year… They are ordered by the president to the nation’s capital.”[126] News, August 22, 2007

Continuity of Government after the “new 9/11”?

If the Bush administration wanted to fuel conspiracy theories about its classified plan for maintaining governmental control in the wake of an apocalyptic terror attack, it could not have come up with a better strategy than refusing to let Congressman Peter DeFazio examine it… DeFazio received word that his request had been denied. Through Homeland Security Committee staffers, he learned the White House had initially granted his request, but that it later was rejected. There was no explanation of why—and no word about who made the final decision… DeFazio has such clearance and has used it numerous times to gain access to sensitive materials. Until Wednesday, he had never been denied permission.[127] A Register-Guard Editorial, July 23, 2007

"It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive.[128]  Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn, July 23, 2007

I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attackWe're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America.  I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee… Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right.[129] Peter DeFazio, July 24, 2007

Is there any doubt that the Bush administration, and its dead-ender allies in the Republican Party and the media, will use an act of domestic terrorism as a fresh opportunity to further demonize their political opponents and further compromise the Constitution? Will they truly be able to resist the temptations of martial law, emergency powers, and the phony prerogatives of the unitary executive in wartime? …I would worry less about the possibility of terrorism, and more about the probability that the same chickenhawks who exploited it before to sell us on war without end, will exploit it again to sing the virtues of temporary fascism.[130] Marty Kaplan, July 29, 2007

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

“’Catastrophic Emergency’ means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions… The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government.[131] National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, May 9, 2007

This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called ‘Catastrophic Emergency’. It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers.”[132] Lee Rogers, May 21, 2007

This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers.[133] Larry Chin, May 21, 2007

Bush may now declare himself absolute ruler at any moment and Congress can like it or lump it.  Naturally, this act of betrayal is of so little importance and consequence, the corporate media believes you are better served knowing Justin Timberlake is in love.[134] Kurt Nimmo, May 30, 2007

After the “New 9/11”?

We’ve got a man who’s proclaimed himself dictator right now.  We’ve got a constitutional crisis.  If we go three years shying away from that subject because it isn’t popular… to mention; that our president is not only committing crimes, and violating the constitution, but he’s proclaiming his right to do it!  We’re in a situation like Germany [before WWII]… because the next 9/11 is going to be our Reichstag fire.  The day after it, our freedoms are gone.[135] Daniel Ellsberg, June 9, 2006

What Does it All Mean?

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these [the rights of the population], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness… [W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.[136] Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Getting U.S. militarism back to a level of incontestable, integral ideological hegemony has been a long sought goal that appeared well in reach after 9/11. The shock and awe unleashed on Iraq in 2003 was to restore U.S. militarism as the premier ideological construct. Behind this construct U.S. power could fluidly unfold, as the world’s only superpower demonstrated that no form of nationalist defiance would go unpunished. A new era of neoliberal militarism was consolidating, according to the architects of the new model—Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld (among others)The bellicose architects and their many supporters in the Senate and House of Representatives—many dumbstruck by 9/11—could count on the money, allegiance, enthusiasm, trust, (press-led) jingoism, and short attention span of the U.S. citizenry.”[137] James M. Cypher, June 2007

Americans think their danger is terrorists.  They don't understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the ConstitutionThe terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism.  Americans just aren't able to perceive that."[138] Paul Craig Roberts, July 19, 2007

There is a new enemy stalking the United States. No one can say what it is. Some call it uncertainty. We call it You Never Know. We know You Never Know is dangerous, but it is hard to say how dangerous. That is the problem. You never know. You Never Know is a powerful enemy. It cannot be defeated. Think you have a handle on uncertainty? Are you sure? You never know. Planning against You Never Know is difficult. What weapons do you buy to fight it? What organizations do you fund? What plans do you make? The answer tends to be whatever you already have. That is the catch. You Never Know is phony. It is an antidote for another threat: the threat of no threats. The threat of no threats is not a threat to most of us, who are glad to go unthreatened. But no threats is a threat to those who work to protect us from threats, the military services, defense contractors, defense think tanks, Congress, foreign policy pundits, even security studies programs. Without plausible threats to worry us, they champion merely possible ones by saying, essentially, ‘You never know’… The dirty secret of American national security politics is that we are safe. Americans might be the most secure people in history. But we worry. We are told that our enemies may be organizing our destruction in pockets of disorder, which are growing. We are taught that the world is chaotic, awash in civil war and terrorism, which could strike us ‘any place, with virtually any weapon.’ We hear that our satellites are ripe for attack, that pirates prey on our shipping, that Iran’s nuclear weapons portend disaster, and that China is a growing threat. At base, however, most arguments claiming America’s insecurity rely on implausible scenarios. The futures these arguments fear are not probable but possible. It is possibility that justifies the defenses they advocate.[139] You Never Know(ism), Benjamin H. Friedman and Harvey M. Sapolsky, Spring 2006

The threat of an impending 9/11 type attack by ‘Islamic terrorists’ is a fabrication, extensive media propaganda, supported by covert intelligence operations[140] Behind this diabolical ‘catastrophic emergency’ scenariois a profit driven war… The Wall Street financial establishment, the military-industrial complex, led by Lockheed Martin, the big five weapons and aerospace defense contractors, the Texas oil giants and energy conglomerates, the construction and engineering and public utility companies not to mention the biotechnology conglomerates, are indelibly behind this militarization of America… The spiraling multibillion dollar ‘defense’ budget, which according to independent estimates has reached the trillion dollar mark… is barely acknowledged, nor is the privatization of war itself.    Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. The ‘war on terrorism’ is bogus.  The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated.  The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government.  Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "global war on terrorism" which constitutes the main justification for waging war in the Middle East.  Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. Their entire National Security construct collapses like a deck of cards.[141] University of Ottawa Professor of Economics, Michel Chossudovsky, August 10, 2007

The vice president is the single greatest threat to American and international security in the world today.  Not Osama Bin Laden.  Not the ghost of Saddam Hussein.  Not Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung Il.  Not al-Qaida, the Taliban, or Jose Padilla himself.  Not even George W. Bush can lay claim to this title…  Operating in a never-never land of constitutional ambiguity which exists between the office of the president and the Congress of the United States, Cheney’s office has made its impact felt on the policies of the United States of America as had no vice president’s office before him.  Granted unprecedented oversight over national security and foreign policy by executive order in early 2001, many months prior to the terror attacks of 9/11, Cheney has single-handedly steered America away from being a nation among nations (albeit superior), operating (roughly) in accordance with the rule of law, and toward its present manifestation as the new Rome, a decadent imperial power bent on global domination whatever the cost…The nonsensical response to the terror attacks of 9/11, seeking a ‘global war’ versus defending the rule of law at home and abroad, taking the lead in spreading the lies that got us involved in Iraq, legitimizing torture as a tool of American jurisprudence, advocating for warrantless wiretappings of U.S.-based communications (regardless of what the Fourth Amendment says against illegal search and seizure), and pushing for an expansion of America’s global conflict into Iran—all can be traced back to the person of Cheney as the point of origin.  America today is very much engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the forces of evil.  The enemy resides not abroad, however, but at home, vested in the highest offices of the landNeither Osama Bin Laden nor Saddam Hussein threatened the life blood of the United States—the Constitution—to the extent that Cheney has.  Not Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Ho Chi Minh.  Not since the American Civil War has there been a constitutional crisis of the magnitude that exists today, threatening to rip the very fabric of American society apart at the seams, courtesy of Dick Cheney. That Congress today remains relatively mute on this crisis is one of the great mysteries of our time.[142] Scott Ritter, August 21, 2007

What Can Be Done to Stop Another 9/11?  Impeachment

Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday. The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.[143]

Dick Cheney is impeachable for his overweening power and his sneering contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law.[144] Constitutional Lawyer Bruce Fein, June 27, 2007

More than 200 years later, we have another King George. In the last six years, George W. Bush has sought to accumulate all governing powers in the same hands -- his. In the Declaration of Independence, the framers charged that the King ‘refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.’ Bush has repeatedly violated the Constitution's command that the President ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ by breaking some and refusing to enforce others. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws; after both houses pass a bill, the President can only sign it or veto it. Bush, however, takes a different tack. He has vetoed just three bills, then quietly attached ‘signing statements’ to more than 1,000 congressional laws, indicating his intent to follow only those parts with which he agrees.”[145] President of the National Lawyers Guild, Marjorie Cohn, July 16, 2007

The second censure resolution addresses the administration's repeated assaults on the rule of law. The President and the attorney general have disregarded and violated statutes, treaties and the Constitution in their drive to consolidate more and more power in the executive branch. Among the abuses of the rule of law that the censure resolution will condemn are the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program, its interrogation policy and justifications for the use of torture, its extreme positions on the legal status of detainees that have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, and its refusal to recognize and cooperate with Congress' constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight.[146] Sen. Russ Feingold, Congress has a duty to censure President for his abuses of power, August 14, 2007

Bush and Cheney would have been impeached long ago if Congress was carrying out the will of We the People, especially since last November. By taking impeachment "off the table", Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic power structure are abetting the formation of dictatorship and the shredding of the Constitution.  Why is this happening? The answer can be summed up in two words: "Corporate Personhood". Ever since the late 19th century, clever corporate lawyers have been gaining the rights and privileges of persons for the fictitious persons that are corporations.[147] Carol Wolman, August 13, 2007

The reality of Vice President Dick Cheney’s unprecedented, awesome and totally illegal power and authority over the people of America, the United States Congress, the Supreme Court, and all bureaus and agencies of American government, serves not only to invalidate totally the Constitution and the very founding of the United States, but proves correct as well the fears the Founders voiced when recognizing the threat of political parties… There is absolutely no other way of dealing with this American domestic and massive international crime wave than by the immediate and total impeachment of both Vice President Richard Cheney and President George Bush.”[148] Ted Lang, July 26, 2007

There is an orderly remedy written into the Constitution aimed at preventing a president from usurping the power of the people and acting like a king; the process, of course, is impeachment… With impeachment under way, such senior officers might be reminded that all officers and national security officials swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—NOT to protect and defend the president.[149] Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, July 27, 2007

Serious critics of both Mr. Bush and the Democrats ask why the latter do not undertake the impeachment of the former… If one takes the trouble to examine the matter from the perspective of the machinations that dominate all political behavior… though Republicans and Democrats have their personal and minor policy differences, they are in agreement on one basic point: their ‘bipartisan’ support for the preservation and aggrandizement of the power of the state. They understand – as do members of the mainstream media – that their principal obligation is to serve the well-being of the political power structure that long ago laid uncontested claim to the ownership of modern society.[150] Butler Shaffer, July 17, 2007

There are many predictions for a new 9/11,[151] but how can we stop it?  Reveal the truth about the first 9/11[152] and call for impeachment.

9/11 Press for Truth

We owe the truth to the victims, survivors and those affected by 9/11… I lost 200 friends on 9/11—two hundred people who don’t have the ability to call for the truth.  They don’t have a voice.  I’m alive because of a miracle… When I started asking questions, they all went the other way…  I don’t care about anything else—I want the truth…  Please stand up, take it upon yourself to ask real questions and make a change.  We need activism.  We need you to ask those people in power to tell you what really happened.  They have an agenda.  They have used our tragedy to create this world ‘war on terrorism’ which is just a fallacy.  Everybody else in the world is more prepared and have more information about 9/11 than we do.  Get the facts.[153] 9/11 Survivor William Rodriguez

[1] watch the movie here: see 30:00 mark for quote by McGovern.  See also:

Ray McGovern, George W. Bush: A CIA Analysis,, August 22, 2007

The craft of CIA analysis was designed to be an all-source operation, meaning that we analysts were responsible – and held accountable – for assimilating information from all sources and coming to judgments on what it all meant. We used information of all kinds, from the most sophisticated technical collection platforms to spies to open media.  Here I have to reveal a trade secret, which punctures the mystique of intelligence analysis. Generally speaking, 80 percent of the information one needs to form judgments on key intelligence targets or issues is available in open media.  It helps to have training from past masters of media analysis, which began in a structured way in targeting Japanese and German media in the 1940s. But, truth be told, everyone with a high-school education can do it. It is not rocket science.

[2] Ron Suskind, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, New York Times, October 17, 2004.  See also:

Rosa Brooks, A Really Bad Case of Neocon Reality,, July 20, 2007:

So it's understandable that many administration critics now conclude, with some satisfaction, that the neocon conception of how ‘reality’ works has been permanently discredited. If empires can choose to create their own realities, why hasn't Bush's American Empire created a stable, more peaceful world? Why aren't we safer than we were before 9/11? The neocons deluded themselves into imagining they could control reality, but in the end, aren't they the ones who've just been mugged?” 

[3] Kenneth T. Walsh, How the scars of public life shaped the vice president's unyielding view of executive power,, January 15, 2006

[4] Sen. Robert Byrd, My Letter to President Bush,, July 19, 2007.  See also:

Robert Scheer, Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman? Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2005, keyword search: ‘Bush "Al Qaeda"’ gives 4,320,000 links as of August 9, 2007.

[5] Mike Glover, Thompson campaign bus rumbles through rural Iowa,, September 7, 2007

[6] Dan Eggen, No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says, Washington Post, June 16, 2004

[7] John Amato, Bush says: ‘Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11’, August 21st, 2006

[8] Associated Press, Pentagon: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link: Meanwhile, Cheney Repeats Assertions Of Terror Group's Ties In Iraq,, April 6, 2007

[9] Nick Juliano, Bush: Insurgents in Iraq same as 9/11 attackers,, July 12, 2007

[10] Jason Stahl, Who is the enemy? Who exactly the United States is fighting in Iraq and why it matters,, July 18, 2007

[11] Carolyn O'Hara, Bill Kristol's fantasy forest,, July 16, 2007

[12] Steve Watson, Pro War Ads Falsely Link 9/11 To Iraq,, August 23, 2007

[13]  Tim Gatto, If you Can't Handle The Truth, Don't Read This,, August 17, 2007

See all of these facts verified here:

9/11: Press for Truth, watch the movie here:

[14] Philip Giraldi, Can't Find Osama? Attack Iran Instead,, July 19, 2007.  See also:

Harkavy, A Different 'Gut Feeling': Israel Attacking Iran,, July 13, 2007

Payvand News, Ex-CIA officer Slams US Allegations against Iran as Sham,, July 28, 2007, Antiwar Radio: Scott Horton Interviews Philip Giraldi, July 24, 2007:

Former CIA counter-terrorism officer and columnist Philip Giraldi debunks the War Party’s claims that Iran backs al Qaeda.

Larry Chin, Washington's Consensus Al Qaeda Deception: Al Qaeda: “stronger than ever”—or not?, July 19, 2007:

The ‘war on terrorism’ is a foreign policy weapon favored by an elite and ironclad Anglo-American consensus, supported equally by Washington’s political factions. The surge of "Al-Qaeda" covert operations and "terrorism" propaganda over the past three weeks, and reports of “renewed Al-Qaeda power”, marks the beginning of intensified false flag deception.

Larry Chin, Al-Qaeda, the eternal covert operation: British “terror” incident latest product of “war on terror” propaganda,, July 5, 2007

USA TODAY, New terror report harrowing or hype?, July 20, 2007

Walter C. Uhler, Lying Again, This Time About Iran's Nuclear Program,, August 9, 2007:

…after noting that it was up to Iran to prove that it is a stabilizing force in the world, Bush proceeded to lie: ‘After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon.’ We can be sure that Bush lied, because virtually everyone, except for a few morons, knows that ‘the Iranian government has never articulated such a desire and in fact has repeatedly claimed, genuinely or disingenuously, the opposite.’ [Farideh Farhi, "Afghanistan, Iraq and the Bush Administration's Incoherent Iran Policy," Informed Comment Global Affairs, Aug. 7, 2007]

[15] Arabesque, Keith Olbermann Updates The Nexus Of Terror And Politics - Creating Terror,, July 27, 2007

[16] Fox News, U.S. Terror Attack — 'Ninety Days at Most',, July 13, 2005

[17] This “new” article is reposted in 2007.  The Fox article suspiciously has no date on it, but it is listed as “2005” on the printer friendly version

See responses to this “August 2007” article.  See also:

Jon Gold, Is Fox News Recycling Terror To Scare The Masses? 911blogger,, August 2, 2007:

Earlier today, I posted this article from Fox News entitled, "U.S. Terror Attack — 'Ninety Days at Most." This particular story was picked up today by,, and  As it turns out, this story was originally published by Fox News on 7/13/2005.

[18] Philip Giraldi, Terrorists Are Everywhere,, July 31, 2007.  See also:

Michael Ledeen, Time To Get Tough With Iran: Enough Diplomacy! Address Iran Before Another 9/11 Happens,, Feb. 1, 2007

[19] Jerry White, The motives behind the Bush administration’s latest terror scare,, July 27, 2007.  See also:

Peter Hoekstra, Intel & Terror: Dems in Denial,, August 9, 2007

[20] Isabel Vincent, U.S. supported al-Qaeda cells during Balkan Wars: Fought Serbian Troops, National Post, March 15, 2002

[21] Michael Griffin, Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan (London: Pluto Press, 2001), 115. Exploration in the 1990s has considerably downgraded these estimates.

[22] Western governments and media apply the term “al Qaeda” to the whole “network of co-opted groups” who have at some point accepted leadership, training and financing from bin Laden (Jason Burke, Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam [London: I.B. Tauris, 2004], 7-8). From a Muslim perceptive, the term “Al Qaeda” is clumsy, and has led to the targeting of a number of Islamist groups opposed to bin Laden’s tactics. See Montasser al-Zayyat, The Road to Al-Qaeda: The Story of Bin Lāden’s Right-Hand Man [London: Pluto Press, 2004], 100, etc.).

[23] Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 in Historical Perspective: Flawed Assumptions: Deep Politics: Drugs, Oil, Covert Operations and Terrorism, A briefing for Congressional staff, July 9, 2005

[24] Larisa Alexandrovna, On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say,, April 13, 2006

[25] Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson, U.S. Government Uses Al-Qaeda To Attack Iran,, May 28, 2007

[26] Ray McGovern, George W. Bush: A CIA Analysis, August 22, 2007

[27] Face The Nation: Dick Cheney, April 15, 2007.  Listen to interview here:  See also:

National Intelligence Estimate, The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland, July 2007:

We assess that al-Qaida will continue to try to acquire chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems a sufficient capability."

James Sterngold, Contingencies for nuclear terrorist attack: Government working up plan to prevent chaos in wake of bombing of major city,, May 11, 2007

Allison, Graham, No Loose Nukes: Preventing a Terrorist Nuclear Attack on the U.S., The Evening Bulletin, June 28, 2007

Graham T. Allison, How Likely is a Nuclear Terrorist Attack on the United States?, April 20, 2007

Steve Holland, Obama, Clinton in new flap, over nuclear weapons,, August 2, 2007

Associated Press, Pakistan Fires Back At Obama,, August 3, 2007.

Lynn Sweet, Sweet blog special: Nuke? No nuke? Obama works to define position. UPDATE. Dodd says Obama ‘confused.’, August 2, 2007

Philip Giraldi, Inside Track: Rudy’s New Foreign Policy Posse,, July 12, 2007:

Giuliani—together with Mitt Romney and John McCain—has publicly advocated a military strike against Iran to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons. He has also not ruled out the use of America’s own nuclear weapons if that should prove necessary to deter Tehran.

Spencer Ackerman, Welcome Back to Summer 2001,, July 12:

According to practically every available intelligence report, the summer of 2007 is eerily similar to the summer of 2001: numerous, compounding threats, without specificity, emanating from a souped-up al-Qaeda with save haven in South Asia.

Abbas Edalat and Mehrnaz Shahabi, Armageddon prospects,, August 9, 2007:

Last year John McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful and an advocate of keeping the military option against Iran on the table, was asked what the consequence of an attack on Iran would be. His response was only one word: ‘Armageddon.’

Graham Allison, How to prevent an American Hiroshima,, July 20, 2007

[28] Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz, and Richard Esposito, Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned,, July 1, 2007

[29] Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz, and Richard Esposito, Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned 

[30] E.A. Torriero, Chertoff's Gut, Chicago Tribune,, July 11 2007.  See also:

'George Washington', Chertoff Predicts Simultaneous LA/San Francisco Dirty Bombs,, July 20, 2007:

"a 9/11 truther attended a talk which Homeland Security Head Michael Chertoff gave [July 20] at USC on port and supply-chain security and public infrastructure protection.  The truther reported to me today by email that Chertoff spoke about more "gut feelings" he (Chertoff) has about a simultaneous Los Angeles / San Francisco dirty bomb attack that ‘our enemy is surely planning’."

Sean Howard, A "gut feeling" on homeland security: Government department is a waste of the country's money,, July 31, 2007

[31] Associated Press, Homeland General: Attack 'Could Happen Any Day',, July 24, 2007.

[32] Bill Gertz, Al Qaeda seen in search of nukes, July 26, 2007

[33] John McArdle, Capitol Police Boost Security to Deal With Threat of Pre-Sept. 11 Attack by al-Qaida,, August 2, 2007

[34] ABC news, Increased Security Produces as Many Questions as Answers,, August 3, 2007.  See also:

Spencer Ackerman, Lott: Get Out of D.C. While You Still Can,, August 2, 2007  

[35] Associated Press, Pakistan Fires Back At Obama,, August 3, 2007

[36] Kenneth R. Timmerman, Former CIA Director: Terrorist Strike Within U.S. Real Threat,, August 7, 2007.  See also:

FamilySecurityMatters, Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey: Upcoming Terror Strike on U.S. 'Very Real’,, August 8, 2007

Citizens take note: whatever Senators wanted to enforce FISA restrictions on the president in these circumstances should, in our humble opinion, be kicked out of office. We are not playing paddycake with terrorists who lust for our deaths.  This is all out war and our “leaders” need to get serious but fast about winning it.

[37] Marc Parent, $4.5 billion options bet on catastrophe within four weeks,, August 26, 2007

Paul Joseph Watson, Market Crash Forecast Suggests New 9/11,, August 27, 2007

[38] Business News, US recession risk highest since 9/11: ex-Treasury secretary,, August 27, 2007

[39] 911blogger, THE KENNEBUNKPORT WARNING,, August 27, 2007


Note: see controversy here:

[40] Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz, Signal to Attack? Worries Over Latest al Qaeda Tape,, July 13, 2007

[41] Paul L. Williams, Chertoff's ‘Gut Feeling' Could Be a Nuclear Detonation,, July 16, 2007

[42] Krista Kjellman, U.S. Intel Chief: Tall Buildings and Mass Casualties Top AQ's Hit List,, July 20, 2007

[43] Brian Knowlton, Bush Insists Al Qaeda in Iraq Threatens U.S.,, July 24, 2007

[44] Dave Eberhart , CIA Bin Laden Chief: Next Attack ‘Bigger Than 9/11',, July 25, 2007

[45] Rhonda Schwartz, New Al Qaeda Web Ad Threatens 'Big Surprise',, August 1, 2007

[46] William Norman Grigg, Praying for a Terrorist Strike: The GOP's Newest Political Strategy,, July 11, 2007

[47] Ian Brockwell, 9/11 – Fool me once..., July 22, 2007.  See also:

Ian Brockwell, Signs suggest new “9/11” imminent,, July 15, 2007:

There has been considerable talk, this last week or so, about how a ‘new’ 9/11 would gain fresh support for the Bush administration’s ‘war on terror’.

[48] Captain Eric H. May, A Dawning Dictatorship? (911-2B & NSPD-51),, August 6, 2007

[49] Angus Reid Global Monitor: Polls & Research, American Majority Expects Terrorist Attack,, July 24, 2007

[50] Webster Tarpley, The Next 9-11: Cheney Determined To Strike This Summer: Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him, July 21, 2007.  See also:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth, GOP Welcomes New 9/11: Reports Lay Groundwork for Attack, Scholars Say,, August 3, 2007:

A spate of new reports of al Qaida resurgence appears to be laying the foundation for a fake attack on the US to bolster support for the ‘war on terror’ and Bush's sagging political fortunes.

[51] Aayers, Help Stop the Next 9/11,, July 27, 2007.  See also:

Captain Eric H. May, Next 9/11, Summer, 2007?,, July 23, 2007

Captain Eric H. May, Peter DeFazio and the Portland Nuke,, July 27, 2007:

As I pointed out in my column last week, Next 9/11, Summer 2007?, Operation Noble Resolve, to be conducted in August, will involve extensive mobilization of Homeland Security and U.S. military forces to simulate a wide range of catastrophic terror events in Oregon. The grand finale will be the simulation of a ten kiloton atomic bomb in Portland.  But what if they decide to use a real bomb rather than simulate it?

Captain Eric H. May, A Dawning Dictatorship? (911-2B & NSPD-51),, August 6, 2007

Aayers, An Updated Rewrite of: Noble Resolve 07: Four days of “simulated” nuclear terrorist scenarios in the US & Europe,, August 7, 2007

Aayers, HARVARD STUDY: 10K Nuke in Portland,, August 12, 2007:

Operation Noble Resolve is a terror drill coming to Portland during August 20-24. There have been numerous articles and posts issued that warn of the possibility that the drill will turn into a false flag ‘live’ event involving a 10 K nuke.

Captain Eric H. May, Staging the Portland Nuke (A Comedy of Terrors),, August 13, 2007, Oregon Truth Alliance Launches Site: Warns of False Flag Threat of Noble Resolve, August 13, 2007


[53] Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity & Dr. Justin Frank, Dangers of a Cornered George Bush,, July 27, 2007

[54] Editorial, Martialing our Constitution,, August 4, 2007:

In May, the White House released what it called a National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive for how the federal government would respond to a ‘catastrophic emergency.’ This directive states that if the president determines that a catastrophic emergency has taken place—loosely defined as ‘any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy or government functions’—the president would have the power to take over all government functions until the emergency is declared over.’  In other words, a dictatorship.

[55] John S. Koppel, Bush justice is a national disgrace,, July 5, 2007

[56] New York Times Editorial, Stampeding Congress, Again,, August 3, 2007

[57] Steve Watson, Bush Confirms He Will Seek More Dictatorial Power,, August 7, 2007.  See also:

Steve Watson, The Timeline to Tyranny,, August 7, 2007:

The top ten advances towards tyranny in the United States during the tenure of the Bush administration, from the Patriot Act to the latest expansion of the illegal eavesdropping surveillance program.”

[58] John Edwards, Edwards Rejects the "War on Terror",, May 2, 2007

[59] Philip Atkinson, Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy, The Family Security Foundation, Inc.,, August 3, 2007 [embarrassing article removed from internet—see below]

Marc Parent, Group that advocated Bush become "President-for-Life" linked to Bush Administration itself,, August 16, 2007:

Well, it turns out that "Family Security Matters (FSM) is a front group for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a conservative Washington think tank ‘committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength.’ (The phone number listed on the FSM website is answered by the CSP.)  So now we are led to the Center for Security Policy, and who's connected to that group?  Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S. under George W. Bush, was an early member of Center's Board of Advisors (which is now called the National Security Advisory Council).

Paul Joseph Watson, Neo-Cons: Make Bush Dictator Of The World,, August 17, 2007

[60] Judicial Watch, Maps and Charts of Iraqi Oil Fields,, July 17, 2003

[61] Project Censored, Secrets of Cheney's Energy Task Force Come to Light,, Top 25: 2006 Censored Stories

[62] Warren P. Strobel, Cheney urging strikes on Iran,, August 9, 2007

[63] Philip Giraldi, Deep Background, The American Conservative,, August 1, 2005.  See also:

Manuel Valenzuela, Of Crazies, Neocons and the Enemy Within,, June 13, 2007

[64] Raw Story, The Build Up To Iran Timeline,, January 25, 2007.  See also:

Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane, Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push,, January 23, 2007

[65] Raw Story, Intelligence officials doubt Iran uranium claims, say Cheney receiving suspect briefings,, August 18, 2006

[66] Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?, June 24, 2007

[67] Joshua Frank, Another Step Toward War With Iran: Democrats as Leviathans,, July 19th, 2007

[68] Philip Giraldi, Accusations Pave Way for Assault on Iran,, June 13, 2007

[69] Philip Giraldi, Avoiding War With Iran,, July 10, 2007

[70] Stephen Kinzer, The new drumbeat on Iran, The Guardian, July 11, 2007

[71] Pat Buchanan, Tonkin Gulf II and the Guns of August?, July 16, 2007

[72] Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger, Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran, The Guardian, July 16, 2007

[73] Abbas Edalat and Mehrnaz Shahabi, Prospects of Armageddon: The Logic That Defends Past Nuclear Atrocities Is Now Used To Support a Strike Against Iran,, August 7, 2007

[74] Warren P. Strobel, Cheney urging strikes on Iran,, August 9, 2007

[75] Robert Baer, Prelude to an Attack on Iran,, August 18, 2007

[76] Associated Press, Karl Rove to leave White House at month's end: Bush’s close friend, chief political strategist is latest senior official to resign,, August 13, 2007

[77] Karen Kwiatkowski, What Will Clueless and Hopeless Do Next?, August 20, 2007

[78] Ray McGovern, George W. Bush: A CIA Analysis,, August 22, 2007

[79] Scott Horton, The Next War Draws Nearer,, August 23, 2007

[80] Paul Joseph Watson, Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year: Presidential candidate says Neo-Cons waiting for right opportunity,, August 28, 2007

[81] Think Progress, Bolton: I ‘Absolutely’ Hope The U.S. Will Attack Iran In The Next ‘Six Months’,, August 22, 2007

[82] Larisa Alexandrovna, CIA said to step up operations against Iran as hawks seek to tie Iraq bombs to Tehran,, August 24, 2007

[83] Scott Peterson, An intensifying US campaign against Iran,, August 24, 2007

[84] Yahoo News, Middle East turmoil could cause world war: U.S. envoy,, August 27, 2007

[85] Patrick J. Buchanan, Has Bush Boxed Himself In?, August 28, 2007

[86] Charles Bremner, Sarkozy talks of bombing if Iran gets nuclear arms,, August 28, 2007

[87] Robin Wright, Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist',, August 15, 2007

[88] Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Administration’s Terrorist Labeling Is A Calculated Plan To Set the Stage For War With Iran,, August 15, 2007

[89] Sheldon Alberts, 'Terrorist' label means U.S. set for Iran attack, experts say, Ottawa Citizen, August 16, 2007 

[90] Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef, U.S. actions against Iran raise war risk, many fear,, August 17, 2007

[91] Kaveh L Afrasiabi, US steps closer to war with Iran,, Aug 18, 2007 

[92] Larisa Alexandrovna, CIA said to step up operations against Iran as hawks seek to tie Iraq bombs to Tehran,, August 24, 2007.  See also:

Kurt Nimmo, Neocons One Step Closer to Attacking Iran,, August 26, 2007

[93] Tehran Times, Iraq failure leaves U.S. looking for scapegoats: Iran, August 28, 2007

[94] Thomas Harding, British exit from Iraq will be 'ugly': US adviser,, August 20, 2007.  See also:

Karim Jamil, Basra readies itself for British troop pull-out,, August 26, 2007:

“After four and a half inconclusive years of fighting, British forces are to pull out from their last base in the oil port of Basra and trust their Iraqi comrades to take their place.”

[95] WILLIAM LOWTHER, War of words: British generals tell Brown to pull out of Iraq, US says stay,, August 20, 2007

[96] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 1, 2007  See also:

Webster Tarpley, The Next 9-11: Cheney Determined To Strike This Summer: Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him:

Over the past half year, events have followed Brzezinski’s scenario closely. Blaming Iran for the missed benchmarks in Iraq is now the daily stock in trade of the Bush administration and the US Central Command, who whine continuously about Iranian interference in Iraq. There have been several military provocations in Iraq which the US has tried to pin on Iran… That leaves us with Brzezinski’s third scenario point: a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran. What Brzezinski is talking about here is high treason, insurrection, genocide, high crimes against humanity under US law and the Nuremberg Code. Why has he not been called upon to tell all he knows about this sinister plot, so obviously operating through the Cheney-Addington office, and through Eliot Abrams at the White House? Because the Democrats who heard that warning Senators Biden, Dodd, and Obama on the committee, plus Hillary Clinton have done nothing to raise a hue and cry, hold hearings, issue subpoenas, demand documents, or begin impeachment hearings against those involved. The Democratic Party must therefore be seen as fully complicit under the Nuremberg Code in any future crimes by Cheney regarding a wider war in the Middle East.

[97] Paul Joseph Watson, Sheehan: Distinct Chance Of Staged Attack, Martial Law,, July 12, 2007

[98] Hon. Ron Paul of Texas, Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Escalation is Hardly the Answer, January 11, 2007

[99] Associated Press, Castro suggests Washington fails to stop attacks on US soil to justify war on terror, Herald Tribune, July 15, 2007

[100] Paul Craig Roberts, Impeach now Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy,, July 17, 2007.  See also:

(RIA Novosti), White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official,, July 20, 2007.

Joe Crubaugh, 10 False Flags that Changed the World,   

[101] Mike Green, Deception: The Dangerous Politics of the Left and Right,, August 2, 2007

[102] Larisa Alexandrovna, CIA said to step up operations against Iran as hawks seek to tie Iraq bombs to Tehran,, August 24, 2007.  See also:

 Kurt Nimmo, Neocons One Step Closer to Attacking Iran,, August 26, 2007

[103] Patrick J. Buchanan, Has Bush Boxed Himself In?, August 28, 2007

[104] Rick Moran, Are Conservatives Really Hoping For Another 9/11?, July 17, 2007

Roger Simon, Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win,, April 24, 2007

Roger Simon, Giuliani 9/11 remark draws angry reply,, April 25, 2007

Craig Chamberlain, It is Time to Stop Investing in Terror,, August 4, 2007:

We should stop investing our money into companies that do business with terrorist states. Yet Congress has done nothing about this. Could it be that it is because 36 members of Congress invest in companies that do business with terrorist states?

[105] Max Boot, Necessary Roughness, Council on Foreign Relations,, January 20, 2005

[106] John Yoo, Go on the Offensive Against Terror, Los Angeles Times, July 13, 2005

[107] Ann Scott Tyson, New Plans Foresee Fighting Terrorism Beyond War Zones,, April 23, 2006

[108] Ann Wright, "I Hope It's Your Family Members That Die",, April 25, 2007

[109] FOX Attacks Iran Transcript,

[110] Andrew Chung, Why military might does not always win,, July 8, 2007

[111] Josh Catone, Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush,, June 3, 2007

[112] The Hugh Hewitt Show, Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum on his former colleagues' increasing lack of resolve on the war, Transcript,  See also:

Paul Joseph Watson, Santorum Suggest New Terror Attacks Will Change View Of War,, July 8, 2007

[113] Stu Bykofsky, To save America, we need another 9/11,, August 9, 2007.  See also:

News Hounds, John Gibson hosts Stu Bykofsky to defend "we need another 9/11" column,, YouTube Video, Gibson brings on Stu Bykofsky to defend column,, August 10, 2007

Prison Planet, Fox News Still Runs Defense For "Need Another 9/11" Columnist,, August 12, 2007:

John ‘The Albino Vampire’ Gibson all but agrees with Neo-Con slug columnist Stu Bykofsky that America needs another 9/11 to defeat the terrorists. That's right - we need more terror or the terrorists will win!

[114] Michelle Malkin, No, we don’t need another 9/11,, August 10, 2007

[115] Steven Levitt, If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?, August 8, 2007

[116] Doug Thompson, GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline, Capitol Hill Blue,  Nov 10, 2005

[117] CNN, Transcript, Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders on Capitol Hill,, December 18, 2000

[118] Paul Craig Roberts, My wake-up call: Watch for another 9/11-WMD experience, Online Journal,, July 20, 2007.  See also:

Muriel Kane, Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state,, July 19, 2007

Dave Lindorff, Martial law threat is real,, July 31, 2007:

This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever.”

Kaleem Omar, Bush’s Critics Say Threat of Martial Law in The United States is ‘Real’,, July 29, 2007

[119] Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis, Will Bush cancel the 2008 election?, July 30, 2007

[120] Bob Feuer, Congressman John Olver Believes Bush Will Cancel 2008 Elections, Still Refuses to Support Impeaching Him or Cheney,, July 5, 2007.  See also:

Webster Tarpley, The Next 9-11: Cheney Determined To Strike This Summer: Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him:

"A few days ago, a group of lawyers from western Massachusetts met with the local congressman, Democrat John Olver. Their request was that Olver take part in the urgent effort to impeach Bush and Cheney. Olver responded by saying that he had no intention of doing anything to support impeachment. He went further, offering the information that the United States would soon attack Iran, and that these hostilities would be followed by the imposition of a martial law regime here."

[121] John W. Whitehead, The Instruments of Tyranny,, August 4, 2007

[122] Joe Kay, Bush’s assertion of executive power: The logic of presidential-military dictatorship,, July 16, 2007

[123] Prison Planet, Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastors as Pacifiers in Preparation For Martial Law,, May 24, 2006

[124] KSLA News 12, Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared,, August 23, 2007.  See also:

Paul Joseph Watson, Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law,, August 16, 2007

[125], Asleep at the Wheel: Press ignores congressional OK for martial law,, July 5, 2007 

[126] News, Local Troops Deploy To Nation's Capital,, August 22, 2007

[127] Access denied: A Register-Guard Editorial, Register-Guard, July 23, 2007

[128] Jeff Kosseff, Congressman Denied Access To Post-Attack Continuity Plans, Newhouse News Service,, July 24, 2007

[129] Ibid.  See also:

Charles Pope, Government is overzealous with secrecy, Reichert says,, July 25, 2007:

’The problem is that the vice president and some other law enforcement and security agencies believe that they should decide which information they can keep secret, regardless of the law, the rules or what the needs are of our local law enforcement community,’ Harman told Leonard, the office's director, during the June 28 hearing.

[130] Marty Kaplan, After the Next 9/11, July 29, 2007,

[131] White House, National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,, May 9, 2007

[132] Lee Rogers, Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency,, May 21, 2007.  See also:

Joe Gandelman, ‘Big Surprise’ Promised By Al Qaeda In Web Ad,, August 1, 2007:

There are already some on the left and right warning about new emergency plan that would go into effect after a terrorist attack that would essentially put the executive wing in charge of the entire government.

[133] Larry Chin, New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power: National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive establishes ‘National Continuity Policy’,, May 21, 2007

[134] Kurt Nimmo, Bush Pens Dictatorship Directive, Few Notice,, May 30, 2007

[135] Daniel Ellsberg, Video Webcast: The day after the next 9/11 our Freedoms are Gone,, June 9, 2006:

Daniel Ellsberg, the State Department official and Vietnam War Veteran who leaked 7,000 hand Xeroxed top secret ‘The Pentagon Papers’ to The New York Times 30 years ago, is urging those within the Administration who have knowledge of secret war plans to do as he did and leak. leak. leak.”  See also:

Toby Harnden, Congressman causes controversy by comparing Bush to Hitler,, July 17, 2007

"[The 9/11 attacks were] almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that.  After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

[136] The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.  See also:

 Joe Kay, Bush’s assertion of executive power: The logic of presidential-military dictatorship,, July 16, 2007

[137] James M. Cypher, From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism,, June 2007

[138] Muriel Kane, Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state,, July 19, 2007.  See also:

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement,, July 20, 2007

[139] Benjamin H. Friedman and Harvey M. Sapolsky, You Never Know(ism),, Spring 2006

[140]  Larry Chin, Al-Qaeda, the eternal covert operation: British “terror” incident latest product of “war on terror” propaganda,, July 5, 2007:

It is a well-established and deliberately unaddressed historical fact that the CIA created “radical Islam” and Islamic “terrorism” during the Cold War. It is also a documented fact that the US, its allies, and their intelligence agencies (CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, Britain’s MI-6, etc.) have -- from the 1970s to the present day -- continued to use and guide terrorist groups, including “Al-Qaeda,” as intelligence and propaganda assets. “Islamic terrorism” is a manufactured weapon of Western geostrategy, serving Anglo-American interests.

[141] Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a ‘Catastrophic Emergency’ in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?  See also:

Michel Chossudovsky, The Pentagon’s Second 9/11: ‘Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets’, August 10, 2006  

[142] Scott Ritter, Why Cheney Really Is That Bad,, August 21, 2007

[143] AFP, Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll,, July 6, 2007

[144] Bruce Fein, Impeach Cheney: The vice president has run utterly amok and must be stopped., June 27, 2007.  See also:

Andrew Bard Schmookler, The Bruce Fein Interview,, 18 July 2007

Everything in life is a matter of degree, and while FDR, Nixon, McCarthyism, and Clinton were occasionally lawless, Bush is systematically so. Thus he is the greater danger. The rule of law can survive a beating once every five or ten years; it cannot survive beatings every five or ten minutes.

Richard Ross, Fear of terror threatens defense of freedom,, August 7, 2007

Chris Floyd, The Legal Pervert's Parade: Executive Privilege Über Alles,, July 20, 2007

[145]   Marjorie Cohn, Reining In an Out-of-Control Executive,, July 16, 2007

[146] Sen. Russ Feingold, Congress has a duty to censure President for his abuses of power,, August 14, 2007

[147] Carol Wolman, Congress: Bottleneck to impeachment,, August 13, 2007

[148] Ted Lang, Immediate Impeachment: The Only Way Out and Back!, July 23, 2007

[149] Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity & Dr. Justin Frank, Dangers of a Cornered George Bush

[150]  Butler Shaffer, Why They Won’t Impeach,, July 17, 2007

[151] Resources and Bibliography

[152] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,


9/11 Research,

9/11 Blogger,

[153] William Rodriguez, The Heroism of William Rodriguez: Amazing Testimony from Inside the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, transcript of William Rodriguez’s presentation at the American Scholars Symposium, June 25, 2006.