dmcgee77's blog

How Fake is Saddam's Trial

Months back, I told a friend, "Just you wait. The death sentence against Saddam will be used as an October surprise to help the Republicans win." I was expecting an October surprise, not a November one. But here it is, two days before the election, and just what the neocons needed to receive some validation for their illegal invasion of Iraq, the pronouncement of "death by hanging" against Saddam was given.

Let me throw something out there to all you truthers. You remember the fake bin Laden confession, as seen in the "Loose Change" video. You know the Bush Administration has no integrity and no conscience for being truthful. Now supposing the capture of Saddam and the trial of Saddam is as much a farce as that bin Laden confession. And to take it one step farther, supposing it's not the real Saddam, but rather an actor or a complicit double of Saddam who stood before the judge this weekend to take the death sentence.

If you say it can't be, consider the recent revelation from Bob Jackson, the photographer of the famous shooting of Oswald in Nov. 1963. Jackson is now saying there was not even a drop of blood on Oswald or at the crime scene as Oswald was taken to an ambulance.

The Constitution Party

I woke up this morning with a crazy idea. Let's start a new political party. As for myself, I've been a Democrat, been a Republican, backed Perot's Reform Party, have leaned towards Green and have leaned towards Libertarian...and have always been an independent free thinker. But if I had to narrow my views to a single political concept, I would say "I'm a Constitutionalist."

***Considering that last week, President Bush signed a Military Commission Act that blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution, refusing the writ of habeus corpus to "enemy combatants" in the so-called war on terror.

***Considering the Patriot Act is also an affront to constitutional protections, is getting more obvious by the day and hour that neither the Democratic or Republican Party have enough respect for the Constitution to want to defend it.

To my surprise, I found the existence of a burgeoning party called the "Constitutional Party" online at In reading the introduction to this party, I found that it's primarily a conservative party, which I have no problem with. Of course, I was very interested in what their take on 9/11 might be. So I went to their platform page and read their position on "The War on Terror." It reads as follows:

9/11 was (PARTLY) an inside job

Justice requires not only the truth, but the WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth.

Half truths can be as deadly as lies, sometimes even moreso. Because they mislead. They can lead to the wrong conclusions. Wrong conclusions often alienate would-be supporters who are turned away, not by the truths being expounded, but by the errors incorporated into the truths.

The cornerstone statement of the 9/11 truth movement is this: "9/11 was an inside job."

Supposing that statement is only half true. Supposing there really was an al-Qaeda attack on 9/11. The real truth may be this: the Washington neocons and their Israeli intelligence friends decided to let 9/11 happen, and help it to happen by adding a few elements to the scenario, such as the demolition of the towers.

My point is this: if we're going to be a truth movement, let's not use a half-truth as our cornerstone statement. Why? Because there are plenty of honest Americans who believe the evidence of a real attack by Muslim extremists on 9/11 is JUST AS VALID as any evidence of an inside job.

We can't have it both ways. We can't criticize the government and the media of lying and presenting half-truths, and then carry on the same practices ourselves. We must live by a higher standard.

LIHOP and MIHOP are completely compatible


Pearl Harbor would be a good example of LIHOP, if indeed the Roosevelt administration had foreknowledge and did nothing to stop it.

The Japs attacked us. Nobody disputes that.

But if Roosevelt let it happen on purpose, it would still be a crime of treasonous proportions, just as damning as if the Jap planes were remotely controlled by secret black ops.

Now supposing FDR did not trust the Japs to get the job done properly. So let's say--for argument sake--he secretly arranged for explosives to be set inside a number of the ships at Pearl Harbor. That would be MIHOP. It doesnt negate LIHOP. In fact, it could be completely compatible with LIHOP.


If some despot were tempted to engineer a false flag operation on his own people, reports of an attack by a known enemy would be the PERFECT cover. Then it would become so EASY for the despot to simply point the finger at the enemy, and say, "Look what they did to us. We know they did it. We have the evidence to prove it."

I would argue that the "perfect storm" for a false flag operation would be a situation in which a known enemy with a REAL track record of terrorism is found in advance to be planning an attack on NYC. The planners of the false flag then begin to put together a bigger plan, one that incorporates the enemy's plan, and actually guarantees its success. It's LIHOP and MIHOP working in perfect syncopation.