Former Reagan Official: Bush May Stage False Flag Events

Yesterday, we posted Paul Craig Roberts' original article called "Impeach Now - Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy".

But for those too busy to read the whole thing, this is important news, which should be disseminated widely.

One of the most influential political figures in America, the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and assistant secretary of treasury under Ronald Reagan, said that the U.S. government may very well carry out false flag attacks in order to get its way.

Write to the New York Times, Washington Post, and other mainstream sources and demand they cover this Write to "alternative" left-leaning media like Raw Story, Huffington Post, and Crooks and Liars and demand they cover this (amazingly, Daily Kos did cover it). Write to right-leaning news sites like Drudge Report, Ann Coulter and Townhall and demand they cover this.

For background, show them this or this

Here is Paul Joseph Watson's take on this very important story:

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts has gone further than ever before, warning that the Bush administration could be about to stage false flag events and terror attacks in order to reinstate the draft, announce a dictatorship and attack Iran.

Roberts has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and is also a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.

In his weekly syndicated column, Roberts suggests that unfolding events and the nature of the rhetoric emanating from government quarters suggests that a major staged terror attack could be just around the corner.

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" writes Roberts.

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

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

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

Roberts concludes that coming "terrorist" events within the next year will be the means for overthrowing constitutional democracy unless Congress moves to impeach Bush and Cheney immediately.

Paul Craig Roberts

Roberts' warning is dovetailed by a series of high profile individuals expressing the need for more terror as the only recourse for saving a doomed foreign policy and reversing anti-war sentiment in the U.S. that is now dominating the country.

In a July 8 Toronto Star piece, Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, said that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."

"If nothing happens, it will be harder still to say this [the occupation of Iraq] is necessary," he added.

Delaney's comments are in a similar vein to former Republican Senator Rick Santorum's statements to a radio show last weekend, in which he said that "unfortunate events" would occur along the lines of the recent car bomb attempts in the UK, that will change American's views of the war.

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

Yearning for more terror was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which hankered for new attacks that would "validate" the President's war on terror and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

It seems painfully clear that the Neo-Cons are still obsessed with the notion of using staged terror as the only ultimate means of facilitating their dark agenda, and that thousands and potentially millions of Americans could be about to pay with their lives to realize such a nightmare.

PCR exposes False-Flag Terror... his strongest terms yet....

Well done and well said.

Every single day we get another threat by the regime in Washington of an impending attack on US they really think they can get away with it again?

9/11 Truth is the Real Peace Movement

National Intelligence Estimate (July17 2007)

Fear mongering CRAP FROM THE GUT released today:

(Sorry, if you already read this same comment regarding Osama Bin Laden Wearing The Same Clothes For 6 Years which I posted earlier today. I assessed it was too relevent to omit in the context of a likely visually dramatic false flag opperation to instill fear among the US population in the fatherland)

"We assess that al-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent
political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties,
visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US

"The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive
devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles."

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

Pdf file of The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland from Director of National Intelligence

Please note:
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) serves as the head of the Intelligence Community (IC). The DNI also acts as the principal advisor to the President; the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security; and oversees and directs the implementation of the National Intelligence Program. The President appoints the DNI with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director is assisted by a Senate-confirmed Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI), appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

smirking Frances

At the end of the press conference with Homeland Security Advisor, Frances Townsend, Tuesday on CNN, she got hit pretty hard by a reporter with questions about bin Ladin. She was asked if she had any knowledge about his health and how he could posssibly move from cave to cave dragging a dialysis machine and a medical team with him. Townsend laughed and smirked and finally said she was not going to answer that question, and with that, the press conference came to an abrupt end. Good stuff. Would love to see that clip or a transcript. Been looking.

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

damn, thanks for the heads

damn, thanks for the heads up. was it Helen Thomas by any chance? shes the only one worth respcting out of the whole bunch.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

here it is........

Q I wonder if you could explain what possible reason there could be for al Qaeda's ability to reconstitute itself, aside from U.S. strength is being diverted in Iraq -- special ops forces and various other military means -- and the U.S. diplomatic abilities, if you will, are compromised in countries that oppose our operation in Iraq? What else could account for al Qaeda's ability to regenerate?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question -- I think there's a tendency to try and suggest that al Qaeda core and al Qaeda in Iraq are two separate things. Let's step back for a minute, because I think that is not accurate.

Clearly, what we know is the al Qaeda that attacked us on September 11th was an al Qaeda that is led by Osama bin Laden and caused the killing of 3,000 Americans -- that same al Qaeda, headed by bin Laden, is the same al Qaeda that Zarqawi, when he becomes the emir of al Qaeda in Iraq, swears biot, or loyalty, to. So it's the same organization. This isn't a question of diverting.

Q Fran, years ago this administration had said something about the fact that Osama bin Laden wasn't really the major threat anymore, he was just trying to maintain and survive. Now you're saying that he's feeding into -- we know that he's feeding into the Iraq al Qaeda, and not only that, that they've pledged allegiance to him. What is the NIE -- the unscrubbed version of the NIE saying about Osama bin Laden and the threat by Osama bin Laden? Because this administration does not talk about him. They keep talking about al Qaeda as a whole, not about the man who attacked the United States on 9/11 and the threat that he poses now.

MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. First, obviously, what is declassified from the NIE is not a decision I made, and so if you want more out of that NIE, you're talking to the wrong person.

Q How many pages was the NIE compared to this couple pages that we got, scrubbed? And we need to know what is in it about Osama.

MS. TOWNSEND: You've got -- the unclassified judgments are a page-and-a-half, I think. The classified -- to give you a sense, the classified key judgments were about two-and-a-half pages. But again, I'm in the awkward position, I can't talk to you about what's classified. And so there was a briefing today by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I can't talk to you about what's in there. Let me step back for a second, though, and talk to you about --

Q Fran, do you know if Osama bin Laden is still on a dialysis machine, is he still ill? What? I mean, could you tell us about that? I mean, because -- it might be laughable, but people are finding it hard, six years this man is sick, moving around from cave to cave, and can't be found -- with a dialysis machine?

MS. TOWNSEND: Have you ever been to the tribal areas? I suspect not.

Q No, I haven't, but I've seen some great pictures from Ken Herman as to the rough terrain over that way. (Laughter.)

MS. TOWNSEND: It's not exactly easy. If it were easy he'd be dead.

Q But it's not easy for him to travel around with medics and machinery if he's sick. I mean, is he -- do you know from your intelligence if he's still sick? What do you know about that?

MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not going to talk about that.

Thank you.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

One of the coming 911 Amendments to the Constitution

If conservatives can trot out their flag-burning amendments with regularity, why not throw out another couple of constitutional amendments? Why not propose false-flag attacks to be prima facie acts of treason, and then lets see who decides to oppose such an amendment, and why?

Certainly there may be points here or there to quibble over, but on the main points? Quite simply, no conservative, liberal, libertarian, green, etc could argue with this Constitutional Amendment:


Anyone who orders, knowingly aids, knows of and doesn't resist, a false flag terror attack against the US, its territory, its populace, is thereby guilty of treason and rebellion against the United States. If convicted, they will be fully subject to the laws of treason, rebellion, and war-crimes as applicable. This includes judgement of such as a capital offense.

To engage in a false-flag terror attack will be judged a war-crime, and thereby subject to the laws and treaties governing war-crimes, including international jurisdiction.

Any soldier, government employee, citizen, or inhabitant either here legally or illegally, who recognizes the existence of such an impending attack, and who resists such an operation, including by refusing to carry out explicit orders, if they are an employee or agent of the US, from their usual government chain of command, shall be held harmless from prosecution for such actions, in any US court, civil, criminal, or military; federal, state, or local; in any jurisdiction of the US government, either within or without the recognized territories of the United States.

This provision of the Constitution, once passed, can never be declared null or void by any government agent or officer, in any branch, including the Supreme Court, the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch, and the officers and members of the houses of Congress; except by the explicit, public passing of another Constitutional Amendment of like stature. If any government official, employee, or agent; any citizen, resident, or inhabitant attempts to declare any sections of this Article, once passed, to be null or void, especially on a covert basis; either permanently or temporarily; in whole or in part; for a given spatial region, situation, or circumstance; such an attempt to circumvent the clear provisions of this Amending Article shall be sufficient for any citizen or person to consider such a declaring person to be considered suspect in violation of this law, and subject to investigation, apprehension or resistance as may be deemed necessary, not only for purposes of avoiding violation of statutory laws or the Constitution, but to engage in active defense of the United States against a threat deemed to be a clear and present danger.

(end of proposed amendment)

This could be an important permanent nail in the coffin of the Covert Empire at some future date, but it could also be an interesting way to smoke out who has the most to fear from exposure now.

How much lead time does it take to get something like this considered, even as a resolution to be passed up from the local or state level?

Constitutional Amendment

Seems like a great idea, perhaps Kucinich and Paul would co-sponsor.


But the proposed text should also confirm that it shall be illegal to carry out any False Flag acts ANYWHERE in the world.

Perhaps, and consequently to this amendment, and at the initiative of the US, this provision should be signed by all civilised countries as an international treaty and subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Please note: In 2002, two states, the United States and Israel, "unsigned" the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, indicating that they no longer intend to become States Parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from the statute.

It had originally been signed by Bill Clinton

on December 31, 2000 and the Congressional Record - Senate
Pages S9274 - S9275 dated September 10, 2001
"SA1536. Mr. Craig (for himself, Mr. Miller, Mr. Helms, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Allen, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickels, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Allard, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Inhofe) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 2500, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary and related agencies of the fiscal year ending September 20, 2002, and for other purposes; as follows: At the end of the title VI, add the followings:
Sec. 623 (a) Findings.- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On July 17, 1998, The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, meeting in Rome, Italy, adopted the "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". The United States voted against final adoption of the Rome Statute.
(2) As of April 30, 2001, 139 countries had signed the Rome Statute and 30 had radified it. Pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the Statute will enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date on which the 60th country deposits an instrument ratifying the Statute.
(3) Any American prosecuted by the International Criminal Court will, under the Rome Statute, be denied procedural protections to which all Americans are entitled under the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, such as the right to trial by jury.
(4) Members of the Armed Forces of the United States deserve the full protection of the United States Constitution wherever they are stationed or deployed around the world to protect the vital national interests of the United States. The United States Government has an obligation to protect the members of its Armed Forces, to the maximum extent possible, against criminal prosecutions carried out by United Nations officials under procedures that deny them their constitutional rights.
(5) In addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the risk of international criminal prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the President and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Government may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for national security decisions involving such matters as responding to acts of terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and deterring aggression.
(6) The claimed jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over citizens of a country that is not a state party to the Rome Statute is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States under the Constitution of the United States.
(b) PROHIBITION - None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be available for cooperation with, or assistance or other support to, the International Criminal Court or the Preparatory Commission. This subsection shall not be construed to apply to any other entity outside the Rome Treaty.

Zionist agenda

PCR's statement regarding the ultimate motives for the false flag terror point to a Zionist agenda:

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

As stated by other people in this forum who have since been banned, we should allow people to focus on the Zionist angle in 9-11.

A Filipino for 9-11 truth

ya know

We knew that the regime of Hussein and his sons was a criminal enterprise. The public beheadings and the like. And just what would you expect to occur within the country after the mob boss is executed?
Bombings after bombings, executions of one sort or another.
After all of these years, have we heard of one type of leader to emerge out of this country? Somebody that the country looks up to? Does it really have to be military control before they stop the killing?
Just give me one reason as to why American military personnel need to be in that foreign country.
You will notice that London's latest terror attack happened only within about a week of changeover of powers.
As if the new boss gets in the 'chair' and says "Let's see what this baby can do...!"

False Flag -

Possible dates - July 26th or September 18th.

According to the wikipedia the CIA was established on July 26, 1947 and activated September 18, 1947.

That makes it their 60th year violating every law of every country without regard for anyone.

They "Family Jewels" is not a complete history, since at least one of the founding fathers of the CIA is still alive.

Congress should cut the funding to the CIA.