(Washington, DC) Stratfor Global Intelligence just published an essay announcing that the nation's rulers have conducted a "successful war" on terror following the events of 9/11. The author, CEO and Stratfor founder, George Friedman, dressed up the standard Bush - Cheney justification for the past ten years of foreign misadventures and domestic decline
"…one of the most extraordinary facts of the war that begin on 9/11 was that there have been no more successful major attacks on the United States." George Friedman, September 6
That's the argument pure and simple. How do you counter that?
First, the statement excludes the most important fact about 9/11. It was a "successful major attack on the United States." The event caused human tragedies accompanied by the shock that the most powerful nation on earth left its centers of governance and finance unprotected.
Friedman and those he defends have one overriding imperative in discussing 9/11, exclude the event itself as a topic of discussion. Move on as though history starts after the successful attacks. Never ever let the topic focus on Bush administration's command negligence surrounding 9/11.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Aug 5, 2011
The New Yorker has published a story planted on Nicholas Schmidle by unidentified sources who claim to be familiar with the alleged operation that murdered Osama bin Laden.
There is no useful information in the story. Its purpose seems simply to explain away or cover up holes in the original story, principally why did the Seals murder an unarmed, unresisting Osama bin Laden whose capture would have resulted in a goldmine of terrorist information and whose show trial would have rescued the government’s crumbling 9/11 story?
The gullible Schmidle tells us: “‘There was never any question of detaining or capturing him–it wasn’t a split-second decision. No one wanted detainees,’ the special-operations officer told me.” In other words, the SEALs murdered bin Laden, because the US government did not want detainees, not because trigger-happy stupid SEALs destroyed a font of terrorist information.
Why did the SEALS dump bin Laden’s body in the ocean instead of producing the evidence to a skeptical world?
Not since nearly 50 years ago when the CIA tried to pass off a man shown in two black and white photographs taken outside the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City as Lee Harvey Oswald, has the truth been so openly and casually violated as during the ferocious campaign to roll back some of what was already known and on the public record about Mohamed Atta in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack.
At one point a man even came forward to insist he, not Mohamed Atta, lived with Amanda Keller at the Sandpiper Apartments in Venice.
Well over six feet tall (Atta was 5'10) he looked far more like a young Jean Paul Belmondo than the dark glowering visage of Atta’s described by eyewitnesses.
In fact, the man, who avers Amanda Keller mistook him for Mohamed Atta, looks as if he might be hard-pressed to glower his way out of a paper bag.
No matter. The idea was a trial balloon, one of many sent up. The idea seemed to be that if you throw enough mud on the wall some of it will stick.
In more innocent times, this may have even been true.
But the after-image burned behind a billion eyeballs of bodies hurtling out of 100th story windows to escape encroaching flames insured the effort was not just unsuccessful, but was never even taken seriously.
The Persistence of Memory
The revelation last week that a key eyewitness to the activities in Florida of the 9/11 hijackers never changed his story about Mohamed Atta being drunk and belligerent in his bar four days before the 9/11 attack raised new questions about major news media coverage after the attack.
Continued at: http://www.madcowprod.com/05242011.htm