Paul Craig Roberts

The Raw Story covers Roberts' appearance on the Hartmann show

Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state

Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday July 19, 2007

Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.

He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

Paul Craig Roberts on the Thom Hartmann Show - 9/19/2007

"Republican propagandists, and also the recent intelligence report, the National Intelligence Estimate, are preparing us for another 9/11 event, or series of events. Chertoff has predicted them, Rick Santorum, the former Republican Senator said recently that all this antiwar attitude in the American public would soon disappear after the next series of attacks that we were going to experience, and of course the National Intelligence Estimate is saying that al Qaeda has regrouped, it's strong again, and is sending operatives here to the U.S. to blow us up.

You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated, because there's no other way to pull the Republican Party's bacon out of the fire."

- Paul Craig Roberts, 7/19/2007.

Above segment streaming at Putfile, along with good introduction by Hartmann on Nazi comparisons that makes Rep. Keith Ellison look entirely correct, and in fact quite tame with his analogies.

Podcast archived here:

"Alexjonesfan" has the above segment available for D/L at the bottom of his post at the Randi Rhodes Message Board:

Thanks, Joe for podcast link.

Paul Craig Roberts Warns Again (And Questions 9/11)

Information Clearing House has published an even straighter piece by Paul Craig Roberts. Hopefully, more high profile former and current officials will follow his lead as the situation gets so obviously critical.

A Wake-up Call

By Paul Craig Roberts

07/19/07 "ICH" -- -- This is a wake-up call that we are about to have another 9/11-WMD experience.

The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally seventy-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government’s protection.

Intelligent observers are puzzled that President Bush is persisting in a futile and unpopular war at the obvious expense of his party’s electoral chances in 2008.

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.

Paul Craig Roberts: "Impeach Now - Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy"

Impeach Now

Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy


Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

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.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered...


Discussion thread started on the Blogger Board.

9/11 and the Evidence

March 26, 2007

9/11 and the Evidence

By Paul Craig Roberts

Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is a person who is sensitive to evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. There is no counterpart on the official side of the story who is as fully informed on all aspects of the attacks as Griffin.

Paul Craig Roberts - "The Confession Backfired"

The Confession Backfired

by Paul Craig Roberts

The first confession released by the Bush regime’s Military Tribunals – that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – has discredited the entire process. Writing in Jurist, Northwestern University law professor Anthony D’Amato likens Mohammed’s confession to those that emerged in Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders in the 1930s.

That was my own immediate thought. I remember speaking years ago with Soviet dissident Valdimir Bukovsky about the behavior of Soviet dissidents under torture. He replied that people pressed for names under torture would try to remember the names of war dead and people who had passed away. Those who retained enough of their wits under torture would confess to an unbelievable array of crimes in an effort to alert the public to the falsity of the entire process.

That is what Mohammed did. We know he was tortured, because his response to the obligatory question about his treatment during his years of detention is redacted. We also know that he was tortured, because otherwise there is no point for the US Justice (sic) Dept. memos giving the green light to torture or for the Military Commissions Act, which permits torture and death sentence based on confession extracted by torture.

Mohammed’s confession of crimes and plots is so vast that Katherine Shrader of the Associated Press reports that the Americans who extracted Mohammed’s confession do not believe it either. It is exaggerated, say Mohammed’s tormentors, and must be taken with a grain of salt.


Counterpunch misquotes Brzezinski

I sent the following mail to Counterpunch ( on Saturday. They have yet to make a correction:

"Hi. I'm enjoying my new subscription to Counterpunch and am pleased that you decided to publish Christopher Ketcham's article. In all honesty, it's largely what motivated me to finally subscribe. I would urge you to have the same courage by publishing 9/11 related articles by noted CIA veteran Bill Christison. Christison is a person for whom you otherwise seem to have a great deal of respect. But as I understand it, you have sent him to the showers on 9/11 issues the same way Salon and the Nation sent Ketcham packing.

During an interview on Electric Politics, Christison says that you will not publish any of his articles suggesting that 9/11 may have been an "inside job":

As for the misquote mentioned in my subject line, I noticed while reading "The Tragedy of a Dozen Evil Men" by Paul Craig Roberts that the Brzezinski quote is incorrect. It does appear to be correct in Roberts' earlier article "Brzezinski's Damning Indictment".

Rigorous Intuition: Why are "insiders" not to be trusted, until they tell us what we want to hear?

Rigorous Intuition (Jeff Wells) has posted some thoughts on government work to disclose UFOs, and in that post he discusses the raft of so-called White House insiders who have come out in support of 9/11 Truth, only to become brazenly suspect in their claims:

Sorry guys- the Libby trial isn't for real

ome patriotic Americans, who believe it is still possible to save America from war and a police state, see cause for hope in the upcoming trial of “Scooter” Libby, the former chief operative of VP Cheney. Libby is accused of lying about his role in leaking a covert CIA agent’s name to the press in an effort to discredit damaging evidence that Bush had lied about Iraq possessing WMD. The patriots believe that Libby’s trial will damage the Bush Regime and, thereby, reduce the Regime’s danger to freedom and democracy in America.

At this delicate point in time, the Bush Regime would not allow the Libby trial to go forward unless the Regime had arranged with the media shills it uses to control the explanation of the news (with insider leaks) to testify in a manner that lets Libby off the hook. If Libby is exonerated, expect Cheney and the neocon nazis to attack Joe Wilson as a terrorist sympathizer who tried to discredit Bush’s invasion of Iraq and war on terror. The attack on Wilson will lead into an all-out-assault on the antiwar movement.

Enforcers or Enablers: Will Democrats Become Part of the Problem?

Former Assistant Secretary of Treasury under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts is a 9/11 Truther who sometimes tones down his views on 9/11 to get published in larger publications. But his analysis of the need for the Democratic congress to investigate 9/11 and to take other actions to save America from fascism is well worth reading.

"It only took six years for Americans to comprehend George Bush and the Republican Party and to realize that the Republicans were not leading America in any promising directions.

Exit polls and interviews with voters across the country by CNN political analyst Bill Schneider show that the November 2006 election was a vote against both Bush and the war in Iraq. Schneider reports that voters did not even know the name of the Democrats for whom they voted. Voters said: "I am going to vote Democrat, because I don't like Bush, I don't like the war. I want to make a statement."

I believe that voters recognized that the peril of one-party rule is that political accountability exists no where except at the ballot box. With the Republican built and programmed electronic voting machines, even accountability at the ballot box was disappearing.

Paul Craig Roberts - "Where is the evidence?"

Swiped this link from CK's blog.

Where is the evidence?

"... My opinion of “Loose Change” and Popular Mechanics is independent of who won the debate. The “Loose Change” producers are more to be admired than the Popular Mechanics editors for the simple reason that the former are committed to opening a debate and the latter are committed to closing debate down. Indeed, Popular Mechanics was early on the scene trying to close off debate by defending the government line. Why?

If I had been in the debate, I would have asked Meigs and Dunbar what’s conspiratorial about a thorough hearing and examination of an event that has been used to justify illegal invasions that are war crimes and have destroyed two countries and killed tens of thousands of people.

The Popular Mechanics editors are convinced that any explanation other than the government’s explanation is a conspiracy theory. However, the title of their new book applies equally to their view, as there is no more fantastic conspiracy theory than the view championed by the Popular Mechanics editors. How, for example, can it be possible that on one short morning of September 11, 2001, multiple failures occurred not only in airport security but also in FAA and NORAD procedures? The probability of any one of these failures is low. The probability of all of these failures occurring on one morning is very low indeed. How is it possible that essentially all US security failures of the last 5 or 10 years occurred on one morning? What probability do independent statisticians assign to such an event?

The probability is also extremely low that the only three steel columned buildings believed to have collapsed from fire all failed on the same day from three separate fires..."


Paul Craig Roberts

Is American Democracy Too Feeble To Deal With 9/11?

"...The attack by conservative Presbyterians on Griffin’s publisher, the Presbyterian Westminster John Knox Press, for publishing his book is more indication that the Protestant churches might not be up to the job that Griffin assigns to them. Conservative Presbyterians, who have not read Griffin’s book and whose comprehension of events is dependent on right-wing radio talk shows and Fox "News," demanded retribution against the John Knox Press for daring to publish a work so blasphemous as to cast doubt on the motives of President Bush and the U.S. Government..."

Continued... - Swiped from u2r2h's blog

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts Weighs in on 5th Anniversary of 9/11

Five Years After and We Still Don’t Know -

In the five years since three World Trade Center buildings collapsed into their own footprints in virtually free fall time, the convincing power of the official explanation of that day’s events has evaporated. Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official account. As Lev Grossman writes in Time magazine (September 3, 2006), “Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”
The call by 9/11 skeptics for an independent investigation by an international panel of experts is not a conspiracy theory. In principle there is nothing wrong with such an investigation. In practice, it might be difficult to create a truly independent panel. How many physicists, for example, have careers independent of government grants, and how many engineering firms would risk being branded “unpatriotic” and lose business by coming down on the “wrong” side of the issue?

Nowhere is there a surfeit of brave men.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, and I don’t expect to ever find out. Neither government nor media show any interest in providing us with anything except a political commission’s report.

Be sure to follow the link for the full article

Thanks Carol for the heads up!

Can Anything Be Done?

Many readers have praised me for my courage in broaching taboo subjects and stating obvious truths. Others denounce me for “being unpatriotic and distrusting our government.” One reader, Susan Hartman, wrote to me that I was obviously in the pay of Islamic Jihadists and that she had reported me to the FBI.

Despite the lack of evidence to support their belief, a number of readers remain confident that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that America narrowly missed being annihilated. These readers know for a fact that Hussein had WMD, because “the President would know, and he wouldn’t lie.”
For reporting a scientific finding, I was called a “conspiracy theorist.” Only in America is scientific analysis seen as conspiracy theory and government lies as truth.

Applications of the laws of physics and scientific calculations can be reviewed and checked by other scientists. Scientists, like the rest of us, can make mistakes. However, questions raised about the collapse of the WTC buildings are not engaged but ignored.

The 9/11 scholars findings seem to be in sync with public opinion. Polls show that more than one-third and as much as one-half of the American public does not believe the government’s 9/11 story.
My point is a simple one. Attentive people, even if they are not scientifically literate, can sense when there are too many oddities for an explanation to be believable.

If deception is sensed, there is a receptive audience when experts or film makers speak. Denouncing inconvenient facts as “conspiracy theories” is a way of suppressing debate and investigation.