Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bacasper]

Gingrich quips Bush should have allowed some 'reminder' attacks

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday May 29, 2008


During an appearance at a Long Island bookstore last month, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was asked by a member of the audience why the United States has not been hit again since 9/11.

"I honestly don't know," Gingrich replied. "I would have expected another attack. I was very, very worried ... when we had the sniper attacks, because the sniper attacks were psychologically so frightening. ... I was amazed that the bad guys didn't figure out how to send ten or twelve sniper teams."

"This is ... one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration," Gingrich continued. "The more successful they've been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we're in danger. And therefore, the better they've done at making sure there isn't an attack, the easier it is to say, 'Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.' And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us. "

Gingrich then recommended splitting the FBI into a domestic crime unit, which would respect civil liberties, and a "small but very aggressive anti-terrorism agency" with "extraordinary ability to eavesdrop."

"I think that your liberties in a domestic setting are paramount," Gingrich explained. "I would rather risk crime than risk losing my civil liberties. But I would not rather risk a nuclear weapon. ... I think the greatest danger to our liberty is to actually have the country end up in the kind of attack that would lead us to favor a dictatorship for security."

This video is from C-SPAN 2, broadcast April 29, 2008. The full video can be viewed
here.

[bacasper]

Rumsfeld's Mind: If 9/11 Worked, Why Not Try it Again

by Rob Kall


Call me a conspiracy theorist. But when Donald Rumsfeld spoke, in late 2006, to the pentagon propagandists the NY Times recently exposed, he, in opining the loss of both houses of congress to the Democrats, suggested that �the US could benefit from another terrorist attack,� Jason Linkin of the Huffington post reports.

�As documented by Newsvine, it all went down at a valedictory luncheon Rumsfeld hosted for those analysts on December 12, 2006. Many of the "message force multipliers" named in the original New York Times piece were in attendance, including David L. Grange, Donald W. Sheppard, James Marks, Rick Francona, Wayne Downing, and Robert H. Scales, Jr. They were treated to an extraordinary conversation (Newsvine has highlights, the hour-long clip of which can be found here) with Rumsfeld, that included many jaw-dropping moments, such as Rumsfeld admitting that in Iraq, the U.S. "can't lose militarily, but...can't win by military means alone," an agreement that Iraq could use a Syngman Rhee-type dictator (because that's what democracy smells like!), and a lengthy passage where Rumsfeld jokingly offers a bottle of champagne to anyone who could kill Moqtada al Sadr. You sure don't see too many people joking on al Sadr these days!

�But by far the most extraordinary part of this luncheon is the antipathy the gathered members exhibit toward the American people for having the temerity to vote the Democrats back into power. When Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans the lack of "sympathetic ears" on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld offers that the American people lack "the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats." What's to be done? According to Rumsfeld, "The correction for that, I suppose, is [another] attack."

Now this is just factual information. Why do I start this article by saying, �call me a conspiracy theorist?� Because this slips too easily off Rumsfeld�s reptilian tongue. Too easily because perhaps it�s not at all a new idea. Perhaps it is an idea that, for him, for all the propagandist sell-out generals, this is not new, that is actually, already tried and true.

One of the oft cited premises of the 9/11 Truth movement is that the attack on the towers was the Pearl Harbor-like event that the neocons anticipated would be necessary to move the US to embrace the aggressive militaristic tactics manifested in Iraq. Here, we have Rumsfeld casually joking about it�not a smoking gun, but, perhaps, a clear �tell� in poker parlance, indicating ready ability to think in these terms.

The hour-long audio clip was found as part of a data dump done by the pentagon, in response the NY Times Freedom of Information Act request.

The Huffingtonpost article reports,

"Less than a week ago, the Department of Defense did a document dump on their program to use retired military analysts as surrogates on network and cable news to pimp the administration line on the Iraq War - something we now know they did on at least 4,500 occasions. Over at TalkingPointsMemo, a thread has been opened for those who want to sift through the material and highlight key discoveries."

"So far, dedicated TPM readers have unearthed a number of noteworthy finds, of which this audio recording of this luncheon is perhaps the most astounding."

My guess is that this document dump might be a rich source of hard date for those interested in pursuing 9/11 truth.

[bacasper]

Pitching For More Dead Americans: A Neo-Con Fetish

Only attacks on scale of 9/11, 7/7 can bolster resolve according to war studies head

Paul Joseph Watson

The West needs more terror attacks on the scale of 9/11 and 7/7 in order to save a failing foreign policy, according to Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario.

This alarming admission can be found right at the end of a long and academic Toronto Star article about the history of conflict and why the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are doomed.

"The Royal Military College of Canada (RMC), is the military academy of the Canadian Forces and is a full degree-granting university," according to Wikipedia.

The Star article discusses a new study which surmises that military invasions since World War 2 that require cooperation of the population of a country to succeed hold only a 17% chance of success.

In a paraphrased quote attributed to Delaney, he concludes 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 is necessary," adds Delaney.

By this logic, if terrorist attacks only boost the geopolitical agenda of Western governments then how is it in their interest to prevent them, and of what benefit are they to the actual terrorists - unless the terrorists occupy positions of power?

Delaney's comments are in a similar vein to former Republican Senator Rick Santorum's statements to a radio show this past 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.

[patongpanda]

During an appearance at a Long Island bookstore last month, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was asked by a member of the audience why the United States has not been hit again since 9/11.


What about those Anthrax attacks? They were a bit mysterious weren't they? And now everyone seems to have forgotten.

[mateomiguel]

Terrorist attacks bolster the conservatives' agenda, so it is in their jaded, evil interest to let them through, and yet they haven't, because they're complaining about the lack of attacks, which if successful would bolster their agenda...

OH GOD MAKE IT STOP WHY CAN'T I GET OFF THIS MENTAL CAROUSEL?

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[bacasper]

[mateomiguel]

Praying is for pansies, what we need is action! I nominate you, bacasper, to carry out the next terrorist attack on the US soil. Its for the best, obviously.

[bacasper]

You mean, I can have my very own conspiracy?

Do you promise not to call me a "lone nut" afterwards?

[Ya-ta Boy]

Yes and No, in that order.