Why Did Bush Just Sit There?

One of the most incriminating pieces of evidence against George w. Bush (that he had prior knowledge of 911) is the FACT that he just sat there on the morning of September 11th, 2001 upon hearing that America was under attack.  No president would just sit idly in a chair after hearing that “AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK” unless he knew before hand what was going to happen.  George W. Bush KNEW!  In fact, the mountain of evidence overwhelmingly reveals that the Bush administration was instrumental in orchestrating the 911 attacks.  For those of you who don’t think it’s any big deal, please read Satan Must Run His Course and You Need to Believe Some of the Things You Read.

Our “Commander-In-Chief” In Action.                                                                           5-Minute Video of George W. Bush on Twin Tower.

>>> This footage, obtained and presented exclusively by The Memory Hole, shows President Bush sitting in a Florida classroom for 5 minutes after he was told that the second Twin Tower has been hit and that America was being attacked. A truncated version of this footage that has been available online since June 2002 shows Bush for only 2 minutes, 10 seconds after being told. This new footage more than doubles this length of time.Immediately below, you’ll find still-frames from the video, one every 5 seconds starting when Chief of Staff Andrew Card gives Bush the news and ending when the scene abruptly ends. Below that is a longer introduction and explanation of this footage, including how you can get it yourself.

“Mr. President, America Is Under Attack.”

The Morning Of 9/11  .


0:00
Card tells Bush: “America Is Under Attack.”

0:05

0:10

0:15

0:20

0:25

0:30

0:35

0:40

0:45

0:50

0:55
Bush just idly sits there.

1:00

1:05

1:10


1:15


1:20

1:25
No rush, America is just being attacked.

1:30

1:35

1:40

1:45
Ho hum

1:50

1:55

2:00

2:05

2:10

2:15

2:20
Just another day.

2:25

2:30

2:35

2:40

2:45

2:50

2:55

3:00
…Why is he just sitting there?

3:05

3:10

3:15

3:20

3:25

3:30

3:35

3:40

3:45

3:50

3:55

4:00

4:05

4:10

4:15

4:20

4:25

4:30

4:35
America is under attack…hmmm

4:40

4:45

4:50

4:55


5:00


Why President Bush?

>>> At 9:03 AM on 11 September 2001, the second airplane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. President Bush was in Florida, at the Emma T. Booker Elementary School, listening to children read. Chief of Staff Andrew Card came over and whispered in Bush’s ear, “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.”What did the Commander in Chief do? Nothing. He sat there. He sat for well over 5 minutes, doing nothing while 3,000 people were dying and the attacks were still in progress.

Not only did the leader of the free world sit as his country was attacked, the Secret Service also did nothing. Bush was appearing in public at a previously announced photo-op. He was a sitting duck. The attacks were ongoing at that point (planes had yet to hit the Pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania), and nobody knew how much more destruction was going to happen. Were there two, three, four, eight more planes hijacked and on their way to crash into prominent buildings? Was one headed for the school, where anyone who checked the President’s public itinerary would know he was located? Were other terrorists planning to detonate dirty nukes? Were they going to release anthrax or smallpox or sarin? Was an assassination squad going to burst into the school and get Bush? Was a suicide bomber going to ram a truck full of explosives into that classroom?

“GAME OVER: EVIDENCE OF SUPER-THERMITE IN THE RUBBLE” BY CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN, APRIL 5, 2009.
WWW.BOLLYN.COM/GAME-OVER-EVIDENCE-OF-SUPER-THERMITE-IN-THE-RUBBLE

“SYRIA, PIPELINE POLITICS, OPEC & THE U.S. DOLLAR” BY JIM WILLIE, SEPTEMBER 2, 2013
HTTP://WWW.SILVERDOCTORS.COM/JIM-WILLIE-SYRIA-PIPELINE-POLITICS-OPEC-THE-USDOLLAR/
“THE ARCHITECTURE OF TERROR: MAPPING THE NETWORK BEHIND 9/11” BY CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN, JULY 25, 2008
HTTP://WWW.BOLLYN.COM/THE-ARCHITECTURE-OF-TERROR-MAPPING-THE-NETWORK-BEHIND-9-11
“THE MASSACRES IN SYRIA AND ISRAEL’S WAR OF TERROR” BY CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN, JUNE 19, 2012
HTTP://WWW.BOLLYN.COM/THE-MASSACRES-IN-SYRIA-AND-ISRAELS-WAR-OF-TERROR/ 
“THE SILENT MILITARY COUP THAT TOOK OVER WASHINGTON” BY JOHN PILGER,GUARDIAN (UK), SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
HTTP://WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM/COMMENTISFREE/2013/SEP/10/SILENT-MILITARY-COUP-TOOK-OVER-WASHINGTON?
“WEARECHANGE CONFRONTS JOE BIDEN REGARDING 911 CONSPIRACY,” YOUTUBE, MAY 18, 2009
HTTP://YOUTU.BE/Y8MSF_CWSUC 

 

During the midst of the attacks, any of these things could’ve happened. Yet there sits Bush, seemingly unconcerned. His Chief of Staff likewise doesn’t think that America in flames warrants the President’s immediate attention. And the Secret Service utterly fails to do its job by grabbing the President of the United States and getting him to safety. It’s truly inexplicable.

And it’s something the administration isn’t too eager to trumpet. They haven’t released footage of the President’s (non)actions during this historic moment of American history. Until now, the only available footage had been a little film put together by Booker Elementary. [See it here.] The problem is, there’s a jump edit in the footage: From the time Card whispers to Bush until the end of the scene in the classroom, only 2 minutes and 10 seconds elapse.

But this new, fuller footage shows Bush sitting for a full five minutes after he’d been told that “America is under attack.”

He declined to take action even longer than this, but unfortunately this footage ends before he leaves the classroom. Thanks to an amazing article by Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, we know what happened after the footage suddenly cuts off:

The only source to describe what happened next is Fighting Back by Bill Sammon. Publishers Weekly described Sammon’s book as an “inside account of the Bush administration’s reaction to 9-11 [and] a breathless, highly complimentary portrait of the president [showing] the great merit and unwavering moral vision of his inner circle.” [Publisher’s Weekly, 10/15/02] Sammon’s conservative perspective makes his account of Bush’s behavior at the end of the photo-op all the more surprising. Bush is described as smiling and chatting with the children “as if he didn’t have a care in the world” and “in the most relaxed manner imaginable.” White House aide Gordon Johndroe, then came in as he usually does at the end of press conferences, and said, “Thank you, press. If you could step out the door we came in, please.” A reporter then asked, “Mr. President, are you aware of the reports of the plane crash in New York? Is there anything…”, But Bush interrupted, and no doubt recalling his order, “DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET,” Bush responded, “I’ll talk about it later.” But still the president did not leave. “He stepped forward and shook hands with [classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time. … Bush lingered until the press was gone.” [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism – From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]

For a detailed portrait of what Bush did and didn’t do on 9/11, you can do no better than to read this article here. It is based completely on reports from mainstream media and statements from government officials.

Apologists claim that Bush didn’t leave simply because he didn’t want to interrupt and upset the children, but this falls apart for several reasons:

1) America is being attacked, thousands are dying, and Bush doesn’t know if we’re facing nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks, as well. Couldn’t he just say, “Excuse me, kids, I need to take care of something. It’s part of being President, y’understand. I’ll be back as soon as I can.”

2) At the moment Card told Bush about the second plane, the children weren’t reading to Bush. They had finished reading words from an easel and were reaching under their chairs for a book when Card whispered to Bush. Another 30 seconds would elapse before they started reading again. This pause was a perfect time for Bush to politely excuse himself.

3) By staying, he not only endangered his own life, but the lives of all of those children. Wouldn’t it be better to risk upsetting them than to risk letting them die in a terror attack?

4) Even if Bush was afraid of hurting the kiddies’ feelings, what about the Secret Service? Have they been trained not to attempt to save the President’s life if it might bother some schoolchildren?

5) What about Chief of Staff Andrew Card, White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, and other officials who were in that classroom? Didn’t they feel that a 21st-century Pearl Harbor and a potential attack on the President himself were worth some sort of action?

6) Finally, and most damningly, this excuse doesn’t explain why Bush continued to mill around the classroom for several minutes after the children had finished reading.

source

What Really Happened  On 911? 

This video was obtained from The Education Channel in Sarasota, Florida. You can get a copy by sending $35 to:Ms. Leanne McIntire
The Education Channel
3301 Proctor Road
Sarasota FL 34231

Ask for the raw footage of President Bush at Booker Elementary on the morning of 11 Sept 2001. Specify whether you want VHS or Super VHS. (The latter is broadcast quality but doesn’t play on regular VCRs.)

The Axis Of Corporate Evil

The Axis of Corporate Evil chart -Click the numbers to make the connections between The Carlyle Group, Nortel, Global Crossing, Enron, The State Department, Arthur Andersen, and Quest 

Michael Chertoff, an Israeli citizen and son of a Mossad officer, oversaw the non-investigation of 9-11 by the FBI in which the crucial evidence was confiscated and destroyed. He should be held accountable for these crimes.

Twelve years later, we are still demanding – and still need – a complete criminal investigation into the events of 9-11. This is essential because until that happens we will not be able to free ourselves or our nation from the evil deception that has brought us two wars and taken the world to the brink of disaster.

MAPPING THE ISRAELI NETWORK BEHIND 9-11
US HAS NO INTENTION OF “ELIMINATING ISIL”

The good thing is that the American people and many world powers are strongly opposed to Obama’s proposed use of force against Syria. The only people who actually support Obama’s plan to aggress Syria are the Israelis and their Zionist agents in Congress. That is to be expected, of course, because the fraudulent “War on Terror” is an Israeli game developed and promoted by the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his military intelligence apparatus.

The bad thing, however, is that the terrorism game is not over yet. The “War on Terror” game will not be over until the people behind it are exposed, removed from office, and prosecuted for the crimes they have committed. This is why a complete and proper criminal investigation of 9-11 has to be done.

It is certainly not unreasonable to expect that such a criminal atrocity be fully investigated and prosecuted. It did not happen during the Bush administration because the person at the Department of Justice who was originally responsible for the 9-11 investigation and prosecution, the Israeli Michael Chertoff, was part of the conspiracy. He should be one of the first people arrested and charged for his role in the destruction of crucial evidence from the crimes of 9-11.

America’s “Global War on Terror”, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS)

The following text was presented to the Public Forum on:  

America’s War on Terror and the Urgency of World Peace: Its Ramification in the Philippines.

Social Sciences, University of the Philippines (UP-Cebu),  March 2, 2015

March 2, 2015 

Introduction

America’s “war on terrorism” is a hegemonic project, under a fake counter-terrrorism agenda which consists in going after al Qaeda entities which “threaten Western civilization”.

Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.  

We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. The July-August 2014 attack on Gaza by Israeli forces was undertaken in close consultation with the United States and NATO. The actions in Ukraine and their timing coincided with the onslaught of the attack on Gaza, Syria and Iraq.

In turn, military undertakings are closely coordinated with a process of economic warfare which consists not only in imposing sanctions on sovereign countries but also in deliberate acts of destabilization of financial and currencies markets, with a view to undermining the enemies’ national economies.

Our analysis in this article will largely be geared towards refuting the myth that the United States is waging “a Global War on Terrorism”.  
The evidence amply confirms that the the United States of America is a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” and that the campaign against the Islamic State is a smokescreen used by the US and its allies to justify in the eyes of public opinion its global war of conquest.  

The Global War on Terrorism has become a consensus. It is part of war propaganda. It is also used by Western governments to justify and implement “anti-terrorist” legislation. It is the cornerstone of the West’s demonization campaign directed against Muslims. 

It should also be understood that the “Global War on Terrorism”  supports a process of “economic conquest”, whereby countries forego their sovereignty.

Their national economies are “taken over by foreign investors”.

Their assets are confiscated, austerity measures are imposed and a process of macro-economic restructuring under the helm of Wall Street and the Bretton Woods institutions are implemented.  

US sponsored terrorism creates factional divisions within national societies. 

Countries are impoverished and destabilized. National institutions are undermined as part of  a US led war of conquest.

The evidence presented in this article, including the historical review, is intended to fully reveal the “Big Lie”.

Beyond doubt, the “Global War on Terrorism” is a fabrication. The United States of America is the “Number One” State Sponsor of Terrorism.

originalThe Global War on Terrorism: Obama’s Crusade against the Islamic State (ISIS)

The U.S. airstrikes initiated in September 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

Since August 2014, the US Air Force with the support of a coalition of more than twenty countries has relentlessly waged an intensified air campaign against Syria and Iraq allegedly targeting  the Islamic State brigades.

According to Defense News, over 16,000 airstrikes were carried out from August 2014 to mid January 2015.  Sixty percent of the air strikes were conducted by the US Air Force using advanced jet fighter and bombing capabilities  (Aaron Mehta, “A-10 Performing 11 Percent of Anti-ISIS Sorties”. Defense News, January 19, 2015.)

The airstrikes have been casually described by the media as part of  a “soft” counter-terrorism operation, rather than an act of all out war directed against Syria and Iraq.

Aerial view of jet aircraft, carrying cylindrical fuel tanks and ordnance, overflying desert

This large scale air campaign which has resulted in countless civilian casualties has been routinely misreported by the mainstream media. According to  Max Boot, senior fellow in national security at the Council on Foreign Relations. ”Obama’s strategy in Syria and Iraq is not working… [ because] the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS has been remarkably restrained”.  (Newsweek, February 17, 2015, emphasis added).

Americans are led to believe that the Islamic State constitutes a formidable force confronting the US military and threatening Western Civilization. The thrust of media reporting is that the US Air Force has failed and that “Obama should get his act together” in effectively confronting this  ”Outside Enemy” of America.

According to CFR Max Boot, military escalation is the answer: what is required is for the president “to dispatch more aircraft, military advisers, and special operations forces, while loosening the restrictions under which they operate.” (Ibid)

What kind of aircraft are involved in the air campaign? The F-16 Fighting Falcon,(above right),  The F-15E Strike Eagle (image below) , The A-10 Warthog, not to mention Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor stealth tactical fighter aircraft.

Why has the US Air Force not been able to wipe out the Islamic State which at the outset was largely equipped with conventional small arms not to mention state of the art Toyota pickup trucks?

F-15E Strike Eagle.jpgFrom the very outset, this air campaign has NOT been directed against ISIS.  The evidence confirms that the Islamic State is not the target. Quite the opposite.

The air raids are intended to destroy the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria.

The USAF-15E Strike Eagle

We call on our readers to carefully reflect on the following image, which describes the Islamic State convoy of pickup trucks entering Iraq and crossing a 200 km span of open desert which separates the two countries.

This convoy entered Iraq in June 2014.

What would have been required from a military standpoint to wipe out a ISIS convoy with no effective anti-aircraft capabilities?

Without an understanding of military issues, common sense prevails.

If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June. 

The answer is pretty obvious, yet not a single mainstream media has acknowledged it.

The  Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory (see map right). With state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, F16) it would have been  –from a military standpoint–  ”a piece of cake”, a rapid and expedient surgical operation, which would have decimated the Islamic State convoys in a matter of hours.

Instead what we have witnessed is an ongoing drawn out six months of relentless  air raids and bombings, and the terrorist enemy is apparently still intact.

(In comparison, the NATO bombing raids of Yugoslavia in 1999 lasted about three months (March 24-June 10, 1999).

And we are led to believe that the Islamic State cannot be defeated by a powerful US led military coalition of more than 20 countries.

The air campaign was not intended to decimate the Islamic State.

The counter-terrorism mandate is a fiction. America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”.   

The Islamic State is not only protected by the US and its allies, it is trained and financed by US-NATO, with the support of Israel and Washington’s Persian Gulf allies. 

Al Qaeda Afiliated Entities are “Intelligence Assets. Instruments of US Intelligence

The Global War on Terrorism is a Fabrication used to justify a war of conquest. The Jihadist terrorists are “Made in America”. They are instruments of US intelligence, yet they are presented to public opinion as “enemies of America”.

The Islamic State (IS) militia, which is currently the alleged target of  a US-NATO bombing campaign under a “counter-terrorism” mandate, continues to be supported covertly by the US.  Washington and its allies continue to provide military aid to the Islamic State.

US and allied bombings are not targeting the ISIL, they are bombing the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria including factories and oil refineries.

The IS caliphate project is part of a longstanding US foreign policy agenda to carve up Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, a Republic of Kurdistan.

These various affiliated Al Qaeda entities in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa  and Asia are CIA sponsored “intelligence assets”. They are used by Washington to wreck havoc,  create internal conflicts and destabilize sovereign countries.

Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabab in Somalia, the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) (supported by NATO in 2011),  Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM),  Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in Indonesia,  among other Al Qaeda affiliated groups are supported covertly by Western intelligence.

The US is also supporting Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist organizations in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region of China. The underlying objective is to trigger political instability in Western China.

Chinese jihadists are reported to have received “terrorist training” from the Islamic State “in order to conduct attacks in China”. The declared objective of these Chinese-based jihadist entities (which serves the interests of the US)  is to establish a Islamic caliphate extending into Western China.  (Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism, Global Research, Montreal, 2005, Chapter 2).

Flashback to 1979: The History of Al Qaeda

 The US has supported Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations for more than thirty years: since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war.

CIA training camps were set up in Pakistan,  in liaison with Pakistan’s Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI). In the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, some 35,000 jihadists from 43 Islamic countries were recruited by the CIA to fight in the Afghan jihad.

“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad.”

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden, America’s bogyman and founder of Al Qaeda was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihadist war against Afghanistan . He was 22 years old and was indoctrinated in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp. Al Qaeda was a creation of US intelligence, which was put together with the support of Pakistani and Saudi intelligence:

“[I]t was the government of the United States which supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged.” (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks In the US, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RAW109A.html , 16 September 2001)

Since the Carter Administration, Washington has supported the Islamic terror network 

Ronald Reagan called the terrorists “freedom fighters”. The US supplied weapons to the Islamic brigades.  It was all for “a good cause”: fighting the Soviet Union and regime change, leading to the demise of a secular government in Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

isi and cia directors in mujahideen camp1987 Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11
Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian WebsterDeputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987. (source RAWA)

“We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan”

In 1979, President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski confirmed on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets:

“We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. – That land over-there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.”

“CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirmed in his memoir that the U.S. backed the Mujahideen in the 1970s.” (See Washington Blog, Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11, September 5, 2012).

Under Reagan’s NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channelled through Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also contributed –through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)– to financing the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions. (Michel Chossudovsky, 9/11 ANALYSIS: From Ronald Reagan and the Soviet-Afghan War to George W Bush and September 11, 2001, Global Research, September 09, 2010)

Religious schools were generously funded by the US. Jihadist textbooks  were  published by the University of Nebraska. According to the The Washington Post (2002 reported):

… the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books…

The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books “are fully in compliance with US law and policy.” Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.

… AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

“It’s not AID’s policy to support religious instruction,” Stratos said. “But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity.”

… Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.” (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

afgh-Textbook jihad

Picture above is translated as follows: “Jihad – Often many different wars and conflicts arise among people, which cause material damages and loss of human life. If these wars and disputes occur among people for the sake of community, nation, territory, or even because of verbal differences, and for the sake of progress…”

This page is from a third-grade language arts textbook dating from the mujahidin period. A copy of the book was purchased new in Kabul in May 2000.

According to the  Council on Foreign Relations  in the wake of the US 2001 invasion,”New madrassas sprouted, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where students were encouraged to join the Afghan resistance.

Washington’s Agenda: Destabilize Secular Institutions. Install an Islamic State in Afghanistan. The Role of the Wahhabi Missions

US military intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s was supported by the Wahhabi missionaries out of Saudi Arabia, which trained the Taliban (‘graduates”) in the US sponsored madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Wahhabi doctrine would not have spread in the way it did without the support of US intelligence.

Saudi Arabia worked closely with Washington in recruiting the Mujahideen (holy warriors) to fight against the Soviet Union. The Saudi monarchy enlisted the support of the religious authorities. Fatwas were issued;

 ”urging Saudi and non-Saudi youths to go to Afghanistan and carry out jihad there. And it praised those who sacrificed their lives for the sake of Islamic nation’s causes.” (Al-Quds al-Arabi, op cit)

Confirmed by the Afghan Project (http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/afintro.htm ), which has collected hundreds of CIA and State Department documents, cables and memoranda, the CIA developed from the late 1970s, ties with a number of Islamic organizations. The objective was to use “Islamic fundamentalist” doctrine to unseat the secular pro-Soviet People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government as well as unleash a war with the Soviet Union. The same strategy of supporting Islamic political movements was used by Washington in the post-Cold War era in the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union as well in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The CIA led war on Afghanistan largely contributed to destroying secular education. The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrassas) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000 [in 2001].  (Michel Chossudovsky, 9/11 ANALYSIS: From Ronald Reagan and the Soviet-Afghan War to George W Bush and September 11, 2001, Global Research, September 09, 2010)

Women’s Rights in Afghanistan

The CIA-led war on Afghanistan was largely conducive to the derogation of Women’s Rights.

Before the Taliban came to power, Afghan women lived a life in many ways similar to that of Western women (see pictures below):

In the 1980s, Kabul was “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs.”  There were female members of parliament, and women drove cars, and travelled and went on dates, without needing to ask a male guardian for permission. (Julie Levesque,   Women Rights: From Afghanistan to Syria: Women’s Rights, War Propaganda and the CIA,  Global Research, April 2014)

Kabul University 1980s

Kabul University 1980s

Kabul University 1980s

 Afghan women.(AFP Photo / Shah Marai)

Women in Kabul today

Al Qaeda and The Islamic State 

“The Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is presented as a “Clash of Civilizations”, a war between competing values and religions, when in reality it is an outright war of conquest, guided by strategic and economic objectives.

U.S. sponsored Al Qaeda terror brigades (covertly supported by Western intelligence since the 1980s) have been deployed in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Somalia and Yemen. Al Qaeda affiliated organizations have also been deployed in several Asian countries including China and Indonesia.

The Islamic State (ISIS) was originally an Al Qaeda affiliated entity created by US intelligence with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP), Ri’āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-’Āmah ( رئاسة الاستخبارات العامة‎).

In relation to the Syrian insurgency, the Islamic State  fighters together with the Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist forces of the Al Nusrah Front are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance. They are covertly supported by US-NATO-Israel. Their  mandate is to wage a terrorist insurgency against the government of Bashar al-Assad. The atrocities committed by Islamic State fighters in Iraq are similar to those committed in Syria. Their unspoken mandate is to wreck havoc and destruction in Syria and Iraq, acting on behalf of their US sponsors.

 

China unlikely to join Obama's anti-ISIS coalition: Report

The ISIS brigades were involved in the US-NATO supported insurgency in Syria directed against the government of  Bashar al Assad.  NATO and the Turkish High Command were responsible for the recruitment of ISIL and Al Nusrah mercenaries from the outset of the Syrian insurgency in March 2011.

According to Israeli intelligence sources, this initiative consisted in:

“a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011.)

There are Western Special Forces and Western intelligence operatives within the ranks of the ISIL. British Special Forces and MI6 have been involved in training jihadist rebels in Syria.

Western military specialists on contract to the Pentagon have trained the ISIS and Al Nusrah terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

“The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday. ( CNN Report, December 9, 2012)

The ISIS’s practice of beheadings is part of the US sponsored terrorist training programs implemented in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Recruited by America’s ally, a large number of ISIS mercenaries are convicted criminals released from Saudi prisons on condition they join the ISILSaudi death row inmates were recruited to join the terror brigades. 

The Islamic State is routinely funded by the US, invariably through indirect sources. According to a recent (January 28, 2015) report by Pakistan’s Express Tribune (affiliated to the international Herald Tribune)

Yousaf al Salafi – allegedly the Pakistan commander of Islamic State (IS) or Daish – has confessed during investigations that he has been receiving funds through the United States.

Law enforcing agencies on January 22 claimed that they arrested al Salafi, along with his two companions, during a joint raid in Lahore. However, sources revealed that al Salafi was actually arrested sometimes in December last year and it was only disclosed on January 22.

“During the investigations, Yousaf al Salafi revealed that he was getting funding – routed through America – to run the organisation in Pakistan and recruit young people to fight in Syria,” a source privy to the investigations revealed to Daily Express on the condition of anonymity.

According to Tony Cartalucci;

…[F]rom 2007 where the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel openly conspired to stand up, fund, and arm a terrorist army to fight a proxy war against Syria and Iran, to 2015 where this army has finally manifested itself as the “Islamic State” complete with funding, arms, and fighters streaming in from NATO members, the source cited by the Tribune claiming that “the US had to dispel the impression that it is financing the group for its own interests,” and thus must now feign to be interested in stopping the organization in Syria, is the most compelling and logical explanation available.

The State Sponsors of Terrorism: Who’s Who

George W. Bush and the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

The late Saudi King Abdullah was known to have supported and financed Al Qaeda in liaison with the Washington. Saudi intelligence played a key role in this regard.

The House of Saud provides financial aid to the terrorists. And so does the bin Laden family. According to The Washington based CATO Institute (November 2001) Saudi Arabia is a “prime sponsor of terrorism”

The U.S. government has warned that it will treat regimes that harbor or assist terrorist organizations the same way that it treats the organizations themselves. Yet if Washington is serious about that policy, it ought to regard Saudi Arabia as a State sponsor of international terrorism. Indeed, that country should have been included for years on the U.S. State Department’s annual list of governments guilty of sponsoring terrorism.

We recall that in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush stated in no uncertain terms that  “State sponsors of terrorism” would be considered as “terrorists”.

“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”. 

But there is always an “Exception that the Proves the Rule”  and that is George W. Bush himself.

When George W. Bush respectfully kisses King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, does this mean that Dubya could –by some stretch of the imagination– be considered a “suspected terrorist”, who should never have been elected president of the United States of America?

The answer is negative: Kissing  “State sponsors of terrorism” on the mouth is not defined by the FBI as “suspicious behavior”.

The Insidious Relationship between the Bush and bin Laden Families

Now let us turn our attention to the relationship between the Bush and bin Laden families.

The Bushes and bin Ladens are long-time friends. This relationship goes back to George H. W. Bush, who served as head of the CIA in the Ford administration, before becoming Vice President under the Reagan administration and President of the United States (1989-1993).

George W. Bush Junior had business dealings in the oil industry dating back to the late 1970s, at the time when his father Bush Senior was head of the CIA:

The wider bin Laden clan [was] closely tied to the Saudi royal family. According to Seymour Hersh … it is far from clear that the royal family, … has forsaken Muslim extremists. Indeed, some members of the royal family itself are said to bankroll Osama bin Laden. … The Saudi monarchy, Hersh reports, has also quietly resisted U.S. efforts to conduct background checks of Saudi suspects in the wake of September 11. While much remains to be learned about these shadowy connections, it is clear that any investigation of the bin Laden’s family’s U.S. investments will lead to some well-placed Texans.

Like George W. Bush, the fortune of Osama bin Laden is rooted in oil and his family’s government connections. Before his death in a 1968 plane crash, Osama’s father,Mohammed bin Laden, made a fortune off construction contracts awarded by the Saudi royal family. The $5 billion per year construction conglomerate, known as the Binladin Group (the company uses another spelling of the name) remains closely tied to the Saudi royal family.

After the death of Mohammed bin Laden, control of the company passed to Salem bin Laden, Osama’s half brother. The roots of the first known Bush-bin Laden convergence date back to the mid-1970s, when the two clans were linked by a Houston businessman named James R. Bath. … By 1976, when Gerald Ford appointed the elder George Bush as CIA director, Bath was acting as a business agent for Salem bin Laden’s interests in Texas. …

After W. lost a bid for Congress, he decided to launch an oil company in Midland in 1979. For $50,000, Bath bought a 5 percent stake in W.’s Arbusto (Spanish for “Bush”) partnerships. At the time, Bath also served as business agent for several prominent Saudis, including Salem bin Laden. In exchange for a percentage of the deals, Bath made U.S. investments for these clients in his own name, according to Time. Although Bath has said that he invested his own money in Arbusto, not Saudi money, the fact that he was Salem’s agent at the time has fueled speculation that Osama bin Laden’s eldest brother was an early investor in W.’s first oil venture. It was around the time of this investment, incidentally, that Osama bin Laden made his first trip to the Khyber Pass, where he would soon join the Mujaheddin and the CIA in the holy war that expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan. (Salem, for his part, owned a house in Marble Falls, and died in a 1988 plane crash near San Antonio.) Andrew Wheat, The Bush-bin Laden Connection, Texas Observer, November 9, 2001)

The Bush-bin Laden Relationship: Flash Forward to September 10, 2001

Despite his family ties and links to the Royal Saudi household, Osama bin Laden was officially considered  ”a disgrace” to members of the bin Laden family, who reluctantly provided him with “pocket money”, which was used to develop Al Qaeda (The Base).  He was referred to as a “Black Sheep”.

Its all part of a “good guys project” of going after Osama,  the “Black Sheep”,  and waging the “Global War on Terrorism”.

There is nothing wrong, therefore, in socializing and doing business with family members of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, including the late Salem bin Laden and Shafiq bin Laden of the Carlyle Group.

Flash Forward to September 10, 2001. The Bush-bin Laden Relationship prevails. Confirmed by the Washington Post, “fellow investors” of the Carlyle Group Osama’s brother Shafiq bin Laden and former President H.G.W. Bush met at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on September 10, 2001, one day before 9/11, (see image below):

It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden [Shafiq bin Laden]. Former president Bush [senior, see image below], a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. (Greg Schneider, Pairing the Powerful With the Rich, Washington Post, March 16, 2003)

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks, yet his brother Shafiq bin Laden was meeting up with the presidents’s dad, former president George H. W. Bush on September 10, 2001.

A day later, on the evening of September 11, 2001, president George W. Bush pronounced a historic speech in which he defined the relationship between “terrorists’ and “state sponsors of terrorism”:

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. 

Needless to say Osama’s brother Shafiq and members of the bin Laden family were flown out of Washington in government planes in the immediate wake of 9/11.

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 10, 2001

Ironically, on September 10th while brother Shafiq bin Laden and George Bush Senior were meeting at the Ritz Carleton, the alleged 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden was undergoing treatment for his kidney condition at the Urology War of Pakistan’s military hospital in Rawalpindi. (according to Dan Rather, CBS News Report).

 Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

“The military had him surrounded,” says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, “and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time,” he says, “I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after.” Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.

AHMED RASHID, TALIBAN EXPERT: There were reports that Pakistani intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines. And the rumor was that these were wanted for Osama bin Laden.

PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.

PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.

Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad.  (CBS News quoted in Michel Chossudovsky,  Where was bin Laden on 9/11, Global Research, November 16, 2003)

What this CBS report, which has largely been overlooked by analysts, suggests is that:

1) Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI), which is in permanent liaison with the CIA,  was complicit in protecting Osama bin Laden.

2)  If the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 2001,  courtesy of America’s ally, in all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials.

3) The hospital was  directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Military, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another “better purpose”. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claimed at the time that Osama’s whereabout were unknown: “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

Needless to say, the CBS report was a crucial piece of information in the 9/11 jigsaw. It refuted the administration’s claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden were unknown. It pointed to a Pakistan connection, it also suggested a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Bush and the “State Sponsors of Terrorism”

Ironically, in a subsequent address to the joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate on September 20, 2001, president George W. Bush stated unequivocally his administration’s intent to “pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism”, with no exceptions (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan)

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.

“We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime [state sponsor of terrorism].  President George W. Bush, 20 September 2001 (emphasis added)

What both presidents Bush and Obama have failed to acknowledge is that America’s staunched ally Saudi Arabia, not to mention Turkey and Israel are financing and supporting the terrorists, in liaison with Washington.

Both Bush and Obama seem to be caught up in the contradictions of their own political rhetoric, the  “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” conundrum:

“I am with myself and I am also with the terrorists”

Flash Forward to March 2011: “New Normal” and the War on Syria: Supporting “Moderate Terrorists”

With the war on Syria (2011- ), establishing political ties with “State sponsors of terrorism”  is considered to be part of a “New Normal”, a humanitarian endeavor intent upon unseating the secular government of Bashar al Assad and spreading  American democracy throughout the Middle East.

John Kerry concurs:  financial aid to Syria’s Al Nusrah, an affiliate of Al Qaeda is part of an R2P mandate.

There are now “‘good guy terrorists” and “bad guy terrorists”.  Financial aid is channeled to Al Qaeda “good guy terrorists” to protect Syrians against the terrorists  (New York Times,  April 20, 2013)

Barack Obama, John Kerry, John McCain: Are They “Terror Suspects”?

Now let us examine in more detail the Al Nusrah Front, which constitutes the main rebel fighting force in Syria. Al Nusrah is affiliated to Al Qaeda. The leader of Al Nusrah, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, has pledged his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who replaced Osama bin Laden after his death.

According to the State Department Bureau of Counter-terrorism, Jabhat al Nusrah, the main rebel force in Syria is a terrorist organization, an affiliate of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

The State Department has issued a “prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front, and
the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States or the control of U.S. persons.” (emphasis added). It is understood  that US State Department Counter-terrorism policy also applies to “state sponsors of terrorism”.

Al Nusrah is financed by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel in close consultation with NATO and the Pentagon.

The Obama administration has openly confirmed its support for the Syrian rebels with most of this aid channeled to Al Nusrah.

US Senator John McCain is reported to have met up with jihadist terrorist leaders in Syria. (see picture right)

The Role of Israel: State Sponsor of  Al Nusrah and the Islamic State (ISIS)

While theoretically committed to the US-led war on terrorism, the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu quite openly supports al Qaeda.  The Al Nusrah and ISIS  terror brigades operate out of the occupied Golan Heights. 

Inline images 1

Jihadist fighters have met Israeli IDF officers as well as Prime Minister Netanyahu. The IDF top brass acknowledges that “global jihad elements inside Syria” [ISIL and Al Nusrah] are supported by State of Israel. See  image below:

image. “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon next to a wounded mercenary, Israeli

military field hospital at the occupied Golan Heights’ border with Syria, 18 February 2014″.

Xenophobia: The Demonization of Muslims

The US president and his NATO allies, not to mention Bejamin Netanyahu, “R the Terrorists”, they are the “state sponsors of terrorism.”.

Obama’s “counter-terrorism” campaign against the Islamic State has contributed to the demonization of Muslims, who in the eyes of Western public opinion are increasingly  associated with the jihadists.

Anybody who dares to question the validity of the “Global War on Terrorism” is branded a terrorist and subjected to the anti-terrorist laws.

The ultimate objective of the “Global War on Terrorism” is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the inquisitorial social order which rules America.

The Obama Administration has imposed a diabolical consensus with the support of its allies, not to mention the complicit role of the United Nations Security Council.  The Western media has embraced the consensus; it has described the Islamic State as an independent entity, an outside enemy which threatens the Western World.

France has initiated a hate campaign against French Muslims, who represent approximately ten percent of France’s population.

While  France mourns the victims of the Charlie Hebdo January 2015 attacks, the French government under the helm of president Francois Hollande is supporting as well as funding Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in the Middle East and North Africa in liaison with the US, NATO and Israel:

France, as part of a NATO-led coalition, has been arming, funding, aiding, and otherwise perpetuating Al Qaeda terrorists for years, beginning, on record in Libya with the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and continuing until today with NATO’s arming, harboring, and backing of Al Qaeda terrorists including the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) within and along Syria’s borders.

With the recent attack in Paris likely the work of the very terrorists France has been arming and backing across North Africa and the Middle East, the French government itself stands responsible, guilty of the continued material support of a terrorist organization that has now killed French citizens, including two police officers, not only on French soil, but within the French capital itself. (Tony Cartalucci, Global Research, January 8, 2015)

Ironically, while the French media in chorus point to “Freedom of Expression” in journalism, not a single French media has had the courage of pointing to the issue of State sponsorship of terrorism by the French Republic.  

The Urgency of World Peace

The antiwar movement in several Western countries is in crisis. Some of America’s wars are condemned outright, while others are heralded as “humanitarian interventions”. A significant segment of the US antiwar movement condemns the war but endorses the campaign against international terrorism, which constitutes the backbone of US military doctrine.

Historically, progressive social movements in Western countries (including the World  Social Forum) have been infiltrated, their leaders co-opted and manipulated, through the corporate funding of non-governmental organizations, trade unions and political parties. The ultimate purpose of “funding dissent” is to prevent the protest movement from challenging the legitimacy of the capitalist elites.

The “Just War” theory (Jus Ad Bellum) has served to camouflage the nature of US foreign policy, while providing a human face to the invaders. The logic behind the “Global War on Terrorism” is that of a Just War. It is portrayed as a counter-terrorism initiative rather than outright military operation.

A large segment of “progressive” opinion in the US and Western Europe is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate (Responsibility to Protect) to the extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society.

Prominent “progressive” authors as well independent media outlets have supported regime change and NATO sponsored humanitarian intervention in Libya. Similarly, many “progressive voices” rallied in support of the US-NATO sponsored opposition in Syria.

Let us be under no illusions:  This pseudo-progressive  discourse is an instrument of propaganda. Several prominent “left” intellectuals –who claim to be opposed to US imperialism– have supported the imposition of “no fly zones” and “humanitarian interventions” against sovereign countries.

“Progressives” are funded and co-opted by elite foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, et al. The corporate elites have sought to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.

Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits and People’s Summits of the 1990s.

In numerous organizations including the trade union movement, the grassroots is betrayed by their leaders who are co-opted. The money trickles down from the corporate foundations, setting constraints on grassroots actions. Its called “manufacturing dissent”. Many of these NGO leaders are committed and well meaning individuals acting within a framework which sets the boundaries of dissent. The leaders of these movements are often co-opted, without even realizing that as a result of corporate funding their hands are tied.

In recent history, with the exception of Iraq, the so-called Western left namely “Progressives” have paid lip service to US-NATO military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.  “Progressives” also support the official  9/11 version of events. They deny 9/11 Truth.

“Progressives” acknowledge that the US was under attack on 9/11 and that the war on Afghanistan  was a “Just War”. In the case of Afghanistan, the “self-defense” argument was accepted at face value as a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks, without examining the fact that the US administration had not only supported the “Islamic terror network”, it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1995-96. It was tacitly implied that by supporting al Qaeda, Afghanistan had attacked America on September 11, 2001.

In 2001, when Afghanistan was bombed and later invaded, “progressive” organizations largely upheld the administration’s “just cause” military doctrine. In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement against the illegal invasion of Afghanistan was isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Media disinformation prevailed. People were misled as to the nature and objectives underlying the invasion of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were identified as the prime suspects of the 9/11 attacks, without a shred of evidence and without addressing  the historical relationship between Al Qaeda and the US intelligence apparatus (as outlined above). In this regard, understanding 9/11 is crucial in formulating a consistent antiwar position. 9/11 is the pillar of US war propaganda; it sustains the illusion of an outside enemy, it justifies pre-emptive military intervention, it is the cornerstone of xenophobia and the hate campaign directed against Muslims.

With regard to Syria, from the outset in 2011, “progressives” and mainstream “antiwar” organizations have supported so-called opposition forces without acknowledging that the mainstay of these forces is composed of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, recruited, trained and financed by US-NATO and their allies including Israel, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

These antiwar groups, which previously supported NATO intervention in Libya, blame the Syrian government for the atrocities committed by the US sponsored Al Qaeda rebels.

Rebuilding the Antiwar Movement

What is required is to rebuild a mass movement. And this cannot be undertaken by organizations which are supported of  corporate foundations and charities.

The social base as well as the organizational structure of the antiwar movement must be transformed. America’s “Long War” is an imperialist project which sustains the financial structures and institutional foundations of the capitalist World Order. Behind this military agenda are powerful corporate interests including an extensive propaganda apparatus.

War and the Economic Crisis are intimately related. The Worldwide imposition of neoliberal macro-economic policy measures is part of the broader imperial agenda. And consequently, the broader movement against neoliberalism must be integrated into the anti-war movement.

Breaking the “Big Lie” which presents war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well-organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority as well as the nature of the capitalist World order. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda – the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.

A meaningful anti-war movement requires breaking the “war on terrorism” consensus and upholding 9/11 Truth. To reverse the tide of war and globalization requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities and municipalities, on the nature of the imperial project, its military and economic dimensions, not to mention the dangers of a US sponsored nuclear war. This movement must also occur within the Armed Forces (including NATO) with a view to challenging the legitimacy of the military agenda.

The message should be loud and clear:

The US and its allies are behind the Al Qaeda and Islamic State terrorists who have committed countless atrocities against civilians on the specific instructions of the Western military alliance,

China and Russia are not a threat to Global Security. Neither are Syria, Iran or North Korea a threat to World Peace. Quite the opposite. The threat to Global Security emanates from the Pentagon and the US State Department.

What has to be achieved:

Reveal the criminal nature of this military project. War is a criminal undertaking under Nuremberg. It is the ultimate “Crime against the Peace”.

Undermine war propaganda, reveal the media lies, reverse the tide of disinformation, wage a consistent campaign against the corporate media. Bear in mind war propaganda is also considered a criminal act under the Nuremberg protocol

Break the legitimacy of the warmongers in high office. Indict political leaders for war crimes.

Dismantle the multibillion dollar national intelligence apparatus.

Dismantle the US-sponsored military adventure and its corporate sponsors. Bring home the troops.

Repeal the illusion that the state is committed to protecting its citizens.

Uphold 9/11 Truth. Reveal the falsehoods behind 9/11 which are used to justify the Middle East/Central Asian war under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT).

Expose how a profit-driven war serves the vested interests of the banks, the defense contractors, the oil giants, the media giants and the biotech conglomerates.

Challenge the corporate media which deliberately obfuscates the causes and consequences of this war.

Reveal and take cognizance of the unspoken and tragic outcome of a war waged with nuclear weapons.

Call for the Dismantling of NATO.

Reorganize the system of international justice which protects the war criminals. Implement the prosecution of war criminals in high office.

Close down the weapons assembly plants and implement the foreclosure of major weapons producers.

Close down all US military bases in the US and around the world.

Develop an antiwar movement within the armed forces and establish bridges between the armed forces and the civilian antiwar movement.

Forcefully pressure governments of both NATO and non-NATO countries to withdraw from the US-led global military agenda.

Develop a consistent antiwar movement in Israel. Inform the citizens of Israel of the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israeli attack on Iran.

Target the pro-war lobby groups including the pro-Israeli groups in the US.

Dismantle the homeland security state. Repeal the legitimacy of Obama’s extrajudicial assassinations. Repeal the drone wars directed against civilians.

Undermine the “militarization of law enforcement”.

Reverse the gamut of anti-terrorist legislation in Western countries which is intended to repeal fundamental civil rights.

These are no easy tasks. They require an understanding of the power structure, of hegemonic relations between the military, intelligence, the state structures and corporate powers which are promoting this destructive agenda.

Ultimately these power relations must be undermined with a view to changing the course of World history.

Without war propaganda and media disinformation, war criminals in high office do not have leg to stand on. Without the mainstream media’s lies and fabrications, the legitimacy of the “Global War on Terrorism” would collapse like a deck of cards.

 

This text was presented to the Forum on America’s War on Terror and the Urgency of World Peace: Its Ramification in the Philippines.

Social Sciences, University of the Philippines (UP-Cebu), in cooperation with Cebu Educators Forum (CEF), National Union of Students of the Philippines, (NUSP), National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, Visayas (NUSP), NUJP, Cebu Archdiocese, Peace Solidarity Movement,  Cebu. 

March 2, 2015    

 

New world trade

JOE BIDEN WAS HAVING A GREAT TIME UNTIL WEARECHANGELA HANDED HIM THE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER BY DR. STEVEN E. JONES AND OTHERS THAT DOCUMENTS THE PRESENCE OF SUPER-THERMITE IN THE DUST OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. BIDEN TOOK THE PAPER, TURNED ON HIS HEEL, AND LEFT THE EVENT, DISAPPEARING BEHIND HIS SECURITY TEAM.

The Obama administration cannot say they do not have the evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers; they know that super-thermite and other explosives were used to kill nearly three thousand Americans on 9-11. That’s the evil game they are playing; they cover-up the mass murder of 9-11 as they prepare to wage their next war of aggression.

To move ahead in the “War on Terror” game, the Obama administration now wants to attack Syria using the justification of “fighting ISIS”. Remember when the Obama administration claimed they had secret evidence stating Assad gassed his own people using chemical weapons without seeing any evidence which turned out to be another blatant falseflag.. If Obama were to attack Syria (used as a pretext for “fighting ISIS”) – it would be the third major war since 9-11 started in this deceitful way.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

911flights

 

Barack Obama, however, is also complicit because he too has failed to commission a proper investigation of 9-11. Rather than considering the evidence that the World Trade Center was demolished with sophisticated explosives, the Obama administration increased the war effort in Afghanistan and the use of drones to commit targeted killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.

In May 2009 in Los Angeles, when Vice President Joe Biden was presented with a scientific paper proving that a form of super-thermite had been used to demolish the Twin Towers, he immediately turned on his heel and left the event – with the paper in his hand.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Creeping Fascism: From Nazi Germany to Post 9/11 America

Americans today are seeing the same sheepish submissiveness that characterized Germany after the burning of the Reichstag.

“There are few things as odd as the calm, superior indifference with which I and those like me watched the beginnings of the Nazi revolution in Germany, as if from a box at the theater … Perhaps the only comparably odd thing is the way that now, years later …”

These are the words of Sebastian Haffner (pen name for Raimund Pretzel), who as a young lawyer in Berlin during the 1930s experienced the Nazi takeover and wrote a firsthand account. His children found the manuscript when he died in 1999 and published it the following year as “Geschichte eines Deutschen” (The Story of a German). The book became an immediate bestseller and has been translated into 20 languages — in English as “Defying Hitler.”

I recently learned from his daughter Sarah, an artist in Berlin, that yesterday was the 100th anniversary of Haffner’s birth. She had seen an earlier article in which I quoted her father and emailed to ask me to “write some more about the book and the comparison to Bush’s America … this is almost unbelievable.”

5283-fascismback

More about Haffner below. Let’s set the stage first by recapping some of what has been going on that may have resonance for readers familiar with the Nazi ascendancy, noting how “odd” it is that the frontal attack on our Constitutional rights is met with such “calm, superior indifference.”

operation-paper-clip

Goebbels would be proud

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech

It has been two years since top New York Times officials decided to let the rest of us in on the fact that the George W. Bush administration had been eavesdropping on American citizens without the court warrants required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The Times had learned of this well before the election in 2004 and acquiesced to White House entreaties to suppress the damaging information.

In late fall 2005 when Times correspondent James Risen’s book “State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,” revealing the warrantless eavesdropping, was being printed, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. recognized that he could procrastinate no longer. It would simply be too embarrassing to have Risen’s book on the street, with Sulzberger and his associates pretending that this explosive eavesdropping story did not fit Adolph Ochs’ trademark criterion: All The News That’s Fit To Print. (The Times‘ own ombudsman, Public Editor Byron Calame, branded the newspaper’s explanation for the long delay in publishing this story “woefully inadequate.”)

When Sulzberger told his friends in the White House that he could no longer hold off on publishing in the newspaper, he was summoned to the Oval Office for a counseling session with the president on Dec. 5, 2005. Bush tried in vain to talk him out of putting the story in the Times. The truth would out; part of it, at least.

Glitches

There were some embarrassing glitches. For example, unfortunately for National Security Agency Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, the White House neglected to tell him that the cat would soon be out of the bag. So on Dec. 6, Alexander spoke from the old talking points in assuring visiting House intelligence committee member Rush Holt, D-N.J., that the NSA did not eavesdrop on Americans without a court order.

Still possessed of the quaint notion that generals and other senior officials are not supposed to lie to congressional oversight committees, Holt wrote a blistering letter to Gen. Alexander after the Times, on Dec. 16, front-paged a feature by Risen and Eric Lichtblau, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts.” But House Intelligence Committee chair Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., apparently found Holt’s scruples benighted; Hoekstra did nothing to hold Alexander accountable for misleading Holt, his most experienced committee member, who had served as an intelligence analyst at the State Department.

What followed struck me as bizarre. The day after the Dec. 16 Times feature article, the president of the United States publicly admitted to a demonstrably impeachable offense. Authorizing illegal electronic surveillance was a key provision of the second article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. On July 27, 1974, this and two other articles of impeachment were approved by bipartisan votes in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Bush takes frontal approach

Far from expressing regret, the president bragged about having authorized the surveillance “more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks,” and said he would continue to do so. The president also said:

“Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.”

On Dec. 19, 2005, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and then-NSA Director Michael Hayden held a press conference to answer questions about the as yet unnamed surveillance program. Gonzales was asked why the White House decided to flout FISA rather than attempt to amend it, choosing instead a “backdoor approach.” He answered:

“We have had discussions with Congress … as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.”

Hmm. Impossible? It strains credulity that a program of the limited scope described would be unable to win ready approval from a Congress that had just passed the “Patriot Act” in record time. James Risen has made the following quip about the prevailing mood: “In October 2001 you could have set up guillotines on the public streets of America.” It was not difficult to infer that the surveillance program must have been of such scope and intrusiveness that, even amid highly stoked fear, it didn’t have a prayer for passage.

It turns out we didn’t know the half of it.

What to call these activities

“Illegal Surveillance Program” didn’t seem quite right for White House purposes, and the PR machine was unusually slow off the blocks. It took six weeks to settle on “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” with FOX News leading the way, followed by the president himself. This labeling would dovetail nicely with the president’s rhetoric on Dec. 17:

“In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations … The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after Sept. 11 helped address that problem…”

And Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed NSA from 1999 to 2005, was of course on the same page, dissembling as convincingly as the president. At his May 2006 confirmation hearings to become CIA director, he told of his soul-searching when, as director of NSA, he was asked to eavesdrop on Americans without a court warrant. “I had to make this personal decision in early Oct. 2001,” said Hayden. “It was a personal decision … I could not not do this.”

Like so much else, it was all because of 9/11. But we now know …

It started much before 9/11

BUSH-NAZI

How many times have you heard it? The mantra “after 9/11 everything changed” has given absolution to all manner of sin.

We are understandably reluctant to believe the worst of our leaders, and this tends to make us negligent. After all, we learned from former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that drastic changes were made in U.S. foreign policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue and toward Iraq at the first National Security Council meeting on Jan. 30, 2001. Should we not have anticipated far-reaching changes at home as well?

Reporting by the Rocky Mountain News and court documents and testimony in a case involving Qwest Communications strongly suggest that in February 2001 Hayden saluted smartly when the Bush administration instructed NSA to suborn AT&T, Verizon and Qwest to spy illegally on you, me and other Americans. Bear in mind that this would have had nothing to do with terrorism, which did not really appear on the new administration’s radar screen until a week before 9/11, despite the pleading of Clinton aides that the issue deserved extremely high priority.

So this until-recently-unknown pre-9/11 facet of the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” was not related to Osama bin Laden or to whomever he and his associates might be speaking. It had to do with us. We know that the Democrats who were briefed on the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (the one with the longest tenure on the House Intelligence Committee), Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and former and current chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, D-Fla., and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. May one interpret their lack of public comment on the news that the snooping began well before 9/11 as a sign they were co-opted and then sworn to secrecy?

It is an important question. Were the appropriate leaders in Congress informed that within days of George W. Bush’s first inauguration the NSA electronic vacuum cleaner began to suck up information on you and me despite the FISA law and the Fourth Amendment?

BIN LADEN IS “ALIVE AND WELL IN THE BAHAMAS”, SAYS EDWARD SNOWDEN

 Moscow| National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, has made a new controversial claim yesterday, saying that he possessed some classified information proving that Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

Snowden, who lives as a fugitive in Russia after leaking documents about the NSA’s surveillance programs has made some previously unreported allegations about the famous terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, during an interview with the Moscow Tribune.

According to him, not only is Bin Laden still alive, but he is living a lavish lifestyle in the Bahamas, thanks to regular payments from the CIA.

“I have documents showing that Bin Laden is still on the CIA’s payroll,” claims Edward Snowden. “He is still receiving more than $100,000 a month, which are being transferred through some front businesses and organizations, directly to his Nassau bank account. I am not certain where he is now, but in 2013, he was living quietly in his villa with five of his wives and many children.”

snowden3

Mr. Snowden says the CIA orchestrated the fake death of the former leader of Al Qaeda, while he was actually transported with his family in an undisclosed location in the Bahamas.

“Osama Bin Laden was one of the CIA’s most efficient operatives for a long time,”claims the famous whistleblower. “What kind of message would it send their other operatives if they were to let the SEALs kill him? They organized his fake death with the collaboration of the Pakistani Secret services, and he simply abandoned his cover. Since everyone believes he is dead, nobody’s looking for him, so it was pretty easy to disappear. Without the beard and the military jacket, nobody recognizes him.”

Mr. Snowden says that the documents proving that Bin Laden is still alive will be integrally reproduced in his new book, expected to be released in September.

snowden2

Edward Snowden was hired by an NSA contractor in 2013 after previous employment with Dell and the CIA. In the month of June of the same year, he revealed thousands of classified NSA documents to journalists.

The US government filed espionage charges against him shortly after his revelations were made public. He has been living under asylum in Moscow, after fleeing the US for Hong Kong in the wake of the leaks.

On July 28 2015, the White House has rejected a “We the People” petition of nearly 168,000 signatories, to pardon him.

Are they all complicit?

a57

And are Democratic leaders about to cave in and grant retroactive immunity to those telecommunications corporations — AT&T and Verizon — who made millions by winking at the law and the Constitution? (Qwest, to its credit, heeded the advice of its general counsel, who said that what NSA wanted done was clearly illegal.)

What’s going on here? Have congressional leaders no sense for what is at stake? Lately the adjective “spineless” has come into vogue in describing congressional Democrats — no offense to invertebrates.

Those who enable them

You don’t have to be a Nazi. You can just be, well, a sheep.

In his journal Sebastian Haffner decries what he calls the “sheepish submissiveness” with which the German people reacted to a 9/11-like event, the burning of the German parliament building (Reichstag) on Feb. 27, 1933. Haffner finds it quite telling that none of his acquaintances “saw anything out of the ordinary in the fact that, from then on, one’s telephone would be tapped, one’s letters opened and one’s desk might be broken into.”

But it is for the cowardly politicians that Haffner reserves his most vehement condemnation. Do you see any contemporary parallels here?

fascism2

In the elections of March 4, 1933, shortly after the Reichstag fire, the Nazi party garnered only 44 percent of the vote. Only the “cowardly treachery” of the Social Democrats and other parties to whom 56 percent of the German people had entrusted their votes made it possible for the Nazis to seize full power. Haffner adds:

“It is in the final analysis only that betrayal that explains the almost inexplicable fact that a great nation, which cannot have consisted entirely of cowards, fell into ignominy without a fight.”

The Social Democratic leaders betrayed their followers — “for the most part decent, unimportant individuals.” In May they sang the Nazi anthem; in June the Social Democratic party was dissolved.

fascism_poster

The middle-class Catholic party Zentrum folded in less than a month and in the end supplied the votes necessary for the two-thirds majority that “legalized” Hitler’s dictatorship.

As for the right-wing conservatives and German nationalists: “Oh God,” writes Haffner, “what an infinitely dishonorable and cowardly spectacle their leaders made in 1933 and continued to make afterward. … They went along with everything: the terror, the persecution of Jews. … They were not even bothered when their own party was banned and their own members arrested.” In sum:

“There was not a single example of energetic defense, of courage or principle. There was only panic, flight, and desertion. In March 1933 millions were ready to fight the Nazis. Overnight they found themselves without leaders. … At the moment of truth, when other nations rise spontaneously to the occasion, the Germans collectively and limply collapsed. They yielded and capitulated, and suffered a nervous breakdown. … The result is today the nightmare of the rest of the world.”

This is what can happen when virtually all are intimidated.

11825629_1088874931126231_875802923783935201_n

Our founding fathers were not oblivious to this; thus, James Madison wrote:

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. … The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”

We cannot say we weren’t warned.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. A former Army officer and CIA analyst, he worked in Germany for five years; he is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Wal-Mart hosted the day’s events in its home town, including a separate morning appearance by the Medal of Honor winners at its headquarters.

The daytime event was similar to appearances the society arranges nationwide in schools, bringing Medal of Honor recipients face-to-face with young people to tell their stories of selflessness and sacrifice.

Bush did not attend the Wal-Mart headwuarters gathering, instead walking around downtown Bentonville, shaking hands with well-wishers and stopping at one point for ice cream.

His spokespersons have consistently said he wants to remain out of the spotlight in his post-presidency, choosing instead to attend a sparse list of private events..

A former senior official in the Bush White House told MailOnline late on Thursday that he has always intended to steer clear of TV cameras and remain practically ‘reclusive’ as his successors run the federal government.

‘His family is in Texas, his friends are in Texas, and his Presidential Library is in Texas,’ the former official said. ‘And he really doesn’t want to invite attention. He’s going to wait and let history judge his performance, especially in the months after 9/11.’

Living history: Earlier in the day on Thursday, Wal-Mart sponsored a separate gathering of Medal of Honor recipients at its Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters; Bush did not attend that event

Living history: Earlier in the day on Thursday, Wal-Mart sponsored a separate gathering of Medal of Honor recipients at its Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters; Bush did not attend that event

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, current New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former New York Governor George Pataki joined the Obamas and Bill and Hillary Clinton in New York on Thursday.

The new 9/11 Memorial Museum will open to the public on May 21; on display is the megaphone President Bush used to address rescue crews at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Many have praised President Bush’s response immediately following the attacks.

When the Twin Towers were hit, he was reading to a group of school children in Florida; then-White House Chief of Staff Andy Card paused him to deliver the news that America was under attack.

Bush addressed the nation that evening from the Oval Office and was on the scene at ground zero three days later, where he was pictured speaking over with the megaphone to first responders in a now-famous

His long-term reaction, however, launching America into the war on terror and sending troops into drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, dimmed his popularity.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630088/George-W-Bush-skipped-9-11-museum-dedication-spend-Thursday-Medal-Honor-winners.html#ixzz43eltJwFU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Bush’s full statement read: ‘Americans who lived through September 11, 2001, will never forget the horror or the heroism we witnessed that morning. The 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York City will preserve the memory of that day for future generations.’

‘It will honor the sacrifice of those who lost their lives and the bravery of those who saved others. And it will help ensure that our nation remembers the lessons of September 11th: that what happens abroad can affect us here at home, that evil is real, and that courage and love triumph over terror and hate.’

‘Laura and I thank all those who played a role in creating this inspiring tribute, and we send our best wishes to those gathered to dedicate it.’

After Bush declined to appear at Ground Zero for the 2011 bin Laden-related event, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library director Mark Updegrove said the decision surprised few.

‘I think it was for the right reasons,’ Updegrove told reporters. ‘I think both Bush father and son are very conscious of not detracting the limelight that should be cast on our incumbent president.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630088/George-W-Bush-skipped-9-11-museum-dedication-spend-Thursday-Medal-Honor-winners.html#ixzz43emMR2O9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

“Donald Trump Is A TRUTHER!” – 9/11 Suspects Bush, Giuliani And Fleischer.

Will the next President of the United States be a 9/11 truther?

If you believe three suspected perpetrators of the worst crime ever committed on American soil, the answer is “quite possibly.” And they’re squealing like stuck pigs.

As the New York Daily News reported:

Donald Trump stuck a shiv into the Republican establishment Friday by suggesting that former President George W. Bush bears some of the blame for the 9/11 attacks.  “When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time,” Trump said on Bloomberg TV.  Anchor Stephanie Ruhle appeared stunned by Trump’s remark.

But what’s so stunning about blaming Bush for 9/11? Regardless of where one sits, the demolition of the World Trade Center and attack on the Pentagon was either a neocon “New Pearl Harbor” or the most monumental example of government incompetence in human history. Either way, Bush gets the blame, right? How could anyone, no matter how ignorant about the facts of 9/11, suggest otherwise?

The New York Post story continues, citing the “stunned” Stephanie Ruhle:

“Hold on, you can’t blame George Bush for that.”

Hold on yourself, Stephanie. How can you possibly NOT blame George Bush for 9/11?

Stephanie Ruhle’s remark, while nonsensical, carries a hidden meaning: “You CAN’T blame George Bush for that” doesn’t mean Bush is blameless. On the contrary, it means you are NOT ALLOWED TO mention the fact that Bush deserves blame for 9/11.

Read about Jeb’s 9/11 crimes: 9/11, 28 pages cast shadows on Jeb2016 candidacy

Jeb Bush, implicated in the CIA drug import airstrips disguised as “flight schools” that pretended to train the “9/11 hijackers,” squealed even louder, tweeting:

How pathetic for @realdonaldtrump to criticize the president for 9/11,” Jeb Bush tweeted. “We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.”

Kept us safe?! Really, Jeb? By ignoring an August 2001 CIA daily briefing telling him “Bin Laden determined to attack in US” by cussing out the briefer, “Well, I guess you’ve covered YOUR ass” ?!

By reading about pet goats with schoolchildren, guilt blazing from his reddened face, for at least seven excruciating minutes after Andrew Card supposedly whispered in his ear that the nation was under attack?

By taking a leisurely, unhurried hour getting to Air Force One, thereby proving that there was no surprise attack from the air?

bush_did_9_11How could anyone seriously argue that Bush “kept us safe” on 9/11?

Note that Andrew Card could not possibly have informed Bush that America was under attack; the time he takes to whisper in Bush’s ear isn’t long enough for that. Instead he must whispered a confirmation of something Bush already knew, like: “The plan is operational.”

Listen to the classic neocon doublespeak in Ari Fleischer’s response to Donald Trump’s brush with 9/11 truth. (Neocons, following their guru Leo Strauss, believe in speaking words that sound innocuous on the surface while secretly  conveying the terrible truth to fellow neocons.)

“Donald Trump is getting close to truther territory if he thinks that George Bush is the reason 9/11 happened,” he said. “Does Donald Trump also think that FDR caused Pearl Harbor because that happened under (Franklin) Roosevelt’s watch?”

 

 

Fleischer knows full well that FDR orchestrated the Pearl Harbor “surprise attack” via the McCollum memo and its eight-point plan to force the Japanese to strike the first blow, thereby reversing the American public’s near-unanimous opposition to involvement in the war. And he knows full well that 9/11 was designed as a “New Pearl Harbor” PR launch for a series of pre-planned wars and civil liberties rollbacks.

Such truth is unspeakable. As Stephanie Ruhle squealed: “You can’t say that!”

But Trump said it. Almost.

George W. Bush, the pet goat president who has repeatedly admitted to having watched a live closed-circuit Secret Service video of the first plane hitting the first building, was asked about Trump’s “truther” remarks. This time, Bush was smart enough to keep his mouth shut.

But Rudy Giuliani, another known 9/11 perp – excuse me, “suspect” – wasn’t that smart. Asked about Trump’s truther blurt-out, “Mr. 9/11” said:

It also came down when I was mayor, I haven’t had anyone blame me.”

Giuliani has a short memory. While running for President in 2008, Giuliani was repeatedly dogged by We Are Change members, who asked him why – given his admitted foreknowledge that the Twin Towers were going to “collapse” – he had failed to warn the firefighters, 343 of whom died on 9/11. At first Giuliani lied and denied having foreknowledge. Confronted with undeniable evidence, he turned into a quivering mass of jelly and his “Mr. 9/11” candidacy imploded.

Giuliani Confronted By 9/11 Truthers, Lies About WTC Collapse

“I haven’t had anyone blame me,” Giuliani fibs. What chutzpah! Everywhere he goes, people blame him! They know he was complicit in 9/11 up to his eyeballs!

So what will be the upshot of Donald Trump’s brave decision to breath a word – a barely-disguised, only faintly equivocal word – of 9/11 truth?

Did the odds of another “lone nut” assassination, like those that took the lives of the Kennedies and Paul Wellstone, just go up? Will Trump succumb to fast-acting cancer like Jack Ruby and Hugo Chavez? Will they destabilize his mind using God-knows what kind of drugs or weaponry like they did to Ed Muskie in 1972 and then two decades later to Ross Perot in 1992?

If any of those things happen, will the American people finally rise up in a Second American Revolution, as they should have a long, long time ago?

BUSH WATCH…Keeping you informed since 1998.

OUR NEW SITE: White House Watching2010-2011Also, please Visit Our Sister Site: JoeBama Watch100+ Today’s Stories: U.S., Canada, Latin AmericaUnited Kingdom, EuropeMiddle East, Asia, Australia, Africa
24/7 Ed/Op-EdToday’s Top StoriesBush WatchArchivescontact us


“You Might As well Face It: They’re Addicted To Bush,” By Paul Krugman, 

For a couple of years, it was the love that dared not speak his name. In 2008, Republican candidates hardly ever mentioned the president still sitting in the White House. After the election, the G.O.P. did its best to shout down all talk about how we got into the mess we’re in, insisting that we needed to look forward, not back. And many in the news media played along, acting as if it was somehow uncouth for Democrats even to mention the Bush era and its legacy.

The truth, however, is that the only problem Republicans ever had with George W. Bush was his low approval rating. They always loved his policies and his governing style — and they want them back. In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda, including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They’ve even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits.

But they have a problem: how can they embrace President Bush’s policies, given his record? After all, Mr. Bush’s two signature initiatives were tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq; both, in the eyes of the public, were abject failures. Tax cuts never yielded the promised prosperity, but along with other policies — especially the unfunded war in Iraq — they converted a budget surplus into a persistent deficit. Meanwhile, the W.M.D. we invaded Iraq to eliminate turned out not to exist, and by 2008 a majority of the public believed not just that the invasion was a mistake but that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into war. What’s a Republican to do?

You know the answer. There’s now a concerted effort under way to rehabilitate Mr. Bush’s image on at least three fronts: the economy, the deficit and the war.

[For specifics, click on above headline.]

…Again, Republicans aren’t trying to rescue George W. Bush’s reputation for sentimental reasons; they’re trying to clear the way for a return to Bush policies. And this carries a message for anyone hoping that the next time Republicans are in power, they’ll behave differently. If you believe that they’ve learned something — say, about fiscal prudence or the importance of effective regulation — you’re kidding yourself. You might as well face it: they’re addicted to Bush.


BUSH WATCH MAILBAG: Thank you for the sanity 🙂 Thank you for BUSH WATCH.  It has proven to be a terrific resource of information over the last few years.  I have always relied upon it to provide insight and accuracy compared to what is provided on the 6:00 news. Now that Obama is looking like he will win today I feel like my blood pressure will go back to normal.   Just imagine the rest of the world will look fondly upon us again. –Eric Robinson


Note: To find reference information about the words used in today’s article(s), hold down the ALT key and click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry. If you don’t have an ALT key, highlight the word and click right.


2005: JuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember
2006: JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember
2007: JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugust
2008:September 07 through April 08MayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovember-February
2009: February-MayJune
JulyAugustSeptemberOctober
2010: November’09-June’10

SPECIAL REPORTS
Bush And The Carlyle Group
Bush And The Gravedigger
Bush And Bin Laden Money
Bush And The Arab-American
Bush And Central Asia Oil
Bush And The Taliban Drug Trade
Bush And Tony Blair’s Speech
The Bushes And The Bin Ladens
MORE SPECIAL REPORTS
Ashcroft Watch
Keeping The Presidential Record
The Gore-Bush Media Consortium Report
Is AOL Censoring Your Information?
The Threat Of Domestic Terrorism
Airline Security Stories
War Poems
Patriotism
Tools Of Bioterrorism

About Us: Bush Watch is a daily political internet magazine based in Austin, Texas, paid for and edited by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen. Contents, including “Bush Watch” and “Politex,” (c) 1998-2007 Politex. The views expressed herein and the views in stories that you are linked to are the writers’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bush Watch. Permission of the author is required for reprinting posted material, and only requests for reprinting a specific item are considered. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. The duration of the working links is not under our control. Bush Watch has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages or any other sites linked to our site. Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site is at your own risk. Send all e-mail to Politex. We reserve the right to post all e-mail messages sent to us, along with the name of the e-mailer. You must specifically request that your e-mail message or your name not be considered for posting, if that’s what you desire.

Trump claims, He Watched Hijacked 9/11 Airplane Fly Into New York And Saw People Jumping As The Twin Towers Burned – FROM FOUR MILES AWAY.

  • Trump added to his anti-terror bona fides on Monday in Ohio, telling supporters that he saw people leap to their deaths on 9/11 
  • ‘I watched people jumping off the building,’ he exclaimed; ‘How would you like to be 102 stories up, and your choice is burn or jump?’ 
  • His penthouse apartment atop Trump Tower is 4.1 miles from the site of the terror attacks, raising questions about how he might have seen it
  • Trump said in May that he thought he saw ‘the second plane’ cross the New York skyline, but never mentioned seeing suicide jumpers

 

Donald Trump sought to burnish his war-on-terror bona fides on Monday, telling a crowd of about 14,000 people that he personally saw desperate New Yorkers hurling themselves from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 as the twin towers burned and collapsed.

The Republican presidential front-runner shared his 9/11 recollections with DailyMail.com six months ago, never mentioning the sight of people plunging to their deaths.

‘I watched people jumping off the building,’ he exclaimed on Monday night in Columbus, Ohio. ‘How would you like to be 102 stories up, and your choice is burn or jump?’

‘And many people jumped. And I witnessed it. I watched that,’ the real estate billionaire said.

‘Because I had a view – I have a window in my apartment that specifically was aimed at the World Trade Center, because of the beauty of the whole downtown Manhattan. And I watched as people jumped and I watched the second plane come in. … I saw the second plane come in and I said, “Wow that’s unbelievable”.’

Trump’s apartment, in the penthouse of iconic Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan, is 4.1 miles away from where the twin towers once stood.

Science writer Natalie Wolchover wrote in 2012 about humans’ visual acuity at large distances.

‘Human-scale objects are resolvable as extended objects from a distance of just under 2 miles,’ she explained for Live Science readers. ‘For example, at that distance, we would just be able to make out two distinct headlights on a car.’

At more than twice that distance, larger objects like human bodies would be borderline indistinguishable, even for someone younger than Trump, who was 55 years old on the day of the al-Qaeda attack.

A Trump spokesperson did not respond to questions about whether he was looking at the World Trade Center with the aid of binoculars or a telescope.

However, spokesman Corey Lewandowski said reports of such celebrations do exist but the media has refused to air them as part of an anti-Trump conspiracy.

‘For the mainstream media to go out and say that this didn’t happen is just factually inaccurate. We know it happened,’ Lewandowski said.

They should go back and check the FBI records. Mr. Trump has provided them –  local media outlets that have covered this coverage – that they don’t want to go and talk about. He’s provided many opportunities for them to go and see it but they have their own agenda, the media has their own agenda.

‘They want to try and discredit as many people as possible so they can have an establishment candidate come in and think that everything is going to be the same because they are all controlled by the special interests and they are all controlled by the media and it is what the American people are just so tired of.’

A top Trump attorney, Michael Cohen, also told CNN on Tuesday that the campaign stands by the comments.

‘He’s probably right,’ Cohen said of Trump, before going on to explain that the argument over the public celebrations is not the point — instead, he said, Trump said anti-US elements who are already in the country are ready to harm Americans.

‘Whether it’s thousands and thousands or 1,000 people or even just 1 person, it’s irrelevant. To celebrate this tragedy … it’s wrong,’ Cohen said.

‘What the exact number is, I don’t know, and I don’t think it’s relevant. What’s important is that there are bad people among us.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3331393/Trump-claims-watched-hijacked-9-11-airplane-fly-New-York-saw-people-jumping-twin-towers-burned-FOUR-MILES-away.html#ixzz43eolvrwc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Trump Is Tapping Into One Of The Oldest 9/11 Urban Legends.

52859484CH010_Donald_Trump
Donald Trump speaks during a news conference presenting a model of a proposed design for the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site May 18, 2005 in New York City.

Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images

Donald Trump believes that the media owes him an apology for criticizing his claimthat he saw “thousands and thousands of people” on television celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center in Jersey City on 9/11.

Trump’s tweet follows a number of right-wing blogs picking up on the same article, asserting that it contradicts the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler’s widely-shared debunking of Trump’s claim. It does nothing of the sort.

This is yet another example of Trump’s revisionist history of his own recent statements. Trump didn’t say that he had read reports of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the attacks; he said he had seen thousands of them doing so. This seems like the sort of thing people other than him, and apparently Ben Carson, would remember seeing. (Update Nov. 23, 6:02 p.m.: Carson has clarified that he was thinking of people celebrating in the Middle East, not the United States.) Perhaps Trump’s investigators can dig up this footage as soon as they finally get back from Hawaii with proof that Obama’s birth certificate is forged.

Reports of celebrations in Muslim areas of Northeast New Jersey—particularly the heavily Palestinian town of Paterson—circulated in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. In a Sept. 23, 2001 article, which the Newark Star-Ledger has helpfully reposted today, it was reported that:

Hours after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, a story spread across the state: Palestinians in Paterson were celebrating in the streets. Braced for a riot, the Paterson police rushed to South Main Street, the center of the city’s Middle Eastern community.

“When we got there,” Paterson Police Chief Lawrence Spagnola said, “They were all in prayer.”

In the ensuing days, the rumor went national, lighting up talk radio phone lines. In the end, it was nothing more than rapid-fire urban myth.

Howard Stern repeated the reports of celebrations in New Jersey on air, which can’t have helped in clearing things up.

In the tense days following the attack, there were a number of false reports of Muslims celebrating. In one case, reported by the Asbury Park Press, a group of Pakistani gas station attendants sharing birthday cake given to them by their Jewish boss on the morning of the attacks—unaware that the attacks had taken place— set off a panic in the town that included calls to local radio stations. A similar debunked story about a Budweiser employee pulling the company’s products from a gas station because he saw Arab employees celebrating was a popular e-mail forward at the time.

One strange cousin of the “celebrating Arabs” meme was the strange tale of the “dancing Israelis.” During the attack, a New Jersey homemaker with a view of the twin towers called the police and the FBI after spotting a group of men who appeared to be filming the attack and exhibiting “puzzling behavior.”  “They were like happy, you know … They didn’t look shocked to me,” the unnamed witness later recalled. The men were Israeli employees of a Jersey-based moving company and accounts at the time stated they had been on the roof of their company’s building, though it was later reported they were on the roof of their van. Either way, five Israeli men were later arrested and interrogated for several days before being deported back to Israel. As ABC reported the following year, the men were investigated by U.S. authorities for connections to Israeli intelligence, but nothing was ever proven. (The lack of evidence hasn’t stopped the “dancing Israelis” from being a fixture of 9/11 conspiracy theories, particularly anti-Semitic ones, ever since.) The men later denied they had been celebrating, claiming they were just filming in order to document the event.

All major terrorist attacks, including the recent one in Paris, are accompanied by a great deal of unsubstantiated rumor and false information. That was even more the case for 9/11 thanks to both its size and how relatively little public attention had been focused on the al-Qaida threat before it happened. It was a confusing couple of days and a lot of mysteries still remain, but we can be confident in saying that Trump did not personally witness thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey or anywhere else in America.

Joshua Keating is a staff writer at Slate focusing on international affairs.

Trump Says He Won’t Pander To AIPAC Before Pandering To AIPAC, Of Course.

“I didn’t come here to pander to you about Israel,” Donald Trump said during a surprisingly stilted speech to AIPAC Monday night. “I came here to speak to you about where I stand on the future of American relations with our strategic ally, our unbreakable friendship, and our cultural brother, the only democracy in the Middle East, the state of Israel.” Trump’s speech thus functioned as both a conscious branding of himself as someone uniquely suited to rise above politics as usual, and a blueprint of actual policies, such as they are, that in no way depart from politics as usual.

Isaac ChotinerISAAC CHOTINER

Isaac Chotiner is a Slatecontributor.

This isn’t the first time that, on the subject of Israel and the Palestinians, Trump has combined both a critique of political pandering and actual political pandering. For months, Trump has been saying that he would remain neutral in brokering a dialogue between Israelis and the Palestinians, drawing criticism from his Republican rivals, and even, in muted form, from Hillary Clinton in her own speech to AIPAC on Monday. But when you scratch the surface of what Trump has said about Israel—on the campaign trail and during the AIPAC speech—there is nothing new or fresh about it. Trump has blamed Palestinians for the state of conflict in Israel and the West Bank, and stigmatized Islam repeatedly. He has offered nothing in the way of creative policies or new strategies.

It all fits with the typical Trumpian pattern. He has blasted certain tax breaks for the wealthy, earning himself positive headlines, and then gone on to propose the most regressive tax cut of any of the Republican candidates. He has stated that people shouldn’t die in the streets from a lack of health care, and then gone on to propose abolishing Obamacare and replacing it with, er, nobody knows.

Most of Trump’s speech on Monday was filled with typical AIPAC boilerplate: bashing Iran, castigating the Iran deal, scolding the United Nations. (Trump got some applause for several of these lines, although the crowd appeared to laugh at him when he bragged about how much time he had spent studying the Iran deal.) He even called for moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, something that several candidates have proposed, but no American president—Democrat or Republican—has ever dared to actually do. (The embassy is currently in Tel Aviv.) When it came to peace negotiations between the two sides, Trump put the onus on the Palestinians, even seeming to go beyond where the hawkish crowd was willing to go when he called for “confronting” Palestinian behavior.

There was a moment on Monday, before the speech, when it seemed as if Trump might depart from, yes, typical pandering for more than a split second. After being asked at a press conference whether Israel was one of the countries that he thought could pay their own way and didn’t require foreign aid (a classic Trump theme), the candidate replied, “There are many countries that can pay, and they can pay big-league.” Whatever that meant—and who really knows?—Trump, later in the day, returned to the issue, saying Israel helps us “greatly.” The hour or two of uncertainty was over.

Trump has become successful, in part, by breaking with GOP orthodoxy on subjects like trade. But his other supposedly bold stands have just been rhetorical feints at reasonableness. Trump may be uniquely scary in his hatred of the press, the divisiveness of his rhetoric, and the extent of his bigotry. But on Israel, as on so many other subjects, he sounds awfully similar to Ted Cruz and John Kasich. And Hillary Clinton.

Isaac Chotiner is a Slate contributor.

The Myth That Young Men Don’t Want Love Is Spoiling American Sexual Culture.

thinkstockphotosdv2044011
American males, bragging about causual sex that they’re not actually having.

Digital Vision / Thinkstock

Writing in the New York Times on Sunday, Peggy Orenstein—author of the book Girls & Sex, painted a bleak picture of young women’s sex lives. Even in consensual relationships, female pleasure is often a low priority: According to nationally representative data collected by Indiana University researchers, about a third of women ages 18-and-over report experiencing pain in their sexual encounters (when anal sex is included, the number rises to 70 percent) as compared to about five percent of men. And worse, many view this joyless sex as both normal and obligatory. College-age women, Orenstein writes, are “more likely than men to use their partner’s physical pleasure as the yardstick for their satisfaction, saying things like ‘If he’s sexually satisfied, then I’m sexually satisfied,’” while men are more likely to judge an encounter against the barometer of their own orgasm.

These manifestations of an unhealthy sexual culture aren’t hard to explain in a country where even the most progressive sexual education curricula tend to focus on birth control, STIs, and consent, and adults rarely talk to teens about, as Orenstein puts it, “what happens after yes.” The one thing American sex ed excels at is the entrenchment of a rigid heteronormative gender divide, in which “males’ puberty is often characterized in terms of erections, ejaculation and the emergence of a near-unstoppable sex drive,” while “females’ is defined by periods. And the possibility of unwanted pregnancy.” In other words, boys will be boys, girls will be responsible for managing reproduction, and queer people basically don’t exist. Orenstein lays out how this leaves girls with the lingering impression that, while male desires are normal, theirs are distasteful—and without the tools to navigate the subtleties of going to bed with someone. She only touches briefly, however, on another important outcome of that silence: The way our sexual reticence is also hurting young men.

The most eye-opening passage in Orenstein’s piece compares the sexual norms that reign on American college campuses with those reported by similar groups of young people in the Netherlands. She summarizes research by Amy Schalet, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who found that Dutch men “generally credited their fathers with teaching them that their partners must be equally up for any sexual activity, that the women could (and should) enjoy themselves as much as men, and that, as one respondent said, he would be stupid to have sex ‘with a drunken head.’” These conversations don’t just benefit women by making men into better, more respectful partners; they also make early sexual experiences happier and healthier for men. Schalet found that “young Dutch and American men both often yearned for love,” but that “the Americans considered that a personal quirk.” The idea that “boys will be boys,” so embedded in American culture, actually gets in the way of boys being human beings, hungry for a rich and mutually pleasurable connection.

Though the majority of young American men want love, if they believe that their male peers just want casual sex, they are likely to feel effeminate and ashamed by comparison. They are primed to succumb to this pressure to treat women like sex objects, to the detriment of everyone. This is a central theme in the research of Alan Berkowitz, a psychologist who has done pioneering work in the field of sexual assault prevention. As Berkowitz told me in a recent interview:

We know men’s identity is very much based on having other men respect and like you. There is a huge psychological pressure to fit in and be accepted and be “one of the guys.” But there is a false understanding among men that the minority is the majority. The minority are the men who degrade and abuse and oversexualize women, who use inappropriate language about women. If the majority of men are uncomfortable, for example, with a man talking about what he would like to do with a woman’s body or what he did sexually over the weekend … the research shows that the majority of men are uncomfortable with that but don’t know it and think they’re in a minority. At same time, research shows that the men who are a problem are in the minority, but think they’re in the majority.

These misperceptions, combined with the social pressure to fit in, perpetuate a culture of sexual misogyny, and even assault. Lindsay Orchowski, a researcher at Brown University who has worked with Berkowitz, also described multiple studiesthat show how greatly men overestimate the amount of sex their peers are having; in one study by sociologist Michael Kimmel, for example, male college students believed that 80 percent of their classmates were having sex on a given weekend, while the real number was five or ten percent. “That can make men feel social pressure to be more active, or to use coercion,” Orchowski says.

Orenstein’s piece traces the way that both American sex ed and American parenting—or, at least, the signals parents receive about how they should deal with “the birds and the bees”—reinforce rigid roles for both genders to play. Even when the sex that results is consensual, the range of young people’s pleasure, both physical and emotional, is acutely narrowed. As the essayist Roxane Gay has written of this unbending normativity, “this is how we all lose.”

It’s hard not to envy the Dutch. Orenstein quotes one young Dutch woman, who responded to a study with a story about telling her mother as soon as she had sex for the first time. The respondent recalled, “[M]y friend’s mother also asked me how it was, if I had an orgasm and if he had one.” The fact that this friend’s mother, with her relatively slight connection, felt comfortable posing these questions conveys that the young woman should also be asking them: of herself, of her partner, of her peers. In this paradigm, it’s not female desire, but rather a lack of reciprocity, that holds the potential for social embarrassment. For both men and women, it’s hard to see that message as anything but a win-win.

Nora Caplan-Bricker is a contributing writer for DoubleX. Follow her on Twitter.

Grand Old People Party.

Republicans are old and getting older. That’s a huge problem for the GOP.

160317_POL_elderly-GOP
A spry Trump supporter at a primary-night event in Donald Trump’s “Donald J. Trump Ballroom” at the Mar-A-Lago Club, March 15, 2016 in Palm Beach, Florida.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

A short while ago, I was talking to a close friend and fellow conservative about Fox News, and its outsized influence on the American right. It soon became clear that neither of us had spent much time watching the network. We were familiar with it, certainly—I’m a fan of Fox News Sunday, and I’ve caught a few episodes of Special Report while idly channel-surfing. As a close follower of conservative media, I also know a fair bit about its intrigues, and about the quirks of its various personalities. Yet it’s rare that I’d ever sit down to actually watch the channel. Honestly, I’d rather put on Seinfeld reruns or the Fung Bros on YouTube than take a load off and settle in for some Sean Hannity.

Is that weird, given that right-wingery is a pretty central part of my life? After all, Fox News is the supposed media mecca of movement conservatism. My lack of interest in Fox News makes sense, though, when you realize that it isn’t a channel for Republicans. It’s a network for old people.

As of the end of last year, the primetime median age of Fox News viewers was 68. Mind you, I’m not particularly young. I’m deep into my 30s, and I’m profoundly unhip. My favorite thing to do is to hang out with my parents over heaping plates of steamed broccoli. Like many elderly Americans, I am suspicious of communism, and I often fret that the country is going to hell. While I wouldn’t describe myself as a doomsday prepper, I don’t find the idea of prepping for doomsday totally absurd. Why not stockpile MREs in the basement? Add it all up, and I’m about as likely to watch Fox News as anyone born since the Johnson administration.

But I don’t watch Fox News, because it’s not really meant for me. It is meant for aging conservative baby boomers, which is why the network is so fixated on the particular concerns and tastes of aging conservative baby boomers. Night after night, you get nonstop coverage of left-wing protesters run amok and ISIS recruiting America’s grandchildren, delivered by perky blondes and square-jawed anchormen.

I bring this all up not to poke fun at Fox News, which employs a number of excellent, hardworking journalists. Rather, I’m struck by the parallels between the demographics of Fox News viewers and the demographics of Republican voters. The Grand Old Party circa 2016 is the Grand Old People Party.

The advanced age of the Fox News audience tells you everything you need to know about the topics it covers, the look of its most prominent personalities, and its many advertisements for pharmaceutical solutions for older gentlemen who still like to get it on. Similarly, the advanced age of Republican voters explains the contours of the GOP agenda. Democrats have a substantial edge with voters under 35 while Republicans are more likely to be on the older side of middle age and septuagenarians. The beauty of the over-65 set is that they are reliable voters. The bad news about them is that they are not long for this Earth, and they are not always in tune with the fears, hopes, and dreams of voters who will be around for decades to come.

How does the age profile of the Republican base shape the party? Back in 2012, I had the good fortune to attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa, and I couldn’t shake the feeling that I was hobnobbing with the exact same people that had cheered on Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. One friend, a left-wing essayist, told me about a delegate he had met—a single mother who’d been in her late 20s at the tail end of Reagan’s first term, and who capitalized on the economic recovery by going into the then-booming office-furniture business. Companies were starting to revamp their offices to install cubicles and computers, and she was there to sell them swivel chairs and desks. The Reagan years were the best years of her life. She was making money, she found love, lost it, and found it again. America was in full bloom. How could she not be nostalgic for those years? It’s hardly surprising that she’d contrast the Obama years unfavorably with a time when she was healthy and happy, and when life seemed full of promise. So why wouldn’t she want the party to keep preaching that old-time Reagan religion of supply-side tax cuts? Is it any surprise that even youngish Republicans like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio sing the virtues of Saint Ronald, even though they were still in short pants when he first came into office?

Or consider Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. Trump is not a conventional conservative, but by promising to “Make America Great Again,” his campaign is making an emotional appeal to older Americans who very viscerally miss the good old days. To be sure, Trump appears to have done about as well with young GOP primary voters as he does with older ones—it’s just that there aren’t all that many young GOP primary voters. A new USA Today/Rock the Vote survey finds that among voters under 35, Hillary Clinton would defeat Trump by a margin of 52 percent to 19 percent. One doesn’t want to be too hard on Trump: I can easily imagine other candidates who’d do worse among the youth, e.g. past-his-prime 1980s spokesdog Spuds MacKenzie. But if you’re a human Republican hoping to woo the voters of the future, you’d have reason to be disappointed by this 19 percent figure.

When mainstream conservatives fret about how Trump is wrecking the GOP, I nod along with them. I’m not a fan either. Among the less-than-ancient, however, the GOP brand has already been wrecked by the less-than-dizzyingly-successful Bush years, which saw a bloody quagmire in Iraq, the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, and a catastrophic financial crisis that scarred the lives of tens of millions of young people, and from which roughly half of the country hasn’t fully recovered. What have Republicans done in the Obama years? They’ve said precious little aboutyouth unemployment and student loan debt while attacking Obamacare subsidies out of a fear that they might threaten Medicare benefits for retirees. Trump is promising to bring back manufacturing jobs from China and Mexico which havemostly been lost to machines while saying virtually nothing about where the jobs of the future will come from.

If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton wins the general election in a landslide, as seems increasingly likely, Democrats will be in a triumphal mood, at least for a while. But I believe that a new, younger conservative party will emerge in the aftermath of 2016. There are tensions within a bigger, more diverse Democratic Party—between urban socialists and centrist suburbanites, for instance, and between middle-class black Americans and working-class Hispanics—that will inevitably grow more pronounced. A new opposition party will arise, and chances are that it will be to the right of the party of Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. And though members of this party will probably call themselves Republicans, we can safely say that it won’t look like your grandfather’s GOP, because your grandfather will be dead.

Reihan Salam is a columnist for Slate.

fahrenheit-911-bush-escola.jpg

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s