Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Terrorists in the House - Take Two

(originally published by OpEdNews)

I just received the following email from a friend who always seems to be well informed:

Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show last Saturday, July 7:

“Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public is going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public is going to have a very different view.”

What does this insider know that makes him use the words, “are” going to happen instead of might or could happen?

If this is not a slip of the tongue about some planned terrorist attack that he knows about, then it exhibits exactly the mind set of those who want something to happen. At the very least the attitude exhibited by Mr. Santorum is the kind that could cause certain frustrated officials to look the other way and let it happen or even help it along.

Last month, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, said, “At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept.11, 2001].” Milligan told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “And the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” he concluded.

As is now well-known, shortly before 9/11 the Project For A New American Century, a Neo-Con lobby group which counts Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in its ranks, said it's military agenda would not be realized “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.”

So, hang on. It was recently revealed that 2 nuclear devices are missing from the Pentagon's stockpile. Are Cheney & Co. at it again? I would have bet that they'd at least wait until a Democrat is in the White House. .....makes ‘em look better at protecting the country. But what the heck, why wait? Another home-grown “terrorist” attack might increase the odds of staying in the White House.

This seems to place The Regime between a rock and a hard place, however.

I've always thought that The Regime would pull another “false flag” attack to prove that Al Qaeda is still alive and willing to continue to give Americans the heebie-jeebies.

I thought it might happen before the ’04 election, but it didn’t.

There were other occasions on which I thought it would choreograph another death fest.

On the other hand, one of the main Regime supporter talking points is that there hasn’t been another terrorist attack in The FUSA because George Washington Bush is president.

I’ve written that this is absurd because that bench mark surely creates a whole host of great presidents of The United States.

How many terrorist attacks were there under Calvin Coolidge, William Howard Taft or Martin Van Buren? Stupid Regime logic.

So, if The Regime choreographs another death fest to show that the boogie man still “hates us for our freedom”, it also deep sixes the “Bush has saved us from further terrorism” argument, doesn’t it?

To friendship,
Michael

“The health of nations is more important than the wealth of nations.” - William James “Will” Durant

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
“Soldiers Of Peace”

3 comments:

tearyeyedamerican said...

What scares me most is what I recently heard concerning our Bushwhacking president and his plans to stay in office. If he attacks Iran at the end of his term he can call a presidential emergency that would negate the '08 elections, leaving him in office to do more damage. If we don't get rid of him now, we might not get the chance later...before he brings us down. He does believe he is the one to issue in Armagedom. A sure sign that he is mentally ill.
DreamSpeaker

Jenny said...

Delamer Duverus told me in December 2006 that Congress would suspend our U.S. Constitution in two year's time. We could think of many reasons why this could happen. When we asked, He took us to two articles, one about the relatively new base in Djibouti and one about war games in the Pacific arena last year. Perhaps we will have war on our shores yet as some would seem to like to have it, just to justify the criminal in the White House. The White House use to be pink, we were told, appropriate color if it were that today.
Go with God!
Jenny/Delamer Duverus

Jenny said...

Delamer Duverus told us in December 2006 that our Congress would suspend our U.S. Constitution in two years' time. We could think of several reasons why, but when we asked Him He took us to two articles, one about a relatively new base in Djibouti and another about war games last year in the Pacific arena. Perhaps we will have a war on our shores as some seem to hope for just to justify the criminal in the White House. It will be about that time that we won't have any military left to defend the homeland.
Go with God!
Jenny/Delamer Duverus