What happened in 9/11? No Strategy, No bipartisan agreement. Attac...

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 6.12.03 PM.png

The article from this dig seeks to cover,

Truth of 9/11
The Plan to attack and destroy the governments in 7 different countries in 5 years.
The document that shows this country was taken over by a group of people with a Policy Coup
George W. Bush, whose political career has been nearly fully funded by the energy and defense industries was appointed by the Supreme Court after the disputed election of 2000.
How the Bush administration ignored and denied the existence of a presidential briefing entitled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United Sates” until it was revealed to the public.
How bin Laden once collected his paycheck from the CIA, working on behalf of the United States and their interests.
How once Bush had all of his top levels filled by the PNAC, that our guard against terrorist attacks was let down.
How Cheney as CEO of Halliburton and Betchel headed by Rumsfeld made them profit off these wars.
A document that shows the blatant propaganda and fear mongering to justify all the wars these controllers push!
The testimony of he testimony of John J Maresca which a picture of the True interests of this coup, group of controllers steering these wars.
The document on Bush's desk the day before 9/11 for CIA
Military Commissions over 9/11

According to General Wesley Clark speaking at the Commonwealth Club of Californian in 2007,

"What happened in 9/11?"

We didn't have a strategy
We didn't have a bipartisan agreement
We didn't have an American understanding of it.

Now, I ask you, has this ever mattered to those who usurp authority?

Back to Clark,

"We had instead a policy coup!"

Some hard nosed people took over the direction of American Policy and they Never bothered to inform the rest of us!

He went through the pentagon 10 days after 9/11.

When he went back to see Rumsfeld, whom had had worked for in the 70's, Rumsfeld let Clark know he had read his book at the Kosovo campaign, then Rumsfeld said, "I just want to tell you, nobody's going to tell us where and when we can bomb. Nobody. I'm thinking about calling this a floating coalition, what do you think about that?"

When Clark tried to answer, Rumsfeld told him he had to go.

When Clark was leaving, an officer from the Joint Staff called him into his office downstairs and told Clark he just wanted him to know they were going to attack Iraq.

When Clark asked Why? He said they didn't know.

When Clark asked, "did they tie Saddam to 9/11?" He told him no.

He said, I guess they don't know what to do about terrorism, but they can attack states, they want to look strong, so, I guess they think if they take down a state, it will intimidate the terrorists. It's like that old saying, if the only thing you have's a hammer, then Every problem has to be a nail."

Clark walked out upset. Saw we attacked Afghanistan. We he saw the same officer Clark asked if we were still going to attack Iraq.

The officer said it was worse than that and picked up a classified memo from his desk and said it was worse than that.

He said he had just got the memo from the Secretary of Defense's office that stated they were going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 different countries in 5 years.

We're going to start with Iraq, then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

Clark said he was so stunned he sat on it for 6 to 8 months and that Is actually what happened. These people took control of the policy in the United States.

@artistiquejewels/new-california-state-grievance-47-paul-preston-states-mass-yellow-vest-revolt-is-now-the-order-of-the-day-united-middle-class-in

Then Clark speaks of a 1991 meeting with Paul Wolfowitz, now he served as the 10th President of the World Bank, United States Ambassador to Indonesia, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense.

In 1991 he was Under Secretary of Defense for policy, so number 3 position of the Pentagon.

Clark went to se Wolfowitz when he was a one star general, he was commanding the National Training Center, Wolfowitz had said if Clark was ever in Washington to come look him up, so Clark went to see him in 1991 and said Wolfowitz must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.

Wolfowitz said, "yeah, but not really because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't!"

This was just after the Shia Uprising, see here for more information,

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adst/a-lost-opportunity----the_b_8234644.html

In the days following the decimation of the Iraqi Army during Operation Desert Storm, groups of Iraqi minorities, specifically the Shia in the south and the Kurds in the north, seized on the weakness of Saddam Hussein’s armed forces to try and overthrow the Iraqi Baathist regime that had oppressed them for decades. At the behest of President George H. W. Bush, protesters and Iraqi Army deserters began to take over major cities such as Basra and Kirkuk; they believed that with anticipated American aid they could overthrow Saddam Hussein and end his tyrannical regime.

At one point, the Kurdish forces in the north and Shia protestors in the south controlled 14 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. However, American aid never materialized, leaving the Shia and Kurdish rebels vulnerable to attack by Iraqi Army helicopters and tanks.

Which according to Clark, Bush had provoked then kept our troops on the sidelines and didn't intervene.

"But one thing we did learn," Wolfowitz said, "we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us!"

He also said, "we've got 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes. Syria, Iran, Iraq. .. before the the next great super power comes on to challenge us.

This was stunning and memorable to Clark, who had just come out of the Mohave Desert. "The Purpose of the Military is to Start Wars, change governments? It's not to just deter conflicts? We're going to invade countries? "

He said his mind was spinning!

"This country was taken over by a group of people with a Policy Coup!"

"Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a half a dozen other collaborators for a Project the New American Century. "

There is evidence with actual footage and scenes you can verify for yourself here,

The New American Century

Why does this sound similar to New World Order?

If you try to go to a link suggested in one of these sources called newamericancentury.org, the address initially remains stagnant.

When you put it into a duckduckgo search rather than the url bar. . .you get,

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 1.44.17 PM.png

You try reload. . .Nothing. You try a different browser than chrome. . .this message,

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 1.46.56 PM.png

Is that the server Really can't handle it. . .or is it that they won't or have been instructed Not To as Gabs host for their servers were instructed when they took Gab down.

Interesting as now we have a group of radicals on the right with Their document being covered up, and we have all seen this occur with questionable information and news concerning the radicals on the left.

You don't suppose they are All in This Together do you? . Being controlled by the Same globalist masters who all seem to profit a Great Deal on war and misery?

According to their own document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses ( .pdf format ) their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor”. (page 63).

Guess what, try to bring that pdf up in a normal search. This is what you get,

Okay fine, I try this one as perhaps it has not come under notice of the youtube police.

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 1.37.20 PM.png

I was wrong! Why do they all want to keep this hidden? What's in it?

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 1.39.40 PM.png

That's okay, since it is a PDF, there is a work around and it is in the sources below.

George W Bush, whose political career has been nearly fully funded by the energy and defense industries was appointed by the Supreme Court after the disputed election of 2000. Immediately he appointed signatories of PNAC documents to the top levels of the Whitehouse and Pentagon.

It has now been proven that once Bush had all of his top levels filled by the PNAC, that our guard against terrorist attacks was let down.

Richard Clarke, whose position as terrorism czar was promoted to a cabinet level position under Clinton, was subsequently demoted from the cabinet and reassigned by Bush to other projects. Dick Cheney himself, has said that Clarke was kept “out of the loop”.

Paul O’Neil, former Secretary of Treasury, has stated that the Bush administration did not treat al Qaeda as an imminent threat.

The Bush administration ignored and denied the existence of a presidential briefing entitled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United Sates” until it was revealed to the public. Testifying before the 9-11 commission, Rice referred to this as an "historical document'. We were led to believe that this was the only warning.

It has since come out to the public, that she was lying. Lying 52 times over. It has now been learned that Condi didn't disclose that they had, in fact, received 52 warnings in the months leading up to September 11th.
The Bush administration needed a “new Pearl Harbor” to implement the PNAC agenda and they let down their guard until it occurred.

Knowing what we know today, the invasion of Iraq was based on falsehoods and was an unnecessary and dangerous diversion from the effort to reduce terrorist attacks on the United States. Muslim anger at the United States is at an all time high. Iraq posed no threat to us and the process of containment was working. Most importantly, Iraq is in chaos, on the brink of civil war, and now a breeding ground for a hundred new Bin Ladens.

The PNAC members of our government told us that it would be “a cake walk”. That we would be greeted as “liberators”. That we’d see parades in the streets. Terribly undermanned, our military is in the middle of a quagmire where only the best case scenario was planned for.

The museums, the hospitals, the munitions depots, the nuclear facilities were left unprotected at the onset of the invasion. The ministry of oil was securely guarded.

Who has benefited from all of this at the expense of over a thousand US soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives? The very arms and energy industries that funded the PNAC:

· Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney

· Bechtel, once headed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

· Trireme, a defense company started by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle shortly before the invasion

And finally, one last question:

Where did the first oil tanker to leave Iraq after the invasion go?

Answer: Texas

Here is a document that shows the blatant propaganda and fear mongering to justify all the wars these controllers push!

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new-american-century/

So many resources there in the Middle East! What do You suppose those wars that ravaged the ME from Bush through Obama were Really About?

Enter one, Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton

This the testimony of John J Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation.

Gives a picture of the True interests of this coup, group of controllers steering these wars.

Route across Iran to pump gas through Iran closed, due to US sanctions. Afghanistan Became the Solution!

Unocal could not reach an agreement with the Taliban, who controlled Afghanistan.

A threat was made according to The Forbidden Truth,

"Either we will cover you with a carpet of gold or we'll bury you under a carpet of bombs!"

On Sept. 10, 2001 a detailed CIA plan to attack al Qaeda and Afghanistan was put on George Bush's desk.

You remember what happened the Very Next Day!

Bin laden simply became a convenient villain. Interesting how Bin laden's family and George Bush's family is Actually connected!

Here is an interesting read or skim over,

The Bush and bin Laden families have a long history of business dealings, while Osama himself apparently did a complete about-face, as he once collected his paycheck from the CIA, working on behalf of the United States and their interests.

The connections between the bin Laden and Bush families go back decades. Perhaps the first time of note that their paths crossed would be in 1978, when George W. Bush and Salem bin Laden (brother of Osama) set up Arbusto Energy in Texas

https://listverse.com/2018/01/06/10-bush-bin-laden-connections-that-raised-a-few-eyebrows/

At that time attention was called to the fact that "there exists a government, within the government of the United States."

For more evidence go here,

@artistiquejewels/those-emails-the-investigation-of-classified-info-and-the-shadow-government-verified-in-fbi-vault-the-excuses-used-by-hillary

The US had No evidence at all that bin laden was responsible for those attacks. Three weeks later the US attacked Afghanistan.

Clark says they wanted us to destabilize the Middle East and essentially turn it upside down!

He asks if there was a dialogue on it?
If anyone ever stood up in Congress or the Senate to ask questions on it?
Whether there was a full fledged American debate on it?

No, There wasn't! Why we were failing in Iraq.

He says Iran and Syria knew about the plan.

Different publications like The Weekly Standard made this clear that they couldn't wait to finish Iraq so they could go into Syria.

This publication, if one goes back to articles written during that time period, do appear to fully support Cheney and his cohorts cause. Yet another example of how both parties at times are complicit in trying to steer the perception of the public to Their Will. We see a Great deal of this in the Mainstream Media of today as fewer and fewer networks are committed to reporting the facts, rather than demonstrating their Trump Hate, which clearly trumps all reason, truth and telling the truth of events as they are actually occurring.

This was demonstrated quite well in how the media lied about what really happened at Covington.

Here information on this if you haven't already seen it,

Here is what was going on for the Weekly Standard during the time of the takeover of foreign policy by this group of corruptors as reported by The American Conservative,

Invariably left unsaid or minimized in such accounts (the Times devoted a full eight words to the subject) is the role the Standard played in fomenting the Iraq war, the sole policy question where the magazine’s role was unambiguous and decisive. Given the centrality of foreign policy to Kristol’s concerns, it is probably not too much to say that for the Standard, the main purpose of publishing the writers referenced above was to provide an attractive gift wrapping for neoconservative foreign policy advocacy.

It was far from obvious how the United States would respond after the terror attacks of 9/11. Pretty much everyone but pacifists agreed there would be a military campaign against the Taliban, which had provided a base for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and a campaign to destroy al-Qaeda, which had been conducting major terrorism operations in Africa and the Mideast.

But Iraq was not on the radar for most. There were no serious connections between Saddam Hussein’s essentially secular dictatorship and a group bent on restoring a caliphate based on fundamentalist Islam. But Iraq had been on a neoconservative target list for years, with the neocons lamenting that George H.W. Bush had not pursued regime change and occupied Baghdad at the end of the first Gulf war.

The United States had put in place heavy sanctions on Iraq, and there was a nominal congressional mandate for pursuing regime change by aiding dissident groups (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). But as neoconservatives themselves acknowledged in the 1990s, the idea of invading with American troops was a distant reach.

9/11 provided an opportunity to change that. As a glossy weekly publication, with hundreds of issues hand-delivered every week to important Beltway figures, the Standard occupied a critical node in Beltway opinion formation. Neoconservative think tank types could publish a piece there, and then go on Fox News (another Rupert Murdoch property) to reach non-magazine readers. And unlike most in the American government, Kristol knew exactly what he wanted America to do after 9/11: overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Since the mid-1990s, Kristol had been heading a small foreign policy think tank and lobbying group, the Project for the New American Century, dedicated to espousing a more hawkish foreign policy. Nine days after the attack, a PNAC letter laid out the new post-9/11 line. It conceded that the first priority was to dismantle the bin Laden network in Afghanistan (which would not require an invasion, it said) but overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the next priority. In a not-so-veiled warning to President George W. Bush, PNAC intoned, “Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and decisive surrender in the war on terror.”

Clearly another case of radicals whether on the right or left, when they decide they are going to control a situation, a policy, a country or countries, they do Whatever it takes to justify their globalist agenda!

See more in sources below.

Back to Clark,

He said This wasn't what the American people voted George Bush into office for, and gives the aside that they didn't actually vote him into office. I'm inclined to agree.

Clark says the wars that ensued were Not what Bush campaigned on.

He said the root of the problem was not how many troops were in Iraq.

He calls out how it doesn't matter whether you're a democrat or a republican. . .you should be concerned as an American about the strategy of the United States in this region!

What was the aim, the purpose, why were we There?

He asks why were Americans dying in this region and That is the issue.

I ask you, Shouldn't that be expanded upon? Why were innocents also in That country dying who stood up to an oppressive regime?

Here is a clip of a portion of General Wesley Clark's speech.