Everything we're doing now was planned BEFORE 9/11 . . .

[James H. Fetzer]

Everything We're Doing Now Was Planned BEFORE 9/11
by Washington's Blog

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=25318
June 20, 2011

Washington's Blog - 2011-06-18

We've been told that 9/11 changed everything.

Is it true?

Let's look at the facts:

The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)

The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted "crap" in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill - who sat on the National Security Council - also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. Top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. And in 2000, Cheney said a Bush administration might "have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.''

Cheney apparently even made Iraqi's oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And the Sunday Herald reported: "Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq ... to secure control of its oil." (remember that Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.)

The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11. Indeed, former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig: "After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed."

The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.
(4:30 into this video).

Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long before 9/11

Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this

The government's spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this)

The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11

It was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn't work to produce accurate intelligence ... but is an effective way to terrorize people

And - sadly - America played dirty games to justify and win wars before 9/11

9/11 didn't change anything. It was simply an excuse to implement existing plans.



Washington's Blog is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Washington's Blog

[Jan Klimkowski]

9/11 didn't change anything. It was simply an excuse to implement existing plans.

Yes, of course.

I suspect that this is a given to most of DPF.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Plans mean nothing unless acted upon... and so yes 911 changed lots of things because regardless of how long these dreams were memorialized in "action plans" they were sitting around gathering dust... or waiting for some excuse to make them operational.

DOD has plans in place to attack almost every country in the world... just in case...

[Charles Drago]

Plans mean nothing unless acted upon... and so yes 911 changed lots of things because regardless of how long these dreams were memorialized in "action plans" they were sitting around gathering dust... or waiting for some excuse to make them operational.

Sort of like the Gusano who, in 1963, called for "an inspired act of God" to "put a Texan in the White House" so that Castro could be eliminated, and then sat back until -- whudda thunk it -- God intervened?

Sorry, Jeffrey, but your conclusion that powerful forces with, in the long term, trillions of dollars and the survival of the very control system they dominate on the line are predisposed to sit passively and wait for their fates to be decided by chance passes neither the History nor the Laugh Tests.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I don't believe that is what I said Charles and it is not what I meant. My intent was to say that virtually all of these "big events" have been planned and that means in advance of the event. This does not preclude doinmg something to then bring the plan into an action mode. And even that may be part of the plan!

[Peter Lemkin]

9/11 didn't change anything. It was simply an excuse to implement existing plans.

Yes, of course.

I suspect that this is a given to most of DPF.

Well, I agree, but it did give them the 'excuse' [which they had self-created] to 'speed things up'!...but all was going to happen anyway....

...what upsets and frightens me most is that I don't see [yet] enough anger/awareness/action to slow this march to total fascism and a total police state down.

Row harder!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Charles Drago]

I don't believe that is what I said Charles and it is not what I meant. My intent was to say that virtually all of these "big events" have been planned and that means in advance of the event. This does not preclude do something to then bring the plan into an action mode. And even that may be part of the plan!

Understood.

[Ed Jewett]

[
Row harder!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[COLOR="#4169e1"]"The coxswain voices perceptions, but not judgments.

By giving feedback about how the boat feels in a tone that is engaged but neutral, the coxswain hands the rowers a problem and lets them find a solution. The crew will learn at its fastest rate if it can perform the athletic experiments without the emotional noise of criticism. As in any science, the work goes best when the experimenters fix their attention on the lab bench rather than on their opinions of themselves and each other."[/COLOR]


Mind Over Water: Lessons on Life from The Art of Rowing,
Craig Lambert, Houghton Mifflin, NY 1998

[Ed Jewett]

"There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing, the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as wars, revolutions, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can NEVER be the result of conspiracy, they can never result from premeditated planned group action. An excellent example is the Kennedy assassination when, within nine hours of the Dallas tragedy, TV networks announced the shooting was NOT a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that a negative proposition can never be proven, and that the investigation that hardly begun.

Woe be to any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.

Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 for an official history of World War II. This was to avoid the repeated debunking history books which embarrassed the Establishment after World War I. The reader will be interested up to know that The Order we are about to investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, create both the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association (most economists were then mere historians and analysts) under their terms, with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White was a member of The Order and the first president of the American Historical Association..... The revisionist historian has a double burden as well say double task. The double burden is that research likely to question the official historical line will not get financed. The double task is that research must be more than usually careful and precise."

Pages 1 and 2, the 2002 edition (re-published by TrineDay) of America's Secret Establishment: an introduction to the order of Skull and Bones by Antony C Sutton

[Jeffrey Orling]

Ed, In have to disagree with the your previous comment somewhat. We live in a world of multiple "conspiracies" or planning of and execution of pre planned policies.

A conspiracy is really an UNLAWFUL plan by several people... a policy or a law is considered lawful and acceptable.

We all typically exhibit some sort of pre-planning in our activities and most of us have plans which involve other people in future actions.

The distinction here is in the notion of secrecy of a conspiracy and the fact that it is to be an unlawful action or plan. And further the conpsiracy like all criminal acts seeks to cover up their plan and attribute the event to "other causes".

The classic false flag is one of the tactics of conspirators to cover their actions and create the appearance that some one else or some other group or nation etc, is the proximate cause the what will become a response.

It's interesting to not that in the case of "terrorism" the "false flag" aspect will shift the blame and cause a policy against a terrorist, a group or more recently a war ON terrorism based on the perceived (false flag) action of a terrorist, group or even "rougue nation", but the response never even calls for an examination of what a person, group of rougue nation might have acted ... as they are alleged to have done. That is there is never an attempt to understand why the accused in a false flag might have been conceivably responding to other situation.

Some will, for example, provide an "excuse" of "blowback" for terrorism or anti Americanism. They, rightly say that terrorists are disgruntled and are so for some cause... usually based on US hegemony. This may not justify their supposed act of terrorism, but it gives it a somewhat rational and understandable cause and this would of course force an examination of hegemonic cause for "anit Americanism" and terrorism.

The Israeli v Palestinian / Arab conflict is the perfect example of this at play and the tit for tat nature of "state" retribution for purposeful acts. The Israelis always claim they are simply punishing acts of terrorism and criminality... and the Paistinians / Arabs are claiming retribution for unlawful draconian punishments meted out by "illegal occupiers" and international law breakers. All fo the "actions" by both sides are "planned" and share that with the notion of a conspiracy.

Supposedly there are some who are powerful enough to move the world such as a dictator who can begin a war or a president who can order a police action... undeclared war. But even these actions are likely taken with counsel of other "conspirators".

In fact it's really hard to see ANY action or policy taken by a government, a corporation or in many cases individuals which don't share the essential qualities of a conspiracy - pre planning. The "conspiracy" however is unlawful and secret and seems to ALWAYS involve someone else aside from the conspirators taken the rap for the "plan" or the action...

Labeling someone a conspiracy nut is an attempt to humiliate or legitimatize a person's demand to examine the actual evidence and establish what ACTUALLY happened. How dare anyone confront conventional wisdom,ethics and intent, "professional" historians, the state, the criminal justice system etc.... as the assumption is these groups ONLY act in the interest of "the people". Nothing could be further from the truth. Institutions are corrupt by definitions and protect those who have power within them.