Ron Paul: “The PATRIOT Act Was Written Many, Many Years Before 9/11 [And The Attacks Simply Provided] An Opportunity …
Submitted by George Washington on 12/09/2011 18:16 -0500
Ron Paul isn’t backing down from his position that the U.S. has provoked terrorists through foreign military occupation and that officials tried to capitalize on Sept. 11 attacks.
“Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat,” Paul said Thursday night before a packed room of more than 1,000 students and supporters. “That’s exactly what they’re doing now with Iran.”
His libertarian ideals have struck a cord with many, but conservatives remain deeply wary of Paul’s foreign policy positions, including his assertion that the U.S. provoked the Sept. 11 attacks by maintaining military bases in foreign countries. Paul’s position as the lone dove in the GOP race has made him a foil for some of his hawkish Republican opponents.
“Extremists have taken over, and they’re the ones who run the foreign policy and have convinced us to go along with all these wars,” Paul said Wednesday night.
Paul said that claims Iran could be developing a nuclear weapon are just part of an effort to scare Americans into going to war again.
Paul said of the possibility that Iran has a nuclear weapon is “not true at all.” “It doesn’t mean they might not want a nuclear weapon.”
No other country, Paul said, is capable of attacking the United States.
“How many foreign countries can threaten us right now?” Paul asked sarcastically. “How many are likely to invade us or drop a bomb on us? I can’t imagine.”
“The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11,” Paul said. The attacks simply provided “an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do,” he said.
“I wish we could guarantee a democratic and honest election in this country as well,” Paul said. “The democratic process in this country has a long way to go.”
Mr. Paul is right:
The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this)
The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11 (and see this). 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).
Government plans, exercises or drills to detain American citizens who opposed war were also drawn up before 9/11
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.” And see this.
Cheney 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 decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11, and the Christian Science Monitor notes that the U.S. has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran was on the verge of nuclear capability
Wars throughout the Middle East and North Africa to effect regime were planned before 9/11
Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarchy 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 knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons — and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes — all before 9/11
America played dirty games to justify wars before 9/11
Sat, 12/10/2011 – 05:07 | 1965697 swani
Whatever people want to believe about 9/11, one thing is absolutely clear: the US Government should have tested for thermite (explosives) and didn’t. Over 100 first responders and other witnesses heard and felt what felt like explosions coming from the elevator shafts and from the bottom of the buildings and everything about the way that the buildings collapsed, including the dust clouds from the concrete being made into dust, would have made any normal fire investigators test for explosives. It is in the firefighter’s manual that in cases like this, testing for explosives is not only common practice, it is mandatory.
However, as per the September 11th Commission’s own reports on the investigation following the September 11th attacks, they never tested for explosives. This is shocking. Didn’t they want to find out if there weren’t, perhaps, other terrorists involved in the planning of the attacks? This was the biggest crime in US history. How could the investigators have behaved with less concern to investigate all possible scenarios, than firefighters conducting a regular old arson investigation?
How could we prevent another September 11th, if we never properly investigated September 11th?
I don’t think the answer is to open a Guantanamo on US soil, or to invade every Muslim country, or, to spy on all of our citizens in the way of a Totalitarian Communist country. That is not the way that we make ourselves safer. And certainly not, when we are not even investing in the testing for explosives after a crime like this. And not when we spent more money investigating Monica Lewinsky than we did the September 11th attacks.
Sat, 12/10/2011 – 05:17 | 1965702 Gringo Viejo
Captain Joseph Rhett Barker, West Point, Class of 1938. Guerilla fighter, 26 Calvary, Philippine Scouts, Luzon Phillipines, 1941-1943. Betrayed by an informant, captured by the Japanese, tortured and beheaded, October 1943. Last message to comrades: “Only those willing to die, are fit to live”.
Well have to agree with this due to Douglas Reed completed his book in 1956 and wrote of these wars we now see across the Middle East!
Neoconservatives Planned Regime Change Throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 Years Ago
Posted on November 28, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog
Iraq ☑ Libya ☑ … Syria ☐ Lebanon ☐ Somalia ☐ Sudan ☐ Iran ☐
I’ve repeatedly documented that the Neocons planned regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria and a host of other countries right after 9/11 … if not before.
And that Obama is implementing these same plans – just with a “kindler, gentler” face.
Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11:
General Wesley Clark … said the aim of this plot [to “destroy the governments in … Iraq, … Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran”] was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”
[I]n the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya … with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active and escalating proxy fighting in Somalia, with a modest military deployment to South Sudan, and the active use of drones in six — count ‘em: six — different Muslim countries, it is worth asking whether the neocon dream as laid out by Clark is dead or is being actively pursued and fulfilled, albeit with means more subtle and multilateral than full-on military invasions (it’s worth remembering that neocons specialized in dressing up their wars in humanitarian packaging: Saddam’s rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz … put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:
As far as I can tell, there’s barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the [Democrats] just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.
The neocon end as Clark reported them — regime change in those seven countries — seems as vibrant as ever. It’s just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.
Note: The so-called “war on terror” has also weakened our national security and created many more terrorists than it has killed, imprisoned or otherwise stopped. It is also destroying our economy.
WHO DOES THIS SUIT MOST?
November 28, 2011 at 5:56 am
In addition to the slow rousing of the general population’s awareness and nascent unity, the other thing we have in our favor is the inherent arrogance of the radical neo-cons (‘Con’ is an interesting and myriad word used in this context). The neo-cons are simply the cunning portion of the elites’ brain at this point. They are too ruthless and barbaric to possess any shred of wisdom and they are also, unfortunately, sociopaths in suits with a lot of money behind them; but like all megalomaniacs they will, hopefully, very hopefully contribute to their own demise (with a big hand from we little people). The curtain has only just begun to rise!
November 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm
This is a powerful post. I only hope members of the main stream media read it and have pangs of conscience.
A journalist’s job is to report the facts & evidence:
Who is it about?
Where did it take place?
When did it take place?
Why did it happen?
How did it happen?
The facts & evidence support the conclusion that the Obama administration foreign policies in many ways are a continuity of the Bush foreign (military) policies.
Do the American People know this? Do the American People support this?
Do journalists have a responsibility to report this?
Pangs of conscience, anyone?
Francisco Almeida. says:
November 28, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Your outstanding above remarks leave no room for further comments !
Just to say that we all wish them all neoCONs to slowly burn in hell.
December 4, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Thank you, Francisco. Denny
Dudeman Someguy says:
November 28, 2011 at 7:03 pm
thanks for this!!
November 29, 2011 at 1:23 am
Check out what Professor Chossudovsky has to say
November 29, 2011 at 11:02 am
Let the Neo0Cons make their plans in order to benefit Israel, but all the hatred and anger is going toward the United States all over the Middle east & Africa .
WHAT BETTER, STIR IT UP, THEN LET OTHERS DESTROY YOUR ENEMIES?
Rex 84From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the United States federal government to suspend the United States Constitution, declare martial law, place military commanders in charge of state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens who are deemed to be “national security threats”, in the event that the President declares a “State of Domestic National Emergency”. The plan states that events that might cause such a declaration would be widespread U.S. opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad, such as if the United States were to directly invade Central America. To combat what the government perceived as “subversive activities”, the plan also authorized the military to direct ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels.
Rex 84 was written by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who was both National Security Council White House Aide, and NSC liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of “national preparedness” programs for FEMA. They patterned the plan on an 1970 report written by FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida, at the Army War College, which proposed the detention of up to 21 million “American Negroes”, if there were a black militant uprising in the United States. Existence of a master military contingency plan (of which REX-84 was a part), “Garden Plot” and a similar earlier exercise, “Lantern Spike” were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in an article in CounterSpy.
Transcripts from the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987 record the following dialogue between Congressman Jack Brooks, Oliver North’s attorney Brendan Sullivan and Senator Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the joint Senate-House Committee:
[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
Brendan Sullivan [North’s counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?
[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.
Exercises similar to Rex 84 happen regularly. For example, from 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of over 100,000 persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the “ADEX” list.
The basic facts about Rex 84 and other contingency planning readiness exercises—and the potential threat they pose to civil liberties if fully implemented in a real operation—are taken seriously by scholars and civil libertarians.[broken citation]
IF AMERIKA HAS SUCH PLANS THEN FOR SURE BRITAIN HAS THEM TOO….
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE ZOG OF BRITAIN?
September 24, 2010 07:00 AM
New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War in Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001
88 commentsBy karoli
All of us knew it but couldn’t prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.
January 30, 2001 – Bush administration principals (agency heads) meet for the
first time and discuss the Middle East, including Bush’s intention to disengage from the Israel-Palestine peace process and “How Iraq is destabilizing the region.” Bush directs Rumsfeld and JCS chairman Hugh Shelton to examine military options for Iraq; CIA director George Tenet is directed to improve intelligence on the country. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke are both struck by the emphasis on confronting Iraq, an aim consistent with Rumsfeld’s hiring of Wolfowitz and later Feith, well known for their bellicosity on the issue, for high-level Pentagon
positions. (Source: EBB/Franks Timeline (PDF))
When did we invade Afghanistan? Oh, that’s right…it was October 7, 2001.
Walking through these documents makes it clear that the Bush Administration — from Day One — intended to invade Iraq at some point in their reign of terror. Here is a memo (PDF) dated January 23, 2001 outlining the “Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy”. This was requested by Vice President-elect Dick Cheney before taking office, presumably as a way to justify policy formation around aggressive US efforts for “regime change” in Iraq.
This memo (PDF) written on November 27, 2001 should send cold chills up and down your spine. It is a list of talking points from Rumsfeld to Franks about how to handle a run-up to a full-scale Iraq invasion. November 27th, 51 days after Afghanistan was invaded. And check this talking point:
Afghanistan was never, ever a priority for the Bush Administration. It was always about Iraq. To line up support for the plan, they were marshalling the Catholics and anyone else they could get to start forming arguments for “just wars”. An internal memo from Robert Andrews, Dep. Assistant Secretary of Defense on December 17, 2001 touted this:
A prominent Catholic theologian outlines the moral justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
[…a list of reasons why it was so important follows]
•Introduces the concept of “regime factor,”
•illustrates the concept using the Iraq situation
•demonstrates how pre-emptive action against Iraq fits into the just-war tradition
That memo made its way to Douglas Feith, neocon extraordinaire, who left his approval in the margin:
George is a brilliant guy and a gentleman. Thanks for sending this along. DJF
Speaking strictly for me, the idea of Catholic aides to the Pope pushing wars as “just” to our government smacks of intervention not of the divine kind. The article itself pushes along the lie about WMD, too, reinforcing what we now know was nothing more than fantasy in the black hearts of Cheney and his neocon brigade. But it added to the political cover the Bush administration needed to push the Iraq effort forward.
Iraq, for Cheney, Bush and the crew, was a way to increase prestige and power. Nothing speaks to that louder than the oft-repeated words in this memo from Donald Rumsfeld on July 27, 2001 where he says this at least twice:
If Saddam’s regime were ousted, we would have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere.
The first time he mentions this, it’s with some regret that we’re not better friends with Iran. The second time he mentions it, it’s in his closing argument for why toppling Saddam Hussein will strengthen US Arab-Israeli policy. It’s like a talisman for Rumsfeld, this idea of improving our “US credibility and influence throughout the region”.
Here’s the punchline, courtesy of the National Security Archive summary:
At this point, the weight of evidence supports an observation made in April 2002 by members of the covert Iraq Operations Group – Iraq “regime change” was already on Bush’s agenda when he took office in January 2001. (Note 33) September 11 was not the motivation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq – it was a distraction from it.
Now, at least, our instinct about Iraq being the one true goal is confirmed. For whatever that’s worth, anyway.
BRITISH TROOPS…..LIED TO BY THE ZOG OF BRITAIN!
A GREATER ISRAEL IS THEIR GOAL!
WHO IS KAY GRIGGS?
Kay Griggs: Colonel’s Wife Tell-All Interview .1 of 4
WHY IS THE AMERICAN STATE DEPARTMENT FULL OF JEWS?