MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
On the 18th anniversary of 9/11, I presented a show where I asked if we truly remembered what happened on 9/11. I used various news sound clips to demonstrate how the official story does not necessarily reflect what happened that day and somehow our collective memory seems to forget who was pulling the strings behind the scenes.
I also reported that most people were unaware the prior to the 9/11 attacks there was a secretive far right-leaning think tank called The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC.
An offspring of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), PNAC was considered by most Republicans at the time to be little more than a factory for dangerous foreign policy ideas.
Few members of PNAC were taken seriously within government circles, but they kept busy regardless. They were ambitious war hawks that were seeking to extend the military-industrial complex into occupying many areas of the Middle East through a series of wars. However, they had their doubts that citizens of the United States would allow for such an undertaking.
For many Americans the world we knew ended on September 11th, and after that devastating day — a “new Pearl Harbor” envisioned in Rebuilding America’s Defenses, part of PNAC’s blueprint for world domination was finally achieved— the world was born again in the fires of “Shock & Awe.” From top to bottom, the White House was staffed with PNAC ideologues who envisioned total war in the Middle East.
It appeared that while President George W. Bush was the face of determination it was Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld that were running the show from behind the scenes. Beside Cheney and Rumsfeld were Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, Richard Perle, and John Bolton.
Many who speak of Bolton in Washington call him is a ball of terrifying war hubris made flesh, yet somehow he keeps landing jobs within walking distance of the Oval Office. George W. Bush made him UN ambassador while Congress wasn’t home. He was fantastic at alienating other nations, but wasn’t really in a position to do the kind of serious damage he’s capable of.
However, that damage was done in triplicate while Bolton served as Undersecretary for Arms Control, essentially the government’s point person for weapons of mass destruction.
In this capacity, Bolton became the dream weaver for the Iraq War, the loudest advocate for false intelligence on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, and he did not hesitate to bulldoze any lower-level staffers who disagreed. Iraq was the starting place for the PNAC plan, the jump-off point to a toppling of virtually every government in the region.
Bolton wanted war wherever he had the chance and his reputation was certainly shown to be dishonest on many occasions.
On a December 2010 episode of Fox News’ Freedom Watch, Bolton and the show’s host Andrew Napolitano were debating about recent WikiLeaks publications, and naturally the subject of government secrecy came up.
“Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs, and possibly for deception where that’s appropriate,” Bolton said. “You know Winston Churchill said during World War II that in wartime truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.”
“Do you really believe that?” asked an incredulous Napolitano.
“Absolutely,” Bolton replied.
“You would lie in order to preserve the truth?”
“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it,” Bolton answered.
We all know that Bolton served as National Security advisor for President Trump now that he has been fired or resigned whichever you choose to believe – I worry for our President and I worry that Bolton’s power of war hawk influence has not diminished.
I find it a bit troubling, how yet another incident in the Middle East involving Iran has triggered the inner John Bolton in a lot of people’s heads. Even after he resigned or was fired he seems to be living rent-free inside the heads of those who want to rage war.
Some are saying that even though John Bolton has left the building there are still a few war hawks in Washington that are still Boltonized.
The influence of the 9/11 attacks are still casting a shadow on all of us and as I said earlier in previous shows that event while at first United us in common cause has now put us at odds with one another.
What was once considered common sense has been hijacked and corrupted from within, then turned against everyone and everything.
I know that there are many people who will say that we can attribute all of this to President Trump but this has been building for sometime.
This division has been used as a political tool and when someone attempts to expose the conspiracy, many people see it as a political attack. But we now have to admit that chaos and conspiracy thrive, with manipulators and ideologues using the media to stir up a war of all against all and encouraging the worst behaviors in people, ostensibly to ‘express their individuality’, but really to euthanize their conscience and force their submission. The fate of humanity hangs in the balance.
I call it Operation Oblivion.
I wish to appeal to your common sense by demonstrating to you the similarities between elites past and present the commonality of their tactics for getting what they want and the manner in which their competing interests tend to fold into and reinforce, one another.
One of the greatest tools at their disposal is the tactic of terrorizing populations through false-flag attacks, then manipulating peoples’ emotional reactions and thus directing public action.
I waited a day to address the attack on the Saudi’s Aramco oil facility – because I wanted to see what would play out afterwards. I felt like haven’t we been here before with the oil tanker attacks and wasn’t it by an overwhelming majority decided that it was an obvious False Flag?
Many have argued that there is no benefit for Iran in carrying out attacks like this.
But of course, the US has insisted that Tehran was responsible for the attack and that the missiles or drones that were used were beyond the sophistication of Yemen’s Houthis, who had initially taken credit for the attacks.
According to US sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10, the Houthis claim. Cruise missiles may have been used, and some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing side, which suggests the projectiles were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.
Investigators have reportedly identified the exact location, purportedly in southern Iran, where a combination of more than 20 drones and cruise missiles were launched against the Saudi oil facilities.
Additionally, The Wall Street Journal reports that Saudi Arabia is increasingly confident that Iran directly launched a complex missile and drone attack from its southern territory on Saturday that battered the kingdom’s oil industry, according to people familiar with the investigation.
Nevertheless, lawmakers from both parties in Washington have expressed reservations about the prospects of an American military strike on Iran.
It is certainly troubling however that the war hawks are doing their best to convince the President to go to war.
There is no upside for us to go to war with Iran.
Putting America’s credibility on the line, Mike Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom’s oil production, 5.7 million barrels a day.
Tehran being behind Saturday’s strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.
Given Pompeo’s public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly’s annual gathering next week may be a waste of time.
If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility proves to be the work of Shiite militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?
What about Iran itself?
If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday, shutting down about 6% of world oil production — imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy.
Do we really want the risk?
Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of war?
Senator Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran’s oil refineries to “break the regime’s back,” while Senator Rand Paul contends that “there’s no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran.”
Here we are again divided as ever over an obvious false flag attack. Here we are again debating the same tired event that is obviously a continuance of the Neocon agenda.
The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war with Iran, while the nation does not want another war. How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.
John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.
It takes a bold and courageous decision to trust the world to handle its own affairs. It takes a conscious decision to honor the sovereignty of everyone and everything. Exactly as non-interventionist foreign policy would.
In exactly the same way that Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton argues that the “anarchic international environment” is so dangerous that any means necessary must be employed to bring it under control, we too have to control that Boltonized attitude in our heads which is continually arguing that life must be brought to heel at any cost.
It has always been the agenda to create a New World Order, and as Bolton has said, by any means necessary, a war-like world in his image.
Our enemy is not a cold, hostile world which resists our attempts to control it; no, our enemy is the Boltonized false flagging war hawks both within and without.
We just can’t keep doing things the way we have done them in the past.
We are fast approaching a point where we will either sharply diverge from our current trajectory and make drastic, sweeping changes, or we will all perish due to nuclear war or economic collapse.
When President Trump fired John Bolton last week, rational people the world over cheered. When there was news that Trump would meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in a few weeks there were sighs of relief.
When Benjamin Netanyahu goes to Moscow to get Vladimir Putin’s blessing to continue airstrikes in Syria was told no, the world said, “Finally! Enough is enough.”
The problem is that there were also very powerful people who were not happy about these things.
This is why we saw the attacks on the Saudi oil facility – someone did not like the fact that President Trump was making progress without putting loaded guns in the faces of people that have always been in the crosshairs.
You need to stop and ask yourself, why is it that every time President Trump tries to push the U.S. and the world away from war within a few days there’s an incident which pushes us right back to the brink of it?
Isn’t it obvious enough that there is a conspiracy that is trying to push us into needless wars?
Trump visits Kim Jong-un in North Korea, making history, and then there are attacks on UAE oil tankers. Trump refuses to attack Iran over them shooting down a Global Hawk drone in Iranian airspace escorted by a fully-crewed Poseidon P-8.
Trump declares we’re pulling out of Syria; Israel openly bombs targets deep in Syria. His staff, including John Bolton, freak out and then we back off.
The Houthis send a couple of drones at an Aramco facility far beyond their known capabilities and the UAE pulls out of the Saudi coalition in Yemen.
The very fact that we had zero proof of what happened and who was responsible and in little over 48 hours after the event had every Neocon in the U.S. clamoring for war should give you a clue that there is something very off about this incident.
Even now Saudi Arabia is saying that they will be all right and that they will recover.
Saudi Arabia’s energy minister said that more than half of the country’s daily crude oil production that was knocked out by an attack has been recovered and that production capacity at its targeted plants would be fully restored by the end of the month.
Ask yourself, who benefits? It certainly is not Iran and if we were to go to war, everything would be in a state of oblivion.
It takes a lot of mental clarity and control to resist the push towards war and misdirected anger and to see the bigger picture and the cabal’s game: enticing people into believing in false flags in order to place us in the very thing we want to avoid.
And people are always oblivious as to why many people think that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.
The question is how can they continue to be in denial?
The Justice Department will reveal the name of an individual believed to be connected to the Saudi government and accused of aiding two of the 9/11 hijackers, prosecutors said in a court filing Thursday.
The person’s identity will remain a closely guarded secret for now, though it will be shared with attorneys representing the families of victims of the attacks who have alleged the government of Saudi Arabia helped to coordinate the terrorists in a lawsuit. The attorneys can then petition the Justice Department to release the name wider.
Yet there is a huge disconnect over who was the State Sponsor of the 9/11 attacks.
Of course, the state sponsor of 9/11 was not clear enough in our collective memory of 9/11 thanks to Robert Mueller’s investigation and for some reason, Saudi Arabia was overlooked in the quest for truth even though Osama bin Laden was a Saudi and 15 of the 18 hijackers were Saudi nationals. It was a case of putting political interests first and not the victims of the attacks.
In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?
War is a racket obviously.
We suffer because of it – I believe President Trump knows this but those surrounding him certainly are continuing the same agendas of wars based on false flag attacks.
In fact, while we are all breathing a sigh of relief that John Bolton was given his walking papers – the interim national security advisor Charles Kupperman, once said that the United States could take losing 20 million people in a nuclear war.
He said this to journalist Robert Scheer in 1982.
Kupperman went on to say that it would only take 15 years to rebuild society under such a scenario.
He sounds like another so-called visionary who sees the United States being victorious after a nuclear exchange.
The 68-year-old Kupperman is a longtime defense contractor executive and neoconservative policy campaigner.
Despite his silent political trajectory, Kupperman has been around since the 1970s when he began his ascent among hawks in Washington. He served as a policy advisor to the Committee on the Present Danger, a neoconservative-led advocacy group with an aggressive anti-Soviet posture.
In 1980, Kupperman worked for the Reagan-Bush campaign team and was part of what became known as the October Surprise Group, whose objective was to prepare for “any last-minute foreign policy or defense-related event, including the release of the hostages in Iran.
Kupperman served as vice president of Lockheed Martin’s missile defense sector and then as vice president of Boeing’s strategic operations and missile defense operations, a post he retired from in 2006.
Despite the years, he has maintained a conservative borderline far-right stance, as in recently from 2001 to 2010, he served on the board of directors of the Center for Security Policy, a think-tank led by Frank Gaffney Jr. that promotes aggressive missile defense programs and militarist policies in the Middle East.
The Center for Security Policy has been called a hate group.
So it’s out with old in with the same and operation oblivion is still engaged.
This is an environment that is ripe for deceptions of all sorts, and given that another rat has replaced another rat, we would all do very well to remain very, very skeptical of any and all news we hear about Iran going forward.
If you hear that within this environment of escalated tensions and military posturing Iran or one of its “proxies” has attacked the United States in some way, your immediate response should be one of intense skepticism about what the mass media talking heads are telling you to believe.