Posted on 07/19/2005 10:04:42 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
Ping to an interesting thread.
Thank you
Cryptic may-be, but humorous? Can't speak for John Faust, but only truely humorous I think if one has a very dark sense of humour. What think you, John?
btw, it's Whispering Joke, not whispering joke. It's a translated name. May-be John Faust has a link on this??
A bit tongue in cheek, but you're right, not very humorous.
btw, it's Whispering Joke, not whispering joke. It's a translated name. May-be John Faust has a link on this??
Here is an excerpt from an old article, Insight in the News, Jan 26, 1998, the link is http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/1998/01/26/CoverStory/First.Response.To.Terror-213836.shtml:
George Munkelwitz, a retired Maryland police officer who worked as an intelligence analyst in the Phoenix Program under the late CIA director William Colby, a program which successfully attacked the communist infrastructure during the Vietnam War, warns about the danger in his forthcoming book, The Mother of Satan. The book - which the CIA, says Munkelwitz, would like to stop from being published - details how vulnerable the United States is to such an attack from a single gram of anthrax, which theoretically contains 10 million lethal doses.
"I believe that the World Trade Center and, to a lesser extent, Mir Aimal Kasi's shootout at the CIA, were merely preludes for what is to come," Munkelwitz tells Insight. "The mother of all terror will be a biological attack on the United States - specifically Washington. A single gram of anthrax would shut down the government."
Munkelwitz's book Mother of Satan was never published or registered with the US Copyright Office.
It just disappeared. Or did it? A mere few months later, on Aug 26, 1998, Steven J Hatfill and Roger Akers registered the novel Emergence with the US Copyright Office.
The unusual name "Munkelwitz" means "Whispering Joke" in German. Was the original mention a joke, or an in-joke?
I will leave to Khan how this ties in with his theory of the WMD forgery and the Iraq war.
The tale Hatfill spins in <<Emergence>> is one of a bio=attack on Wash DC, carried out by a Palestiniaan terrorist, but secretly engineered by Saddam Hussein. Our Hero traces the origin of the attack back to Hussein. The novel ends with the US dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad.
The tie-in?? The Real=Life Cabal placed its tales of Iraqui WMD, both nuclear and bio, manifestly intending of provoking war. Yet, when Pres Bush did what the Cabal to all appearances wanted, the Cabal tried to give Bush the old heave-ho. Why??
If the Cabal wanted war with Iraq but didnt like Pres Bush's timing and execution of that war, it must have wanted the war to happen later.
Later, after what? What was the Cabal waiting to capitalise on? What would have happened in the mean=time if Pres Bush had waited??
What would have happened was that the WMD threat level would have gone up. More fears about how close Iraq was to getting the bomb, more anthrax attacks, and so forth... all designeed to push inexorably toward war, but also to provide a seeming deterrent against immediate war.
Pres GW Bush chose to ignore the deterrence properties. If he had instead refrained from war then, there would have been time for tensions to multipley. When the last straw was added on, p'haps in the form of yet one more anthrax attack, would real=life have imitated the end of <<Emergence>> with a nuclear bomb being dropped on Baghdad?
What other goal could the Cabal have had?? As oceanside commentated,
<<the actual combat phase of the war couldn't have been much faster - what "level of war" did they want to see?>>
Is there an other solucion to this conundrum??
Does anyone know if Wilson testified to the Grand Jury?
I don't think the cabal wanted war with Iraq at all.
Consider the ties that Wilson has to Niger which produces nothing that a businessman could be interested in unless he is a farmer, which Wilson decidedly is not.
Wilson has strong ties to the French and Niger, all of whom were selling UN forbidden material to Iraq. It's all laid out in Bill Gertz's book about the business the French were doing with Iraq. They were getting rich off Iraq. And the Germans.
Wilson wanted the gravy train to go on and knew that with Saddam out of power, his gravy train stops dead.
I think they did.
If they opposed the up-coming Iraq war, why didn't they pull the carpet out from under Pres Bush before the war? Why did they instead wait until after the main combat phase was finito??
Someone forged the Niger documents and put them into play. Forged them so amateurishly - with outdated official names and such like - that the hoax transparently was intended to be revealed some time.
So, if the Cabal was against the war, why not reveal the hoax before the war and put the kibosh on the whole thing? Isn't that what the French would have done if it really had been them doing it?
But that's not what happened, so it wasn't the French nor any other group against the war or in bed with Saddam.
"The dud anthrax attack on or close to 24 February 2003."
Fort McPherson?
<< Fort McPherson? >>
The Ft McPh powder is, I think, a smidgen too early. Probably an unrelated coïncidence but I don't rightly know.
The story I heard... A multiple mailing and p'haps also an outdoor release in a major city. Luckily to no avail.
Good questions. But I disagree with your answer. This is long----bear with me.
Their goal wasn't to stop the war, per se. It was to discredit Bush and America. They were carrying out a coordinated campaign between the Dems here in the U.S. and lefty foreign leaders.
Let's go back to 9/11/01. After the attacks, Bush was not only highly popular. He also had perfect pitch with the American people regarding the war on terror, homeland security, etc. The Dems were DESPERATE. They couldn't sound anti-war. Their political correctness and "civil liberties" rants were getting them nowhere. They thought they had a winning strategy opposing the Homeland Security bill because of union rights...and then Max Cleland went down. What to do, what to do?! Just imagine (lots of) strategy sessions dealing with----NOT how to best defend the country---but how to undermine popular support for a president taking the country to war.
Then they found their answer. THEY didn't have to confront Bush directly. They collaborated with their lefty friends in Europe to launch an anti-American campaign. Every time a Euro leader or U.N. bureaucrat denounced U.S. policies, the Dems followed up with their hand-wringing "concern" over how WE were causing the world to despise us. Note, specifically, that no Dem has ever criticized those countries or the U.N. for their feckless response to terrorism and their refusal to join or contribute to the effort. No, without fail, the Dems blamed America for the failure to garner foreign support.
The Dems had found their formula: Mouth pious support for the troops and the war on terror here at home---privately anti-war, publicly tough (think Biden). Simultaneously their foreign surrogates undermine the effort by portraying Bush and the U.S. as a lying, torturing, dangerous bully. Then the Dems cry crocodile tears over the "poor image" America has overseas. They even had a name for this strategy: "Political Globalization". Having found their anti-war, politically correct nostrums unpopular at home, it was only natural that the Dems would turn to their buddies in Europe where lefty solutions have widespread support. [Note that this was a major, if not THE major, theme of Kerry's campaign. Kerry almost blew their strategy when he talked about having "the support of foreign leaders". A panic-y Biden bailed him out.]
To your question. The answer is: they COULDN'T stop the war because one side of this cabal couldn't afford to oppose it publicly. The Dems voted FOR it. All they could do was try to make it unpopular and paint the U.S. as the bad guys. If you look at it this way, the timing of the forgeries didn't matter, since their ultimate goal was NOT to stop the war. It was to undermine U.S. policy and Bush's popularity.
I agree that some of what you said happened, but it was just a side-show. Yes, some Democrats opportunisticly took advantage of events when they could. Or thought they were taking advantage, special-ops manipulators can use political cheerleaders as dupes because of their total predictibility.
Back to the plan. If I may be permitted to summarise your suggested plot, it is: << Goad the US into going to war under false pretences. Then reveal the falsehood after the war to discredit Pres Bush. >>
Howsoever, no-one would have adopted this strategy because of fears it would, in all likelihood, back-fire.
Just consider... Some group of people planted forged information so incendiary that it would help ignite a war - the notorious Niger docs. The forgery was so poorly executed that the revelacion of the hoax at some time would be easy if desired.
But... Every-body expected, prior to the war, that WMD would be found in Iraq and likely even used by Saddam in case of war.
So... If WMD had been found in Iraq after the invasion, there would have been no issue, no scandal. Pres Bush would have been widely regarded as wholly justified in going to war. Details of which intelligence was right and which intelligence was wrong would have been just details, policy wonk stuff nobody would care about.
Also... Even if no WMD were found in Iraque, the Cabal would have to gamble that no one would lie about Iraqui WMD being found, nor plant WMD in Iraq.
Now, after the fact, one knows that WMD were not found, or planted, or lied about, but who would have gambled on that??? The whole hypothetic plan would have back-fired, if events had transpired in accordance with expectations. What a bad gamble.
... One extra thing ... How do you explain Mr Terrance Wilkinson's 20-year hoax-a-rama?
Actually, that mischaracterizes my theory.
All I was addressing was whether the forgeries were intended to "stop the war". I'm saying stopping the war was a side issue...because it was understood that the Dems couldn't openly oppose it. The real goal was to undermine U.S. foreign policy and the war effort. (If one is a knee jerk anti-warrior, that doesn't mean one stops wars. The cause is just as well served by using war casualties, collateral damage, etc. to "prove" one's case.)
As for the forgeries, I just don't think their timing had anything to do with the start of the war. I think the French had access to intelligence that indicated embarassing revelations were about to come out of their Niger dealings. I think the forgeries---and their timing---were a French effort to pre-discredit that intelligence.
I'll even go ya one step further......once we're in Iraq, the shakedown, the "cost" of controlling what the US did and said and who paid whom for above goes way up...in other to the Wilsons/Kerrys of the world "opportunity" was ripe. I am personally convinced oil-for-food reached the CIA/Dept of State, and elements of the Clinton Administration.
oops my bad "in other words to the Wilsons/Kerrys"
Once the WMD were proven, the whole scam would have been compleatly non-effective. Bush would have come out sweetly. There would have been no discrediting of anything if the overall WMD picture had been proven correct, even if some of the details were worng.
Now we know, after the fact, that, surprisingly, WMD weren't found and also that the Bush administration was honest about that. But inflaming war fever and at the same time gambling on no WMD being found?? Why would any-one have done that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.