Reply #13: Why can't I?

[Bolo Boffin]

You can't take the details of Operation Northwoods as you understand them and apply them page for page,plan for plan in comparing it to 9-11.

Number one, "as I understand them?" Please point out how I've mischaracterized the details of Operation Northwoods.

Number two, why can't I contrast the details of both operations? As I've shown, Dulce is busily trying to use those details as a blueprint for demonstrating the 9/11 attacks to be the same kind of attack, right down to the fake aliases and the switched planes. Why can't I show how the details are different?

Operation Northwoods is not fully understood until you realize that this false flag operation, which it was, was rejected by the White House, and that it proved unnecessary because Cuba was caught redhanded importing missiles from the Soviet Union.

The point is, even the drafters of Operation Northwoods knew that they couldn't actually kill American citizens. Not even for the laudatory goal of eliminating a dire threat to American security interests could they go so far. No false flag operation planned by the United States would have actually endanged an American civilian.

In fact, the excesses of the 9/11 attacks wouldn't have been necessary if American officials had planned it. They could just as easily "seized" a shipment of chemical and biological weapons at a New York harbor, with manifests and associates tracing back all the way to whoever they wanted to frame. No actual deaths, but that would have been a potent "act of war" that would have justified the use of force against the "patsy" without the single loss of an American life. It's just too easy to come up with scenarios like that.

Here's another thing: if the 9/11 attacks had been planned by officials from the American government and other friendly governments, I can guaran-dang-tee you that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would never have been the patsies. Not a single Republican could even let his name slip past their lips during their convention. Who was Public Enemy No. 1 for the Bushistas? Saddam Hussein. Why would they have wasted their time and energy framing anybody else? Why drain resources fighting a middle man, when they could have just as easily framed the Big Guy and gone straight to Baghdad?

Is Bushco acting to secure the American dollar hegemony and neo-liberal (neo-liberal? Don't you mean neo-conservative?) global market dominance? They sure as Hades are. Did they use the tragic attacks to further these objectives? Yes they did. But that means they are guilty of attending Stephen Covey seminars. "Turn your problems into opportunities" is an old maxim, and buddy, they got busy after 9/11 turning that problem into an opportunity, didn't they?

An opportunity to attack who?

We blame it on Osama because Osama did it. We can't help that Bush blames Osama too - that doesn't change the facts in the case. He had his motives, most of which were accomplished in the days after 9/11. American troops are out of Saudi Arabia. America has been drawn into a bitter feud in the Islamic world, which raises the specter of a nuclear religious war. And now American actions are heightening the religious component of this American opposition, from the atrocities at Abu Ghraib to Bush standing in the Resurrected City proclaiming the reign of Freedom, the gift of God that America has been called to bestow upon the world.

His arrogance will be our undoing. His arrogance is what Osama counted on. His arrogance must be put decisively out of office in this election.

PS: It occurred to me that George Bush has been rescued from every mess he ever created by somebody higher up. Do you think that George is playing such a risky hand because he thinks he's got the Ace of Raptures up his sleeve? If you've never heard of premillinialism, google it and see how this false Christian doctrine might be fueling a true Armegeddon. Christian Reconstructionism is another interesting search term.