Paul Joseph Watson the father of Reaganomics on Bush

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
May 10, 2007
80,182
2,272
1,283
http://tinyurl.com/yu477l


check what the father of Reganonmics has to say?


Former Reagan Official: Bush May Stage False Flag Events To Reinstate Draft
Posted by mrspickles on July 18th, 2007

“Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging “terrorist” attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?” asks Roberts

Paul Joseph Watson

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts has gone further than ever before, warning that the Bush administration could be about to stage false flag events and terror attacks in order to reinstate the draft, announce a dictatorship and attack Iran.

Roberts has been dubbed the “Father of Reaganomics” and is also a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.

In his weekly syndicated column, Roberts suggests that unfolding events and the nature of the rhetoric emanating from government quarters suggests that a major staged terror attack could be just around the corner.

“Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging “terrorist” attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?” writes Roberts.

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the “unitary executive” at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush’s declaration of “national emergency” and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives’ Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel’s complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type “security failure” were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has “a gut feeling” that America will soon be hit hard?

Roberts concludes that coming “terrorist” events within the next year will be the means for overthrowing constitutional democracy unless Congress moves to impeach Bush and Cheney immediately.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
Never underestimate the ability of a Bush supporter to ignore anything they cant refute.
 
Paul Roberts....


I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void. Some of the speculation is based on circumstantial evidence and is plausible. Other of the speculation is untenable, and it is used to protect the official explanation by branding all skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. [4]



Yeah...we're really gonna put alot of stock in what this nutwad says....not
 
But what about his idea that this administration could pull a "false flag" op? Not possible? Possible?

Actually, Zbigniew Brzezinski himself warned a congressional panel a few months ago about that exact possibility, to be used to garner enough support for a military operation against Iran.
 
Bush will definently have a better legacy then clinton, all clinton did, was decide to work with a majority republican congress, who did all the real work, the president doesnt do as much as congress does, ultimately congress has the most authority.

Clinton had the housing bubble collapse, and enron on his watch, and he should take the blame, for that, but sadly, bush is blamed for everything, i bet if some people sneeze, they will blame bush too.

Dont get me wrong, i could criticize bush on lots of things, but some people in our society are just not even handed, or make any attempt to be fair

whether bush was a great president is for history to decide, not me.


Bush will go down as one of the greatest President's in history.
 
Paul Craig Roberts is the former Reagan guy, Paul Joseph Watson wrote the article.

Anyway, he's a bit off his rocker, in all fairness. He was sure that the proof of a 9/11 conspiracy was the fact that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. That's quite true, but a quick search could have revealed that elevated temperatures weaken steel substantially without melting it. Oops.

I will be fairly surprised if anyone tries a draft at this point. The war is quite unpopular as it is; and instituting a draft would be political suicide for any politician even sort of pro-war. The antiwar movement is rather subdued compared to the 60's; that's due to the absence of a draft. A lot of ambivalent people would suddenly develop a real interest in politics once their kid got drafted.

No, what will probably happen is this: the government will continue lying about Iran, there will be airstrikes, an embargo will be tightened, and what was a relatively pro-US population in Iran will rally to support their formerly unpopular leader. There is no need to stage a terrorist attack, it's too risky and hard to pull off. It's pretty easy to just send loads of warships to breathe down their neck, and wait for an "incident" to happen. Or just start bombing because of some imagined offense.
 
Bush will definently have a better legacy then clinton, all clinton did, was decide to work with a majority republican congress, who did all the real work, the president doesnt do as much as congress does, ultimately congress has the most authority.

Clinton had the housing bubble collapse, and enron on his watch, and he should take the blame, for that, but sadly, bush is blamed for everything, i bet if some people sneeze, they will blame bush too.

Dont get me wrong, i could criticize bush on lots of things, but some people in our society are just not even handed, or make any attempt to be fair

whether bush was a great president is for history to decide, not me.

Good morning Martin :)

ponder this...

If all Clinton did, was ''work with the Republican Congress" to get his achievements in fiscal responsibility, then how come Bush, who worked with this same Republican Congress couldn't do the same or even better?

Maybe it wasn't "the Republican Congress" after all, huh?

Maybe it was the Leader that "managed" that Congress?

Care
 
The GAO and the CBO have both said the majority of the the surpluses we had in the 90s were due to the 1993 budget reduction act signed into exsistance with out ONE SINGLE R VOTE!

Im so tired of you people changing the facts after they happen.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top