You are herecontent / Here's Open Advocacy of Manufacturing a "Defensive" War With a False Flag

Here's Open Advocacy of Manufacturing a "Defensive" War With a False Flag


Thanks for FDL for transcribing and posting video:

I frankly find that crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us into war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way that America gets into war is what would be best for U.S. interests.

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II, as David mentioned, you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I, you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam, you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolineans had said would cause an attack.

So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war. One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure.

I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down, some day one of them might not come up, who would know why? We could do a variety of things if we wish to to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition, you know it’s just sanctions have to succeed or it’s other things.

We are in the games of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier.

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Quote:

I really think that crisis initiation is really tough. And it's very had for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran. Uhm, which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not company (?), then the traditional way that America can get us to war is what would be best for U.S. interests. Uh, some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II as David mentioned. You may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I. You may recall we had to wait for the Lusatania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. Ah, we didn't go to war with Spain until the USS, uh, da da Maine exploded. And, may I point out, that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the little (?) army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the  commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. So, if in fact the Iranians aren't going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.

One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look, people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Someday, one of them might not come up. Who would know why. (some laughter in the audience) We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that, but I'm just suggesting that, eh, th th th, this is not an either or or proposition. It's just, you know, it's just sanctions has to succeed, or other things. (Yells) We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We, we could get nastier at that.

His words are so incredible that they're hilarious, even if they stink of rotten evil. He says he's not advocating ..., but it's clear that he is.  He must think that we're all fools, very dumb.

As far as I'm concerned, if we had a real system of Justice, then this dodo wouldn't be allowed to freely walk the streets, or certainly wouldn't be allowed to be part of any group that lobbies Washington.  Not even Bush Jr or Cheney would have the "gumption" to publicly say what this sick Clawson said in this short speech of his. They at least try to be secretive about their criminal plans in order to try to deceive the population. I guess Clawson thinks that we're all so dumb that we won't notice how obviously criminal his words are.

He speaks as a true white-collar political arena criminal of the USA, and if he's a US citizen, then he also speaks as a treachorous charlatan would, for he speaks in strongly un/anti-constitutional terms; based on what I understand of the Constitution anyway. He also speaks against the international laws, treaties and conventions that the US is cosignatory to, and what does the Constitution say about such laws, ...? From what I've read, the Constitution says that these additional laws, ..., along with the Constitution itself, constitute the Law of the Land in and for the USA.  So what Clawson's speech illustrates is an obvious attempt to try to usurp our laws.

Well, there you go, folks, a real specimen of treachory and charlatanry.  But we can be thankful that he at least didn't make this speech behind closed doors. Or is it a leaked speech that had been made behind closed doors?

Maybe he's trying to capitalize on a US reality that Professor Michel Chossudovsky wrote about in a book and which is cited (a little) in the following short article by Sherwood Ross, published June 5, 2012.

"Chossudovsky’s New Book: “Wipe Israel off the Map” Statement by Iranian Leader was Gross Distortion"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/chossudovsky-s-new-book-wipe-israel-off-the-map-statement-by-iranian-leader-was-gross-distortion

Quote:

The inflammatory statement that Israel should be “wiped off the map” attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “was never made” by him, a distinguished Canadian economist says. in a recently released book entitled: Towards A World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War

To begin with, says Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa, the words were not those of Ahmadinejad when he uttered them on October 25, 2005.

Rather, he was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini, and the point of Khomeini’s thrust was not to wipe Israel, the nation, “off the map”, but to change the Israeli regime, which is far different. ...

...

“The alleged ‘wiped off the map’ statement has served not only to justify a pre-emptive attack against Iran but also to subdue and tame the antiwar movement.” It has succeeded in achieving this as in the U.S. “there are very few antiwar events focusing on U.S.-Israeli threats directed against Iran,” Chossudovsky writes. He adds:

Iran is viewed by many within the antiwar movement as a potential aggressor. Its non-existent nuclear weapons are considered a threat to global security.”

...

That and any additional quoted text from the article is according to the Fair Use law that you're all familiar with.

Maybe that's why or in part why Clawson feels quite at ease speaking in treachorous terms. But, if he isn't a US citizen, then he should be deported quite immediately and never be allowed to return to the USA.

I guess that most Americans don't care about Iran acting within its legitimate, legal, equitable rights, but this should not excuse any Americans from being able to realize that what Clawson said in this speech is definitely and clearly criminal, as well as un- or anti-Constitutional, which actually means that he's an enemy within the USA.  All Americans should know that it's not Iran that's been acting illegally. Instead, it's Washington et alia that've been acting criminally; and it's very easy to see this.

Clawson is so forward about his little ideas that some people at YouTube questioned if this is a parody and sarcasm, and I have no difficulty in understanding why such questions could come to the minds of people who listen to this Clawson speech. It also took me a little time to become confident about it not being parody.  I would've never imagined anyone in the political sphere making such a speech.

FDL's page provides a link to the original publication of the article and it's at AlterPolitics.com. The page at that website has links for variably related articles and I'll include one, here, to help make this article more widely known. And it's related to the above video with the rather extremely crazy Clawson, for this other article is about another extremely crazy person and is also about the west against Iran.

"Clinton To Iran: We Have No Proof You Are Pursuing WMDs, So Prove You Are Not Intending To"

by Stan at AlterPolitics.com, published April 1, 2012

http://www.alterpolitics.com/world/clinton-to-iran-we-have-no-proof-you-are-pursuing-wmds-so-prove-you-are-not-intending-to

I'll quote the whole article, since it's very short.

Quote:

Despite all intelligence agencies (in the U.S. and in Israel) reconfirming the assessment that “Iran hasn’t yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon and has not reconstituted a clandestine nuclear weapons program,” which the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) expressed, with “high confidence,” had been abandoned in 2003, the world is nonetheless punishing (boycotting) Iran, as if it is doing just that.

Now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is stating that Iran bares the burden of proving its “Intentions” to her:

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday urged Iran to back up its declaration that Islam bars weapons of mass destruction by agreeing to a plan that would prove it does not intend to develop nuclear arms.

To demonstrate just how ludicrous this line of thinking is, imagine if a police officer knocked on your door, and informed you that all their evidence suggested you were an honest and law-abiding citizen, but that he would arrest you anyways, unless you could provide proof to him that you had no “intentions” of committing a crime. 

More and more, this ‘Iranian threat’ crusade is beginning to resemble a staged controversy of the very worst kind.

Clinton apparently thinks we were all asleep in 2003 when the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein prove that he didn't have something he simply didn't have, you know, the WMD. Clinton must've been carefully watching and listening to that Administrative team, to see if she could pick up any knew skills or tricks from them, all while thinking that the rest of us weren't also paying attention to what was going on and what was being said in Washington.

This makes for a very nauseating Déjà Vu.

And I'll leave it at this; won't bother with the other "related" articles.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.