You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / Pearl Harbor Day Is a Day to Cherish the $1.3 Trillion We Blow on War Preparation Every Year

Pearl Harbor Day Is a Day to Cherish the $1.3 Trillion We Blow on War Preparation Every Year

By davidswanson - Posted on 06 December 2012

It warms one's heart to recall in the depths of winter that over half the taxes we labor to submit to our government each year go into war preparations.  Such bountiful spending is required, because one never knows when the Japs or the Serbians or the Iranians may attack.  To appreciate the need for creating so many weapons-producing billionaires and millionaires, we must recall with fondness the glory days of the war that three-quarters of a century back gave us the military industrial complex, the Air Force, the CIA, nuclear weapons, witch hunts, intense environmental destruction, and some 70 million dead bodies.

Ah, who can forget . . .

Nazi Germany, we actually tend to overlook sometimes, could not have existed or waged war without the support for decades past and ongoing through the war of U.S. corporations like GM, Ford, IBM, and ITT.  U.S. corporate interests prefered Nazi Germany to the communist Soviet Union, were happy to see those two nations' peoples slaughter each other, and favored the United States entering the oh-so-good-and-necessary World War II on the side of England only once the U.S. government had made that very profitable.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's fervent hope for years was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter World War II in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry and assisting in the targeting of submarines as it had been doing. Of course, Germany's declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor and the immediate U.S. declaration of war on Japan, helped as well, but it was Pearl Harbor that radically converted the American people from opposition to support for war.

On December 7, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew up a declaration of war on both Japan and Germany, but decided it wouldn't work and went with Japan alone.  Germany quickly declared war on the United States, possibly in hopes that Japan would declare war on the Soviet Union.

Getting into the war was not a new idea in the Rosevelt White House.  FDR had tried lying to the American people about U.S. ships including the Greer and the Kerny, which had been helping British planes track German submarines, but which Roosevelt pretended had been innocently attacked. Roosevelt also lied that he had in his possession a secret Nazi map planning the conquest of South America, as well as a secret Nazi plan for replacing all religions with Nazism. This map was of the quality of the Associated Press's recent "Iranian bomb graph," or Karl Rove's "proof" that Iraq was buying uranium in Niger.

And yet, the people of the United States didn't buy the idea of going into another war until Pearl Harbor, by which point Roosevelt had already instituted the draft, activated the National Guard, created a huge Navy in two oceans, traded old destroyers to England in exchange for the lease of its bases in the Caribbean and Bermuda, and — just 11 days before the "unexpected" attack — he had secretly ordered the creation of a list of every Japanese and Japanese-American person in the United States.

On April 28, 1941, Churchill wrote a secret directive to his war cabinet:

"It may be taken as almost certain that the entry of Japan into the war would be followed by the immediate entry of the United States on our side."

On May 11, 1941, Robert Menzies, the prime minister of Australia, met with Roosevelt and found him "a little jealous" of Churchill's place in the center of the war. While Roosevelt's cabinet all wanted the United States to enter the war, Menzies found that Roosevelt,

" . . . trained under Woodrow Wilson in the last war, waits for an incident, which would in one blow get the USA into war and get R. out of his foolish election pledges that 'I will keep you out of war.'"

On August 18, 1941, Churchill met with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street. The meeting had some similarity to the July 23, 2002, meeting at the same address, the minutes of which became known as the Downing Street Minutes. Both meetings revealed secret U.S. intentions to go to war. In the 1941 meeting, Churchill told his cabinet, according to the minutes: "The President had said he would wage war but not declare it." In addition, "Everything was to be done to force an incident."

Japan was certainly not averse to attacking others and had been busy creating an Asian empire. And the United States and Japan were certainly not living in harmonious friendship. But what could bring the Japanese to attack?

When President Franklin Roosevelt visited Pearl Harbor on July 28, 1934, seven years before the Japanese attack, the Japanese military expressed apprehension. General Kunishiga Tanaka wrote in the Japan Advertiser, objecting to the build-up of the American fleet and the creation of additional bases in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands:

"Such insolent behavior makes us most suspicious. It makes us think a major disturbance is purposely being encouraged in the Pacific. This is greatly regretted."

Whether it was actually regretted or not is a separate question from whether this was a typical and predictable response to military expansionism, even when done in the name of "defense." The great unembedded (as we would today call him) journalist George Seldes was suspicious as well. In October 1934 he wrote in Harper's Magazine: "It is an axiom that nations do not arm for war but for a war." Seldes asked an official at the Navy League:

"Do you accept the naval axiom that you prepare to fight a specific navy?"
The man replied "Yes."
"Do you contemplate a fight with the British navy?"
"Absolutely, no."
"Do you contemplate war with Japan?"

In 1935 the most decorated U.S. Marine in history at the time, Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, published to enormous success a short book called War Is a Racket. He saw perfectly well what was coming and warned the nation:

"At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals don't shout that 'We need lots of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.' Oh, no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate our 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

"The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline in the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern, through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

In March 1935, Roosevelt bestowed Wake Island on the U.S. Navy and gave Pan Am Airways a permit to build runways on Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam. Japanese military commanders announced that they were disturbed and viewed these runways as a threat. So did peace activists in the United States. By the next month, Roosevelt had planned war games and maneuvers near the Aleutian Islands and Midway Island. By the following month, peace activists were marching in New York advocating friendship with Japan. Norman Thomas wrote in 1935:

"The Man from Mars who saw how men suffered in the last war and how frantically they are preparing for the next war, which they know will be worse, would come to the conclusion that he was looking at the denizens of a lunatic asylum."

The U.S. Navy spent the next few years working up plans for war with Japan, the March 8, 1939, version of which described "an offensive war of long duration" that would destroy the military and disrupt the economic life of Japan. In January 1941, eleven months before the attack, the Japan Advertiser expressed its outrage over Pearl Harbor in an editorial, and the U.S. ambassador to Japan wrote in his diary:

"There is a lot of talk around town to the effect that the Japanese, in case of a break with the United States, are planning to go all out in a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course I informed my government."

On February 5, 1941, Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson to warn of the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.

As early as 1932 the United States had been talking with China about providing airplanes, pilots, and training for its war with Japan. In November 1940, Roosevelt loaned China one hundred million dollars for war with Japan, and after consulting with the British, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau made plans to send the Chinese bombers with U.S. crews to use in bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. On December 21, 1940, two weeks shy of a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, China's Minister of Finance T.V. Soong and Colonel Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army flier who was working for the Chinese and had been urging them to use American pilots to bomb Tokyo since at least 1937, met in Henry Morgenthau's dining room to plan the firebombing of Japan. Morgenthau said he could get men released from duty in the U.S. Army Air Corps if the Chinese could pay them $1,000 per month. Soong agreed.

On May 24, 1941, the New York Times reported on U.S. training of the Chinese air force, and the provision of "numerous fighting and bombing planes" to China by the United States. "Bombing of Japanese Cities is Expected" read the subheadline. By July, the Joint Army-Navy Board had approved a plan called JB 355 to firebomb Japan. A front corporation would buy American planes to be flown by American volunteers trained by Chennault and paid by another front group. Roosevelt approved, and his China expert Lauchlin Currie, in the words of Nicholson Baker, "wired Madame Chaing Kai-Shek and Claire Chennault a letter that fairly begged for interception by Japanese spies." Whether or not that was the entire point, this was the letter:

"I am very happy to be able to report today the President directed that sixty-six bombers be made available to China this year with twenty-four to be delivered immediately. He also approved a Chinese pilot training program here. Details through normal channels. Warm regards."

Our ambassador had said "in case of a break with the United States" the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor. I wonder if this qualified!

The 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force, also known as the Flying Tigers, moved ahead with recruitment and training immediately, were provided to China prior to Pearl Harbor, and first saw combat on December 20, 1941, twelve days (local time) after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

On May 31, 1941, at the Keep America Out of War Congress, William Henry Chamberlin gave a dire warning: "A total economic boycott of Japan, the stoppage of oil shipments for instance, would push Japan into the arms of the Axis. Economic war would be a prelude to naval and military war." The worst thing about peace advocates is how many times they turn out to be right.

On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, "If we cut the oil off , [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there."

Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said "was" rather than "is." The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a "clear and potent threat to Japan's very existence," and concluded the United States had provoked Japan.

On August 7th four months before the attack the Japan Times Advertiser wrote: "First there was the creation of a superbase at Singapore, heavily reinforced by British and Empire troops. From this hub a great wheel was built up and linked with American bases to form a great ring sweeping in a great area southwards and westwards from the Philippines through Malaya and Burma, with the link broken only in the Thailand peninsula. Now it is proposed to include the narrows in the encirclement, which proceeds to Rangoon."

By September the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from "economic war."

What might the United States have been hoping to gain by shipping oil past a nation in desperate need of it?

In late October, U.S. spy Edgar Mower was doing work for Colonel William Donovan who spied for Roosevelt. Mower spoke with a man in Manila named Ernest Johnson, a member of the Maritime Commission, who said he expected "The Japs will take Manila before I can get out." When Mower expressed surprise, Johnson replied "Didn't you know the Jap fleet has moved eastward, presumably to attack our fleet at Pearl Harbor?"

On November 3, 1941, our ambassador tried again to get something through his government's thick skull, sending a lengthy telegram to the State Department warning that the economic sanctions might force Japan to commit "national hara-kiri." He wrote: "An armed conflict with the United States may come with dangerous and dramatic suddenness."

Why do I keep recalling the headline of the memo given to President George W. Bush prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks? "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

Apparently nobody in Washington wanted to hear it in 1941 either. On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as "the Marshall Plan." In fact we don't remember it at all. "We are preparing an offensive war against Japan," Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.

Ten days later Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that he'd met in the Oval Office with Marshall, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Admiral Harold Stark, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Roosevelt had told them the Japanese were likely to attack soon, possibly next Monday. It has been well documented that the United States had broken the Japanese' codes and that Roosevelt had access to them. It was through intercept of a so-called Purple code message that Roosevelt had discovered Germany's plans to invade Russia. It was Hull who leaked a Japanese intercept to the press, resulting in the November 30, 1941, headline "Japanese May Strike Over Weekend."

That next Monday would have been December 1st, six days before the attack actually came. "The question," Stimson wrote, "was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition." Was it? One obvious answer was to keep the fleet in Pearl Harbor and keep the sailors stationed there in the dark while fretting about them from comfortable offices in Washington, D.C. In fact, that was the solution our suit-and-tied heroes went with.

The day after the attack, Congress voted for war. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R., Mont.), the first woman ever elected to Congress, and who had voted against World War I, stood alone in opposing World War II (just as Congresswoman Barbara Lee [D., Calif.] would stand alone against attacking Afghanistan 60 years later). One year after the vote, on December 8, 1942, Rankin put extended remarks into the Congressional Record explaining her opposition. She cited the work of a British propagandist who had argued in 1938 for using Japan to bring the United States into the war. She cited Henry Luce's reference in Life magazine on July 20, 1942, to "the Chinese for whom the U.S. had delivered the ultimatum that brought on Pearl Harbor." She introduced evidence that at the Atlantic Conference on August 12, 1941, Roosevelt had assured Churchill that the United States would bring economic pressure to bear on Japan. "I cited," Rankin later wrote, " the State Department Bulletin of December 20, 1941, which revealed that on September 3 a communication had been sent to Japan demanding that it accept the principle of 'nondisturbance of the status quo in the Pacific,' which amounted to demanding guarantees of the inviolateness of the white empires in the Orient."

Rankin found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been "cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade." Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the catchy slogan "Kill Japs! Kill Japs!" ) had given instructions to him and others to "shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea."

General George Marshall admitted as much to Congress in 1945: that the codes had been broken, that the United States had initiated Anglo-Dutch-American agreements for unified action against Japan and put them into effect before Pearl Harbor, that the United States had provided officers of its military to China for combat duty before Pearl Harbor. It is hardly a secret that it takes two war powers to wage a war (unlike when one war power attacks an unarmed state) or that this case was no exception to that rule. An October 1940 memorandum by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum was acted on by President Roosevelt and his chief subordinates. It called for eight actions that McCollum predicted would lead the Japanese to attack, including arranging for the use of British bases in Singapore and for the use of Dutch bases in what is now Indonesia, aiding the Chinese government, sending a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Philippines or Singapore, sending two divisions of submarines to "the Orient," keeping the main strength of the fleet in Hawaii, insisting that the Dutch refuse the Japanese oil, and embargoing all trade with Japan in collaboration with the British Empire.

The day after McCollum's memo, the State Department told Americans to evacuate far eastern nations, and Roosevelt ordered the fleet kept in Hawaii over the strenuous objection of Admiral James O. Richardson who quoted the President as saying "Sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against the United States and the nation would be willing to enter the war." The message that Admiral Harold Stark sent to Admiral Husband Kimmel on November 28, 1941, read, "IF HOSTILITIES CANNOT REPEAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED THE UNITED STATES DESIRES THAT JAPAN COMMIT THE FIRST OVERT ACT." Joseph Rochefort, cofounder of the Navy's communication intelligence section, who was instrumental in failing to communicate to Pearl Harbor what was coming, would later comment: "It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country."

The night after the attack, President Roosevelt had CBS News's Edward R. Murrow and Roosevelt's Coordinator of Information William Donovan over for dinner at the White House, and all the President wanted to know was whether the American people would now accept war. Donovan and Murrow assured him the people would indeed accept war now. Donovan later told his assistant that Roosevelt's surprise was not that of others around him, and that he, Roosevelt, welcomed the attack. Murrow was unable to sleep that night and was plagued for the rest of his life by what he called "the biggest story of my life" which he never told, but which he did not need to. The next day, the President spoke of a day of infamy, the United States Congress declared the last Constitutional war in the history of the republic, and the President of the Federal Council of Churches, Dr. George A. Buttrick, became a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation committing to resist the war.

Why does it matter? Because the legend of Pearl Harbor, re-used on 9-11, is responsible not for the destructive pro-war policies of the 1920s and the 1930s that brought World War II into being, but responsible for the permanent war mentality of the past 71 years, as well as for how World War II was escalated, prolonged, and completed.

"Disturbed in 1942," wrote Lawrence S. Wittner, "by rumors of Nazi extermination plans, Jessie Wallace Hughan worried that such a policy, which appeared 'natural, from their pathological point of view,' might be carried out if World War II continued. 'It seems that the only way to save thousands and perhaps millions of European Jews from destruction,' she wrote, 'would be for our government to broadcast the promise' of an 'armistice on condition that the European minorities are not molested any further. . . . It would be very terrible if six months from now we should find that this threat has literally come to pass without our making even a gesture to prevent it.' When her predictions were fulfilled only too well by 1943, she wrote to the State Department and the New York Times, decrying the fact that 'two million [Jews] have already died' and that 'two million more will be killed by the end of the war.' Once again she pleaded for the cessation of hostilities, arguing that German military defeats would in turn exact reprisals upon the Jewish scapegoat. 'Victory will not save them,' she insisted, 'for dead men cannot be liberated.'"

Hitler killed millions of Germans, but the allies killed as many or more, Germans ordered into battle by Hitler or Germans in the wrong place when allied bombs fell. And, as Hughan pointed out at the time, the war drove the genocide, just as the vengeful settlement of the previous war a quarter century before had fueled the hostility, the scapegoating, and the rise of Hitlerism. Out of the resistance to war by U.S. conscientious objectors would come, finally, the development of civil resistance to racial segregation in U.S. prisons that later spread to the nation outside the prisons as activists sought to duplicate their victories on a larger scale. But also out of that very worst thing our species has ever done to itself, World War II, would come the permanent military industrial complex. We would extend the power to vote to more and more Americans while, in the cruelest of jokes, transforming voting into an ever more meaningless enterprise. We would paint a fresh coat of glossy pretense on our democracy while hollowing it out from the inside, replacing it with a war machine the likes of which the planet had never seen and may not be able to survive.


I just learned of it from the link in the last paragraph of your following article:


Beyond 935 Lies

By davidswanson - Posted on 04 October 2014

Charles Lewis' book, 935 Lies, would make a fine introduction to reality for anyone who believes the U.S. government usually means well or corporations tend to tell the truth in the free market.  And it would make an excellent introduction to the decline and fall of the corporate media.  Even if these topics aren't new to you, this book has something to add and retells the familiar quite well.


Points I quibble with:

1.  ...


6. Lewis's model of integrity is Edward R. Murrow.  Among Murrow's independent and heroic credentials, according to Lewis, is that he met with President Roosevelt hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Now, I take nothing away from Murrow's reporting and the stand he later took for a free press.  But why did Lewis bring up this meeting?  And once he'd brought it up why did he not mention that Murrow told his wife that night that FDR had given him the "biggest story of my life, but I don't know if it's my duty to tell it or forget it."  The Murrow depicted by Lewis would have known what his duty was.  Murrow later told John Gunther that the story would put his kid through college if he told it.  He never did.

That many people will not immediately know what the story was is testimony to a pattern that Lewis documents.  Some lies take many, many years to fall apart.  The biggest ones sometimes take the longest.

Also, there sometimes are people fast alert and who expose tremendous lies very quickly, but it takes the majority of the population considerable time to learn of this and then, once they've learned of it, some people require many more years before believing that the exposure is truthful, factual, rather than fiction or fabrication.

Often, the truth speakers and denouncers of falsehoods are labeled as "conspiracy theorist" lunies, and most citizens don't see a problem with government making criminal conspiracies illegal, criminalizing them, officially, i.e., on paper, anyway; but, the same citizens then decry "conspiracy theorists" as a bunch of lunies, all liars, fabricators of fiction, ....  Since conspiracies really do happen, then there is good reason to be investigative about these acts and this "detective" work will include theories about the conspiracies.  But, people hypocritically and nonsensically accept govt prohibition against criminal conspiracies and then attack people reporting their findings or beliefs about criminal conspiracies; plenty of which are real.

All investigations can lead to truths as well as falsehoods.  Some innocent people have been convicted for crimes and imprisoned for as much as 25 years before it was finally and officially learned that these people were innocent all along.  There was an article over the past few years or so about a man who was convicted to 25 years prison for a crime he didn't commit.  I forget if this was in Texas or another state, but he was always innocent and society destroyed his life.  We mustn't blindly believe government; none of our "overseers".

The FDR administration criminally conspired to essentially force Japan into attacking the USA so that Washington could then lie to the American population in order to get them to believe that Japan committed a first-strike attack against the USA and that the American people should therefore support entering WW II, against Japan and Germany.  This was conspiracy, for it involved more than one person.  It involved several or more people who weren't only "in the know" but who also were working together for this "agenda".

There was conspiracy regarding the phony Gulf of Tonkin attack that never happened, because plenty of people were aware of the fact that the attack hadn't happened and still stayed silent about this fact.  More than one person was guilty for this big lie told to Americans, as well as others.

We know for a fact that the war on Iraq was a criminal conspiracy; it was and remains that, ongoingly.  We know for a fact that the war was based on lies, lies, lies, ... and more lies; all lies, nothing at all significantly truthful.

We know for a fact that many citizens protested against the launching of this damn hell-bent war on Iraq.

We know for a fact that this war was definitely conspired.

We know for a fact that Congresswoman Barbara Lee opposed authorization for recourse to war on Afghanistan; the sole member of the US Congress to take this position!  She was right too.  Although her argument could've been even stronger, including much stronger, she nonetheless was basically right in choosing to oppose authorization for this damn hell-bent war.  Many citizens can recognize this, but citizens who also opposed recourse to this war and posed very critical questions about what really happened on 9/11, not blindly believing the "official story" from Washington about 9/11, have been ridiculed as "conspiracy theory" lunies.  Suddenly, we go from a population who believes conspiracies do happen and that our governments should have laws against such acts, to a population that mocks other citizens who try to draw attention to the fact that the government is again LYING, as if it'd be at all unusual of the government to do that.

People can accept that some alleged, not proven but alleged, Arabs hijacked the airliners used for the 9/11 attacks, that this was all accomplished with the mere "weapon" called a box cutter, that it was all directed by Usamah bin Ladin hiding out in some mountainous area of Afghanistan, using a cell phone, etc; but, they don't believe the facts that, and only f.e.:

Several of the alleged hijackers denounced being accused and were therefore interviewed by BBC and some other media, proving that these people definitely weren't on the airliners used to commit the 9/11 attacks.  (And the FBI still kept these provably innocent people listed as having been supposedly among the alleged hijackers.  Hilarious!)

Bush really did essentially prove that war on Afghanistan wasn't justifiable, for he had said that bin Laden was responsible, that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, and it was a known fact that the Afghan government controlled by the Taliban therefore wasn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks, meaning that bin Laden, a Saudi, not an Afghan, couldn't be justification for war on another country.  If a foreign outlaw gang comes to live in your town and commits some crimes in another town, then the latter isn't justified in warring on your town, unless you beligerently, etc., defend the outlaws against the rights of the other town.  Well, the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden and this includes before 9/11, but it was legitimately conditional.  Washington had to provide sufficient proof that bin Laden was indeed guilty for the 9/11 attacks and Washington wholly refused to do this; leaving the sole conclusion to be that it was Washington hegemony, lies, deceit, trickery, ... AGAIN, not unusually, but, instead, again.  FBI was asked why bin Laden wasn't named for the 9/11 attacks in the top Ten Most Wanted list (or whatever the title of it is) and the journalist was told that it's because there wasn't sufficient proof that he was guilty for 9/11; yet, Washington based its pre-planned war on Afghanistan on the lie that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.  Bin Laden consistently denied responsibility for 9/11 and pointed readers' and/or listeners' attention towards Washington for who to suspect as being really responsible.  He was right, but many Americans still refuse to suspect "wolves from within" or "enemy from within", like dumb sheeple might do and actually do.

9/11 was a conspired attack regardless of whether it was an inside job or not, but many citizens continue to believe the conspiracy theory called  the "official story" from Washington, while treating all critiques as if they're garbage "conspiracy theory".  Washington's version clearly/irrefutably is about conspiracy and much of the "theory" doesn't hold up to careful scrutiny; but, much of the population still believes that Washington suddenly isn't lying anymore; a characteristic extremely uncustomary for DC.

WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 clearly enough were destroyed with the use of controlled demolition and it's most implausible that Al Qaeda could be responsible for this.  #7 wasn't hit by any airliner.  It did suffer some damage because of fallout debris from WTC 1 or 2, and there were some fires inside the building, but none of this was enough to cause #7's complete destruction in only controlled demolition manner.  Fires and airliner impacts also weren't sufficient for destroying 1 and 2.  But, many people ignore the valid research and many unfortunately have read or listened to deceitful and incompetently created "documentaries" or articles.  Critical thinkers wouldn't rely on that distorted "truth" telling.  They'd search for competent work, instead.  But, many people aren't sufficiently critical.  They can learn that there're quack theorists among 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" and there definitely are, but we have to be moronic to think that we're all the same.  It'd be as stupid as thinking that all people of colours A, B, ... are the same, or that all persons who're Christian are the same, or ....  It doesn't happen in REALITY.  Conscience isn't bound to skin pigmentation, religion, etc.

Plenty of people can believe that there was conspiracy behind the assassination of President JFK and there's damn plenty of reason for this belief.  People can believe that there was conspiracy behind the attempted assassination against President Reagan and that there was behind the assassination of President Lincoln as well as the successful and attempted assassinations of other U.S. Presidents.  People can believe that Washington lies in order to try to get the population to support U.S. warring.  But plenty of people have difficulty with critically questioning DC's so-called "official story" about 9/11; for once, The People preferring to blindly believe their corrupt, roguish government.

Perhaps the lie would be too great or extreme in this case?  People can accept that Washington basically forced Japan into attacking US forces at Pearl Harbor, killing some thousands of US military service people, but don't want to believe that DC could do this to ordinary citizens?  People really need to wake up.  Washington and its "Wizard of Oz" masters don't care about ordinary citizens, but they clearly do "care" to lie to us in order to try to deceive us into wittingly and unwittingly supporting their secret agendas.

And the agenda is?  Call it global dominance and this includes full spectrum military dominance, for economic dominance requires the military strong-arm, sometimes after trying with "economic hit men" and the CIA or NED, if not both, f.e.; as John Perkins has written and spoken of.  Other countries otherwise won't let themselves be subjected to dominance by a foreign power.  Some political "leaders" will "go with the money", but some won't and will reject being dominated by foreign powers, as much as it can be avoided.

9/11 was preplanned.  No one doubts this.  If the DC "official story" is right, which it unfortunately isn't, then 9/11 was a conspiracy.  If DC is lying about this, and this evidently is quite indesputable fact, then we again have conspiracy.  Either way, we have criminal conspiracy and of course conspiracy requires pre-planning!

It apparently is fact that the Bush administration had official plans for war on Afghanistan well in advance of 9/11.  It was for war on that country to commence no later than October 2001; because US forces apparently don't like fighting during winter months.  For the USA, war is a sesonal thing, ya see.  But, and I think to have read that it's PNAC that states this, a "New Pearl Harbor" sort of attack/scenario would be needed to get the American population to support recourse to war; and it isn't just war, for it instead is a series of criminal wars on several countries.  And there's no end presently in sight, either.

"Mom Boucher", a sort of leader in some of the Hells Angels in Quebec, Canada, was a violence-oriented "fireworks" sort, but he provided an interesting interview that was hosted and aired on some US msm tv station, maybe CNN, back in 1998 or 1999.  I was working with computer consulting and contracting job websites at the time and suddenly heard a woman, on tv, say that there was going to be an interview including "Mom Boucher" and I knew of only one person going by that appellation so turned around to check what this was about.  It was him and he was in Canada.  I don't think he'd ever want to set foot in the USA.  Surely not.  He spoke from Canada, a or the chair of the NYC chapter, Mario Lavigne (spelling?), author of a book compiled from data gained from RCMP, FBI, ... Canadian and US police, and two LAPD (corrupt as hell) police detectives were interviewed.  The chair of the HA for the NYC area chapter understandably refused to say much of anything.  Mario Lavigne was understandably frightened.  The two LAPD cops were like cocky jerks you couldn't trust.  And, Boucher said, among other things, also paraphrasing it, "Sure, the HA is a criminal organization, but if you take all of our crimes and compare the total to what goes on in this world, then we account for at most 1%".

Violence-prone as he was and as detested as his ways were for many HA members and associates, "at most 1%" would be appropriate, for the HA surely don't account for 1% of the serious crimes committed in this world.  Our governments and, implicitly, their "masters" account for most crimes and injustices in this world; by far the most.  There're Mafia and other outlaw groups that have members who profit from this extremely and globally-scoped criminality, but they're not the bosses.  It makes them complicit, but they're still not the leaders of this criminality.

Some HA are elated that he's been incarcerated.  I don't have a clue where he is, but if he's really and still incarcerated (?), then plenty of HA are happy about this.  Yet, he told a truth that shouldn't be ignored.  I also disagree with his violent ways, but he told a truth that has real substance to it and I never wish to ignore it.  Why would we want to ignore important truth?  We can have reason to detest the truth-sayer, but we shouldn't refute truth.

I have my personal reasons for disliking some HA.  I'm a loner, lone ranger, solo-ist, living my own life and being a citizen who CARES; but, not all HA are seriously bad, to be ridden of.  Some do have morals that're good and, I guess anyway, they don't like being very alone in life, lone ranger, strangler, just living your own life very independently, as much as you can.  Some just want a "warm family feeling", some are psychotic, etc.  But, some seem to only need a sense of "belonging" and I don't have this problem, for the Earth is always beneath my feet and all humans have plenty that's in common; needing to eat, sleep, to have peace, justice, and so on.  Some, if not more so, strangers are more friendly towards me than people I know; not well, but still know to some extent. Some of these other people are quacks, imo; hostile, prone to violent conduct, ... weird, childish, spoiled even while poor, and so on.  It's a very weird world.

There're poor people who'll gladly rip-off another poor person but not the rich and this is completely absurd, imo.  Well, it nonetheless is reality.  And it sometimes is conspiratorial.  All it takes is for two or more people to agree to plot and commit a crime.  Criminal conspiracies ... abound.  We have individual, contemplated, planned crimes, and we have also conspiratorial crimes.  Which do we have more of?  Maybe conspiratorial.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

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.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.