Gary Hart warns Iran to beware Cheney framing Iran as provocation for U.S. attack

[JackRiddler]

The following brief open letter is from Gary Hart, the former Democratic senator and winner of presidential primaries in 1984, also the co-author of the much-cited 2000 Hart-Rudman report on terrorism, writing in the Huffington Post yesterday in the form of

"Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran"

Posted September 26, 2007 | 03:22 PM (EST)

Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.

Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.

If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.

For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/unsolicited-advice-to-the_b_65984.html

Hart is now on the Council of Foreign Relations and likely to be privy to deliberations among the foreign policy elite. He has thus delivered in clear, plain language his opinion that the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, is liable to arrange a framing or false-flag cause for war against Iran, following the model of the USS Maine explosion in 1898, falsely blamed on the Spanish to start the Spanish-American War, and the so-called Gulf of Tonkin incident - the fictional event used in 1964 to railroad the Congress into a resolution empowering the war in Vietnam.

Is there a bigger news story out there? Down the rabbit hole we go.

[Theres-a]

1. K

[Theres-a]

65. I

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. I wouldn't put it past the Bushies to set up a false flag operation

The only surprising thing is that Gary Hart mentioned it in public.

False flag operations are things that the media tend not to talk about, because it would damage our national myth of always being the good guys, a myth that must be supported at all costs.

[spanone]

3. it's a shame what our nation has become. just a shame

r

[Spoonerian]

10. Gary Hart suggests

that our nation has been pretty shameful at least as far back as 1898.

[spanone]

33. yes, but junior has taken it to new depths

[libodem]

4. Oh, Mother in Heaven

Please don't let us be fooled twice!

[populistdriven]

5. false flag is in its final stages anyways, the only people that could stop it are congress

and thats not likely to happen

[Junkdrawer]

20. More than a few see the Lieberman/Kyl amendment as permission...

to go forward.

[TomClash]

It has already started

with the attack Zahedan bombing by "Jundallah"

[TomClash]

62. It has already started

with the attack Zahedan bombing by "Jundallah"

[Junkdrawer]

6. The Dickens you say...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1912144&mesg_id=1912144

[The Magistrate]

7. This Is Not Warning Against 'False Flag' Actions, Mr. Riddler

It is advice to avoid provocation, and the possibility of small-scale clashes between Iranian and U.S. forces on the borders between Iran and Iraq, or even in Iraq. Sound advice, too. Things like that are quite possible in the present state of affairs.

Neither of the items Sen. Hart specifically references is a 'false flag' action: Spain may not have blown up the U.S.S. Maine, but the United States did not do it either, so it could be blamed on Spain; there were actually North Vietnamese naval elements involved in the original Gulf of Tonkin incident, it was not an instance of U.S. agents masquerading as North Vietnamese and attacking U.S. forces. Certainly in the latter instance, U.S. actioons drew out the North Vietnamese vessels, and this and a good deal more was concealed from the public at the time, while the incident was blown out of all proportion to serve as a pretext for a long-contemplated action. But that is not 'false flag', or even close to it....

[JackRiddler]

14. Definition of "false flag"

for me, when A blames B for something that A knows full well B did not do, it is a false-flag provocation, even when A didn't do it either. In the case of Havana, A - the United States - probably didn't blow up the Maine, either, but blamed it immediately on Spain. In the case of Gulf of Tonkin, it's open and shut: the U.S. military fabricated a non-existent incident. They did not draw out NV vessels, but rather invaded their territorial waters, repeatedly in the hope of drawing fire. They failed to provoke any fire on the part of NV, so they just went ahead and made it up that NV fired on the ships.

I'd even revise the term to suit you, since this semantical hair-splitting: Hart expresses his opinion that US, specifically Cheney, is liable to blame Iran for shit it didn't do and then attack it, because he wants to attack it.

[Flabbergasted]

21. That is not suggested in the letter.

[JackRiddler]

24. We may read things differently. n/t

[Flabbergasted]

27. What are you reading that you are interpreting as a Warning of a False Flag Op.

Your revised headline is not accurate either. Why don't you say it how it is.

[JackRiddler]

31. How is it then?

What's your preferred headline?

[Flabbergasted]

34. Hart warns Iran to do nothing to provoke the US.

[JackRiddler]

58. Cos we're so tough, eh?

[The Magistrate]

26. That Is Not What He Is Saying, Sir

He is stating that it is possible U.S. troops may draw Iranian troops into a clash on the border, that will be presented as an attack on U.S. troops by Iranian troops. He advises the Iranian government to take steps to avoid this by ceasing to supply arms to militias in Iraq across their border, and keep a tight leash on their own border guards and clandestine services.

'False flag', as you know well, has a real meaning, namely, the employment of agents of one country pretending to be agents of another, in order to do harm that will be blamed on the latter, though in fact authored by the former. Sen. Hart makes no reference to any such incident, and does not warn against any such thing happening.

Your capsule of the Tonkin incident is not quite correct, though that is something of a sideline here. The operations were not specifically to draw fire, they were escort for the infiltration of agents into North Vietnam, a fairly routine occurance, that did indeed invade North Vietnamese territorial waters. The events were not a single incident, but took place over a period of time. There were North Vietnamese patrol boats in the initial stage, and there was an exchange of fire. Subsequent to this, there was a period of confusion, poor radar reading, and a good deal of firing at spooks.

[JackRiddler]

29. Fine.

I don't see what is "routine" in the sense of regular, therefore relatively inoccuous, about distant imperial powers ferrying infiltrators (i.e., the ones that the other side calls terrorists) into a sovereign nation.

But it's still in the editing period and I've revised the term so as to avoid a debate on definitions.

[The Magistrate]

38. There Was A War On, Sir, You Know, At The Time

We were participants in it, as ally of one side of it. Infiltration of agents into enemy territory is fairly routine in the course of a war, just as marching formed forces into the enemy's country is....

[JackRiddler]

40. Well this just shows we can go on about terms forever.

It was a war, yes - one started by the U.S. when it invaded Vietnam, at first with advisers and consultants and money and spies and arms, from the mid-1950s forward, preventing the election called for under the Geneva treaty and setting up a dictatorship of a northern Vietnamese exile minority over the area south of the treaty line with the French, which was styled into an independent republic. Subsequently the Pentagon exterminated millions of people in the south, the north and Cambodia and Laos, in an attempt to make the initial soft invasion stand. If you want to call this attempted imperial takeover of Indochina and aggressive war upon its peoples a war that "we" (always an interesting pronoun, that) were participating in as an "ally" in 1964 when the Gulf of Tonkin deception was pulled, be my guest.

[The Magistrate]

43. That It Was A War, Sir

Is all that is necessary to make actions that in fact are routine in war properly described as routine: the rest of your potted history is quite beside the point, and not of sufficient interest to warrant engagement....

[JackRiddler]

44. o, i am slain

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

46. An illegal, covert war, yes - one that gained legitimacy through Gulf of Tonkin "incident"

[The Magistrate]

49. A Legal, Open War, Sir

Common knowledge to anyone who could read a newspaper or magazine since the last years of Gen. Eisenhower's administration. Viewed as wholly legitimate by the populace of the country, who were quite convinced of the propriety of the Cold War it was an incident within, long before the Tonkin affair was made pretext for an air offensive against North Vietnam, and the commitment of increased numbers of U.S. troops.

[JackRiddler]

51. A legal war, Sir?

Is that like justified rape?

Tell us: If we rewind to 1964, where would you have stood? For or against the U.S. intervention in Vietnam?

[The Magistrate]

53. It Violated No Law Of The United States, Sir

Nor did it meet any definition of aggressive war in international law. There were certainly violations of international law committed in the course of it, but that was common to both sides of the struggle, and not unique to any one side in it.

Having been of age during the Cold War, it has always seemed to me that Communist totalitarianism was worth opposing, and that was a very common view on the left, dating back to the days of Stalin, and even Lenin in many Socialist circles. The fight was often pressed badly, clumsily and cruelly and inefficiently. The engagement in Viet Nam was certainly in the latter class. It was too peripheral to the central struggle to justify the weight given it and the effort expended. Indeed, its very inconsequence was one of the reasons it was pressed: the intent was to make a show-piece, to demonstrate we would fight anywhere, in the hope of demonstrating resolve and deterring open military efforts by the enemy in areas of undoubted consequence. But that is a very poor rational for strategic effort, particularly in a clash between open democratic systems and closed totalitarian ones, since the latter will always manage to present a better appearance of iron will than the former, and the former require some knowing consent of the citizenry for any great national effort, and people in the mass sense pretty well when something is really important or not.

[JackRiddler]

54. Declaration of Independence, Democratic Republic of Vietnam

Well then, we know which side you were on, or would have been on, oh noble Roman.

Here's what the man who had 80 percent of the people of Vietnam behind him had to say - quoting Thomas Jefferson, no less, in an effort to gain a spot of mercy from the overlords. For all the good it did the millions who were murdered by your side, Sir. And yet they fought on against the beast... and their children did prevail.

(Moderators, note: The following is an open-source historical document.)

President Ho Chi Minh delivering
his address in Hanoi on 2 September 1945.

(SEPTEMBER 2, 1945)

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights." Those are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow-citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice. In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.

They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.

They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots- they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood. They have fettered public opinion; they have practised obscurantism against our people. To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.

In the fields of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people, and devastated our land.

They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolised the issuing of bank-notes and the export trade.

They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.

They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.

In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese Fascists violated Indochina's territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them.

Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quang Tri province to the North of Vietnam, more than two rnillion of our fellow-citizens died from starvation. On March 9, the French troops were disarmed by the lapanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered, showing that not only were they incapable of "protecting" us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese.

On several occasions before March 9, the Vietminh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Vietminh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bay and Cao Bang.

Not withstanding all this, our fellow-citizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese putsch of March 1945, the Vietminh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property.

From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession.

After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French

The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligation that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Vietnam and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.

The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country.

We are convinced that the Allied nations which at Tehran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Vietnam.

A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent countryÑand in fact it is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilise all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.

Source: Ho Chi Minh, Selected Works (Hanoi, 1960-1962), Vol. 3, pp. 17-21.

[The Magistrate]

55. A U.S. Naval Officer Stood Beside Him At The Proclaimation, Sir

You are not providing any information new to me....

[Flabbergasted]

17. That's what I noticed as well.

[JackRiddler]

25. Fine, I revised the headline.

That way we don't have to debate if it's a false flag, since it doesn't matter.

Hart is saying that Cheney is willing to - cognizantly - frame Iran for something Iran did not do, and then rain down the bombs. Okay? Thanks.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Wow! Is this an honest admission/confession? Or is it ...

... an instance of Nixon's famous Madman strategy?

[JackRiddler]

18. Unknowable

I can only read what Hart writes, not know what is in his heart as he does so. Your "maddog" hypothesis is untestable.

Many at the CFR I believe favor rapprochement with Iran.

[seemslikeadream]

9. 'Combat Outpost Shocker:' The base that could spark Iran conflict

Oh like they're not trying


http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Combat_Outpost_Shocker_The_base_that_0928.html

The US military is building a base in Iraq just five miles from the border with Iran to prevent cross-border arms smuggling. The base, called "Combat Outpost Shocker," will be manned by 200 soldiers, along with agents from the US Border Patrol, and will monitor truck traffic and cellphone conversations among Shi'ite pilgrims.

"Obviously, probably won't be very happy about it," Col. Mark Mueller, the commander of the border transition team, told ABC News.

Border security has been essentially ignored since the US invasion of Iraq, but the establishment of the base at this time is also seen as targeting what the US claims are Iranian attempts to smuggle advanced arms to Iraqi insurgents. The Associated Press, however, concludes that it is likely to be a drop in the bucket when dealing with a 900-mile long border where smuggling is a centuries-old way of life.

In a telephone conversation with RAW STORY earlier this month, Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at New America Foundation and publisher of The Washington Note said his gravest concern surrounding Iran was that the US might seize on an accidental incident -- such as a collision between a US and Iranian ship or a border skirmish between Iraq and Iran -- as a casus belli.

"A mistake in the Gulf where ships collide or US soldiers are attacked or Israel fires a low-level cruise missile attack against Natanz or there's a border skirmish between Iraq and Iran that results in the death of a high-ranking military or diplomatic official – any of these could spark a conflict," he said.

[Junkdrawer]

11. For a long time, my nightmare scenario goes like this:

1.) Either side provokes a border incident.
2.) We implement a false-flag "overreaction". i.e. We launch a cruise missile on an aircraft carrier and make it look like it was the Iranians.
3.) All hell breaks loose.

[seemslikeadream]

13. people forget we are already in Iran

I'm going for the link


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1904962

[blm]

12. Time for DLC/PNAC Dems to attack Gary Hart as a tinfoiler, too.

.

[helderheid]

15. Keith Olbermann needs to report this!

[JackRiddler]

19. Do you have a connection to KO?

fear I don't, but if anyone does. I mean, an e-mail is fine, right, but if someone knows whom to call to direct attention to this...

[Spoonerian]

16. I wonder why

he left out the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, April Glaspie, and the Kuwait incubator babies? And, of course, he shouldn't have forgotten the Rio Grande border provocation used as an excuse to invade Mexico in 1845; and lest he not also forget the countless false flags used to exterminate the Indians.

Who knows what else CFR/Operation Mockingbird has in store for us as this all important ratings-sweeps period comes to an end. First Greenspan admits (in effect) to Jon Stewart that its not really a free market system, but a government command system where the Fed chooses which corporations and banks to bail out. Then he admits that they fight wars to steal oil.

What next? Maybe the CFR will be limited-hang-outedly admitting that Atta and Oswald were government patsies under the supervision of Porter Goss and George de Morenshildt respectively.

[JackRiddler]

23. Yeah, I see your point.

I wrote a satire once in which they do exactly that, and no one notices.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spoonerian]

28. And I love

the patronizing not-quite-as-bad-a-cop as the other-bad-cop strategy this CFR-democrat is playing with his CFR-republican worse-cop partners.

And how does one know which cop it is that is doing the threatening once he's about to have a U.S. Military police beating administered upon himself?

The republicans use expressions like "get ready to be bombed into the stone age" (wasn't Curtis Lemay a republican?) or "you can have a carpet of bombs if you don't accept our carpet of gold" (wasn't that U.S. rep to Afghanistan a republican?).

But the not-as-bad-a-cop cfr/dems merely snicker and make jokes about "bombs falling on your head."

Note: both branches of the cfr reserve use of the expression "wipe off the map" for falsely ascribing to people who speak languages that have no such idiomatic phrasing anywhere in there language--as Professor Cole as proven.

[JackRiddler]

30. Yes, there seems to be that aspect.

He's telling them to help US policy, there is that in there as well. He's saying, oh the brute Cheney, he'll beat ya, I tell ya, he'll fake it to beat ya, but you can take some precautions by helping us out in Iraq...

But the most interesting part to me is that he is saying he believes Cheney is liable to fake the provocation. An unusual statement.

[Spoonerian]

36. No, I think more precisely

he's saying (behind the thinest of veils--after all he's the not-quite-as-bad-cop):
"T Roosevelt did it. LBJ did it. WE ALL do it."

And that is unusual and startling--like some of the things that Greenspan has said recently...but, then again its ratings season.

[JackRiddler]

41. True, true.

They're dropping the pretenses left and right. And seeing how far the believing majority will twist themselves up to rationalize it as something other than that what it is. Greenspan says Iraq invaded for oil, then he must have not meant it that way, or it's not that simple, or you need to do a more sophisticated textual analysis, etc.

[JackRiddler]

45. ...More on this...

See, in our environment of discourse, first straight talk is made impossible because anyone who says certain things except in highly coded fashion gets hammered for how-dare-you! (You can't even say Cheney lied about Iraq, that's impolite even though it is the literal truth using the most neutral and accurate words available for the process described.) So when encoded speech is employed - and it's so obvious in this case, barely coded is more like - the how-dare-you-say-that faction get into the fall-back position that there was nothing behind the encoded speech, it's all a product of the imagination. (You can see this working higher up on this very thread.) So it's only your imagination if you hear Hart saying that Iran had better watch out for the framing whopper.

Of course, those who understand get the message, and Hart is showing how to communicate with his friends - right over the heads of the public..

[Spoonerian]

50. Yes, "encoded speech" as you put it

seems to be loaded up with multiple messages that target different recipients. Like you said about Greenspan's editing of his war for oil statements. The ultimate was on 60 minutes when they just laughed at how Greenspan had spoken gibberish for 20 years. They all thought it was so cute. The government mafia's central bank bails out billionaires for twenty years and talks gibberish when somebody like Bernie Sanders asks questions. That's so cute.

[Bushwick Bill]

35. Yeah, see Zbiggie B.

Brzezinski said a lot of this same stuff earlier in the year. While many fawned over him and I appreciated the gesture of having a real elitist give out this warning, I couldn't help but think Zbiggie basically wrote the PNAC playbook in The Grand Chessboard (control energy, ratchet up militarization after a new Pearl Harbor).

I guess what you get from all of this is that when the "reasonable" insiders freak out and want to turn on the neocons, some serious shit must be afoot.

[CGowen]

32. I only got 1 rec

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=310315&mesg_id=310315

[Flabbergasted]

37. Your headline was accurate and therefore uninteresting unfortunately his was inaccurate

but exactly what DUers look for. Too bad.

[CGowen]

39. Last time I was accused for posting the exact headline, because someone thought it was deceptive.

It's always wrong for some folks.....

[JackRiddler]

47. Happens...

Deserving threads do drop. I think descriptive headlines are important, and the one actually on Hart's article wasn't.

People have objected to mine, though I think it's accurate. One could also do this:

Gary Hart warns Iran that Cheney wants to attack

Or

Gary Hart says Cheney may try to provoke Iran.

These say who said what; the headline of the actual Hart article is unclear (by not specifying anything about Hart's "unsolicited advice," one might think it's not interesting).

[CGowen]

48. I would really like to know how many people read more than the first sentence of the thread

and how many of them are members who can recommend a thread.


It seems that headlines with bold statements attract more readers, it's easier than to count on people who know that Gary Hart was warning shortly before 911.


I will have to adjust my headlines........

[Megahurtz]

42. Trouble Is

is that I don't think it matters much what Iran may do or say to "provoke" BushInc. If Iran was quiet they would push even harder. Cheney et. al. have already got their greedy minds made up.

Changing your actions does not get your abuser to stop abusing you.

[JackRiddler]

52. kick it

[Psyop Samurai]

56. I think I'm with Spoonerian on this...

...if I'm understanding correctly, that is.

I'll put it in not-so-coded language, in case anyone's still with us.

This is a big stinking pile of horse shit. I detect a grotesque, cynical dog and pony show, designed to exploit opposition sentiment, while furthering an identical goal. "Ooh.., watch out for that Big Bad Cheney!!"

Uh-huh.

The former pronouncement from Brzezinski was curiously indeterminate, but I think this gives it away. He's playing a cute little game, and for that, may he burn in hell.

Let all traitors hang - I'm done.

[JackRiddler]

57. Hey, I'm not going to say you're wrong -

he's still making an interesting admission.

Now, it may not matter, due to its not influencing anyone's perceptions. Those who knew it get a confirmation. Those who didn't still don't get it and don't notice. Those who always deny, keep denying. And finally, for Hart's set, it's another experiment to determine how far one can go and still get no reaction from the plebs. (Answer, as usual: pretty fucking far.)

[Psyop Samurai]

59. Oh, I agree...

...and we seem to have been at this "new threshold" for a while now. Nothing can top the stunning audacity of Brzezinski's pronouncement, where he attempted to hijack/displace the "false flag" meme itself (which had leaked into the air), attributing the possibility of such to "Al Queda"!!! Now, THAT was a doozy! Result?

:boring:

Then (I wish I had the link), when an audience member pressed him on it, he responded something to the effect, "look, all I'm saying is these things can get out of hand".

:rofl:

Now, this has been followed by a period of "respectable", but genuinely dissenting people furthering the idea that "they" (which daily comes more and more to be localized in the entity, "Cheney"), might stage ANOTHER false flag attack, WITHOUT, to anyone's knowledge, ever having staged one in the first place!

:crazy:

So, we're really through the looking glass here.

Hart's posturing struck me as more insulting than intriguing, so that's why I dropped the hammer. I was more willing to view Brzezinski's utterance as a coded (though transparent) statement of opposition, a "shot across the bow". But this, well, let's just say the tea leaves are turning a sickly color. The CFR sending a "helpful" message to Iran, full of stupid bluster, via Huffington Post?

:puke:

My best reading is he's trying to steal Paul Craig Roberts and others' thunder, muddy the waters, displace onto something relatively innocuous (or at least confusing), while "rallying the troops" in every direction. Nothing's 100% conclusive yet, nor can I say when it will be. But I scored VERY HIGH on my Colin Powell test.

Time's up for their games. I hold every motherfucking last one of them responsible. I don't give a fuck if all they "did" was serve the coffee.

[JackRiddler]

60. I think you're winning this argument...

if that is what it is.

[Psyop Samurai]

61. No, it's not...

I agree with you, and observe the same phenomena.

I just wanted to add that, so far as I can tell, there's no reason whatsoever to place any kind of trust in Gary Hart or the CFR. And I find it increasingly laughable this notion that the "sane" power elite, (or, as you guys were discussing upthread, the "good cops") are really on our side, but utterly helpless before the Big Bad Cheney™.

I didn't mean to infer that's what YOU were claiming, but rather, that's what THEY seem to be playing at, and that we should remain vigilant against all manner of deception, and not get "played".

So far as I can tell, it's all a BIG GAME to these people, nothing more. And in the end, NO ONE is ever responsible for anything, ever. Shit just "happens"... "mistakes" are made... Cheney's mean... and so forth. It's a zombie murder cult. And, though some are a little squeamish about that little "suicide pact" thing, they're certainly not about to rock the boat.

The only way I have of fighting back (though there may be better ones beyond my scope), is to shine the most glaring light possible on their duplicity and collusion at every turn.

[Doctor Panacea]

63. The best he can do?

I am glad that Hart wrote the open letter.

But is it the best that he can do in a formal letter to use contractions like "you've" instead of "you have" and employ sentences like "Sticks and stones, etc."?

People in Tehran will probably be scratching their heads over "Sticks and stones."

[JackRiddler]

64. oh, I think they'll have translators for this... n/t