It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Only a Terror attack can save Obama

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   


Only Terror Attack Can Save Obama
A former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton says that the only thing which can rescue Barack Obama’s increasingly tenuous grip on power as his approval figures continue to plunge is a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11, another startling reminder that such events only ever serve to benefit those in authority.


Buried in a Financial Times article about Obama’s “growing credibility crisis” and fears on behalf of Democrats that they could lose not only the White House but also the Senate to Republicans, Robert Shapiro makes it clear that Obama is relying on an October surprise in the form of a terror attack to rescue his presidency.

my.auburnjournal.com...


Gary Hart Warns Iran Of False Flag Provocation

Gary Hart
Huffington Post
Thursday, September 27, 2007

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.


www.prisonplanet.com...

Given that the above aludes to admitted false flag operations like the Gulf of Tonkin, and Pearl Harbour, and Gary Hart's admission that the US no longer needs to be provoked on order to go to war in his letter to Iran...

What do you think the odds are that there will be yet another false flag terror event in order to provoke full Martial Law, and / or yet another war, or even world war three.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I know that if something terrible does happen, i will be one of the first people to be skeptikal of its origins. i would hope that more people this time around would also be skeptikal and oppose any immediate actions taken by the US government, until we can fully comprehend the situation.

On a side note, if something was orchestrated by the administration I think it would actually look worse. wetther we know who orchestrated 9/11 or not, there has been nothing similar to that since the Bush administration. so i think a lot of people would think Obama couldnt keep america safe like Bush, wether its true or not.

not what i think, but i could forsee this as a possibility.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
not to worry he'll get one very soon! i'v heard alot of people say obama is a one term president but he could be your last! because this one isnt coming from half way round the world. its coming from america and i dont mean a false flag.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by monguzi
 


How do you feel about the rhetoric aimed at Iran like the "wipe Israel off the map" comment that appears to have been mistranslated, or the accusations about Iran's nuclear weapons program, when the US intelligence agencies all say Iran stopped it's weapons program in 2003 and has not revived it?

Could these be precursers to a false flag?





[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


yeah, it more than could be a false flag.

as for US Israeli relations, i think of 2 things.

1. US will not allow another democracy to perish.

2. US is primarily christian, for that there is a religous obligation to help israel

IMO you can pretty much attribute any action taken by the US toward israeli to fall under these two things.

forgot about Iran, with the growing US presence in the middle east, it should be assumed they are nervous. to me this is what is most defiently causing actions taking by the US and Iran. military posturing, based off a concern.

but hey, ive been wrong before.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by monguzi]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Gulf of Tonkin was the ploy the US used to invade Vietnam. There have been a lot of released statements and such about this being a set up and that the Vietnamese never attacked US Naval vessels. A taped conversation by President LBJ noted him saying he didnt even believe that the attack occurred. It was his advisors that told him about it and he used that "intel" to request military action that lead to the war in Vietnam. He is quoted as saying "For all I know, our Navy is shooting at whales out there." A Navy pilot noted that there were no PT boats, rather just open black water.

As to Pearl Harbor, there have also been released reports that they knew the invasion from the Japanese was inbound, which is why they moved so many of their modern Naval vessels out of Pearl Harbor in advance of the attack and left old and decommisioned vessels in the Harbor as targets. The radio operator that noted the first wave of inbounds on his radar was told it was a glitch and to ignore it. This was so that the attack would cause massive destruction and demand an immediate response so that the US could validate entering the war.

There have also been recants about the WMDs that were supposedly in Iraq that got us into our modern day mess, which is freely available on the net. Even Dubya has stated that the intel was bad. Of course the war shifted from WMDs to Terror attacks to validate keeping the war in play.

The US really doesnt care about reason anymore for invasion. I mean as long as there are Wars on drugs and terror, they can pretty much validate going into any country on the globe and starting a skirmish. They used drug charges against Noriega to invade Panama. They have used terrorism to invade Afghanistan. They will probably use a combo pack to go after Iran.

To quote from the movie Surrogate: "Those machines walking around out there are a lie"..."You have been sold a lie" ~V Rhames



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I don't know. I kind of think that the Obama Administration is a terror attack. They are sure as hell doing enough damage.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


It’s well known in that in politics successfully dealing with a natural or manmade disaster always boosts popularity. I think that is what he is talking about rather than hinting at a false flag operation. It’s actually quite a common idea that his widely held by Neo-Conservatives and democratic republicans even if they don’t always recognise this aspect of their ideology. Margret Thatcher’s popularity soared after the Falklands war as did Bush when he went into Afghanistan.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Already being discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
.....and so its set in motion.

watch your heads people.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


This is nothing to do with any terrorist warning it’s to do with political ideology. There is no need to lock you doors and get your grab bag just yet.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Danbones
 


It’s well known in that in politics successfully dealing with a natural or manmade disaster always boosts popularity. I think that is what he is talking about rather than hinting at a false flag operation. It’s actually quite a common idea that his widely held by Neo-Conservatives and democratic republicans even if they don’t always recognise this aspect of their ideology. Margret Thatcher’s popularity soared after the Falklands war as did Bush when he went into Afghanistan.


Looks like in this case though, Obama's dealing with the gulf "spill" has cost him popularity. Some, after observing the short selling and puts, and the timeing of who knew about the equipement failings, and then sold out of BP, consider that the gulf spill to have been a false flag event.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 

Thanks Rangersdad, though I think this is as much about Gary Hart's Letter to Iran indicating the US might AGAIN stoop to using a false flag as a policy tool to initiate another war regardless of who the president is...

Though if the mods feel its too similar to the post you refereed to, c'est la vie.
If it is, my apologies for creating extra work.

My topic is:
Is false Flag a policy tool? and was Gary Harts letter an admission or warning ?
Or was it as Kevinunknown thinks, a warning or comment regarding a more natural event?



[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wheresthetruth
 


Good points: I hadn't thought of the drug war invasion reason



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Careful not to confuse what I am saying. Just because I said that disasters that are dealt with successfully are politically advantageous does not automatically mean they are false flags. I was trying to explain that neoconservatives often use this idea to exaggerate a threat or to give their policies justification. There is not a huge neoconservative group in the current Obama administration this is not a hint of a impending terrorist attack it is a ideological point.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Thanks for being clear.
Rahm Emanuel is quoted as saying "You don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid."
The gulf spill may well be an accident, I find it a difficult call
The money men who turned a profit from it probably aren't ideologically driven.
It doesn't look like it has helped Obama's popularity though.
It did benefit his largest contributer Goldman Sachs.

I wonder if Hart's public warning was directed at Iran alone or was it a tacit warning to the American people?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
hart himself may have been the victim of a "false flag" incident


Former National Security Council member Roger Morris suggests in his book Partners in Power, the Clintons and Their America that the alleged Hart-Rice sex scandal was really an intelligence operation to deny Hart the presidency. CIA agent Chip Tatum claims to have been tasked with "neutralizing" Hart. Hart's biggest offense, according to Morris, was his advocacy of "further investigation and exposure of the alliance between the mob and the US intelligence community."[13] The Miami Herald's account of how it researched and produced the Gary Hart-Donna Rice story was said to be closely examined by investigative reporters from the national media after allegations were made that the story may have been initiated by conspirators to eliminate Hart as a viable candidate

en.wikipedia.org...

Hart may be no stranger to false flag events



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
A terror attack doesn't necessarily "save" Obama. He can step on his crank handling it, and be shown the door.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by signal2noise
 


I agree, I don't think he can survive an election at this point...especially if the financial pundits calling downturn are correct, he will be toast.
Except for the scenario where they suspend elections.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
As Democrats used to be a lot more fond of saying, "it's the economy..."

A terror attack or even the capture of Bin Laden could not carry an election on its own right now. The driving force of the moment in politics is economic fear, and the way that fear acts upon different demographics bodes ill for Obama.

Republican demographics: Older, property owning, religious, etc. tend to be driven to the polls by fear.

Democratic demographics: Younger, poorer, etc are being driven out of participation.

And it's going to take a little more interest to vote. A lot of people have had to relocate as they lose jobs and homes. Those who are less politically active/aware are less likely to re-register if needed.

The only fool proof political strategy for an incumbent right now is to create a great deal of new wealth and distribute it quite broadly, which sounds quite difficult, especially when the clock is already winding down.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join