I want to bring some new evidence regarding Paul Wolfowitz.
I will have to discuss two things that have already been discussed here many times, but these two components are essential in understanding the
context and appreciating what we have before us.
1- Paul Wolfowitz, was of course, a member of the PNAC. In the 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', released by the PNAC in September 2000, we have the
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.
'Transformation' being regime change in the middle east and surrounding region, namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria Iran.
We have to understand the context of 'a new Pearl Harbour' as in reference to a surprise attack that will require a military response.
2- In June 2001, Wolfowitz made a speech to students about 'surprise' and Pearl Harbour. It wasn't the day of the anniversary of Pearl Harbour, he
just discussed it, months before the actual anniversary. Why would Wolfowitz discuss Pearl Harbour months before 9/11? Is it just coincidence, or do
we take the quote from the PNAC document to have some meaning? I will get onto point 3 in a moment, but here is that speech-
Think about the PNAC document and its context and accuracy for what followed 9/11. Combine that with the June 2001 speech, here is a quote-
100 years later, we live, once again, in a time of great hopes and peace for world prosperity, our chances of realising those hopes will be greater if
we use the benefit of hindsight to replace a 'poverty of expectations' with an anticipation of the unfamiliar and the unlikely...
Completely chilling, given he is talking about unexpected events beginning wars- the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand led to the start of the Great
War even though economists of the time believed war would not happen. Catalysts (or false flags as some may argue) are what start wars- they need a
spark. This is June 2001!
3- This really, should blow your mind when combined with the first two points.
3 days after 9/11, THREE days, here is an interview with Paul Wolfowitz-
I recommend watching the whole thing, because he is talking about America launching a sustained military campaign in response to 9/11. It's 3 days
after, everyone else at this stage was in shock, yet Wolfowitz, a member of the PNAC, is talking about ongoing campaigns.
THREE days after 9/11, Wolfowitz references Pearl Harbour-
That's what a strategy has to look at, the objective has to be very ambitious and the President has stated it is an ambitious objective, as Winston
Churchill commented a day after Pearl Harbour, that dictators underestimate American strength, when we commit ourselves to an ambitous goal we can
achieve it...but that doesn't mean there is a single solution for each one of those pieces...
I wonder if 'each one of those pieces' is reference to the nations America has invaded since 9/11 or bombed since 9/11 or sent millions of dollars in
military aid to rebels since 9/11?
To piece the 3 points together, we have one of the chief suspects for carrying out or at least being complicit in what happened on 9/11. To put into
into perspective and sum up-
1- A year before 9/11, the PNAC, outlines America's military operations for the 21st century. This requires a 'catalyst', a new Pearl Harbour.
2- Paul Wolfowitz, member of PNAC and 2nd in charge at the Pentagon, discusses Pearl Harbour and how America misses warning signs of coming attacks-
how the world ignores danger and likes to stick with the familiar and dismisses the 'unexpected'.
3- 3 Days after 9/11, Wolfowitz is referencing Pearl Harbour when discussing America's military response to 9/11?
HOW FAR CAN WE STRETCH THE ACCEPTANCE OF COINCIDENCE AS THE ANSWER??
edit on 20-3-2013 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)