LaRouche's Remarks Interweaved with the WAPO
LaRouche's Remarks Interweaved with the WAPO: The History of BAE and the Continuing Legacy of 9-11. June 24, 2007 (LPAC) Lyndon LaRouche Reports: Yesterday's Sunday edition of the WASHINGTON POST leads its front page with a remarkable echo of my own opening statements of the past Thursday International LPAC webcast. That Post feature, which is presented as the first, Sunday, section of a four-part series is splashed on the cover page under the rubric of A Different Understanding with the President. The POST describes that Sunday feature as "the first of a four-part series investigating the vice presidency, the most influential man ever to hold that office. The POST continues: The articles examine Cheney's largely hidden and little-understood role in crafting policies for the war on terror, the economy and the environment."
Dick Cheney looks out hishelicopter, as he returns toto the White House from an undisclosed location Sept. 12, 2001.
The content of the first section of that series, appearing in the Sunday edition is clearly a reflection of my own treatment of the same subject- matter in the opening portion of my international webcast of this past Thursday.
To understand what the POST is doing in its own report, it is necessary to intersperse certain of my opening remarks in that Thursday's international webcast, with the POST's own account of the same 2001 developments preceding and leading through the terrifying events of September 11, 2001.
First, one must read carefully my explicit, early January 2001 warning of an expected event like that which was to be experienced on September 11 of that year. (See: "Reichstag Fire" warning, Jan. 3, 2001 webcast) Second, one should compare my description of the developments around Cheney during the evening of September 11, 2001 with my own reading of the meaning of those developments, as I reported my own reading during the hours immediately following those attacks, and referenced the echoes of Hermann Goering's terrorist firing of the Reichstag, which give Adolf Hitler dictatorial powers during the early hours and days of the Reichstag burning.
(See: LaRouche Interview by Dr. Jack Stockwell During the Sept 11th Events or Listen to the audio: Lyndon Larouche Live Audio Interview)
The editors of this Briefing lead must interweave those remarks by me, and now by the POST's features, in the relevant orders. As I said, and as the POST's account suggests, there is a crucial link between the history of BAE and the continuing legacy of 9-11, a legacy which now burns brighter than at any time since the immediate weeks and months following the 9-11 events themselves.
The interweaving of these facts now follows.
In his opening remarks during the June 21 International Webcast, Lyn made the following statement, which includes his explicit warning in January 2001 of an event like that experienced on September 11, 2001:
"The world has been living under a system, which is the 9/11 system, which already existed, as I warned at the beginning of 2001, before President George W. Bush was inaugurated for the first time in January of 2001. Where I said: "The world system has reached the point, that an onrushing collapse of the system is now in process. We can not determine exactly when or how this will occur, but we know the following two things:
Number 1, we know that this President and this Presidency cannot deal with this crisis. Therefore, we must expect that the entire world will be subjected to the kind of thing we experienced in February of 1933, when Hermann Goering, the man behind the throne, the sort of the Dick Cheney of the Hitler administration, orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag as a terrorist event.
And this terrorist event was used on that night, or the following day, to install Hitler with dictatorial powers, which Hitler never lost, until the day he died!"
And I said then, the danger is that something like this will occur, under present trends in the United States, and it did occur: And it was called 9/11.
Now, without going into the details of what we know and what we don't know about how 9/11 was orchestrated, we know that the only means by which this kind of thing is orchestrated, is found in one location: In a financial complex which is centered in the identity of the BAE. Now, that's the mystery of 9/11. How it was, the mechanics, that's irrelevant. We'll find out. And everybody in and around government who understands these matters, knows that! And that's where the heat is here."
Later in the Thursday June 21 web-cast, during the Questions and Answers, Lyndon LaRouche directly addressed the efforts on the part of Cheney during the evening of September 11, 2001 to use the events of that day as the pretext for ramming through legislation or orders which would establish a dictatorship in the United States.
LAROUCHE: "I think that the relevant scoundrels in the British Isles will probably do something horrible to Dick Cheney, not because they don't like what he was trying to do, but because he failed to do it. The very question is a very significant question. Here you have exposure of the fact that the long-standing ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States, was a key figure in taking graft to the tune of about $2 billion, among other things, principally while an ambassador. And that he was also a British agent, functioning under the mask of being something else. So, the question is why and how was the secret kept? There was no real secret about this! You see, this has been known.
"Let me be very blunt without saying too much. This is the question, as I indicated today, which has been on my mind, and the mind of a great many other people, since before 9/11. As I said earlier today, this was the question in my mind when I made a public statement, a broadcast statement from here in the United States, prior to the actual inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001, that the economic situation, the pattern of the economic situation is such, that we must expect within the reasonably near future, that someone will try to do to the United States, what Hermann Goering did to make Hitler a dictator in Germany. And I saw that happen on September 11, 2001. I saw it. That is not only my thought. That has been the thought of many people.
"How was it done to us? It was known, for example, that most of the dead bodies that showed up, as of evidentiary significance, in the wake of 9/11, were of Saudi or related provenance. Somebody set that operation up! Now, al-Qaeda? Does that help us? No, it doesn't. Al-Qaeda was an asset. Again, he's [Osama bin Laden] a Saudi. He was an asset of George H.W. Bush and the British, in the operations in organizing the Afghanistan war of the 1980s. Osama bin-Laden is a key figure, who was recruited by these guys, out of the Saudis, to lead that operation. Al-Qaeda is a product of that operation! It's an operation which was British-American sponsored, and Saudi-sponsored. The dead bodies which were draped upon the doorsteps, as evidence in the wake of the bombing of 9/11, were largely of this provenance. And the question has been in the mind of everyone, since that time, knowing how this thing works. Wow! What's the evidence? Well, you've got ten prisoners dead. It's hard to get 'em to talk after they're dead!
"So that's what the issues is here. The issue is that, therefore, don't you think that there has not been a big effort to put a lid on a story as big as this has been, inside the U.S. press? Do you think that this story was not available, and it's significance was not apparent--at least to some degree--to every leading press in the United States---television, print? Why didn't they report it? It happened! And did this not involve money? Does not everyone know, that to run an operation like 9/11 was run, it takes many billions of dollars. It takes complicity of a government, or one or two governments?
That this is a coup, an attempted coup d'etat, in the same way that Hermann Goering set fire to the Reichstag in order to make Hitler a dictator? Wasn't there an effort on the evening of September 11th, in the evening discussions, to ram through legislation, or ram through orders, which would establish a dictatorship in the United States, that didn't quite succeed, almost succeeded but not quite? And, have we not been run and dominated by this ever since then, by the apparatus which was put into effect on the pretext of 9/11? Don't you think that everybody who is cognizant in the United States at every position of power, has not had these thoughts, repeatedly, persistently, over these intervening years? Do you not think that everybody who saw the evidence as it's come out now, who is in an appropriate position of power to understand how these things are done, has not had these thoughts? Do you not think that they were terrified, to death practically, of being involved in exposing this?"
Now compare LaRouche's remarks as quoted above with the first part of the Washington Post's four-part series on Dick Cheney published yesterday.
The Washington Post authors Barton Gellman and Jo Becker document in detail the coup d'etat attempted by Cheney and a coterie of co-conspirators even as the World Trade Center towers in New York City were collapsing. Particularly revealing is the description of Cheney's emotional state of mind on 9/11 as the south tower collapsed in stark contrast to others in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center that morning. One witness said: "There was a groan in the room that I won't forget, ever. It seemed like one groan from everyone,"--among them Rice; her deputy, Stephen Hadley, economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey, counselor Matalin; Cheney's chief of staff, Libby; and the vice president's wife. Cheney, on the other hand, made no sound. The witness, reading from a notebook of observations written that day, reported: "I remember turning my head and looking at the vice president, and his expression never changed."
The authors report, "Cheney closed his eyes against the image for one long, slow blink. Three people who were present, not all of them admirers, said they saw no sign then or later of the profound psychologial transformation that has often been imputed to Cheney. What they saw, they said, was extraordinary self-containment and a rapid shift of focus to the machinery of power. While others assessed casualties and the work of `first responders,' Cheney began planning for a conflict that would call upon lawyers as often as soldiers and spies.... With a small coterie of allies, Cheney supplied the rationale and political muscle to drive far-reaching legal changes through the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon."
Down in the bunker on 9/11, Cheney and Addington plotted to expand presidential powers. Before the day ended, Addington "joined forces with Timothy E. Flanigan, the deputy White House counsel, linked by secure video from the Situation Room. Flanigan patched in John C. Yoo at the Justice Department's fourth-floor command center. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales joined later."
On Sept. 25, Yoo completed the memo justifying warrantless surveillance. They kept it secret from officials who were likely to object, specifically John B. Bellinger III, the ranking national security lawyer in the White House.
On Oct. 25, 2001, the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees were summoned to the White House for their first briefing on the warrantless surveillance program. Instead of meeting with Bush, they met with Cheney in the vice president's office. According to former Senator Bob Graham, Bush had told him that Cheney "has the portfolio for intelligence activites."
On Nov. 6, Yoo then wrote an opinion that said Bush does not need approval from Congress or the federal courts to try detainees before military commissions. When the Justice Secretary John Aschcroft went to the White House to object, again, the meeting was not with Bush, but with Cheney. Bush signed the order on Nov. 13.
Next Cheney pushed for detainees not to be covered by the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war. When Bellinger sent a private legal warning to Rice opposing this, it was leaked to Cheney. Powell asked for a meeting with Bush, but within hours of making the request, a memo signed by Gonzales, but written by Addington was sent to Bush preempting Powell's opposition.
Thus, Cheney, whose code-name the Washington Post identifies as "Angler," and his legal co-conspirators, acting in the tradition of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi's "Crown Jurist," who was the author of the March 1933 legislation which enabled Hitler's dictatorship, used 9/11 as the Nazi's used the Reichstag fire to make an attempted coup d'etat against the U.S. Constitution.
As LaRouche stated during the Questions and Answers section of the webcast: "Now, what this means is, that Cheney is in deep kimchee!
First of all, because one of Cheney's functions was to be a control agent, to control the United States for London, under his wife's direction! His wife is practically a British imperial agent. He too. So now, his role has been depreciated greatly. He has failed to put the lid on the story. The story is now out. Cheney is in deep kimchee, and those who don't want to impeach Cheney are also in deep kimchee too."
Dick Cheney looks out hishelicopter, as he returns toto the White House from an undisclosed location Sept. 12, 2001.
The content of the first section of that series, appearing in the Sunday edition is clearly a reflection of my own treatment of the same subject- matter in the opening portion of my international webcast of this past Thursday.
To understand what the POST is doing in its own report, it is necessary to intersperse certain of my opening remarks in that Thursday's international webcast, with the POST's own account of the same 2001 developments preceding and leading through the terrifying events of September 11, 2001.
First, one must read carefully my explicit, early January 2001 warning of an expected event like that which was to be experienced on September 11 of that year. (See: "Reichstag Fire" warning, Jan. 3, 2001 webcast) Second, one should compare my description of the developments around Cheney during the evening of September 11, 2001 with my own reading of the meaning of those developments, as I reported my own reading during the hours immediately following those attacks, and referenced the echoes of Hermann Goering's terrorist firing of the Reichstag, which give Adolf Hitler dictatorial powers during the early hours and days of the Reichstag burning.
(See: LaRouche Interview by Dr. Jack Stockwell During the Sept 11th Events or Listen to the audio: Lyndon Larouche Live Audio Interview)
The editors of this Briefing lead must interweave those remarks by me, and now by the POST's features, in the relevant orders. As I said, and as the POST's account suggests, there is a crucial link between the history of BAE and the continuing legacy of 9-11, a legacy which now burns brighter than at any time since the immediate weeks and months following the 9-11 events themselves.
The interweaving of these facts now follows.
In his opening remarks during the June 21 International Webcast, Lyn made the following statement, which includes his explicit warning in January 2001 of an event like that experienced on September 11, 2001:
"The world has been living under a system, which is the 9/11 system, which already existed, as I warned at the beginning of 2001, before President George W. Bush was inaugurated for the first time in January of 2001. Where I said: "The world system has reached the point, that an onrushing collapse of the system is now in process. We can not determine exactly when or how this will occur, but we know the following two things:
Number 1, we know that this President and this Presidency cannot deal with this crisis. Therefore, we must expect that the entire world will be subjected to the kind of thing we experienced in February of 1933, when Hermann Goering, the man behind the throne, the sort of the Dick Cheney of the Hitler administration, orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag as a terrorist event.
And this terrorist event was used on that night, or the following day, to install Hitler with dictatorial powers, which Hitler never lost, until the day he died!"
And I said then, the danger is that something like this will occur, under present trends in the United States, and it did occur: And it was called 9/11.
Now, without going into the details of what we know and what we don't know about how 9/11 was orchestrated, we know that the only means by which this kind of thing is orchestrated, is found in one location: In a financial complex which is centered in the identity of the BAE. Now, that's the mystery of 9/11. How it was, the mechanics, that's irrelevant. We'll find out. And everybody in and around government who understands these matters, knows that! And that's where the heat is here."
Later in the Thursday June 21 web-cast, during the Questions and Answers, Lyndon LaRouche directly addressed the efforts on the part of Cheney during the evening of September 11, 2001 to use the events of that day as the pretext for ramming through legislation or orders which would establish a dictatorship in the United States.
LAROUCHE: "I think that the relevant scoundrels in the British Isles will probably do something horrible to Dick Cheney, not because they don't like what he was trying to do, but because he failed to do it. The very question is a very significant question. Here you have exposure of the fact that the long-standing ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States, was a key figure in taking graft to the tune of about $2 billion, among other things, principally while an ambassador. And that he was also a British agent, functioning under the mask of being something else. So, the question is why and how was the secret kept? There was no real secret about this! You see, this has been known.
"Let me be very blunt without saying too much. This is the question, as I indicated today, which has been on my mind, and the mind of a great many other people, since before 9/11. As I said earlier today, this was the question in my mind when I made a public statement, a broadcast statement from here in the United States, prior to the actual inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001, that the economic situation, the pattern of the economic situation is such, that we must expect within the reasonably near future, that someone will try to do to the United States, what Hermann Goering did to make Hitler a dictator in Germany. And I saw that happen on September 11, 2001. I saw it. That is not only my thought. That has been the thought of many people.
"How was it done to us? It was known, for example, that most of the dead bodies that showed up, as of evidentiary significance, in the wake of 9/11, were of Saudi or related provenance. Somebody set that operation up! Now, al-Qaeda? Does that help us? No, it doesn't. Al-Qaeda was an asset. Again, he's [Osama bin Laden] a Saudi. He was an asset of George H.W. Bush and the British, in the operations in organizing the Afghanistan war of the 1980s. Osama bin-Laden is a key figure, who was recruited by these guys, out of the Saudis, to lead that operation. Al-Qaeda is a product of that operation! It's an operation which was British-American sponsored, and Saudi-sponsored. The dead bodies which were draped upon the doorsteps, as evidence in the wake of the bombing of 9/11, were largely of this provenance. And the question has been in the mind of everyone, since that time, knowing how this thing works. Wow! What's the evidence? Well, you've got ten prisoners dead. It's hard to get 'em to talk after they're dead!
"So that's what the issues is here. The issue is that, therefore, don't you think that there has not been a big effort to put a lid on a story as big as this has been, inside the U.S. press? Do you think that this story was not available, and it's significance was not apparent--at least to some degree--to every leading press in the United States---television, print? Why didn't they report it? It happened! And did this not involve money? Does not everyone know, that to run an operation like 9/11 was run, it takes many billions of dollars. It takes complicity of a government, or one or two governments?
That this is a coup, an attempted coup d'etat, in the same way that Hermann Goering set fire to the Reichstag in order to make Hitler a dictator? Wasn't there an effort on the evening of September 11th, in the evening discussions, to ram through legislation, or ram through orders, which would establish a dictatorship in the United States, that didn't quite succeed, almost succeeded but not quite? And, have we not been run and dominated by this ever since then, by the apparatus which was put into effect on the pretext of 9/11? Don't you think that everybody who is cognizant in the United States at every position of power, has not had these thoughts, repeatedly, persistently, over these intervening years? Do you not think that everybody who saw the evidence as it's come out now, who is in an appropriate position of power to understand how these things are done, has not had these thoughts? Do you not think that they were terrified, to death practically, of being involved in exposing this?"
Now compare LaRouche's remarks as quoted above with the first part of the Washington Post's four-part series on Dick Cheney published yesterday.
The Washington Post authors Barton Gellman and Jo Becker document in detail the coup d'etat attempted by Cheney and a coterie of co-conspirators even as the World Trade Center towers in New York City were collapsing. Particularly revealing is the description of Cheney's emotional state of mind on 9/11 as the south tower collapsed in stark contrast to others in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center that morning. One witness said: "There was a groan in the room that I won't forget, ever. It seemed like one groan from everyone,"--among them Rice; her deputy, Stephen Hadley, economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey, counselor Matalin; Cheney's chief of staff, Libby; and the vice president's wife. Cheney, on the other hand, made no sound. The witness, reading from a notebook of observations written that day, reported: "I remember turning my head and looking at the vice president, and his expression never changed."
The authors report, "Cheney closed his eyes against the image for one long, slow blink. Three people who were present, not all of them admirers, said they saw no sign then or later of the profound psychologial transformation that has often been imputed to Cheney. What they saw, they said, was extraordinary self-containment and a rapid shift of focus to the machinery of power. While others assessed casualties and the work of `first responders,' Cheney began planning for a conflict that would call upon lawyers as often as soldiers and spies.... With a small coterie of allies, Cheney supplied the rationale and political muscle to drive far-reaching legal changes through the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon."
Down in the bunker on 9/11, Cheney and Addington plotted to expand presidential powers. Before the day ended, Addington "joined forces with Timothy E. Flanigan, the deputy White House counsel, linked by secure video from the Situation Room. Flanigan patched in John C. Yoo at the Justice Department's fourth-floor command center. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales joined later."
On Sept. 25, Yoo completed the memo justifying warrantless surveillance. They kept it secret from officials who were likely to object, specifically John B. Bellinger III, the ranking national security lawyer in the White House.
On Oct. 25, 2001, the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees were summoned to the White House for their first briefing on the warrantless surveillance program. Instead of meeting with Bush, they met with Cheney in the vice president's office. According to former Senator Bob Graham, Bush had told him that Cheney "has the portfolio for intelligence activites."
On Nov. 6, Yoo then wrote an opinion that said Bush does not need approval from Congress or the federal courts to try detainees before military commissions. When the Justice Secretary John Aschcroft went to the White House to object, again, the meeting was not with Bush, but with Cheney. Bush signed the order on Nov. 13.
Next Cheney pushed for detainees not to be covered by the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war. When Bellinger sent a private legal warning to Rice opposing this, it was leaked to Cheney. Powell asked for a meeting with Bush, but within hours of making the request, a memo signed by Gonzales, but written by Addington was sent to Bush preempting Powell's opposition.
Thus, Cheney, whose code-name the Washington Post identifies as "Angler," and his legal co-conspirators, acting in the tradition of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi's "Crown Jurist," who was the author of the March 1933 legislation which enabled Hitler's dictatorship, used 9/11 as the Nazi's used the Reichstag fire to make an attempted coup d'etat against the U.S. Constitution.
As LaRouche stated during the Questions and Answers section of the webcast: "Now, what this means is, that Cheney is in deep kimchee!
First of all, because one of Cheney's functions was to be a control agent, to control the United States for London, under his wife's direction! His wife is practically a British imperial agent. He too. So now, his role has been depreciated greatly. He has failed to put the lid on the story. The story is now out. Cheney is in deep kimchee, and those who don't want to impeach Cheney are also in deep kimchee too."
posted by Alfons at
8:41 PM
<< Home