Paul Joseph Watson
April 16, 2013
April 16, 2013
Rahm Emanuel’s call to “never let a serious crisis go to waste” is really going to come to the fore this week if yesterday’s Boston Marathon attack is blamed on Barack Obama’s political opposition, with Democratic operatives having previously urged the President to exploit terror in order to reinvigorate his presidency.
Suggestions that the bombing could have been the work of Tea Partiers or anti-tax protesters have swirled despite the fact that the only suspect being questioned in response to the attack is a Saudi national.
Numerous establishment media outlets have also savaged Alex Jones for suggesting that the federal government could have been complicit in the bombing. Jones’ logic is based on a fact that the New York Times reported on last year, that many of the recent domestic terror plots in the United States “were facilitated by the F.B.I.,” a history that goes back until at least 1993 when the FBI gave terrorists real explosives with which to conduct the first WTC bombing.
Indeed, under the auspices of Operation Gladio, the idea of governments carrying out acts of terror and blaming them on political adversaries to alter the political climate was far from a “conspiracy theory,” it was an admitted fact.
Operation Gladio was a NATO cold war “stay behind” project designed to demonize political opposition and “force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security,” according to the testimony of former Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra. In 2000, an Italian parliamentary investigation found that the 1980 Bologna train bombing, which killed 85 people, was carried out by “men inside Italian state institutions and … men linked to the structures of United States intelligence.”
“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game,” Vinciguerra explained in sworn testimony.
“The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened,” he added.
Given the fact that Barack Obama’s political career was launched in the living room of infamous domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the notion that his administration would use terror to further their agenda is hardly a far fetched idea.
Early evidence also clearly suggests that authorities had prior knowledge of the bombings and were running drills immediately beforehand centered around the same premise while telling marathon runners not to panic. Police later denied they had any warnings or were running drills, contradicting eyewitness reports.
However, while any suspicion of state involvement has been derided as a baseless conspiracy theory, claims of conservatives being responsible for the attack have begun to proliferate, despite there being zero evidence to suggest such a scenario.
Former Bill Clinton advisor David Axelrod hinted on MSNBC today that the attack could have been a form of tax protest.
“We really don’t know who did this — it was tax day. Was it someone who was pro–you know, you just don’t know,” he said.
A US Forest Service PR rep also took to Twitter to blame the bombing on the Tea Party, writing, “I fear nutty logic goes like this … Patriots Day. April 15. Tax Day. Bad government. Boston. Tea Party. Let’s show ‘em.”
Following the Aurora theater massacre last year, Time Magazine lamented the fact that Obama had not been forceful enough in seizing upon the tragedy to reinvigorate the evisceration of the second amendment.
However, others have gone even further, to the point of seemingly welcoming terror attacks and bloodshed as a means of helping Obama pose as a tough leader and in turn rallying Americans around his big government agenda.
During a 2010 appearance on Chris Matthews’ Hardball, former Clintonite and Democrat operative Mark Penn brazenly stated that Obama would need to take advantage of a massacre to get fresh momentum behind his presidency.
“Remember, President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma, right?” Penn told Matthews. “And the president right now seems removed. It wasn’t until that speech [after the bombing] that [Clinton] really clicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar defining moment,” said Penn.
Penn was not alone in invoking how an act of mass bloodshed could ride to Obama’s political rescue.
In an article concerning Obama’s plunging popularity before the 2010 mid-terms, Robert Shapiro, former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, wrote that the only thing that could conceivably rescue Obama’s presidency was a terror attack on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing.
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way….of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
Given the fact that the FBI admittedly facilitates terrorist attacks, in addition to top Democratic strategists continually calling on Obama to exploit terrorist attacks in the spirit of Rahm Emanuel’s urge to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” should any link to a Tea Partier, a libertarian, an anti-tax protester or any political adversary of Obama emerge in the coming days, it will be ruthlessly exploited by the Obama administration to further entrench the notion - habitually reiterated by the likes of the DHS - that liberty lovers are dangerous terrorists who need to be silenced, discredited, disenfranchised and pushed to the fringes of society.