Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
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.
Image: Twitter
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.
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.
