Rumors are circulating on the Internet that a second 9/11 is expected between September 14 and 21, 2007.
If it occurs, I profoundly hope that America won't be "fooled twice." Instead, I hope the American people rise up against this second massacre and join in a general strike.
I hope the many military men and women who respect the Constitution and oppose this administration will remove the administration from office.
Let the People choose a new government with no thoughts of a foolish war on Iran, one that will end the unjust war in Iraq and bring the criminals in the administration to justice for their acts of mass murder and high treason.
To help us understand what events have led us to fear a second 9/11, I offer this partial chronology.
Many events are missing, the most obvious being the executive orders the President has signed and recent legislation passed. I must leave these topics to others for lack of time.
February 2007. Commondreams reports that Admiral William Fallon, President George W. Bush’s nominee to head Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM. Fallon’s resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier is credited with shifting the Bush administration’s Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran.
A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch”.
Asked how he could be sure, Fallon is reported to have replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.” Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.” (1)
1 Feb. 2007. Zbigniew Brzezinski warns the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of ongoing machinations designed to produce war with Iran and more: “A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ US action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.” Over the past half year, events have followed Brzezinski’s scenario closely. (2) (My emphasis.)
25 Feb. 2007. The London Sunday Times reports that some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. The newspaper learned that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack. … A source with close ties to British intelligence is reported to have said: “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defense source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented, the Sunday Times said. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” added a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. (3)
25 Feb. 2007. In the same article, the Sunday Times quotes General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, as saying that there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq with sophisticated roadside bombs, forcing Bush on the defensive over some of the allegations.