Jeff Farias: I have Webster Tarpley on the line with us. Mr. Tarpley, welcome to the program. Webster Tarpley is one of the leading voices in the 9-11 Truth Movement. A very well-respected author. He has written a number of amazing, detailed books. Welcome to the program today, sir.
Webster Tarpley: Thank you so much. I am glad to be with you.
Farias: We have a lot of stuff we can talk about. I am not sure where you want to start. Do you want to start with maybe Dick Cheney and the Kennebunkport Warning?
Tarpley: I think that is a good place. We should probably start from the current emergency. And of course if you don't understand what the original 9-11 was, you cannot understand the terrible predicament that we are in right now. Because the original 9-11, of course, was a war provocation coming out of the bowels of the CIA, the Pentagon, the DIA, the NSA, and so forth. Using some Arab patsies, but primarily using technologies that they were able to access and mobilize through drills --approximately 25 on that day-- and since that time we have been living under basically a coup regime. The September criminals have been in power. And they run the show from behind the scenes.
And we have been living under the Cheney doctrine. And the Cheney doctrine is simply that this was not just a one time thing. This is going to be the basis of the regime for the foreseeable future. And Cheney has for a long time has been talking and advocating about the attack on Iran. About the wider war, especially since they began losing in Iraq, they have this idea that they are defeated conventionally in Iraq. And what they need to do is escalate into the nuclear and the thermonuclear realm and deal with Iran.
And what Cheney has called for since the summer of 2005 is a new 9-11 with weapons of mass destruction that would be blamed on Iran, and that would be used as a pretext for an attack on Iran and probably also for some form of martial law or dictatorship or calling off elections here in the United States.
And it was at the end of August that a group of us put together this Kennebunkport warning which was written and signed on the 24th-25th of August and was published on the 26th of August at the Jeff Rense web site and a bunch of others. And low and behold it was up on the 27th and 28th. And then on the 29th the rogue B52 was loaded with six cruise missiles at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, flown to Barksdale, Louisiana, with the idea that they were probably going to Iran. They were probably going to nuke Iran with these six cruise missiles, but if you remember the Cheney doctrine, the idea that it is going to be terrorists not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear bomb in the middle of an American city, one of those might also have been the chosen vehicle for that. One or indeed more of them.
And according to Wayne Madsen, somebody that I know and who generally has good sources into the NSA and elsewhere, what stopped this entire thing, some time in the afternoon of the 30th of August was essentially a revolt. A mutiny if you like, but a mutiny of loyal personnel, loyal officers. Quite possibly refusing to obey illegal orders. And simply saying these cruise missiles are not supposed to be transported. This is contrary to policy. It also violates treaties.
And of course treaties, once they are ratified, become part of public law. If you violate a treaty, that is a crime. So they said no to it.
And then on the 5th of September this became known. It was put out. It was admitted by an Air Force spokesman. And this irregularity has been the subject of a front page story in the Washington Post, which is a cover up.
But Wayne Madsen, I think, had it right, saying that this was essentially a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and the Intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons. He also points out that according to some accounts, and this is impossible to determine, one of the six nuclear-armed missiles was and still may be unaccounted for.
So what we get with the Kennebunkport Warning, I think you have to agree, is a very timely warning about this. That not only identifies the main pieces, that it is Cheney, that it is going to include a false flag, if he can do it, but that the target is Iran. And also that at the center of this entire thing is that loyal military personnel must refuse the illegal orders of the Cheney faction. The Cheney clique, which of course is Addison, and Wormser, and people like this.
The idea of this goes back to the late weeks of Watergate, when Secretary of State Schlessinger put out a standing order to combat commanders that if Nixon at that point in the final throes of pre-impeachment, if Nixon had ordered them to attack anybody, they were supposed to say, "Nothing doing," and clear the order with Schlessinger or Kissinger. In other words, there was an over ride put in. And of course that is what we need today. And it looks like these loyal personnel have done that.
Now it is important to point out that about half a dozen of these people are dead. They are...
Farias: They were involved in car-related accidents.
Tarpley: They died under mysterious circumstances in an awkward time from July through today and there is no Congressional investigation. Normally when you get the Washington Post article front page above the fold, a big picture September 23rd, then if any of these people are worth anything, if Ron Paul is worth anything, if Kucinich is worth anything, or any of them are worth anything, they should immediately be screaming for a full-fledged Congressional investigation, and of course we have nothing. So this means that we are now essentially left to our own devices. And that is the Kennebunkport Warning.
I would also point out that just at that time between August 30th when the progress of these missiles towards Iran or whatever the target was --because it could have been inside the U.S. as well-- if the progress of those missiles had been stopped on August 30th, then this period between August 30th when apparently they stopped moving, and September 5th when the world finds out about it, and that is exactly the time when the Kennebunkport Warning which describes exactly this situation as going viral on the Internet from 72,000 hits on September 1st, 102,000 the day after and a 110,000 on September 3rd, so we cannot exclude the possibility that whoever said "No" to this had been encouraged by seeing the Kennebunkport Warning with the various signers.
So I think that this is a tremendous achievement. I think that is one of the --I cannot hide the fact that I think it is one of the great intelligence achievements of the 21st century, so far.
Farias: Sort of predating them a little bit. Or at least let them know that people know that people are watching, people are on to this sort of thing --
Tarpley: Yes, if I may, this famous quote from one of these Bush characters. Bush, Cheney. Where they say, "Oh yes, you people are the reality-based community, and you study what we do, but while you studying what we have already done, we rush ahead and we have new crimes and new wars and you will never catch up to us.
And here was finally a successful attempt to get out in front of these people and stop them. And I think that is exactly how people ought to think. And of course just remember, there is that other lost cruise missile sitting there, so this case is not closed. In other words vigilance and mobilization are absolutely the order of the day.
Farias: We are here with Webster Tarpley. We have to take a break right now Mr. Tarpley, and we will be right back.... (7 min, 47 sec). ...(8:20) We are back, twenty minutes after the hour, with the valley's progressive talk at 1480 KPHX, you are listening to the Jeff Farias Show, we are here with Webster Tarpley, talking about the Kennebunkport Warning, false flags, Cheney, and the impending war with Iran. Webster, I wanted to get your impressions on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Initially they were trying to give Cheney everything he needed to start a war with Iran. It has since been pulled back to limited attacks on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. What is your take on what is happening with that?
Tarpley: Well, this is what we tried to address at the beginning of this summer with the Philadelphia Platform. This was a meeting that was held in Independence Mall right across from Independence Hall on July 4th. And we reported that this was basically a united front that was attended by about 35 different groups from the peace, antiwar, impeachment, anti-globalization, labor, Bill of Rights, Civil Liberties, fair vote counts --all kinds of people. Hispanics, blacks, a cross section of positive causes in this country. Also some libertarians, where they are in force.
And what we tried to point out was that with the Democratic Party joining the Republicans -- it is important to see that the Republicans were there already-- with the Democratic Party essentially capitulating around Memorial Day by voting the money for Bush's war, that a tremendous crisis had opened up inside the antiwar movement and inside politics generally. And that the angry antiwar base of the Democratic Party had been simply betrayed by Pelosi, Reed, Mrs. Clinton, this sort of neo-con leadership that we have on the Democratic Party side.
And the idea was therefore that what you have to do is create something that is multi-issue, outside the two parties, and with the benefits of 9-11 Truth. Because if you don't have 9-11 Truth, you don't get anywhere because the basis of the Bush regime is the 9-11 myth.
As Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out, in a very good essay a couple of weeks ago, the key to the impotence of the anti-war movement is the fact that they refuse to tackle 9-11 Truth. And if you are willing to concede to Bush the reason for all the wars, because whoever he attacks it is going to be 9-11, of course, and Cheney too, you can't hope to win an argument when you conceded the main premise in arguing a point of an ideologically obsessed opponent like Bush.
Now Kyl-Lieberman is simply now more of the same. The Democrats have betrayed their radicalized antiwar base on Iraq, on illegal police state wiretaps, and also on impeachment.
Right before the election they were broadly hinting that they would impeach Bush. Now of course Mrs. Pelosi says that this is off the table.
There is a tremendous crisis there. And the fact that you see is that so many Democrats --all the Democrats except 22 in the Senate, voted for this Kyl-Lieberman monstrosity. Indeed, we could argue that Lieberman would not be there if his opponent Lamont had not been systematically disoriented by Mrs. Clinton, as part of a plan by Mrs. Clinton to make sure that Lieberman won that election and poor empty-headed Ned Lamont didn't. He was supposed to be the antiwar candidate before Mrs. Clinton got ahold of him.
So Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of that Kyl-Lieberman resolution. Now for those who do not know what is in it, originally it said there was going to be the carefully calibrated use of economic, political, diplomatic, and military means against Iran. It was essentially a backdoor declaration of war. Which taken together was something that went through the House at about the same time. It could have been used to provide some specious legal basis for war.
Now I believe this is still controversial, or at least it was the last time I looked, I believe that the worst parts were taken out. Although what was posted on one of the Congressional web sites, has them in, so I am not at all sure. But what it contained, when it went through with only 22 negative votes, mainly the Democrats caving in, was essentially saying the Quds force is a terrorist organization, and therefore if you read that in the light of the 9-11 resolution of September 2001, if it is a terrorist force that opens up a whole array of different kinds of military things that you can do.
What we have to say is Mrs. Clinton is a war monger. This is the main thing you have to understand about her. She has already told the NY Times that she will keep 75,000 U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely.
In other words I think that you can confidently say if you let Mrs. Clinton get into the White House you will have eight more years of war. And she practically admitted the first four years in the most recent Democratic debate. So I think that this is a tremendous crisis. That is why I think people should go to actindependent.org and look at the Philadelphia Platform and indeed this Kennebunkport War Warning that came out more recently, because I think that describes the situation we are in.
And it seems to me what people need to do is
not things like go out and get arrested for civil disobedience, which I don't think really gets you anywhere. But run for office. In other words, the only way you get the attention of these fakers, be they Republican or Democrat, is to say unless the impeachment resolution against Bush is published within 72 hours, Senator, you have a primary opponent, and guess what, it is me.
And even if you have no money and no backing you can make their lives miserable. They will have to spend money. They will have to do things that they ordinarily would not do. You create a lot of work for them. You will definitely get their attention if you are running against them and you have the capability to take advantage of some kind of landslide or tsunami, which is always possible. But remember, they can't be defeated unless there is another candidate there to benefit from the tsunami. That has to be someone with an adequate approach to these issues.
Farias: I just thought, the Kennebunkport Warning came out, and obviously it became clear to me from what I know about 9-11, that yeah, if there is another false flag coming, it is going to be coming soon, because by all intent, between Chertoff's gut feelings, Cheney's pushing for a war with Iran, that seems to be what this thing was jelling around. Now they have got this Kyl-Lieberman resolution that gives them sort of limited strike opportunities to go after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Do you think that might be a pretext for a false flag. We strike them, then unleash a false flag in this country for a full scale war with Iran?
Tarpley. Well of course the false flag always represents an outside event. If you look at Salon.com there is a guy by the name of, let's see, Clemons, I believe his name is.
Farias: Keith Clemons. [Editor's Correction: Steve Clemons]
Tarpley: Yes, and he is from the New America Foundation, and this is basically an insider, a left liberal. And he said that as far as he can see, there is no way for the attack on Iran, to work its way through the interagency bureaucracy. The interagency working groups. All that apparatus in the Old Executive Office building and the Pentagon and the State Department. And so forth. You cannot make it through that way. No matter how much Cheney may rage, and Addington might rage, and Elliott Abrams, another very important figure, may rage. And of course Wormser claims that he is no longer on the government payroll but that does not guarantee anything.
They cannot seem to push it through simply by the usual bureaucratic warfare. What they need is the outside event. As that as Clemons says quite rightly or suggests. Zbigniew Brzezinski has said it, back on February 1st. The scenario is a terrorist act in the United States to be blamed on Iran.
And of course that is another moment when there should have been an investigation. Someboy should have said "Brzezinski, you are saying that the network of neo-cons is going to set off terrorism in this country to get the war with Iran that they want. You are subpoenaed. Start telling us who is doing it. How do you know that. Who told you? Who are these people? Talk! If they can put Judith Miller in jail, they could have put Zbigniew Brzezinski in jail until he told them what it was.
Farias: Mr. Tarpley, we have to take another break. We will be back with more with Webster Tarpley. I want to talk a little bit about false flags and also how there always seems to be a terror drill as a back drop whenever there is one of these operations going on. We will be right back with lots more, stick around. (17:33). ...(18:03) And we are back with the Jeff Farias show and the Valley's progressive talk, 1480 KPHX, we are here with Webster Tarpley talking 9-11, talking about the Kennebunkport Warning, and a possible new false flag in this country, and of course Cheney's desire to start a war with Iran. Mr Tarpley, I wanted to ask you a little about -- we know there were drills going on, on 9-11, simulating attacks on buildings. I have also heard there were similar drills going on during the London subway bombing. Is that pretty much a way they operate. They put some sort of a drill together to protect against the very thing that is going to happen that day?
Tarpley: No, the drill -- You are right to identify the drill as the
essence of the entire thing. In other words, these effects could not be produced without massive government resources. And the only way that you can conduit or bootleg an illegal operation through much of the government is essentially by doing it under the cover of the drill, because remember inside the government not everyone agrees with you, and indeed there are people who try to stop you.
We even have that in 9-11 . We have FBI people who tried to round up the patsies, even though the patsies in Minneapolis or Arizona were not going to carry out these deeds, if the patsies are all in jail, you can't scapegoat the patsies, so therefore the political side of what you are going to do doesn't work.
So therefore the question is the drills --my count on the drills of 9-11 essentially gets us up to 25 plus drills, depending on how you want to count "drills." These are either things that are going on that morning or have occurred recently in the months leading up to 9-11, or that are in advance stages of preparation, and this covers just about everything, the suppression of air defense, the presence of the patsies, most likely as kind of walk on parts as actors in role playing, in drills, which of course is an inimical part of it, the crashing planes into buildings, that is the National Reconnaissance Office, drills going on in Chantilly, Virginia. We have got crashing planes into buildings and then the buildings collapse --that is the Red X drill of the City of New York. You obviously have to have drills to get as many fighter planes as far as you can, so that loyal officers can't just jump into planes and maybe do something unpredictable in the heat of the moment, so that would be the whole Northern Vigilance, Northern Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Vigilant Guardian, Amalgam Virgo is also very important. This takes basically most of your plans and puts them in Alaska or Northern Canada or Iceland. Some are indeed part of Bush's illegal activities. The illegal unilateral no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq. That was not covered by any UN Resolution, but imposed unilaterally by the U.S. and the British. Some of those planes were in Turkey for the northern one, and Saudi Arabia for the Southern one. You have got all of that.
Amalgam Virgo, a very critical one. That is the firing of an unmanned aerial vehicle, a cruise missile, or something like this, from a barge or a freighter in either the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico that then hit this land target. And I think that is pretty much what happened at the Pentagon. Clearly no Boeing at the Pentagon by any stretch of the imagination. No passenger aircraft there, but rather some kind of a cruise missile or unmanned aircraft of some kind, again I think the cruise missile more likely, but something with an explosive warhead on it.
And then we can go to the planning of the Afghanistan War. There was a drill for that. Basically every detail of 9-11, every meme of the 9-11 myth is covered by and indeed produced by a drill, down to such details as the cell phone conversations.
Cell phone conversations were absolutely critical in the first several days and weeks. To sell the myth to the masses. I mean this is one of the time-tested methods of U.S.-British propaganda. The Kuwait incubator babies or the Jessica Lynch saga. Right? They love to have a personal story that brings it down to the level that everyone can understand. And of course in that case it was these heart-rending cell phone calls.
Well, the Department of Transportation had a drill at the end of August 2001. Cell phone calls from high jacked airliners. If you want to get a good round up on the drills, do take a look at my book 9-11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA and basically I add new drills every time there is a new edition of the book. And we are up to the fourth edition already.
The London one that you mentioned, it is the same story. Here we have three drills, TOPOFF 3 of the United States, that should scare us, because TOPOFF 4 is coming now in a couple of weeks.
Farias: Well that is what I was going to ask you. I just saw this headline today on CBS News Online. US plans biggest terror drill ever.
Tarpley: That was the, let us see, the Vigilant... anyway it is TOPOFF 4 in effect...
Faria: Right. And it is precisely here in Phoenix, Portland, and....
Tarpley: Vigilant Resolve.
Farias: Vigilant Resolve [Editor's Correction: Vigilant Shield 08], right...Portland and Guam. Apparently a fictional dirty bomb going off.
Tarpley: Yes, and of course your basic demand on that is
shut it down. We don't want it. We don't need it. It is expensive. It is dangerous. In the best of all worlds it is going to cause traffic jams, it is going to cause chaos on highways, and in the worst hypothesis, just remember that small changes made in those drills by treasonous elements loyal to Cheney -- and not to the Constitution-- they flip it live.
And that for example is London 7-7. That was "TOPOFF 3" of the U.S., "Atlantic Blue" of the British, "Triple Play" of Canada, and the scenario for all those three drills was a bomb in the London subway on the same day that an international conference is meeting in Britain.
Well, that was the Glen-Eagles meeting of the Group of Eight Industrial countries. It was going on in Glen Eagles, Scotland on that same day. Then we have down to the detail of Peter Power, of a company called Visor Consultants who went on BBC radio, that same night, July 7, 2005, and said, "Oh my Gosh, my company was simulating bombs in both stations at pretty much the same time that these bombs actually went off. And what it is..." He pretended to be scared, or was scared, I do not know, but there you have it.
In other words it is obvious when you see a drill and then the same thing happens in reality, in other words the scenario of the drill comes true, or goes live or is flipped live, there you have to worry.
For example Operation Mongoose, billed as the CIA's campaign to kill Castro, except it was diverted and became the CIA's plan to kill Kennedy.
When John Hinckley shot at President Reagan back in 1981 there was the very next day a FEMA drill called Nine Lives, Presidential Succession Drill. And you have to assume that part of what happened was conduited through the drill in order to make it happen.
And again if you look at what is involved in crashing the planes into the World Trade Center, and having these buildings come down, what you first of all have got to do is to provide a guidance system to make sure that these planes hit their targets. Something like global hawk has to be built into these planes. Whatever else we might say about the planes that hit the buildings, or the flying objects, but I believe in this case planes, and then you have got this entire massive question of the controlled demolition. Using the various kinds of conventional explosives plus thermate, thermite, as I think that I am the first person to publish a book that says thermite is obviously one of the prospective elements of this spectacular explosion.
Farias: Dr. Jones has shown evidence of thermite.
Tarpley: Right. I was there first, if you will. So I am glad that he was able to test this experimentally. Because that is what you have to do. But the idea was that clearly it was controlled demolition. And I had that back in the spring of 2005.
So all of this adds up to a massive use of government resources, and it also shows what this was. This was a coup de etat. It is one part of the government attacking another part.
Part of the government wants the war of civilizations, wants to attack Afghanistan, wants to attack Iraq, now wants to attack Iran and Venezuela and Syria. And the Israelis have just attacked Syria. That was part of what we were talking about at the beginning. The rogue B-52 ultimately was supposed to be part of this thing that took place on September 6th where the Israelis claimed that they struck into Syria and destroyed a nuclear facility.
The problem with that is that if they did strike a nuclear facility, how come nobody has registered a radioactive cloud? And that would be Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Russia or China or Japan. Certainly Japan. If radioactivity came over them, they would say something. I believe, anyway.
Farias: I am sure they would.
Tarpley:...Because of their past. But they haven't. So I think that the Israelis are lying. What I think happened was that the Israelis were beaten back by superior Russian-made air defense. The so-called Tor-M system which has been installed by the Iranians to be sure, and the Syrians have something approaching that. And it looks to me like what happened is the Israelis jettisoned their fuel and all their ordnance, whatever they were going to drop and they had to go to after burners. Get out of there. They had to skedaddle as fast as they could.
Which means that the entire Israeli military machine is now in crisis. Because their land warfare component was beaten last summer in Lebanon. Defeated. Right? One whole armored division destroyed with no gain. And now their air war capacity is in question because of what the Russians have been able to put on the ground in Iran.
So the main message concerning Iran is "Don't do it because you will lose." The U.S. is losing in Afghanistan. Losing in Iraq, clearly. The Israelis have been defeated in Lebanon by Hezbollah. The neo-cons say, "Well, we will get around that by escalating into a nuclear realm. They will not. They will be defeated. The U.S. forces in Iraq face a prospect that goes from decimation to annihilation. It goes from Dunkirk if you are lucky to Stalingrad if you are not so lucky. Or Dien Bien Phu if you are not so lucky. The British are leaving. The U.S. is staying. Everything is set up for a catastrophe in Iraq. And I think that one of the main reasons to get the troops out is that they face catastrophic military defeat which again would be used by Cheney for the attack on Iran and the totalitarianism here at home.
Farias: We are going to take a break. We will be right back. We have one more segment with Mr. Webster Tarpley. Maybe you would like to focus a little bit in on Cheney, his secrecy, and the whole rise of the notion of the unitary executive.
Farias: We will be right back with more of Webster Tarpley. Stick around friends. (29:57). ...(30:37)...Mr Tarpley, before we get into the Cheney thing, I would like...I have a caller here who has been holding very patiently with a question for you. It is Tom in Phoenix I would like to get in here. Hey Tom, got a question for Mr. Tarpley?
I will try to be real quick. This is excellent, by the way. These topics are fantastic. Thank you for discussing them. When the whole Barksdale incident happened, I was trying to follow it on the Internet, and I may be wrong, I thought I read an article that said a young African American serviceman lost his life as part of all this. Do you happen to know anything about that?
Tarpley: Yes, well there are about half a dozen. There is one Lieutenant, one Captain, the guy that you are talking about I think his name is "Blue"
Tom: Ted Blue? [Editor's correction: Todd Blue]
Tarpley: Something like this.
He is an airman who was involved in security. But we had about half a dozen mysterious deaths. And I have to be a little bit vague on that because it is hard to count. In one case it seems to be an automobile accident involving the guy's wife. But one Lieutenant who was a B-52 pilot, one Captain, and three or four or five other people, dead under mysterious circumstances.
And again, if you have Congressional representation, the question for them is to get an investigation of the rogue B-52 going. It was in the Washington Post on the 23rd of September. That is authoritative for those guys, right? Not for us, but for them. If it had been in the Washington Post, it is a fact that there was a severe breach, a bent spear, in reality as Wayne Madsen tells it, it is not "bent spear," but "empty quiver" and pinnacle. In other words, there is a lost nuclear weapon and a serious nuclear weapon incident. So get an investigation going. That is your basic demand. If you are not going to investigate that, what are you going to investigate?
Tom: Thank you.
Farias: Sure, thanks Tom. Congress has plenty of time to talk about moveon.org and...
Tarpley: Yes, and what ads do you like or not like. And what did Limbaugh say yesterday. Who cares about this? This was a massive nuclear incident. Nothing like this has happened for about 40 years. Since they decided not to send nuclear weapons through the air if they possibly could avoid it. There is also a bilateral commitment with the Russian Federation not to put nuclear weapons in the air. That has been violated. This is very, very serious stuff. This is the kind of stuff that takes you right to the nuclear brink. Which is, by the way, where we are, pretty much.
Farias: Well the whole notion that this even got to the public is suspect to me. Obviously there are maybe some elements within the government who wanted the public to know about this. Maybe --
Tarpley: Clearly there is an element in the government that did not want it to happen. If you want to know why we do not have World War III already, I will name you three reasons.
The first one is Putin. And Putin is a question mark for them. Putin has never said that he would go to war over Iran, and I don't think he would. But he might do other things that could be equally painful for the Anglo-Americans. For London and the New York financier crowd. So Putin, and generally speaking that would include China, the Shanghai Cooperation organization, in other words the strategic opposition against this lunatic imperialism that we are saddled with.
The second thing is
institutional opposition. These people in the Air Force. Their allies in the Intelligence community. There are undoubtedly people in the State Department. Even in the Treasury. Elsewhere in the government who don't want this to happen. The Energy Department, and so on and so forth. They are simply people in the military who say, "We don't want to die." If we go into the Iranian meat grinder, that is ten to a hundred times worse than Iraq. It is much more catastrophic because if you take a look at the map, your supply line goes right across the Iranian front for about 1,500 miles. Through the Arabian Sea, the Straits of Hormuz, the Gulf, and then two 400 mile Route Tampas which are basically impossible to defend since the dear British have decided to go home. The U.S. situation would become absolutely critical in case of a war with Iran.
The Cheney argument is that we will just do limited strikes. Yeah, your strikes may be limited, but the retaliation may be massive. It may be enough to bowl you over. It may sink the dollar, for sure. Cut off oil. The end of the world as we have known it, guaranteed.
Farias: There are lots of options that the Iranians have outside of just military options in terms of taking down our economy.
Tarpley: Yes, and naturally everybody has the right to self-defense under the U.N. Charter. You don't want this to happen. Don't blame the Iranians, if they eventually do it. Blame your own government, because they are the ones who have been the aggressors and who are committing acts of war all the time. They are sending over drones and they have got by my count at least five or six terror organizations under U.S.-British control. From the PKK, the MEK, the Al Quds (spelling?) Liberation Front, Jundula (spelling?) and Baluchistan (spelling?) are all terror groups being sent in, busily killing people inside Iran under U.S. auspices. So don't buy this stuff about, you know, IED's. This is nonsense.
Farias: I just saw this photograph. We are building a base right in Iraq right on the border.
Tarpley: Right, the U.S. is trying to get the British to go to the Iranian border, and the British don't want to, because they know that is the meat grinder.
Farias: I heard Brown announced he was bringing a 1,000 home earlier this week. I heard today he was bringing another 500.
This is one of the things I mention here, which is of course the level of insanity, war psychosis, inside the U.S. regime is increased by the fact that you have got a dollar panic going on, you have got the dollar crashing to 25 year or 30 year or all time lows, you have got oil close to an all time high. Gold near a 25 year high, and all the commodities, be it wheat or corn, soy beans -- all in the stratosphere. And essentially a banking panic. Right? We had Countrywide Bank in California. Banking panic. And panic runs on Northern Rock in Great Britain. So the whole asset bubble of the past 30 years or so is coming down with a bang, and that increases the proclivity of these madmen to look for military flights forward.
Farias: Mr. Tarpley, thanks for being on the show.
Tarpley: My pleasure. Thanks for inviting me.
Farias: We will do it again. We will be right back.
* * * * * * *
Editor's final note: Please visit Webster Tarpley's home page at: tarpley.net. This transcript has been provided for educational purposes only. The views expressed in this interview are not necessarily those of America First Books or other archived authors.