By: Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Attack on U.S. soil would reinvigorate Obama’s collapsing approval figures
Having already demonized Americans as the primary domestic terror threat, National Counterterrorism Center head Michael Leiter is now ominously parroting Barack Obama’s rhetoric, by indicating that America could absorb a terror attack, another indication that the threat of a false flag event to reinvigorate Obama’s collapsing approval numbers is higher than ever.
“A US security official on Wednesday said the country was capable of withstanding another terrorist attack and bouncing back, saying Americans needed to put extremist threats in “perspective,” AFP reported.
As we reported a couple of weeks ago, Leiter joined Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano and FBI director Robert S. Mueller to publicly fearmonger about the risk of terror in the United States being the highest since 9/11, specifically focusing on domestic terrorism and demonizing the American people as being the primary threat.
However, every single example of terror Leiter and his cohorts cited could be traced straight back to having been provocateured, contrived or directly facilitated by the federal government itself.
Leiter’s rhetoric mirrors what Barack Obama told journalist Bob Woodward in recent comments that were reported by the Washington Post.
“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger,” said Obama.
However, the only thing 9/11 made stronger was the police state crackdown on the American people and the growth of government at its greatest pace in history.
When the constant drumbeat of the inevitability of a terror attack on U.S. soil is combined with top federal officials and Obama himself indicating that an attack will be “absorbed,” the stage is set for a new attack that will be swiftly exploited to reverse Obama’s political collapse.
This was alluded to by former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro when he wrote in the Financial Times that the only thing that could save Obama’s tenuous grip on power was a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11.
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November 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.”
Shapiro was clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be exploited in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.
As we pointed out at the time, Shapiro was just the latest in a long line of prominent people to highlight the usefulness of terror in achieving otherwise impossible political goals, while creating a chilling atmosphere that denounces any criticism of the President as being in league with the terrorists, a tool which seems to be Obama’s last resort in crushing the accelerating popularity of the Tea Party movement.