In the article the first two paragraphs make the inevitable reference to 9/11. In fact 9/11 is referenced directly FIVE times, and indirectly once by a reference to 9/12.
9/11 = WAR!
Yes, of course 9/11 = war. Such an attack would inevitably lead to calls for retribution and war.
Chertoff makes no mention though of
1. PNAC and its agenda, which thanks to 9/11 is being fulfilled
2. "A Clean Break", which thanks to 9/11 is also being fulfilled
3. the many warnings, indications and down right suppression of evidence that 9/11 was in the pipeline which were either ignored and/or suppressed
4. the incredible catastrophic failure of the USAF and the US military in general on 9/11
5. Cheney running all those terrorist drills on or around 9/11
6. the Anglo-American oil corporations grabbing control of Iraq's oil after it was promised it would go to the Iraqis.
I watched "9/11: Press For Truth" the other day. I highly recommend it. It shows that there is an obvious cover up of who knew what and when. Bush, Cheney, and Rice are all singled out for special attention. They all said nobody could have predicted hijacked planes could be used as weapons, yet in 1995 Project Bojinka was busted which led to uncovering a plot which proposed hijacked planes to be used as weapons. And the warning that at the G8 meeting in Genoa a few months before 9/11 a hijacked plane was going to be used to kill Bush led to Bush staying on a luxurious yacht and not in a hotel building.
At the very least they knew and allowed it. They knew 9/11 was coming and its effect could be used for war and the fulfillment of the agendas of PNAC and A Clean Break.
Chertoff's drivel is at
There is also a curious piece in The Sunday Times which is not headline news, about al-Qaeda in Iraq in cooperation with al-Qaeda in... IRAN wanting to cause a Hiroshima or Nagasaki in Great Britain.
AL-QAEDA leaders in Iraq are planning the first “large-scale” terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.
Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on “a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki” in an attempt to “shake the Roman throne”, a reference to the West.
...The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq.
There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi’ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.
The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al-Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with operatives in Britain.
However, further down the article you find this;
The report says there is “no indication” this attack would specifically target Britain, “although we are aware that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK”.
So the article begins with the unqualified statement that AQ is planning to nuke GB, but further down we find there is no evidence for such a claim. Hmm.
But what is more surprising is this;
Details of a separate plot to attack Britain, “ideally” before Blair steps down this summer, were contained in a letter written by Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, an Iraqi Kurd and senior Al-Qaeda commander.
According to the JTAC document, Hadi “stressed the need to take care to ensure that the attack was successful and on a large scale”. The plan was to be relayed to an Iran-based Al-Qaeda facilitator.
So AQ in Iran wants to bomb GB before Blair steps down and wants it to be a huge success for them in that there are many deaths. Now, what would Blair do in that case? Enact the Civil Contingencies Act and declare Martial Law and stay as PM for a little while longer while the available and manufactured evidence is linked to Iran? And who would therefore have benefitted?