Lt. General Warns That Something Big Will Happen On 9-11-2014

August 25, 2014 by Sam Rolley



Ret. Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a military analyst for Fox, suggested on Saturday that the U.S. is in danger of suffering a devastating terror attack and should “go to DEFCON 1, our highest state of readiness and be prepared as we lead up to 9/11.” After discussing a broad range of topics with Fox New’s Uma Pemmaraju, McInerney mentioned Malaysia Airlines jet MH370 which went missing earlier in the year and suggested that it could be intact and being readied by terrorists for use as a weapon against the U.S.

“On the seventh of September, a major news network and publishing network are going to put out a book. It is going to be earth shattering of what’s happening and what happened. The fact is we may even see a 9/11/14 MH-370 surface again,” he said. “We should go to DEFCON 1, our highest state of readiness and be prepared as we lead up to 9/11.”
It’s worth noting that the U.S. has never gone to DEFCON 1.

Pemmaraju pressed for more information, “When you say a major news organization is coming forward with a publication, what are you referring to specifically? Can you allude to that, give us more details?”
But aside from reiterating that the U.S. should raise its terror threat level, McInerney provided little more information.

“I can’t give you any more than what I’ve just said. But it is going to be extremely important and America should take notice. We are less safe today than we were six years ago,” he said. A 2008 New York Times piece involving McInerney and other military analysts featured on network news makes his cryptic remarks a little more interesting.
The Times reported at the time that the Pentagon routinely works closely with the analysts to generate favorable public opinions of U.S. military actions.

From that Bush-era report:
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

According to the report, as of 2008 McInerney sat “on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.” A government watchdog cleared the Pentagon of any wrongdoing in its efforts to woo analysts into acting as propaganda puppets.


Comments;

It's too bad General McInerney isn't the Commander-in-Chief......we would be a whole hell of a lit safer.

If I may, I'd like to jump in here. First off, we don't know all the evidence, only what the biased media lets us see or read. So any assumption that a "murder" was committed is a mere assumption, based on partial or faulty information. And much of what is presented by the media is designed to shape public opinion.

Secondly, as a retired LEO, I can tell you with assurance, that when a police officer is involved in a shooting, he/she is almost never aware of how many shots he or she fired. No, I, personally have never been involved in a shooting, but after 30 years of law enforcement, I've been around.

It is uninformed to presume that the officer, in this case, committed the crime of first (or any degree) degree murder. The "pause" heard doesn't necessarily indicate anything. We cannot, at this point, presume anything until the investigation is complete. Oh, and generally, when a police shooting occurs, a different agency investigates the shooting. Further, to insinuate that there is a cover-up is ludicrous. That is, as they say in court, based on fact not entered into evidence. Which is to say, a baseless assumption. Also, to make such a statement may be the result of some hatred or distrust of authorities. Based on what?

But before we all get our undies in a wad, we need to consider, without bias, that there are two possibilities here: 1.) That the officer was justified in shooting, and 2.) He was not. And at this point, we don't know either answer.

And hurling insults is childish.