Robert Bowman is running for congress on 9-11 truth. Hotdog!

by **NewKid** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:51 pm

Yeah, here she is on that. <a href="http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html" target="top">johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html</a> Not saying I agree with Oilempire's overall take, but this is even weirder if she said this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ms. Honegger claimed that Richard Reid (the "shoe bomber") was really Osama, a position that is either extremely incompetent or a deliberate effort to promote disinformation.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:tuLTHrG9LpYJ:www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html+%22barbara+honegger%22+%22no+plane%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1" target="top">216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:tuLTHrG9LpYJ:www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html+%22barbara+honegger%22+%22no+plane%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1</a>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>(HMW: does Bowman's Star Wars book get into or show any understanding of the political or social issues as to why star wars is abhorrent?)<hr></blockquote> Thoroughly. He outs the Heritage Foundation with their own secret documents and archives the Reagan cabal's use of propaganda to thwart the nuclear freeze movement and discredit arms control by lying about the Soviet Union and 'Star Wars.' Bowman is straight up and not a 'sleeper' military-industrial complexer. He's been involved in a Daniel and Phillip Berrigan-esque social justice-minded Christian church for years, one of those true believers in Truth, Justice, and the American Way who recoiled at the Reagan invasion of Reich-wingers into every institution in the late 70s. (By the way, George Lucas was casting 'Star Wars' in 1976 when SDI was still a secret program run by Bowman. Don't think Lucas isn't either used by or complicit with government social engineers, just like Speilberg, who manage the psychology of the masses with 'entertainment.') <a href="http://www.timewarptv.com/Default.aspx?tabid=140">www.timewarptv.com/Defaul...?tabid=140</a> Bowman exposes the propagandqa manipulations by the newly installed Reaganauts in cahoots with the Heritage Foundation in his 1985 book on pages 50-53 which I have painstakingly transcribed below. I'm offering this because probably few have a copy of Bowman's 1985 book exposing the Star Wars scam as an insider who saw it happen along with the Heritage Foundation propaganda campaign against arms control spun up during the Reagan years. So this excerpt below 1) Proves Bowman's bona fides so his political campaign won't be seen as a 'sleeper agent' out to derail 9/11 truth 2) Shows that world domination was US policy long before the PNAC 3) Shows the military budget crimes against humanity started under Reagan and continued to this day 4) Shows the role of the Heritage Foundation in all this I've bolded some some of Bowman's choice words for you scanners. Excerpt from Dr. Robert Bowman's 1985 book, 'Star Wars: Defense or Death Star?' pp. 50-53: >begin excerpt< <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Perhaps the most insidious hoax ever perpetrated on the American people is the one attempting to sell "Star Wars" as an aid to arms control. When the radical right swept to power with the first Reagan Administration, they thought they could simply walk away from arms control and pursue their goal of military superiority without interference from Congress or the American people. They were wrong. By mid-1982, there had been enough leaks about defense stratagies for a "winnable protracted nuclear war" for the American people to see what was going on - and know they didn't like it. The nuclear freeze movement gathered strength across the land, got a resolution through the House of Representatives, and was gaining strength in the Senate. The Catholic Bishops were becoming openly critical of the nuclear arms race. The allies were balking at deploying Euromissiles. The strategic "modernization" program (particularly the MX) was under fire as going beyond the needs o deterrence toward a first-strike capability. The Executive Branch was clearly on the defensive. Something had to be done. It was. First, the START and INF talks were entered into - not with the objective of reaching an agreement, but as a sop to public opinion. Second, a determined campaign was intensified to convince the American public that the Soviets had cheated on all their own arms control obligations, thereby discrediting the whole arms control process. Third in a masterful political manuever, the President made his "Star Wars" speech, deflecting attention from the Freeze and his offensive buildup.  Actually, the "Star Wars" program had been going on for years. When the author directed such research from 1976 to 1978, it had legitimate objectives: 1) to prevent technological surprise by always understanding the technology well enough to be able to predict what the Soviets might be capable of, and by when. 2) to develop countermeasures so that, in the event the Soviets were silly enough to spend a trillion rubles on a "Star Wars" system, we would have the means available to render the system useless, using available technology and at reasonable cost. 3) to monitor the technology and the strategic situation so that we would be able to determine if it ever became in our security interest to consider the deployment of such a system of our own. For many years there had been a few on the "lunatic fringe" who warned of the imminent deployment of Soviet laser battle stations and urged us to go beyond our prudent research program into a crash development of our own "Star Wars" system. Fortunately, these few were kept in check by the majority of career military professionals, who understood the technical and strategic realities. They knew that the Soviets were even less capable than we of putting up a meaningful "Star Wars" system, and that for us to attempt to do so would be counterproductive for our overall national security effort. (These realities have not changed, by the way. Only the relative positions of the players have changed.)  After the 1980 election, the new President-elect and most of his chief advisors had little military or strategic experience. The transition team was heavily populated with those on the radical right selling "Star Wars" (among other things) as a means to regain military superiority and thereby the ability to once again dictate Soviet behavior. Even before being inaugurated, the President was under tremendous pressure to pursue such unilateral technological fixes. Out of the Transition Team activities evolved the so-called High Frontier project. The author was involved in informal discussions of the High Frontier group during the transition period. Later, the author reviewed an early draft of the High Frontier Proposal. It was technically flawed, strategically naive, and politically irresponsible. It was also unabashedly anti-Soviet and anti-arms control. Even after two years of polishing, the slick book put out by the Heritage Foundation on High Frontier betrayed its biases: The High Frontier strategy of Assured Survival can be adopted and pursued without regard for further arms con- trol agreements with the Soviets. Indeed, one of the salient advantages of High Frontier is that it provides security to the West quite independently of any trust or distrust of the leaders of the Soviet Union. The usefulness of High Frontier's spaceborne strategic defenses are not affected by past Soviet compliance with past arms control agreements. This important advantage should not be affected by any future arms control agreements. and again: A High Frontier decision by the U.S., if backed by effec- tive implementation efforts, would severely impact the Soviet Union, perhaps decisevely. and: In the Soviet view, High Frontier would confirm its worst fear about the U. S. military purposes in space. It would view the move as what the Soviets themselves have charac- terized as a possible 'absolute weapon' capable of ensuring U.S. 'invincibility' from missile attacks. Even at this early time, there were indications of the coming plot to to subvert the arms control community: The potential for public support of this concept is enormous...Adoption of the High Frontier concept could even convert or confuse some of the traditional opponents of defense efforts and technological innova- tions. It is harder to oppose non-nuclear defensive systems than nuclear offensive systems. It is almost impossible to argue effectively for a perpetual balance of terror strategy if it can be negated by new policies. It is hard to make environmentalist cases against space systems. Even those naysayers whose basic concern is disarmament will be hard pressed to make a case against High Frontier, the ABM Treaty notwithstanding. By the time the President made his "Star Wars" speech in March, 1983, the various right-wing groups pushing space weapons had discovered that their belligerant anti-Soviet approach didn't work too well with middle America. So they came up with a complex scheme for co-opting the arms control and peace issues through an elaborate "doublespeak" - an approach that foreshadowed in the President's own speech: Wouldn't it be better to save lives, rather than avenge them? and We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. To understand what is really going on, one has to listen in on space weapons proponents talking among themselves, or get ahold of the secret Heritage Foundation plan entitled "BMD & Arms Control." Here are some quotes from this latter document: ...keep BMD program alive in 1984 and make it impossible to turn off by 1989...permit US to move ahead forcefully & unilaterally [emphasis in origi- nal!]...represented as a bilateral effort - one with Soviet reciprocation and participation...make it politically risky for BMD opponents to invoke alleged "arms control agreements" against and early-IOC or any other BMD system...disarm BMD opponents by stealing their language and cause...their explicit or de facto advocacy of classical anti-population war crimes... with appropriate political and emotional packaging, this approach may be able to tap the freeze constituency (i.e. the "do something" approach to arms control). We have recently seen this tactic flower into full bloom. The weapons proponents are now repeatedly invoking arms control as the necessary reason for continuing "Star Wars" (while out of the other side of their mouth, these same people are trying to destroy public confidence in arms control by falsely accusing the Soviet Union of massive treaty violations). The main purpose of this chapter is to show how the continuation of a Death Star program (Star Wars, if you prefer) would destroy the entire arms-control process, leading to an unrestrained arms race in both offensive and defensive weapons, greatly reducing our security. But many might say, "Who cares?" There has never been so much propaganda to the effect that arms control has never done any good, because the Soviet Union ignores it and uses it to our detriment, that some actually believe it. We must therefore take a look at the real record of arms control and Soviet compliance.<hr></blockquote> >end excerpt<

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:11 pm

Thanks for this info Hugh. I really don't have the patience or skills for that kind of digging, but it does reinforce my intial impression of this guy. Hope you are right, because he is turning a lot of heads about 9-11.

by **FourthBase** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But it's also strange that Honneger is a big "no plane at the pentagon" person.<hr></blockquote> Not quite, NewKid. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) at or around 9:32 am, possibly followed by an impact from an airborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77, a Boeing 757.<hr></blockquote> She is not a "no-plane" theorist.

by **Gouda** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:39 pm

HMW, thanks for the synopsis on Bowman. I guess his anti-Heritage Foundation spurs do not conflict with Honegger's Hoover Institution (another Reagan favorite) pony. I looked at his campaign homepage to get in touch with his views on the issues. Agree with most, in fact. Of course, several iffy things pop up for me. No candidate is perfect. No voter is either. <a href="http://bowman2006.com/issues_az.htm#CIA">bowman2006.com/issues_az.htm#CIA</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> CIA: We have several intelligence-gathering agencies in the Pentagon. They are more than adequate to the task. The Central Intelligence Agency has caused the death of millions of people with its covert actions and the resulting wars. It has caused the United States to be hated and to become the target of terrorists. <hr></blockquote> He seems to harbor a kind of pax americana, or western-intervention conceit. But mostly he is a bit confusing and odd... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Iraq: If we allow our military occupation to continue, we will be doomed to the same kind of defeat in Iraq that we suffered in Vietnam, where so many of my buddies died. Most Iraqis want us to leave. Al Qaeda and Iran want us to stay, because the war is depleting our military and destroying its morale. Our troops deserve better than that. They should be brought home and replaced by peacekeepers from the UN and Iraq’s neighbors.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Iran: Iran is a threat to the security of the United States because of past misguided foreign policy.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Libya: American-educated Qaddafi is a natural ally. We should quit hounding him and make peace.<hr></blockquote> Not too bad, a little weird, pretty progressive - but what the heck is up with his Millennium III Corporation? I think he is exec VP. Here is the blurb from the website. (All other links on the page are dead. Good advertising.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Since 1976, the principals of Millennium III Corporation have utilized special skills to gather timely intelligence, provide insightful analysis and recommend appropriate strategies in response. Over the years we have developed unique and valuable advocacy capabilities for our clients in Washington, D.C. Our firm specializes in assisting emerging democratic states compete successfully for political, economic, and social ties with American opinion leaders, policy makers and the private sector.  As a result, the Millennium III Corporation favorably positions its clients in highly influential political and economic circles, thus enabling them to compete more successfully on issues important to their national, domestic, and foreign policies.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://millenniumiii.com/">millenniumiii.com/</a> Progressives can do that nowadays?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:55 am

Hm. Wonder why the links at Millenium III don't work. His campaign website with The Issues A-Z is quite thorough. I think he's got amazing potential to pull in all but the most hardcore Southern Baptist types with his post-military humanistic religious views. Dig this- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Moral Issues: Let's get one thing straight. Morality has very little to do with sex and a great deal to do with money and power. It has to do with how we treat one another. It is immoral for the big money interests to force government to serve their greed instead of serving the people's need. I do agree that public servants need to set a high moral standard for themselves, as an example. As Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church, I'm used to having to do that. And I favored the impeachment of Bill Clinton -- but for the right reason. Not over poor Monica. I would have impeached him for the bombing of Baghdad and the rape of Yugoslavia. There are indeed huge moral issues facing us today. Waging wars of aggression is a moral issue. Poverty in the midst of wealth is a moral issue. The treatment of widows and orphans is a moral issue. (It was in Jesus' day, and it still is.) Health care is a moral issue. Let the churches worry about who is sleeping with whom. The government has bigger fish to fry. Government should concern itself with morality in the board room and the war room, not the bedroom.<hr></blockquote>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:14 pm

This is an honest and compelling narrative. It should remind us of how many good people are still naively supporting a bad system and that we need to remember that in our efforts to change their view. <a href="http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/journey.htm">www.rmbowman.com/ssn/journey.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> From Fighter Pilot to Peacenik Bishop Strange Steps Along a Journey in Faith by Most Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. People often ask me why I changed. They want to know what made me switch from being a career military officer to being a "peacenik." I usually answer that I haven’t changed all that much. I saw "peace" as the objective of my military service. You remember, "Peace Is Our Profession." Many of us actually believed that. Now I just pursue it in a different way. Throughout my military career, I saw the prevention of nuclear war as the primary reason for the military’s existence. I never really saw how Vietnam fit into that. I even spoke out against the war before going to fight in it. But I was young and had perhaps too much faith in the people running things. And sure, I saw decisions being made (like the MX) which I felt were counterproductive to our goal of war prevention. But overall, I felt that our policies served that goal, and that they worked. Even when I made a personal decision not to cooperate in the release of nuclear weapons under any circumstances — even retaliation — I still allowed myself to be used as part of the bluff. After all, deterrence was working. (This decision was made in 1969 in Korea when I was responsible for the war plans of three squadrons of aircraft armed with nuclear weapons. I decided that retaliation would be pointless and immoral. But, of course, I never said anything to anybody.) This incident was the only time that my Christian faith impacted on my military service. After all, the Roman Catholic Church (to which I then belonged) and all the others with which I was familiar kept chanting "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." So my "nuclear pacifism" was a personal decision arrived at not because of my church’s position, but in spite of it. When I retired from the Air Force in 1978, I felt good about my career, and still supported our policy of war prevention. The big change came about when Reagan was elected president. He (or more properly the right-wing civilian ideologues who shaped his policies) changed everything. They changed the "Star Wars" programs which I had directed into a crash program to deploy offensive weapons (disguised as defense) in order to regain absolute military superiority. More importantly, they changed the overall defense policy of our nation from one of war prevention to one of war fighting. The Pentagon’s marching orders were to prepare to "fight and win a protracted nuclear war." This I could not support. I started speaking out, warning the people about the suicidal direction the new administration was taking us. Very quickly I found that I had less freedom of speech in industry than I had had in the military. I left General Dynamics rather than be quiet. The next place wasn’t any better, and in the middle of 1982 I was forced to resign from industry altogether. That fall, my wife and I were on a charter flight for Vienna, where I was to chair an NGO conference on space weapons at UNISPACE 82. I was still unemployed, and struggling with whether this new "peacenik" role was compatible with my Christianity. (Now, of course, I can’t imagine how anyone can be a Christian without being a peacenik.) I picked a magazine out of the seat pocket and started reading. There were the words of Bishop Gumbleton and a couple of other courageous bishops — saying the very things I had been guiltily thinking. What a relief to find that I wasn’t the only Christian feeling that way! In Vienna, we spent two weeks fighting the whole US delegation. Then the UN asked me to hold a press conference to announce the resolution against space weapons that I had written. All the captains of the aerospace industry were there (at taxpayers’ expense), and I was afraid that if I came that far out of the closet, I would never work again. After trying once more to reason with the US delegates in their plush hotel suites, Maggie and I were walking hand-in-hand back to our seven dollar a night youth hostel. I explained my dilemma. How were we going to survive financially? After all, we had a seven bedroom house in Potomac (the Beverly Hills of Washington, DC) with a 17 1/2% mortgage, and five of our seven children were in college. At that moment, Maggie said just the words I needed to hear, "If this is God’s work, He’ll make it possible. Do whatever you have to do." It was as if a huge weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I held the press conference. (And sure enough, I haven’t worked since.) Over the 14 years since then, my Christian faith has become more and more intertwined with my work for peace. I preached my first peace sermon in October 1982. Gradually, they got more frequent. Maggie and I studied for ordination in the Episcopal Church, but didn’t follow through. Eventually, we were ordained in the American Catholic Church and in April 1996 I was consecrated an independent Catholic Bishop. I am now Presiding Bishop of the United Catholic Church, an ecumenical church with the liturgy of the Roman Catholics and the social conscience of the Quakers. We are a peace church. The nonviolence I preach is incompatible with the "just war" doctrine. So it turns out I have changed, after all. But it hasn’t been a sudden conversion. It has been the result of a difficult process of trying to understand the words and example of Jesus and discerning and accepting the will of God. I still think of myself as a military man seeking the security of my country. But the means now exclude killing another country’s soldiers. And I have the feeling my journey isn’t over yet.<hr></blockquote>

by **NewKid** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>She is not a "no-plane" theorist. <hr></blockquote> Actually, FB, while I have made this distinction many times in other threads, "no-plane" theorist is a fairly common shorthand for "no flight 77" at the Pentagon. While there is all sorts of speculation about whether it might have been a drone of some kind, another piloted plane, or a missile, very few people think no aerial object of any kind hit the Pentagon (note as well that she says airborne "object" and not plane too). see also here: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is important to note that bomb explosion(s) at 9:32 am on the ground floor of the west section of the Pentagon are not inconsistent with there having also been a later, or even near-simultaneous, impact by some airborne object -- a piloted plane, unmanned drone, or missile -- into the same or nearby section of the building, which may have been the cause of the collapse of the west wall section approximately 20 minutes after the initial violent event. Indeed, if a heat-seeking missile hit the building after the bomb(s) went off, the heat from the explosion(s) would become the target for the missile. Recall that the A-3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofitted shortly before 9/11, not only enabling them to be remotely controlled but also fitted with missiles. The round-shaped exit hole in the inner wall of the "C" Ring is evidence that a missile or a piloted or pilot-less remote-controlled plane significantly smaller than Flight 77 also struck the building subsequent to bombs going off and penetrated the inside of the third ring, as bomb detonations would not have resulted in such a near-symmetrical round-shaped opening.<hr></blockquote> This is all fairly standard speculation that frequently gets classified as "no-plane" theories. While I agree it's imprecise, "no-plane" seems to be the most common terminology employed to describe this view. In short, if she isn't a "no plane" theorist, then virtually nobody is. In any event, the point is that it's very hard to have Hani Hanjour and company knowing when to attack the Pentagon because they have a mole and at the same time think that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon. In other words, if it wasn't flight 77 that hit it, even if it were some other smaller plane, the official version on the 19 hijackers conducting the operation is pretty much toast. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 9/10/06 12:42 pm

by **NewKid** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:34 pm

Re-reading the original article Iroquois posted, I think the likely explanation is just that her position has changed significantly since she wrote the original article. She's clearly what you would call "MIHOP" at this point.

by **FourthBase** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:08 pm

And even if she speculates about a missile, or a smaller aircraft, or a bomb exploding before that, she's at least presenting the speculation as speculation, not conclusion. IMO, it'd be folly to discount her just based on that. Everything else she says is SO barking up the right tree. It's one thing to pin people like Morgan Reynolds as disinfo creeps, people who push a blatantly false premise. But expecting each 9/11 skeptic to be 100% kosher in both their conclusions and speculation is going to leave us with few (if any) skeptics to support.

by **NewKid** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And even if she speculates about a missile, or a smaller aircraft, or a bomb exploding before that, she's at least presenting the speculation as speculation, not conclusion. IMO, it'd be folly to discount her just based on that. Everything else she says is SO barking up the right tree. It's one thing to pin people like Morgan Reynolds as disinfo creeps, people who push a blatantly false premise. But expecting each 9/11 skeptic to be 100% kosher in both their conclusions and speculation is going to leave us with few (if any) skeptics to support. <hr></blockquote> Oh, I agree. And even if she is disinfo, remember that good disinfo has a bunch of truth in it as well. I haven't tried to verify Oil empire's statement on her about Richard Reid being Osama, but that to me would be the one to worry about. (Oil empire has some stuff of its own that makes me quite nervous as well.) She's been around the parapolitical block before with October Surprise. It'd be interesting to see what exactly she said and how it all came out with that stuff just to compare.

by **yesferatu** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>This is an honest and compelling narrative. It should remind us of how many good people are still naively supporting a bad system and that we need to remember that in our efforts to change their view.<hr></blockquote> Roger that. Many months ago when I came across Bowman and his campaign I brought it up to a dude who I knew to be a 9/11 official-story-leaning type, and his immediate reaction was there was no Star Wars program under Ford and Carter and therefore Bowman was a charlaton of some sort. Instead of acknowledging a real heavyweight could come to the conclusion 9/11 was not as the government says, his immediate reaction was to say Bowman was making up his past, his life, his history. That is how desperate people are to hold on to the delusion, to hold on to Santa Claus. Of course I explained Star Wars did not just spring into life in the 80's fer chrissake. Decades of R&D were needed before a U.S. president could introduce it as a means of policy. Did he think that Reagan was sworn into office, and Reagan asked the scientist to create it, and voila, a year later we have the full-blown SDI program? Just cause it was not called "Star Wars" under Ford and Carter, did not mean the program was not in very serious R&D during those years. Bowman headed that. He is a heavyweight. This guy could change a lot of minds.

Robert Bowman is running for congress on 9-11 truth. Hotdog!

Re: The men who stare at photos

Re: Gouda's inquiry on Bowman's 1985 anti-Star Wars book

Re: Gouda's inquiry on Bowman's 1985 anti-Star Wars book

Re: Gouda's inquiry on Bowman's 1985 anti-Star Wars book

Re: Gouda's inquiry on Bowman's 1985 anti-Star Wars book

Re: Bowman's website

Re: Bowman's transition from military to "peacenik"

Re: Bowman's transition from military to "peacenik"

Re: Bowman's transition from military to "peacenik"

Honegger

Re: Honegger

Re: Bowman's transition from military to "peacenik"

Who is online