Retired General Wesley Clark has stated in an interview that immediately after the attacks, the Bush Administration was tying 9-11 to Iraq and pushing Clark to publically pin the blame on Saddam, despite a complete lack of evidence.
As he said:
The article goes on to say:
Ominous, indeed… “things related and not”?
Like I’ve been saying, we’re past the point where we need to investigate who knew what when. Certainly it looks like Rumsfeld isn’t above a little lying to justify an invasion of Iraq, whether it’s “related” or “not.”
This is, of course, aside from what we already know from Bush at War, in which Bush & Co. want to invade Iraq well before 9-11. The book also quotes them as having a list of countries to invade, even though Rumsfeld later sneered at the idea that anyone could be so stupid as to think he had a list. What was that about revisionist history?
Just another log on the fire, as far as I’m concerned. I guess the real debate is, are any Americans at all upset that top members of the presidential administration lied, and lied repeatedly, about the reasons for invading Iraq? If so, what, if anything, can be done about it?
In the immortal words of the poetic George W. Bush. “F*ck Saddam! We’re taking him out.” These inspiring words rank right up there with Churchill and FDR in their elegance and flair.:rolleyes:
I thought we already identified most of the bombers, and most of them were Saudis(from Saudi Arabia), 14 out of 17? United Arab emeriates might have been the rest?
Anyways, none of the criminals of 9-11 in the WTC or Pentagon bombings were Iraqis (from Iraq).
Just another log on the fire, as far as I’m concerned. I guess the real debate is, are any Americans at all upset that top members of the presidential administration lied, and lied repeatedly, about the reasons for invading Iraq? If so, what, if anything, can be done about it?
I am upset. No debate needed.
I fear nothing can be done about it. I am convinced that Dub-yah is our leader only because he cheated, and he will be our leader for another 4 years, possibly longer: I’m willing to bet he challenges term limits.
Now please, please, PLEASE don’t go into where the hijackers came from (not that I intend to offer any resistance to the idea that Saudi Arabia may not be our bestest buddy in the world). They were recruited by “an organization” that was funded and organized by “someone.” I would imagine that people of the calibre required to pull of the 9/11 business are fairly rare, but that they would tend to hang out together. If you find a good candidate in Biff from Seattle, you’re gonna ask him if he knows someone who can help. Chances are he won’t be suggesting someone from Virginia simply because he doesn’t visit there too often.
What gets me is that SH & OBL needed to be taken out for lots of reasons–REAL reasons. Why all the saber-rattling & posturing and symbolic gesturing? WHO on the planet would have objected to an honest, “Look, we know these guys are up to something, so we’re just gonna grease 'em. Sorry, people of Earth, but what we are about to do is a violation of international law, but it’s for (y)our own good.” Bad? Yes. But at least it’s honest.
It does? Where? The Defense Secretary of a country asks his aid to look at plans on attacking a country that was a likely candidate for a devestating attack on his countries citizens? I would think it foolish if he didn’t have such a plan during such a time hwne his president may require it from him.
And I can barely take any more ‘anonymous sources’, ‘unidentified aid’s’ , ‘witheld name’, and general leaks. If there is verifiable evidence that Rumsfeld or Bush or anyone with a name deliberately lied about the knowledge of Iraq’s WMD, then I would sincerely like to ask for a cite. I supported this war, and still support our president, but I do not like being lied to either. And while I still enjoy the demise of Saddam, and would not have supported not doing it, The POTUS should not deliberatley lie to his citizens on such a matter and I would support pretty much any action against him.