Plan to oust Saddam drawn up two years before the invasion

[sabra]

Source: Independent UK

Secret document signalled support for Iraqi dissidents and promised aid, oil and trade deals in return for regime change


A secret plan to foster an internal coup against Saddam Hussein was drawn up by the Government two years before the invasion of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.

Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.

The document, headed "confidential UK/US eyes", was finalised on 11 June 2001 and approved by ministers. It has not been published by the Iraq inquiry but a copy has been obtained by The Independent and can be revealed for the first time today. It states: "We want to work with an Iraq which respects the rights of its people, lives at peace with its neighbours and which observes international law.

...

Ed Davey, the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the document called into question Mr Blair's evidence and should have been made public before his hearing on Friday. "A plan to back Iraqis seeking to oust Saddam may have been far less damaging and certainly more legal than what happened. Yet it shows that Blair's intent was always for regime change from an early stage and before 9/11," he said. "Yet again, it seems that critical documents have not been declassified, hampering the questioning of Blair and others."

* Tony Blair is to be recalled by the Chilcot Inquiry to give further evidence, according to The Guardian. It claims that Mr Blair will be questioned in both public and in private after the panel raised concerns that his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion conflicted with that given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plan-to-oust-saddam-drawn-up-two-years-before-the-invasion-1885155.html

[onehandle]

1. Cue the MIHOP/LIHOP discussions. nt

[thunder rising]

4. has nothing to do with it. The excuse was used to invade.

[thunder rising]

2. BS ... the plan was drawn up by Wolfowitz during GWHB term and sat until GWB

That's why it's important to prosecute. The plan to invade Iran is probably in a drawer someplace.

[avaistheone1]

6. Book'em

I wholeheartedly agree.

[ooglymoogly]

84. Haven't you heard; Powerful politicians are not bound

by any laws whatsoever, according to the O administration.

[windbreeze]

9. agreed...

that's why it was so important for the second * to be selected for the highest office...wb

[No Elephants]

27. Please. In this country, we look back only when we blame Bushco for

the problems Obama "inherited." When it comes to illegal wars, war crimes, violation of U.S. law, etc., we look only forward. And, anyway, Bush has been honored with co-heading the U.S. Haitian humanitarian effort.

Get with the program.

[TheEuclideanOne]

40. So is the plan to invade Canada.

Maybe the plan to invade is in a drawer.... or on a wall

[LiberalLovinLug]

100. We've already been invaded thanks

Dancing with the Stars
American Idol
Fox News is now applying for 24 hour cable here.
please stop..

[TheEuclideanOne]

102. Fox News vs Nuclear weapons

I know which one I would choose. BTW, on behalf of the US, please accept my apologies for all of the above.

[liam_laddie]

66. OP refers to UK, not US, altho'

I suspect there was some "co-ordination..." :puke:

[90-percent]

3. Also

Lest we forget the recently sealed for a life time hearings into the death of British Iraq War whistle blower Dr. David Kelly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7556391&mesg_id=7556391

Explain to me how sealing records is customary practice in a democracy?

Somewhere in the world somewhere someone will bring a case that will bring these Bush-Blair traitors to justice. If not this one, the others to follow, if there's still a shred of hope for democracy some where on the earth!

For a tin foil factor to garnish this info, is it true the last person Dr. Kelly spoke to (or emailed?) before his death was Judith Miller of Propaganda stenographer fame.

-90% Jimmy

PS - Does anybody know facts and details about a story I saw that Richard Branson was going to assist Saddam in leaving his country and live in exile before the war began? I don't know how far the plans went, but just think of how different history would have been if he succeeded?

[AnnieBW]

5. 1-800-WELL-DUH

What do you think that Cheney's "Oil Industry Meeting" was about? They were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq!

[SlingBlade]

7. The Hell You Say ?

Well, Time to ready the gallows and, Oh Wait, This is the UK isn't it.

That's what I love about the U.S
We don't fuck around looking backwards, sideways or pretty much any other way

We're way to busy waiting for the next crop of fucktard Neo-Cons currently waiting
in the wings to come along and send our children to some fucked up oil rich piece of
shit country where they can learn the true meaning of Patriotism

God, Country and Apple Pie, Yea Baby, That's the Ticket
Change that even your banker can believe in :argh:

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. That's the only 'change' we get.

Change that even your banker can believe in.


Probably why Obama was selected to run and promoted so heavily while progressive candidates were marginalized and virtually ignored. Makes perfect sense.

[treestar]

51. We're not dumb enough to fall for it again

Bush I and his Kuwait War, Bush II and his Iraq War (which could not have happened without 911).

We'll have some memory of it all.

[liberation]

67. Oh, yes we are...

... even as we speak there is no shortage of kids willing to sing up to fight, half a world away, some people who did nothing to us. So, why on earth would you say with a straight face we won't be fooled again? I mean, has there been an actual slowing down of our war effort, never mind an end to any of the two massive wars we're currently engaged? Nope, if anything we just scaled up our involvement.Has there been any effort to claim responsibilities for the start of a war which can not be classified as anything other than an illegal invasion and war of aggression by our choice against a country like Iraq which did nothing to us? Nope, zilch, zero, nada.... so...

Given the continual state of war this country has been since the end of WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq...) all done with ZERO, and I really mean ZERO meaningful opposition to the initiation of each of those conflicts, I am at a loss for words how you can claim with a straight face that we won't fall for it again. When the reality of our pattern says otherwise.

We can exploit us being the "good guys" in WWII for so long... we're not the good guys no more, we haven't been in a long while. In fact, just like any other nation in the world (both in geographic and historic terms) us being in the right side of things regarding human dignity and peace has been, is, and will be an anomaly... not the norm. Regardless of how many Hollywood moves we churn to convince us otherwise. Our shit stinks just like every other empire before us, and probably after us...

[ooglymoogly]

89. The poor are made poorer so they have no other alternative

but to sign up; That is part of the neocon plan.

[disndat]

71. Yes!

Are perfectly rational people still pooh-poohing the 9/11 conspiracy theory?

[begin_within]

8. For $3 trillion, couldn't we have just bought Iraq from him?

[Kali]

15. no shit!

[BadgerKid]

16. No way...that would've made the contractors unhappy. n/t

[Sancho]

24. naaa, that wouldn't satisfy the need to torture someone...

:sarcasm:

[treestar]

52. Of just pay them for the oil

One has to wonder if this military intervention is really cheaper than just buying the oil?

[begin_within]

76. It's cheaper for the oil companies.

Very costly to the American taxpayers and the 4,375+ Americans who died, as well as their families.

[obxhead]

94. well that was what we were doing before the Iraq invasion

We were paying for their oil. It was dirt cheap to the point of being a criminal act. We also had Saddam under our thumb and he couldn't fart without us knowing.

Post invasion we no longer had the programs that gave us that dirt cheap quality crude we thrive on. The Oil companies simply don't want cheap oil. It's of no benefit to them what so ever. The higher the price of crude, the greater the profit. Simple math really. The companies all operate at a margin. 20% of $20 bucks is good, 20% of $100 is great. High crude price is a benefit to the oil industry and oil fields in contention skyrocket the price.

[Lorien]

88. For one Billion and an island retreat somewhere we could have bought him off

but Darth Cheney needed to funnel Billions more to Halliburtan and his other war profiteering buddies. :grr:

[liam_laddie]

101. Maybe, but getting the loan...

would have been tough, much less at a favorable rate. Perhaps Bob Rubin could've facilitated. :sarcasm:

[naaman fletcher]

10. cocksuckers..

WW1 became what it was largely because of secret deals as well. The people of a country need to know what commitments are made by their government.

[ooglymoogly]

91. That is a true insult to cocksuckers. Otherwise +1

[Ferret Annica]

11. Plan to oust Saddam drawn up two years before the invasion

Source: The Independent U.K.

A secret plan to foster an internal coup against Saddam Hussein was drawn up by the Government two years before the invasion of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.


Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.

The document, headed "confidential UK/US eyes", was finalised on 11 June 2001 and approved by ministers. It has not been published by the Iraq inquiry but a copy has been obtained by The Independent and can be revealed for the first time today. It states: "We want to work with an Iraq which respects the rights of its people, lives at peace with its neighbours and which observes international law.

"The Iraqi people have the right to live in a society based on the rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest; to enjoy respect for human rights, economic freedom and prosperity," the contract reads. "The record of the current regime in Iraq suggests that its priorities remain elsewhere.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plan-to-oust-saddam-drawn-up-two-years-before-the-invasion-1885155.html

---

This is very convenient. Especially as as it mentions, 9-11 changed the calculus for making this invasion happen.

How interesting; almost like it was planned to do just that in a more deliberate and focused way then the official story of 9-11 would have us believe.

[shraby]

12. It wasn't such a secret plan...Rumsfeld and Cheney

wanted Clinton to invade Iraq and presented a plan to him but he didn't do it. I don't have a link, but I'm sure one of the du'ers does.

[Fool Count]

20. Only UK's plan was "secret". As far as US was concerned

regime change in Iraq was an official government policy since 1998, when it was codified into
the Iraq Liberation Act and signed into law by Bill Clinton. It was passed by the Congress 360-38,
and no one worried then how such an act against an internationally recognized sovereign UN member
state stacked up against the international law.

[JHB]

39. Would that be the 1996 PNAC letter to Clinton on Iraq?...

...or are you thinking of something else?

[JTFrog]

44. Interesting read about this from Scott Ritter (UN weapons inspector )

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

I sat in the office of then US Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, as the United States cut a deal with then-United Nations Special Commission Executive Chairman Richard Butler, where the timing and actions of an inspection team led my myself (a decision which was personally approved by Bill Clinton) would be closely linked to a massive US aerial bombardment of Iraq triggered by my inspection. I was supposed to facilitate a war by prompting Iraqi non-compliance. Instead, I did my job and facilitated an inspection that pushed the world closer to a recognition that Iraq was complying with its disarmament obligation. As a reward, I was shunned form the inspection process by the Clinton administration.

In April 1998 Bill Clinton promised Congress that his administration would provide all support necessary to the UN inspectors. In May 1998 his National Security Team implemented a new policy which turned its back on the inspectors, seeking to avoid supporting a disarmament process which undermined the policies of regime change so strongly embraced by Bill Clinton and his administration. When I resigned in August 1998 in protest over the duplicitous policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I was personally attacked by the Clinton administration in an effort to divert attention away from the truth about what they were doing regarding Iraq. Four months later Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, referred to in glowing terms by Hillary Clinton as she endorsed the policies of deception that led our nation down the path towards war.

"So it is with conviction," Hillary said at the moment of her vote, "that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him -- use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein -- this is your last chance -- disarm or be disarmed."

It turned out Saddam was in fact already disarmed. And it turned out that Hillary's husband, President Bill Clinton, knew this when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998. Hillary can try to twist and turn the facts as she defends the words she spoke when casting her fateful vote in favor of a war with Iraq. But no amount of re-writing history can shield her from the failed policies of her very own husband, policies she embraced willingly and whole heartedly when endorsing war.

...

[ooglymoogly]

85. Excellent read.

Scott Ritter is one of the few I believe on this entire shameful and disgusting debacle. And I, for one, will never forget Hillary's shameful vote to war.

[jmowreader]

53. You're talking about this, right?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

In reality, they didn't "present a plan" to Clinton--they told him they wanted him to do it, and expected him to formulate his own plan, probably because if the plan did NOT work they'd have ammunition to use against him.

[ck4829]

13. Why don't the Saudi people get to live in a society based on the rule of law?

[babylonsister]

14. Because that's the way their life and religion dicate what happens?

You can't compare cultures, and it's not really our business to dictate how other cultures conduct themselves.

[old mark]

37. Because they are our friends - Saddam was not our friend and

an enemy of the Saudis. You can be any kind of rotten government you want as long as you are our friends.
Helps if you have oil, too.

mark

[obxhead]

96. ha ha ha..... hahahaha

ummm, We created Saddam.......

[old mark]

97. Yes, we did - and then we didn't like him anymore.....

FWIW, the Shah was no fucking prize, either.

mark

[Art_from_Ark]

103. He certainly wasn't any prize

after Kissinger and David Rockefeller convinced President Carter to admit the Shah to the US in November, 1979.

[No Elephants]

28. It's been written that the very evening of 911, Rumsfeld told Dummya "This is your reason to invade

Iraq."

I was due to leave Texas on 911. Obviously, my flight never took off, so I was stuck in Houston with nothing to do. As it happened when I watched the plane hit, an elderly Lebanese woman was near me. I said aloud, "Bin Ladin." She said, "Mmm, but they'll hang it on Saddam."


During the next few days, I watched Peter Jennings wall to wall coverage of almost nothing. At one point, he cut to a woman in Washington, D.C. whose name and government title I don't recall. Supposedly, she had valuable info on the attack.

She said it was Saddam Hussein.

Jennings asked what made her think that.

My hand to God, this was her response:

"Beeeeeeeeecaaaauuuusse---who else would do such a thing?"

Jennings did not ask her anything else. Rather, they immediate cut away from her and Jennings never said another word about her or her "info."

I am not sure I would even have noticed how bizarre that very brief event was, if the old Lebanese woman had not said what she said to me. As it was, I will never forget it..

[midnight]

54. Very interesting story. Sounds like she understood the history..

[alp227]

17. Yawn...oh wait...OHH!!! MORE evidence of the Iraq War conspiracy

Starting with "The Kuwaitis tried to kill Papa Bush" to the Iraq Liberation Act to the whole plan to distract America from the real 9/11 culprit.

[liberation]

When dd the Kuwaitis tried to kill Bush's papa?

[Quantess]

18. I just watched "No End In Sight"

I highly recommend watching it. It came out a couple of years ago. It showcased the stunning incompetence, hubris, waste, and recklessness of the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq invasion.

[RedSock]

23. "incompetence"? -- just the opposite

they got everything they wanted -- and trillions more. it all went according to plan.

bush/cheney were amazingly and utterly COMPETENT for all 8 years.

if they were actually incompetent, they'd be in jail right now. instead, they and their friends will live like kings for the rest of their lives.

[Quantess]

26. You have a point. But,

there was plenty of incompetence discussed by military experts in the documentary. Nobody, not Bush, not Cheney, not Condoleezza Rice, had ever served in the military, and they preferred to appoint "yes men" who likewise had no military experience. Donald Rumsfeld was in the airforce, but he was never in combat. Meanwhile, the military experts who actually knew what they were talking about were completely disregarded.

It has really good interviews. You should watch it.

[liberation]

74. Bush was (albeit with a lackluster record at best) in the National Guard,

and Rumsfeld was in the navy. Although neither saw combat, and they both were as rear echelon motherf*ckers as one can get.

Useless piece of trivia, my dad actually has picture of him with Rumsfeld. My dad was with the SAC and was leading a team doing some the evaluations of a lot of new weapon systems coming on line during the 70s. The teams doing the B-1 "review" (I think they call it evaluation in the parlance of the Pentagon) made the point that Rockwell should stick the B-1 up their rear ends since it was clear it was an expensive useless program. Basically, during the evaluation the B-1 could not meet with any reasonable success any of the major benchmarks defined initially for the design.

It was clear Rockwell was intending on producing a series of basically unsafe and useless planes which they expected would have to be completely refurbished during the first years of service. Basically Rockwell was trying to double dip: produce something they were aware was utter crap for a pretty penny, and then expected the DoD to pay for overhauling the whole fleet to allow the B-1s to actually become operational. The report was so damming that once Carter came to power, the B-1 was one of the first programs to hit the chop block. Rockwell basically went on a search/destroy campaign for those in the AF which dared trash the program (my dad being among them since he was relatively high in the chain of command). Rumsfeld did in fact directly contradict the report, because he basically showed up one day in Edwards and decided the plane was beautiful and an incredible platform (all based in basically a quick PR trip).


Long story short, Raygun comes into power. And one of the first things he did was restart the B-1 program, and in fact Rockwell was paid to basically overhaul the original B-1 crap design into the B-1B... thus in the end they got the double dip they always wanted. In fact, they went further... the B-1B was still so useless, that by the time the 1st gulf war came along, most of the B-1B fleet couldn't be deployed (the had to send B-52s instead) to do carpet bombing since most of the fleet was for all intents not ready for combat (and these were the bombers which were supposed to be the vanguard deterrent against a possible Soviet attack BTW). In fact, most of the B-1B fleet was only operational after basically over 2 decades of continuous work... all at some immense cost.


It is sad that if we really think about it, that some of the reasons why we can't afford healthcare today, are among others that we basically spent untold amount of money and capital... financing useless "shiny" weapon systems. And Mr. Rumsfeld, and later his pal Dick Cheney, were at the forefront of what basically amounts to a massive transfer of money from DoD funding into the coffers of defense contractors churning useless after useless weapons program. That is why I get a chuckle whenever any of these conservative vermin still pretend, with a straight face, to have any sort of higher ground regarding "fiscal responsibility."

[No Elephants]

29. Bingo. Sometimes, people hit what they aim at, and what they hit was what they aimed at.

Never assume your enemy is stupid.

[JonLP24]

83. +1

Everyone should watch it. Yes they got want they wanted but they really mismanaged the Iraq war. I think those who replied to you misunderstood what you meant but if they saw the documentary they would know EXACTLY what you're saying like I did when I saw your post.

[valerief]

19. I thought this was what PNAC was all about. nt

[No Elephants]

31. PNAC, DLC. Potato, potahto.

2003 invasion of Iraq

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein.

During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left" <9>.

Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."<7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

[disndat]

79. Please notice that the ones who oppose

having the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohamed in Manhattan are Repugs and DLCers like Di-Fi and Lieberman. The fear is that the wattage of media in the NYC spotlight will smoke out some unpleasant m.i.c. truths.

[ooglymoogly]

86. +1...Lest we forget

our ever forgiving Prez has asked (asked means demanded in this new Orwellian age) his poodle at justice to look for "another place" ("another places means"; Where there will be no major spotlight, where he "might" (might means "will" be tried.

[rayofreason]

21. Clintonian roots

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm

Always interesting to read old stuff. If Bill had had a 3rd term, what would he have done?

[No Elephants]

30. What do you mean "If?"

Add up how many Clinton retreads are in the Obamadmin.

I sometimes think we are living a combo of Bush's third term and Clinton's third term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

[rayofreason]

49. I was...

specifically thinking about 2000. But I take your point and tend to agree with it. Hope - there was. Change - not so much.

[disndat]

80. To get to the WH

did Obama make a Faustian bargain?

[RedSock]

22. "work with an Iraq ... which observes international law" --- too funny (eom)

[Amonester]

25. Bliar serving life sentence behind bars for a million innocent deaths?

I'll believe it when I'll see it.

The gal of these hypocrit accomplices is ... (can't find a word that would accurately describe their evilness).

[grahamhgreen]

32. We need a real investigation. nt

[Sherman A1]

33. Agreed & Well Said

It's one thing to have a plan drawn up. I am sure we have plans to invade Canada or the UK as well. That's all part of the game, but we need to know exactly what happened and who did what when. Perhaps this investigation in the UK will open the way to do that here.

[Make7]

34. FRONTLINE: "The White House ordered the CIA to organize a coup d'etat." (1996)

 

Gunning for Saddam
Original Airdate: November 8, 2001

NARRATOR: ... in June of 1996, Washington took secret action. The White House ordered the CIA to organize a coup d'etat.

FRANK ANDERSON, CIA Near East Division Chief (1991-1994): [1999] It's frequently the case that the CIA is called upon to develop some kind of a covert action program in response to intractable and maybe even insoluble problems that confront the government.

NARRATOR: But in Baghdad, a special unit of Iraqi intelligence had studied every coup of the 20th century. Saddam Hussein was ready.

AHMED CHALABI, Iraqi Opposition Leader: [1999] Saddam is a far better plotter, a more apt and accomplished plotter, than the CIA will ever be. He is good.

NARRATOR: Saddam believes he knows who will betray him even before they know it themselves. The CIA thought it had recruited officers within Saddam's tight inner circle.

TARIQ AZIZ, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister: [1999] They don't know the officers in the army. How could they manage a coup d'etat, a military coup d'etat? Whom do they know? Hmm?

NARRATOR: The plotters were told that America would recognize them as Iraq's new leaders. They were given special mobile phones with direct lines to the CIA. But Saddam had penetrated the coup. His agents burst into homes across Baghdad. They tortured and executed hundreds of officers. Then they found the CIA's phones. An Iraqi intelligence officer placed a call. An American agent answered. He was told, "Your men are dead. Pack up and go home."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/script.html

[justicia]

35. not surprise...

dick cheeney and george bush, tony blair, donald rummsfeld are all war criminals...

[PatrynXX]

36. yeah then we fired the cops...

that was how we lost Iraq. and no matter how long we stay there I have serious doubts it'll ever be won. We started this mess in 1990, albeit someone in the extended family knew before everyone else did about the Kuwait invasion. I doubt he's republican though. He's more middle. But off topic.

Somehow the term no fly zone went out the window didn't it? Now going on with a 20 yr war in Iraq...

[winyanstaz]

38. And 9-11 was the excuse.......

These criminals MUST be brought to justice.

[midnight]

59. Look at this video. The elderly women at the end says it all.

9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

[disndat]

82. and WTC security was owned by

one of Bush's brother. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from buildings. I heard earliest report that the buildings were PULVERIZED. Jane Mayer. in recent New Yorker magazine, the military has developed advanced electronic weapons now used in Afghanistan to pulverize buildings. Theorists surmised that Wellstone airplane was brought down with such advanced electronic remote-controlled device.

[Lorien]

90. Yep, hard to deny the existence of "secondary devices" after viewing that

though I could have done without the loud spooky soundtrack.

[winyanstaz]

92. thank you for the link...I am sending it out to everyone I know....

This just pisses me off all over again.
It's so obvious and yet....we have no one willing to investigate..that alone is a crime.

[winyanstaz]

104. I sent this link out to all my friends and relatives...

One of my relatives wrote me back to say..
That I should be careful because I could be found guilty of treason for wanting to know the truth about 9-11!
She also told me she just couldnt believe in "those you tube" videos that can be chopped and pieced together to make you believe anything. She added that "After all..it was over 8 years ago and you were not there!"
Honest..thats what she said.
I was going to write her back and tell her that murder has no expiration date and that it is not a crime to want to know the truth..and that I had seen a lot of those same scenes on tv on the day it happened...but I saved myself the trouble because I think she is just afraid and no matter how much evidence is before her..she will believe what she is told and not her lying eyes.....
Sad ..isnt it?

[winyanstaz]

106. thanks for the link....

I sent this video out to my family and friends...because I remember seeing a lot of those news broadcasts myself.
My tea-bagging older sister wrote me back to tell me that I could be in danger of being accused of being a traitor because I was calling for the truth and a new investigation.

She said she thought it could be treason to send out copies of news broadcasts because they "could" be fakes.

She said that she herself simply couldn't believe "any of those you tube videos" as she knew they could all be fakes.
She also told me that I shouldn't be worried about the over 3,000 dead Americans on 9-11 because "That was over 8 years ago and you were not there!"
(I guess murder has a time limit in her mind...if 8 years go by..it doesn't matter anymore)

It was very frustrating for me but as she is getting along now in years..I just didn't answer her back.

It still burns me though because she thinks it is perfectly ok to keep on sending me stuff about those right-wing revolution calling tea-parties she attends and attacks against Obama..and propaganda from her church...but I should shut up already about wanting the truth.

No wonder this nation is in such a mess with people like my sis hiding their heads in the sand.

[Raoul]

41. Wow! I'm shocked(NOT)

Gee, and I thought bush just wanted to spread freedom dust throughout Iraq...

[theaocp]

42. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise n/t

[Solly Mack]

43. "... and which observes international law"

lololololololololol

Yeah...because that was ever so important to Blair, Bush, Cheney..etc.

[NYC Liberal]

45. Uh DUH. We knew this in 2004.

Bush asked for a way to invade Iraq at the first meeting of his NSC in 2001!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

[shotten99]

46. President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998

This isn't a surprise nor is contrary to American policy.
Of course, the neo-cons don't realize that it doesn't justify invading Iraq.

[JoseCanyucee]

48. Loose Change

So when do the "9/11 Truthers" come out and say this validates them, too? After all, if GW was for regime change before 9/11, then doesn't it make it more plausible that 9/11 was an inside job? Not sayin, just sprayin...

[pundaint]

57. So now we can just call folks "truthers" and we never have to answer their questions?

The people at the propaganda ministry will be pleased to have this new coverup device to promote their "America exists to power our military," and the "don't vote your own economic interests, you're just a loser" themes for the 10 and 12 campaigns.

[Dr.Phool]

50. Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind, in "The Price of Loyalty".

Plans were being drawn up to invade Iraq at Bush's very first NSC meeting in Jan. 2001.

[SlingBlade]

55. There we go again. Looking Backwards, Taking the Low

Road, Clogging the Pipes, Being mean to Re-pUkes and their Democratic care takers.

What or what shall be done with such scum as Progressives and Liberals ?

Oh I know, Let's turn over to Rahm, He'll know what to do and say.

[KansDem]

56. So, what's to be done about this?

It was obvious to many of us here on DU that the reason to invade Iraq was bogus. What if George W simply came on national media and made a class for removing Saddam? Would the nation have gone along with it? Probably not! So what are we to make of this?

This definitely proves LIHOP (or MIHOP if one takes the position that a driver "made" an accident happen by not tending to the worn brakes on his car). But this kind of "new world order" crap is going to continue if these evil bastards aren't brought to justice.

[proReality]

58. A tiny light shining in the dark. But will the dumbest Americans look at it?

Another bit of proof of the lies some knew the U.S. and U.K. were telling about the reasons for invading Iraq.

It was nothing more than a way to get at the oil, while pretending it would be a big help to the Iraqi people. But the "internal coup" trick was tried around the time of the first Gulf War, with the U.S. promising to help dissidents. When the dissidents did rise up, we ignored them (just as we did to the Hungarians in the 1950s)--Saddam wiped the dissidents out for their efforts.

So this was another attempt to further demonize Saddam, provoke him into another action against dissidents, thereby giving the U.S. and U.K. a reason for a justifiable attack. Then 9/11 happened and the U.S. jumped at the chance to falsely claim a link.

The world doesn't hate us for our freedom...they hate us for our foreign policy of constant interference. Do you Freepers get it yet?

[Lost4words]

62. By design we are not a very bright lot.

those of us who can still see are far outnumbered by those who believe what they are told on the Idiot box.

[Lost4words]

60. they just needed something big to happen in order to pull it off.

And then its war party time! :party:

[Mari333]

61. PNAC's plan all along was to secure the oil fields for corporate friends

and we are still doing it. and NO ONE will be investigated for starting an illegal occupation. the corporate hounds OWN the politicians. the corporate bastards run the show.
we are merely cannon fodder and serfs.

[Jefferson23]

63. They can keep on lying but at least the truth still continues to spill out. K&R

I wish I could be a fly on the wall for the private questioning of Blair.

[Javaman]

64. Meh...

So what else is new. Nothing will happen.

as the bucket fills up with daily drops of new information, our "justice" continues to cut new holes in the bottom.

What should be a pail full of overwhelming evidence regarding war crimes is, instead, a legal system empty of virtue.

[pjt7]

65. When was Operation "The BIG WEDDING" (9.11)

drawn up?

[Javaman]

72. What?

:shrug:

[Ticonderoga]

68. bu$h/cheeeneeey

and the rest of the administration's war criminals should have hung right next to Saddam Hussein.

[Subdivisions]

69. Any deviation from OFFICIAL BUSH ADMIN historical record is TINFOIL HAT BULLSHIT!

Got it?

[wtmusic]

70. Don't want to hear this "news" anymore. Want to see something done about it. nt

[L0oniX]

73. So what. Big deal. No one is going to be brought to court for war crimes.

Evidence shmevidence ...who fucking cares? ...silly little people ...we don't prosecute leaders for war crimes ...stupid ...just where in hell do you think you live? ...we only care about throwing street criminals in jail, not banksters and X presidents and their cronies. Why bother even reading this shit. WTF do you think is going to happen? NOTHING! ...and they know it. You got to get used to the idea that laws are only for the cowardly little people who won't be a part of any massive civil disobedient movement to take back their country from banksters and war criminals and corporate whores.

Constitution: It's just a piece of toilet paper!

[happygoluckytoyou]

75. guess he will disappear with KENNY BOY LAY to the secret ENRON ISLAND

[BennyD]

77. Plans to overthrow foreign govt's and war plans are often

drawn up years in advance so that should either become necessary, the plans are already in place. These plans are also 'tweaked' as foreign leadership changes.

[Cleita]

78. It was probably hatched in the back rooms of the Project For a New American

Century, that openly talked about creating a Pax Americana in the Middle East and whose members and associates read like a who's who of the notorious Bush years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Persons_associated_with_the_PNAC. They tried to urge Bill Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998, so it wasn't exactly a secret. But of course it wasn't openly challenged in the media by the yes people of small intellect by that time dominating the media.

[davidwparker]

81. Do tell

And the geopolitical changes called for by the neocons would take significantly longer unless there was a http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Revisited-Cover-Up/dp/1566567297/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265043888&sr=8-2">New Pearl Harbor.

[SlingBlade]

87. And Look Whose Waiting In the Green Room ...

It's the latest crop of Neo-Con Fascist

Waiting for this current intermission to end so that they can
begin anew, Exactly where they left off.

Deja-Vu All over Again, Looking Backwards....

Nixon
Ford
Reagan
George H W Bush
George W Bush

So ,Whose the next crop of scumbags that we should not be looking backwards at ?
I wanna fucking know, Cause I wanna be ready to Impeach / Indict their sorry asses
RIGHT NOW so that the Change-A-Holics and Corporate Clintonites here Can't accuse me
of "Taking the Low Road" or Being Mean to those poor little Re-Pukes, Thus stifling Bi-Partisanship.

Tell me now, Who the Fuck are they

A FORWARDS looking Progressive :)

[Myrina]

93. " ... even before the 9/11 attack on New York ... "

... they're still pushing that invisible connection, aren't they?


:wtf:

[indepat]

95. We can take comfort that the bombardment, invasion, and occupation of Iraq observed all the

niceties associated with the rights of peoples, peace, and international law. Yeah, all of those. :P

[Fire1]

98. Doesn't surpise me at all. n/t

[Ferret Annica]

duplicate

[Ferret Annica]

99. This is just one more indication that 9-11 was an inside job

Bush blew up the Twin Towers and put a missle into the Pentagon to make it easier to quickly attack Saddam.

Anyone who can't admit this is a strong possibility at least is living in LaLa land.

[newspeak]

105. well, what's new

I remember after *'s selection, there were a few of us saying that he'd get his war hard on. Maybe some had a clue when * talked about how his daddy would have been in a second term if he kept the war going-or started another one. See, starting wars is just politics, gotta be the war president, get the people to vote for ya.

Of course, I had no idea how bad he and his greedy sociopaths could truly damage this country.