[UK] Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus

dahamsta

Michael Meacher went nuts in this morning's Guardian. I recognise some of these facts and figures from a couple of websites I visited during the week, and I believe most of them, but I'm shocked and stunned to see a British MP and former Government Minister repeating them. So is he mad or sane? Will he be rubbished by Short and Cook or will they pull in behind him?

adam

Comment
This war on terrorism is bogus

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

[...]

Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war

Fury over Meacher claims

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

Michael Meacher, who served as a minister for six years until three months ago, today goes further than any other mainstream British politician in blaming the Iraq war on a US desire for domination of the Gulf and the world.

Mr Meacher, a leftwinger who is close to the green lobby, also claims in an article in today's Guardian that the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings.

He says the US goal is "world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies" and that this Pax Americana "provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis".

Mr Meacher adds that the US has made "no serious attempt" to catch the al-Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden.

He also criticises the British government, claiming it is motivated, as is the US, by a desire for oil.

[...]

Sparks

Noted here:

Response from the US Embassy: 'His fantastic allegations ... would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible'

So now you're not serious or credible if you were a minister in the UK for six years?
What does it take then? :rolleyes:

sceptre

Originally posted by Sparks
So now you're not serious or credible if you were a minister in the UK for six years?
What does it take then? :rolleyes:

You have to be a current President Of the United States. Or someone who's had tea in the white house.

bug

A very interesting article (P21), well compiled references and some points and quotes I've read and been astounded by before...wondered why they never got greater coverage...

It seems that anyone who speaks out logically is discredited as walter mitty or not credible characters ...regardless of their credientials.

..he'll probably be found dead in the woods..

Éomer of Rohan

Think about it; it requires maybe the CIA Director and MAYBE the Deputy Director of Intelligence to know the reasons why the report on these attacks where buried - the REAL reason that is. And who is to say the Director didn't authorise the DDI to bury it at the behest of some PNAC cronies?

It is NOT a stretch of the imagination.

The Beer Baron

It is NOT a stretch of the imagination.

Indeed.

A very, very interesting article.
But to be honest it's something I've suspected all along.

The Bush administration has shown no concern for human life, for the enviroment or their own economy.

It's no stretch of the imagination to say they hold the lives and liberties of their fellow countrymen just as low as they do the rest of the world. Life, liberty the pursuit of happiness- not when we're code red people.

If I am to believe it, however, I'm not going to tout it as the Big Consipiracy, rather as a desparate act of an arrogant, isolationist bloated superpower with an unparalleled military, a fallen economy and nothing to loose.

Sick, absolutly sick.
But what, realistically can we do.
Do you think Colin Powell or Donald Rumsfeld lurks on Boards?

(Oh no wait they've got Echelon to do that for them don't they?)

dahamsta

I'm surprised at the lack of flamewaritis on this thread. A couple of months ago, threads like this would have caused a grand wailing and gnashing of teeth from the rightist "money rules the world" neocon wannabies that hang around here. Comments like those of Meacher would be dismissed as conspiracy theories and we'd all be told to put on our tinfoil hats and watch out for the black helicopters. Last couple of weeks though, not a peep.

I find it difficult to believe that they'd change their minds - they certainly don't admit when they're wrong - so perhaps they've all gone on holidays? I hope they brought their biometric passports and sunblock, you wouldn't want to get a tan in the good old US of A these days...

adam

Éomer of Rohan

We still have the respectable right lol - Sand and so on. A certain *Irish City* and *Pork Meat* seem to have gone though and that has quietened things down. I think Geronimo (*cough* I don't mean Geromino, noooo, what makes you think that?) could prove to be the new one though.

But yes, it is nice that there have been few flame wars recently.
Well done Mods.

Sparks

Originally posted by dahamsta
I'm surprised at the lack of flamewaritis on this thread. A couple of months ago, threads like this would have caused a grand wailing and gnashing of teeth from the rightist "money rules the world" neocon wannabies that hang around here. Comments like those of Meacher would be dismissed as conspiracy theories and we'd all be told to put on our tinfoil hats and watch out for the black helicopters. Last couple of weeks though, not a peep.

I find it difficult to believe that they'd change their minds - they certainly don't admit when they're wrong - so perhaps they've all gone on holidays? I hope they brought their biometric passports and sunblock, you wouldn't want to get a tan in the good old US of A these days...

adam

Why would they bother adam? They won, after all. Got exactly what they wanted. And are still getting it, for that matter. Iraq occupied, the US leading the UN about as though they had a good grip on the UN's prince albert, and even here, Shannon still hosts ten to twelve US military flights to Iraq per week, and more overflights. (That includes weapons shipments, by the way, as the government recently admitted in an off-the-cuff way - "oh, by the way, we let them ship some patriots through as well" )

colin300

when you come to think about it really Republicans in america always are in power when something happens.
Maybe its just how things happen but c'mon.

First the first gulf war happens and Bush senior is in.
Then september 11th happens and Bush junior is in.

Maybe its how DoD and CIA work in america when they know something is going to happen they let republicans in power cause they know that people will accept the hardline attitude of the party.
Plus don't forget the all mighty power of OIL.

I have to say though I saw Meacher on Sky News this morning at ten and he had some good things to say for instance that America were offered the chance to be given Bin Laden but they said NO.
Now if we were in that situation we would say well c'mon lets take our chance and get him but no they decided to leave it. That really calls in to question why did they go to war in the first place if they wanted to catch him.

Oh right I forgot oil.
We all pay the price for one countries greed.

But really I can't wait till all the oil is gone so that America can strugle to get enough electricity. I don't believe people in the American government have ever heard of the word reusable energy.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Some of what he says is plausible, some of it is gibbering lunacy.

His claim that the US administration allowed the 9/11 attacks to proceed to facilitate a foreign policy objective for example...is the most ludicrous of all.

All you have to do is read the damn Port Authority transcripts, and the wires buzzing around Washington released in the 9/11 congressional report. Then he'd know that command decisions of that nature CANNOT be made by the President alone, the President's administration alone, not even the President + the Joint Chiefs. Every single damned intel agency from middle intel officers to their chiefs up would have to be in on it- which is basically impossible.

I mean let's face it- said intel agencies were forced to justify themselves to extremes after the attacks- and heads have rolled left right and center. To say that it was all a grand conspiracy is just nonsense- because it would require the NSA, the FBI, the CIA and various politicos to all simultaneously want to shoot themselves in the head to achieve a foreign policy objective. Not the heads of the agencies, not even the DCI + DDO's...all the way down to intel analysts on the third floor at Langley.

As for his claim that the regime change objective was in the picture long before 9/11, I don't think any sane person could deny it. This is after all, the same crowd that engineered the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the ruble and eventually the Soviet Union. Self-righteous evangelical confidence bred in that way is a dangerous and powerful intoxicant, a bit too much for the administration in this case one might say.

The oil argument has been here, there and back again. Fact is, no one can explain to me convincingly how it wouldn't have just been easier to turn a blind eye to Saddam's non-compliance and buy the oil. After all, for the *RAW* cost of the warfighting phase, 20 years clear supply of crude was a pushover. Never mind the cost that is being currently spent keeping the peace and paying off Haliburton & co. Iraq's oil reserves are also at least 5-7 years from near to full potential. And that's assuming that the security situation is perfect for investors. No, the oil argument's a rubbish one.

As far as hegemony goes- yes and no. Yes, because US corporations will ultimately see the profits of a prosperous Iraq. No because the nature of the UN, Najaf and Jordanian embassy bombings have gradually convinced me that if this fight is this important to hardline extremist groups, that it is one we must win. Granted, picking the fight was putting a cattleprod in a hornet's nest- but the alternative to a successful Iraq doesn't bear thinking about.

Yes, a UN mandate is important that the letter of international law may be observed. However, should semantics really prevent us from suceeding when we must? I don't pose that question rhetorically, I'd be interested to hear why a lot of people see a long negotiating process necessary when it's in everyone's best interests to see a successful Iraq.

I understand the (predictable) concerns of the French and Germans. However, experience tells us that shared command is unwise and unstable when weapons are still hot on the ground. Peacekeeping is out of the question without even the bare fabric of stability on the ground. As far as a political role goes- that is undoubtedly the opposite case.

Ergo, the sooner a multilateral influence with strong domestic support is arrived at the better. In addition, a coordinated multinational effort at counter-insurgency is crucial for success.

One good thing I think we'd all agree has come out of this sh1tty mess is that Rumsfeld has been forced to eat buckets of humble pie. Small comfort perhaps, but it never fails to make me smile.

EDIT: Brief note on the credibility of this MP. He has never served on a foreign policy committee, intelligence or security committee or the JIC. As such, his opinion is not worthless- but it is certainly worth no more than any of ours. In other words, it's a lay opinion derived from the superficial and selective examination of news material. It reminds me of the manner in which the UK government searched media and internet sources to conjure up a dossier. No substitute for experience as they say.

Sparks

Fact is, no one can explain to me convincingly how it wouldn't have just been easier to turn a blind eye to Saddam's non-compliance and buy the oil.

*Sigh*
For the Nth time, it's not the oil. As in, it's not the black stuff itself.
It's about controlling what you use to pay for the black stuff.
Iraq was using euros. That, had the rest of OPEC gone along with it, would be sufficent to cripple the US economy, if not destroy it completely, in a very short space of time - on the order of weeks, if not hours.

Xhen

Actually this just shows the pathetic depths to which the anti-war left has sunk.

As for Sparks little conspiracy theory about the euro: economists have debated whether this is a really stupid theory or a really, really stupid theory. Most lean toward the latter. Whoever concocted it doesn't have the first clue about how international currency markets work. Here's one debunking of it (among many):

Boneheads, Iraq, and the Artificial Dollar

And another one by Paul Krugman of the NY Times who is no fan of Bush by any stretch of the imagination:

Nothing for Money

Sparks

Actually this just shows the pathetic depths to which the anti-war left has sunk.

Knew it was too quiet to last...

As for Sparks little conspiracy theory about the euro

Not my theory Xhen, though thanks for the undeserved credit.
And your succinct summation of the world's economic thoughts on it is certainly concise - but it's also incorrect.
It would be far more correct to say that all the economists that you happen to agree with think that it's incorrect.

(BTW, most reputable papers don't use words like "boneheads" in their titles...)

Xhen

Originally posted by Sparks
Knew it was too quiet to last...


Not my theory Xhen, though thanks for the undeserved credit.
And your succinct summation of the world's economic thoughts on it is certainly concise - but it's also incorrect.
It would be far more correct to say that all the economists that you happen to agree with think that it's incorrect.

I was being sarcastic about economists debating it, because most of them aren't debating it at all - they ignore it. You'd think that something that could potentially collapse the American economy (within days or hours!) might get a little attention among the world's economists, wouldn't you? Of course, to the fevered imagination of the conspiracy theorist, that's just more evidence of a coverup.

It's a nutty theory that's been thoroughly debunked.

Sparks

Why would it be debated Xhen?
It was always assumed that the money OPEC would lose in making the switch was sufficent motive to not switch.
Mind you, Iraq combined with the incredibly bad shape the US economy is in might be sufficent to offset that.

ColinM

The notion that the US administration allowed the attack on the Twin Towers to go ahead (or even facilitated it) is not a new one. The idea that it was and is part of a machiavellian plan where the end justifies the means is certainly plausible.

Fortunately for the Bush administration though, people who would raise this question are easily marginalised in the same way as those who would think it plausible that the US were so keen to beat the Russians to the moon that they would do anything - including faking it.

Here are two items of essential reading if you feel that this topic concerns you, or if you take even the slightest interest in world affairs:

1) 1984 by George Orwell. If you haven't read this book by now, make sure it's the next book you read. It's probably more relevant now than it ever was.

2) http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com - An excellent article examining the motives behind the war. This is broken up into several sections, but if you set aside the time to read it uninterrupted, you will be glad you did.

From reading this thread, I'm pleased to see that people are still capable of questioning what they are being spoon-fed on a daily basis. Remember, always take into account the nature of the source of your news, and try to get your news from as varied a selection of sources as you can. It is good to be sceptical, and to question the credibility of the news you hear. It is also good to be paranoid - it may save your life one day.

By the way, don't assume that I am a "left-wing" conspiracy theorist, or that I am or was against the war in Iraq.

bug

I'm surprised at the lack of flamewaritis on this thread... Comments like those of Meacher would be dismissed as conspiracy theories and we'd all be told to put on our tinfoil hats and watch out for the black helicopters. Last couple of weeks though, not a peep.

I didn't want to be the first to say it, to be honest.

I think its a case of ppl generally believing that no governement could really have such disregard for human life in order to futher their own goals..and really, you cant blame anyone for being an optimist and wanting to believe in "liberation" for all etc...

On a local political level, the Hutton enquiry has revealed to even the most optomistic, naive of us, even without the final report being published, fundamentally that there are questions to be answered by the governments we trusted in. There's a pontious pilot in there..and its undeniable that somebody led a good man to his death. David Kelly will hopefully go down in history for the right reasons...

One thing that struck me whilst reading the article today was that if you say something often enough people will begin to believe it..things like "war on terror". These terms and phases are being invented to distract from the facts...its basic media studies


/on a lighter note

Brief note on the credibility of this MP. He has never served on a foreign policy committee, intelligence or security committee or the JIC

no vested interest then? ..and GW's credibility?

Éomer of Rohan

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
All you have to do is read the damn Port Authority transcripts, and the wires buzzing around Washington released in the 9/11 congressional report. Then he'd know that command decisions of that nature CANNOT be made by the President alone, the President's administration alone, not even the President + the Joint Chiefs. Every single damned intel agency from middle intel officers to their chiefs up would have to be in on it- which is basically impossible

I have to agree with Colin M about the whole 1984 sort of thing - this is not implausible AT ALL.

If a CIA operative comes up with some info, it is taken and filed - passed up the chain since it may require action. That means DDI gets his hands on it. Maybe it's too important for him. That means the Director. It is then their decision how to act on it so long as it does not require a black op for which they need higher authority. So, the Director has in his hand a dossier containing SOME information about an attack on the US homeland - which hasn't been attacked since Pearl Harbour. He doesn't know if it's real, maybe the DDI made a recommendation to follow it through but was asking for orders.

Maybe then the Director goes to the White House to see Rumsfeld or Cheney or a host of other authoritative right wingers who you would expect the Chief of CIA to take advice from. They talk for a while and they agree to bury it. They don't know the where. They don't know the when. They don't know the how. It could be another Okhlahoma low level bomb-in-a-building, something like the 1994(?) WTC bombing. One of them happens to say "Well goddamn but it would sure shake things up around here, make people see things from our point of view" etc etc and that's it. It's buried. The Director of CIA himself can authorise a file to be NFA'd and maybe, just maybe, it wasn't officially put on No Further Action status but people would know/had been told that there was nothing to be done until new information arrived - and if somethin happens, well he can only see the good side for the American Right and if it doesn't, which they're not sure it WILL (remember this is the organisation who failed to predict the break-up of the USSR), then no one has lost anything.

Now, out of all the people Bob was saying would HAVE to know, no, they wouldn't quite simply. The operative who passed up the information. His boss, HIS boss and in a straight line until you reach the DDI and the Director - from which it passes back down stamped NFA and gets binned. No one would bat an eyelid. If anyone found out there are good justifications for an NFA - not clear enough intelligence, dubious source - there's a hundred and one concoctions that could be legitimately passed to the Intelligence Oversight Committee. In total, maybe the Director himself knew and one or two at most of his budies over at PNAC.

Three people. It does not take an idiot to see that three people could easily cover up what a hundred could not.

ColinM

I like your reasoning, Éomer.

Ever see Mel Gibson's Conspiracy Theory by the way? If I were you, I'd disconnect, degauss my hard drive, and get out of there quick!

Seriously though, you have a well reasoned hypothesis there.

Xhen

Originally posted by Sparks
Why would it be debated Xhen?
It was always assumed that the money OPEC would lose in making the switch was sufficent motive to not switch.
Mind you, Iraq combined with the incredibly bad shape the US economy is in might be sufficent to offset that.

It's not being debated by the world's economists because it makes no sense to anyone who understands the international monetary system or seignorage, which the bonehead (and that IS an appropriate term) who concocted this particular theory obviously doesn't.

The U.S. does gain some minor benefits from being a reserve currency but the benefits of seignorage only adds up to maybe 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the GDP. Not enough to collapse the empire if lost, I'm afraid.

mike65

Is there anything in Meachers article that is'nt already out there?

He has his views and thats fine but the fact he is an ex-minister should'nt give his theory any greater creedance...it not like he was in the Foreign Office or Home Office or MOD. But he was the environment minister and has long had issues with the US on
GM foods, oil, Kyoto etc..

The idea that the US neo-cons needed to engineer the attacks of Sept 11 to justify a hawkish foreign policy with respect to the Arabian Gulf region is foolish. The US can do pretty much want it wants. The "USA needs to control all the oil" shock horror is, well,
a bit late. Why should this be a suprise to anyone?. Resourse wars will a dominant theme of this century.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But yes, it is nice that there have been few flame wars recently.
Well done Mods.

Thanks Dave, but jeez....if there was ever a post asking to start a flame war, it was the one I took the above quote from.

Just cause you think we're doing a good job doesn't mean you have to try and make our life more interesting

Anyway...getting back on topic.....

Originally posted by Occy
The oil argument has been here, there and back again. Fact is, no one can explain to me convincingly how it wouldn't have just been easier to turn a blind eye to Saddam's non-compliance and buy the oil.

One of the recent SciAm issues (cover is something about "could the universe be a hologram" or something has a short article in it about how the US is facing a rapidly-growing disparity between energy demands, and energy production...which is resulting in significant increases in the importing of energy-sources (oil, gas, etc.), which is simply projected to grow and grow.

This is going to rapidly cause a problem, because unless world production is significantly increased, there isn't enough to go around as it is. So how will the US cater for rapidly growing demand, even if the rest of the world remained static in its demands (which isn't the case, I believe).

Combine this with the notion that the US would appear to be paying far less for the final product than most (based on consumer-costs, but I could be wrong....how much isa gallon of petrol in the US these days?), it would appear to me that the argument of "easier to buy the oil" is a somewhat simplistic one...espcially if one looks to the near future. Easier to buy how much oil? At what price? For how long?

Sure, the US could have bought it...but probably at market prices (or above, to beat out the others). They would become increasingly reliant on these external nations, and thats just not on. This way, they can ensure cheap oil contracts, they can ensure that they avoid competition for much of the oil, and in general try and stave off a real energy crisis for another while, all without becoming entirely subservient to the oil-suppliers.

On a shorter time-scale, the expenditure on the war has resulted and will continue to result in the US government pumping massive amounts of government money into US firms - both for the rebuilding of Iraq, and for the replacing of used munitions...as well as for the development of newer shinier munitions for the next war.

This could be viewed as cronyism (looking at who gets the contracts), or as an artificial propping-up of the economy. Either way - depending on whether you believe the government are out to prop up the nation, or just line their mates' pockets - there is huge amounts of government money going in to the US economy as a result of this war.....just at the same time as the US arranged a ridiculously large extension to their national debt. (So, they're not even paying for it themselves...they're getting the international banks to give them the money, on the grounds that failure to do so would result in defaulting on existing monies owed, IIRC). Cheap??? Can't get much cheaper than someone else paying for you.

I would also not be surprised to see the US present the Iraqis with a bill to pay back much of this in the near future......which would be an even-more impressive solution : get a nation to pay you for bombing parts of it into the stone-age, and then get them to pay again for rebuilding it! Maybe I'm wrong, but this is what goes through my head every time I hear a CNN reporter or White House spokesperson talking about pipeline "terrorist" attacks denying Iraq of much-needed rebuilding money.....

But hey....what do I know

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
I'd be interested to hear why a lot of people see a long negotiating process necessary when it's in everyone's best interests to see a successful Iraq.

I would imagine because people do not trust any single nation to take control and rebuild an Iraq which is in everyone's best interests.

All that is being seen by many at the moment is the attempt to rebuild an Iraq which is the US' best interests.

And heavens forfend that anyone even considers rebuilding an Iraq that is in the Iraqi's best interests - or where tehy get to choose what/who's interests to rebuild it in. Nice idea, never work in practice.

jc

dathi1

Actually this just shows the pathetic depths to which the anti-war left has sunk.

This left wing / right wing crap means nothing. U are either against the occupation or for.. regardless of what part of the political spectrum you come from. I just see PNAC and the Bush admin as slightly more dangerous than al Quida.

The Beer Baron

2) http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com - An excellent article examining the motives behind the war. This is broken up into several sections, but if you set aside the time to read it uninterrupted, you will be glad you did.

A very interesting article ColinM- and funny too.
I like the way this guy writes.

Whether the US knew or even allowed the 911 attack to take place will be a question for the ages (and a 4 hour Oliver Stone movie) but one cannot say that the attacks haven't played right into the Bush Administration's hands.

And as for the administration themselves- quite the rogues gallery of industrialists- their business interests and their policies seem strangely interlinked. Our crooked TD's pale in comparison don't they?

Typedef

Originally posted by Xhen
I was being sarcastic about economists debating it, because most of them aren't debating it at all - they ignore it. You'd think that something that could potentially collapse the American economy (within days or hours!) might get a little attention among the world's economists, wouldn't you? Of course, to the fevered imagination of the conspiracy theorist, that's just more evidence of a coverup.

It's a nutty theory that's been thoroughly debunked.

So Xhen, since you are part of the level headed right-wing.

Where exactly are Iraq's Weapons of mass destruction?
Hidden, non-existant, or simply a complete fabrication?

Oh wait, it's not George Bush's fault his intelligence agencies fabricated the existance of Iraqi WMD essentially at the behest of the Bush administration right?

Poor old George, sold out by the guys in the CIA, where (his father, former President Bush), just happened to administrate for 15 years huh?

And that's not implausable right? It's far more plausable that the George Tennent lied to Geore Bush, then it is, the Bush administration effectively fabricated the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction huh?

Maybe to be uncovered a week before the Presidential vote in the US, or would that smack of right-wing conspiracy, which obviously is wrong, since "you" don't agree with it.

Never mind evidence, since "economists" aren't ranting about the Euro being used by Iraq, in this instance, it 'must' be a fevered left-wing rant right?

ColinM

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
And as for the administration themselves- quite the rogues gallery of industrialists- their business interests and their policies seem strangely interlinked. Our crooked TD's pale in comparison don't they?

"Conflict of interest" seems to be an understatement in this regard. For further reading regarding Dick Cheney's and others in the administration's conflicting business interests, read Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, if you haven't already. While unfortunately Michael diminishes his credibility by having (up to now) developed his image of being a "liberal-loonie", this book still contains disturbing facts about the people in power at the moment in the US.

Typedef

As an aside.

There is simply no-way any country would purpousefully damage itself, in the manner the September 11th bombings happened.

Sure the bombing played right into the foreign policy hawks hands, but, Osama Bin Laden did in fact try to bomb the World Trade Center, during the Clinton Administration's tenure.

Had George Bush been in power when the original Trade Center bombing had happened, I would venture that Afghanistan would still have been invaded.

Needless to say, that US economic interests were the prime motivation in the Iraqi war, what is, for me, more interesting to see, is whether or not the Democrats in the US, have the scruples to exploit the fact that there 'are' no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

bloggs

Originally posted by dathi1
This left wing / right wing crap means nothing. U are either against the occupation or for.. regardless of what part of the political spectrum you come from. I just see PNAC and the Bush admin as slightly more dangerous than al Quida.

Well said, I am a conservative but I am certainly not a pro-Bush war mongered, i think he is more of a threat to the world than 100 bin Ladens.

buttons malone

Whether the US knew or even allowed the 911 attack to take place

Of course they knew. Al Qaeda had a network of terrorists running from Afghanistan to Yemen and probably across Europe. The FBI knew this since the mid 90's thanks to FBI agent John Neill. Documentary was on it last night. He wanted to continue his work in Yemen in the late 90's to expose the terrorist network but the american ambassador to Yemen and all the phony bureacracy prevented him. Its possible 9/11 could have been prevented if he was allowed continue his work there.
What I found most schocking on the documentary was that there could have been a terrorist attack on time square on dec31 where 2million people were cedlebrating. The FBI team led by John Neill actually managed to thwart the plan. The US congress and the rest of them knew, believe me.