Clinton Official Suggested Letting U.S. Plane Be Shot Down To Provoke war with Iraq

TMoreno

Who said that False Flag attack was only conspiracy theory? Try to debunk this one:

General Hugh Shelton in his new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior claims:

At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, “Of course we can …” which prompted a big smile on the official’s face.

“You can?” was the excited reply.

“Why, of course we can,” I countered. “Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go.”
The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. “I knew I should not have asked that....”

“No, you should not have,” I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.”

The worst thing is that the self proclaimed "debunkers" are going to say:"see they did not do it, they are not that bad". You are so naive!

gizmo

What is there to debunk? One US official asked a US General whether they could fly a single-seater spy plane low enough so it could be shot down. The General was disgusted at the thought of a single life being lost in such a pursuit. I'm sure it did happen and I'm sure he reacted that way.

So following on from that, you then want to believe that instead of doing just that to start a war (bearing in mind that official thought that's all it would take), they crashed three passenger planes and brought down three buildings? Really?

seannash

TMoreno wrote: »

Try to debunk this one:

Debunk what exactly

My name is URL

The thing I find interesting is that the guy obviously felt justified in suggesting it as an idea to gain support for a war in Iraq. Yes it was shot down by his superiors, but would he have even brought it up unless they were actually already looking for a reason to go to war?

bonkey

My name is URL wrote: »

but would he have even brought it up unless they were actually already looking for a reason to go to war?

Does anyone doubt that the US (or Bush, or some subset of the neocons) wanted a reason to go after Iraq?

gizmo

bonkey wrote: »

Does anyone doubt that the US (or Bush, or some subset of the neocons) wanted a reason to go after Iraq?

Probably Bush and some subset of the neocons. :pac:

robtri

i am sure it was raised, i have no doubt of that...

but i also believe that the raise a lot of other chilling and callous measures, that never happen either...

but i dont see a CT here either

My name is URL

bonkey wrote: »

Does anyone doubt that the US (or Bush, or some subset of the neocons) wanted a reason to go after Iraq?

I'd say quite a few either choose to overlook or refuse to believe that they were willing to go to great lengths to ensure they had public support for the war. Of course they needed a reason, and ultimately they created one themselves.

robtri wrote: »

i am sure it was raised, i have no doubt of that...

but i also believe that the raise a lot of other chilling and callous measures, that never happen either...

Chilling and callous measures that never happen? You don't get more chilling and callous than going to war under false pretense and costing the lives of 5,000 soldiers & 70,000 civilians.

meglome

I have little doubt that worse things have been suggested too. But I'm with gizmo here, they rejected even the loss of one American life to start a war Bush and his buddies clearly wanted. So that would suggest they would never be involved in 911. Course it doesn't prove they weren't but it is yet another reason to think they weren't.

chainsaws

I don't know what you are complaining about exactly?

Saddam was an evil psychotic dictator - put in power by the CIA - and the Americans finally got their thumb out of their backsides and instead of wussy air-strikes during the Clinton years, they realized after 9/11 when they were humilated by Al-Qaeda, America had to flex some muscle and leaving Iraq as a giant weeping running sore could not be tolerated.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but that was not the point.
Saddam symbolised everything that America had been doing wrong in the Mid East - supporting coups, backing strongmen and giving them high tech weapons in return for oil.
He had to go and the Iraqi people deserve to be free.

Today things are better - Iraq is a mess but it is slowly cleaning itself up, their is a democratic system and millions of people have their freedom and they chance to lift their country out of poverty.

A lot of blood has been shed, America has got a bloody nose from the insurgents but the Islamist nutjobs didn't win in the end.

The Iraqis can now rebuild their country and become an ally in the region the same way as Germany and Japan did after the fall of their own tyrannies.

The democracy in Iraq can have a positve effect on its neighbours.

King Mob

I think this account smells a little like bull**** as well.
Where as it's but possible and probably that such a meeting took place and the those sentiments where exchanged, I seriously doubt that the words: “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.” where actually said.

Sounds a bit like the author wanted some patriotic music welling up as they where spoken.
Maybe even an America flag fading in on the background.

PanchoVilla

Sounds remarkably like the U-2 that was shot down over Cuba when the CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff were pushing JFK into a full-scale war with Castro. Coincidence?

chainsaws

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Sounds remarkably like the U-2 that was shot down over Cuba when the CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff were pushing JFK into a full-scale war with Castro. Coincidence?

JFK, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs kept it quiet until after the stand off over Cuba was over to avoid an escalation.

PanchoVilla

chainsaws wrote: »

JFK, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs kept it quiet until after the stand off over Cuba was over to avoid an escalation.

Actually, JFK kept it quiet. The CIA and JCS wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Cuba but JFK refused and continued with his negotiations with Russia. Probably another reason why JFK was assassinated. The CIA don't like being told what they can or can't do.

chainsaws

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Actually, JFK kept it quiet. The CIA and JCS wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Cuba but JFK refused and continued with his negotiations with Russia. Probably another reason why JFK was assassinated. The CIA don't like being told what they can or can't do.

You were watching the movie Thirteen Days again weren't you?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA didn't want to fight World War 3 any more than Kennedy.
Kennedy was killed by Oswald who clipped him on his lunch break.

PanchoVilla

chainsaws wrote: »

You were watching the movie Thirteen Days again weren't you?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA didn't want to fight World War 3 any more than Kennedy.
Kennedy was killed by Oswald who clipped him on his lunch break.

This just in: war mongers don't like war. Coming up later on Faux News....

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

This just in: war mongers don't like war. Coming up later on Faux News....

Doesn't mean they were stupid enough to go head to head with the Soviet Union.

robtri

My name is URL wrote: »

Chilling and callous measures that never happen? You don't get more chilling and callous than going to war under false pretense and costing the lives of 5,000 soldiers & 70,000 civilians.

I am sure there are a lot more chilling....

nuclear bomb iraq... millions dead, and effects for generations

bio warfare....

i am sure there are a lot more chilling stuff we dont know about....

PanchoVilla

meglome wrote: »

Doesn't mean they were stupid enough to go head to head with the Soviet Union.

And yet that's exactly what they were pushing JFK to do. The U.S. military had plans already drawn out for a full-scale invasion of Cuba, they just needed the president's word to put into action. JFK decided against this and went the diplomatic route, offering to lift the naval blockade and dismantle missile sites in Turkey.

The military industrial complex, by way of the CIA and JCS, wanted nothing more than a long, drawn out war with Russia. It meant they would get all the funding they wanted and could show off their new toys. War is a business and JFK was messing with their turnover.

WakeUp

chainsaws wrote: »

I don't know what you are complaining about exactly?

Saddam was an evil psychotic dictator - put in power by the CIA - and the Americans finally got their thumb out of their backsides and instead of wussy air-strikes during the Clinton years, they realized after 9/11 when they were humilated by Al-Qaeda, America had to flex some muscle and leaving Iraq as a giant weeping running sore could not be tolerated.

What exactly is your point here? Are you saying that because of what happened on 9/11 that the US had the right to lie to the world about the mythical WMD, then bomb Iraq back to stoneage and then illegally occupy that country all in the name of " freedom"? What do you mean America had to flex some muscel what are you on about? Are you familiar with the devastating sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq imposed by the Clinton administration. Have you any idea how many innocent people died because of those sanctions.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but that was not the point.
Saddam symbolised everything that America had been doing wrong in the Mid East - supporting coups, backing strongmen and giving them high tech weapons in return for oil.
He had to go and the Iraqi people deserve to be free.

Can you elaborate a little on that please.

Today things are better - Iraq is a mess but it is slowly cleaning itself up, their is a democratic system and millions of people have their freedom and they chance to lift their country out of poverty.A lot of blood has been shed, America has got a bloody nose from the insurgents but the Islamist nutjobs didn't win in the end.

The Iraqis can now rebuild their country and become an ally in the region the same way as Germany and Japan did after the fall of their own tyrannies.

The democracy in Iraq can have a positve effect on its neighbours.

The US invasion and occupation was and will always be illegal based on lies no matter what way you care to dress it up. History will judge it this way.

robtri

and how many more civillians would have died at the hands of saddam if they had not invaded...

talk has it that he killed upwards of 2 million till america took him down

WakeUp

robtri wrote: »

and how many more civillians would have died at the hands of saddam if they had not invaded...

A lot less that have died since the invasion and the countless more that will continue to die because of the invasion. The sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration in ten years prior to the invasion killed hundreds of thousands of people the vast majority of them children.

talk has it that he killed upwards of 2 million till america took him down

Can you back that statement up?...

PanchoVilla

robtri wrote: »

and how many more civillians would have died at the hands of saddam if they had not invaded...

talk has it that he killed upwards of 2 million till america took him down

And you have evidence of this I'm sure. Yes, Saddam killed Kurds in the north after they rose up and tried to start a civil war in Iraq. That rebellion was caused by U.S. promises to the Kurds just after the Persian Gulf war.

The U.S. told the Kurds that they would help them in any struggle against Saddam but when the Kurds actually began fighting the U.S. left them all to die. Saddam did what any leader would do when their country is under attack, he killed the attackers. His methods were brutal but effective, using chemical weapons sold to him by the U.S for Iraq's war against Iran.

So, any other people that Saddam killed or is that about it?

robtri

PanchoVilla wrote: »

And you have evidence of this I'm sure. Yes, Saddam killed Kurds in the north after they rose up and tried to start a civil war in Iraq. That rebellion was caused by U.S. promises to the Kurds just after the Persian Gulf war.

The U.S. told the Kurds that they would help them in any struggle against Saddam but when the Kurds actually began fighting the U.S. left them all to die. Saddam did what any leader would do when their country is under attack, he killed the attackers. His methods were brutal but effective, using chemical weapons sold to him by the U.S for Iraq's war against Iran.

So, any other people that Saddam killed or is that about it?

saddam still killed them, and there is a lot more than the kurds....
saddam still ordered their execution

robtri

WakeUp wrote: »

A lot less that have died since the invasion and the countless more that will continue to die because of the invasion. The sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration in ten years prior to the invasion killed hundreds of thousands of people the vast majority of them children.

Can you back that statement up?...

nope that why i said talk has it... not its a fact...

can you back up your statement that shows that clintons sanctions directly killed hundreds of thousands

fontanalis

PanchoVilla wrote: »

And you have evidence of this I'm sure. Yes, Saddam killed Kurds in the north after they rose up and tried to start a civil war in Iraq. That rebellion was caused by U.S. promises to the Kurds just after the Persian Gulf war.

The U.S. told the Kurds that they would help them in any struggle against Saddam but when the Kurds actually began fighting the U.S. left them all to die. Saddam did what any leader would do when their country is under attack, he killed the attackers. His methods were brutal but effective, using chemical weapons sold to him by the U.S for Iraq's war against Iran.

So, any other people that Saddam killed or is that about it?

Saddam Hussein was a psychotic street thug with a Saldin complex, he killed anyone he seen as a threat. I disagreed with the Iraq war but this whole idea of pass the blame to the US and other nonsense spouted by some anti war people is why I'd never be seen dead at an anti war rally.

PanchoVilla

fontanalis wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was a psychotic street thug with a Saldin complex, he killed anyone he seen as a threat. I disagreed with the Iraq war but this whole idea of pass the blame to the US and other nonsense spouted by some anti war people is why I'd never be seen dead at an anti war rally.

Funny how the U.S had no real problem with Saddam until he started selling his oil for euros instead of dollars back in 2000. Only then was he deemed a ruthless dictator that had to be removed at all cost.

Also funny how we heard no mention of Iraq's national oil wells being auctioned off to the multinationals during the Copenhagen debacle.

fontanalis

I'm not talking about US double standards, that was well publicised in the lead up to the war. It's like the Cuba/Castro threads, it turns into "but, but America"

robtri

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Funny how the U.S had no real problem with Saddam until he started selling his oil for euros instead of dollars back in 2000. Only then was he deemed a ruthless dictator that had to be removed at all cost.

Also funny how we heard no mention of Iraq's national oil wells being auctioned off to the multinationals during the Copenhagen debacle.

and funny how u forget all the people he killed.....

PanchoVilla

robtri wrote: »

and funny how u forget all the people he killed.....

Like in Fallujah? Saddam kills thousands of innocent people and he's a ruthless murderer, the U.S. military kills thousands of innocent people and they're liberators. gtfo

Brown Bomber

TMoreno wrote: »

Who said that False Flag attack was only conspiracy theory? Try to debunk this one:

General Hugh Shelton in his new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior claims:

At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, “Of course we can …” which prompted a big smile on the official’s face.

“You can?” was the excited reply.

“Why, of course we can,” I countered. “Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go.”
The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. “I knew I should not have asked that....”

“No, you should not have,” I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.”

The worst thing is that the self proclaimed "debunkers" are going to say:"see they did not do it, they are not that bad". You are so naive!

Apparenytly it was Madeleine Albright

Readers aren't told explicitly who had this particular brainstorm, but Shelton gives you some clues. The breakfasts, he says, were attended by NSA Sandy Berger, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, CIA Director George Tenet, Vice President Chief of Staff Leon Firth, and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson. If you eliminate Berger, Cohen, Tenet, and Richardson and look at the Cabinet members that remain, you're sort of left where Elliott is: with Madeleine Albright.


Of course, as Jonathan Schwarz points out, this would hardly be the first or only time this sort of plan was discussed. Here's a New York Times article from 2006 on the build up to the 2003 Bush-led invasion of Iraq:
During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, [Bush] made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser...

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/hugh-shelton-book-clinton-iraq-war-albright_n_764403.html