So it turns out Bush was talking about invading Iraq before 9/11
Shane June 22nd, 2008
I have heard this for… probably a year or so, but had never read or seen a video that was a reputable source.
Well I found one.
Bush’s Secretary of The Treasury Paul O’Neill has stated that ten days - TEN DAYS after Bush was inaugurated into office, in his first National Security Council Meeting, Bush wanted to know how they could get into Iraq. The video shows a memo (apparently from Jan 31st 2001) that talks about a ‘plan for post Saddam Iraq’.
Awhile ago I had posted about how Saddam had started selling oil in Euros in November 2000, just a few months before Bush was inaugurated.
Watch the video. It is from 2004, it needs to be aired again on TV, now that people are paying more attention and not caught up so much in the 9/11 patriotic zeal.
Also interesting at the end of the video - a quote from Scott McClellan, backing the president.
Just to toss this in, here is another video, of a former CIA case officer, saying the evidence points to 9/11 being an inside job.
- Politics
- Comments(2)
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-con organisation which included such people as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, was arguing for the invasion of Iraq as early as January 1998. The PNAC defence policy document published in 2000, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’ contains the passage:
“while the unresolved conflict in 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”
While the PNAC website has recently closed down, the relevant documents can still be found in the internet archives, or if you can’t be bothered, Wikipedia has an article about PNAC which contains all the juiciest quotes from Rebuilding America’s Defences. Another notable passage is:
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”
About six months before 9/11, Richard Perle (another neo-con) wrote an article published in the (London) Guardian, titled ‘What we need is a new Pearl Harbour’.
So was 9/11 an inside job? Definitely! but beware, much of the internet material contains misinformation from cranks, crazies, establishment infiltrators seeking to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and also innocent well-meaning types who are just sloppy about their facts. Names that you can trust incude David Ray Griffin, Mike Ruppert and Barry Zwicker. Good video’s include :- 9/11 revisited and (Barry Zwicker’s) Conspiracy. Loose Change, 9/11 mysteries and (Alex Jones’s) Terrorstorm are all OK but are sloppy about detail and/or indulge in pure speculation. There is a very good short clip by MIT engineer Jeff King (also included in 9/11 revisited) for people with a scientific orientation but limited patience.
I can guess that I will be called all sorts of things for making this post but I can argue my corner. Ultimately, name-calling is the only argument that the neo-cons and their apologists have got, all the real evidence is on my side.
I’d definitely go with that, it’s such a scam and so many people have been fooled.