Truly not concerned about Bin Laden, y’all. Not two years after, not even months before then.
Truly not concerned about Bin Laden, y’all. Not two years after, not even months before then.
Posted in full without comment:
Now, 11 years later, new details of the attack on the World Trade Center continue to emerge from the government’s vault of classified documents and the journalists who’ve gained access. This year, the reporter with the jaw-dropping scoop is Kurt Eichenwald, a former Timesman and present contributing editor at Vanity Fair. After reading more than one tweet with the simple instructions “Read this,” we clicked on the link to Eichenwald’s powerful op-ed, due to be published in The New York Times on September 11. In it, Eichenwald goes into teeth-grinding detail about how the Bush administration had even more advance notice about Osama Bin Laden’s attack than we previously realized. You should read it, too.
With the infamous August 6 White House briefing as a focal point, Eichenwald walks through the months and years of warnings leading up to the September 11 attacks. Some of these are events and reports that remain classified, but Eichenwald says he’s “read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed.”
Again, we already knew that Bush had some advance warning. We just didn’t realize how much. This passage from Eichenwalds piece reads like a nightmare:
An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
That was in June of 2001. Three months later, the White House didn’t have the luxury of avoiding reports about Bin Laden any more.
Out of Romney’s 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it’s likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity — a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous. — The Romney-Cheney Doctrine
via Andrew Sullivan:
[...] A 2010 study from Iraq found that “42 sites that are contaminated with high levels of radiation and dioxins—residue, the study claims, from three decades of war.” Kelley Beaucar Vlahos reports that there could be hundreds of other similar locations:
The pollution of Basra dates back to at least 1982, when Operation Ramadan, the biggest land battle of the Iran-Iraq war—in which the U.S. was supplying Saddam Hussein with billions of dollars worth of weapons, training, and support—shook the desert. In the 20 years since the first Gulf War, Basra has seen a marked increase in childhood illnesses. According to researchers at the University of Washington School of Public Health, the rate of childhood leukemia more than doubled in Basra between 1993 and 2007.
Since 2003, “congenital malformations” have been recorded in 15 percent of all births in Fallujah. The worldwide average for major birth defects is 6 percent.
(Photo: Zahra Muhammad, age 4, who suffers from a birth defect, is held by her father on November 12, 2009 in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Birth defects have soared in the city, which was the site of two major battles between the U.S military and insurgents after the invasion of Iraq. By Muhannad Fala’ah/Getty Images)
Ugh — good thing we HAD to start the Iraq war to get all Saddam’s WMDs! Pro-lifers, what say you?
There is only one reality show I’m interested in watching and I’ll never see it: Bush and Blair (and their administrations) on trial at the Hague:
A top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq’s weapons programme was drawn up “to make the case for war”, flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister’s chief spin doctor.
In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie said: “We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care.”
[...] “We could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to WMD [weapons of mass destruction], generally concluding that they must have been dismantled, buried or taken abroad. There has probably never been a greater detailed scrutiny of every piece of ground in any country.”
[...] Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein “remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies”.
Think Progress: [J]ust six months after 9/11, Bush suggested in a press conference that Bin Laden was not a top priority for his administration. Asked whether Bush thought capturing Bin Laden was important, Bush scolded those who cared about Bin Laden for not “understand[ing] the scope of the mission” because Bin Laden was just “one person,” whom Bush said, “I really just don’t spend that much time on“:
Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.
Soon after the 9-11 attacks, Bush said “I want justice. There’s an old poster out west, as I recall, that said ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” This video also shows a clip in 2009, when Larry King asked Bush if we ever came close to bin Laden. Bush says, “I don’t know. I’m not trying to hide anything.” Watch:
Yet, somehow, the RWNJs really want to give Bush credit for bin Laden’s killing…
Related: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.” — Barack Obama, 2008 debate
Wait, I thought we killed the guy who ordered 9/11 years ago — Saddam Hussein?—
Greg Mitchell (@GregMitch) May 02, 2011
But remember… they hate us for our freedom.
History will NOT be rewritten:
Bush Iraq War Speech, March 19, 2003 — WATCH:
Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11 — WATCH:
“I was a dissenting voice. I didn’t want to use force,” Bush said. “I mean force is the last option for a President. And I think it’s clear in the book that I gave diplomacy every chance to work. And I will also tell you the world’s better off without Saddam in power. And so are 25 million Iraqis.”
Bush went on to say that he still feels like going to war was the right decision. And as he wrote in the book, “No one was more sickened or angry than I was when we didn’t find weapons of mass destruction.”
Right-wing media figures have seized on a Wired article about the classified Iraq war documents recently released by WikiLeaks.com to desperately claim ‘Bush was right’ that Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In fact, the Wired article reported the documents did not ‘reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime,’ but rather remnants of the stockpiles largely destroyed during the Gulf War.
Of course, Fox News viewers will have all the facts:
This news will undoubtedly be completely ignored by the mainstream media — unfortunately, we’ll never see or hear any of this on a network news broadcast. Is the MSM always protective of Bush and the GOP in general? Or is it shame, that they did such a shitty job of researching the WMD lies prior to the Iraq invasion? Maybe it’s both.
[...] with the help of a Freedom of Information Act request, the National Security Archive has obtained a newly declassified document that details talking points that emerged from a meeting between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and CENTCOM Commander General Tommy Franks in November 2001.
The talking points mainly revolve around the logistical planning for a war in Iraq. They detail the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government by U.S. forces and make regime change the goal. Interestingly, they already mention U.S. forces “coming out of Afghanistan” to join the invasion of Iraq. Yet the most alarming part of the document is a bullet point titled, “How start?” (which is a discussion that actually appears after the planning of the entire war). The participants in the Rumsfeld-Frank meeting discussed possible ways to provoke a conflict with Iraq, including an attack by Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish north, the U.S. discovering a “Saddam connection” to 9/11 or the anthrax attacks, or a dispute over WMD inspections. It appears from the language of the talking points that the Bush administration had already decided to go to war with Iraq and was looking for an opportunity to invade:
Another document obtained by the National Security Archive shows that the Bush State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research created an assessment of international support for a war against Iraq in December 2001. It noted that the “UK’s Blair would publicly support a US decision to bomb Iraq but would face considerable criticism.” It worried that going to war in Iraq could “bring radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority whom opposed the September 11 attacks but are increasingly restive about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign.” These fears appear to have been prescient, as in July 2005 British Muslim extremists apparently radicalized by the war in Iraq detonated bombs throughout London.
When columnist Robert Novak unveiled Valerie Plame as a CIA undercover operative in his syndicated column in 2003, Plame reportedly confessed to a friend, “I didn’t plan for this day.” …
In Fair Game, director Doug Liman bravely tackles the now well-known story of how Plame’s husband, former career diplomat Joseph Wilson, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times accusing President George W. Bush of knowingly lying in his State of the Union address about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and how, in return, White House officials leaked Plame’s true identity to the media. As MSNBC’s Chris Matthews reportedly told Wilson, Karl Rove declared, “Wilson’s wife is fair game.” …continued
Some highlights from the following timelines:
JAN – MAR 2003: