Skip to comments.
FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE...
DRUDGE ^
| 3/19/04
| Drudge
Posted on 03/19/2004 3:13:02 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Edited on 03/19/2004 5:25:30 PM PST by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 181-199 next last
To: browsin
Thank you, some good info you wrote.
However, there is (at least unclassified), only one 'how-to-pilot-Boeings-but-not-land-them' training camp on the planet, in Iraq, and there has been only one country where Boeings were not landed (yet didn't hit ground or sea), the US.
You must forgive me if I leap to conclusions and connect irrelevant dots.
121
posted on
03/19/2004 4:57:00 PM PST
by
txhurl
To: RetiredArmy
Why after over two years is this fool just now coming out with this tale? He's probably writing a book, or has already written one. Looking for publicity. This is just my hunch as someone who follows publishing deals all the time.
MM
To: optik_b
Why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, Osama is a Saudi and the funding for the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists was coming out of Saudi Arabia? Because that would be like going after the Lincoln government in Washington in retaliation for a terror-attack coming from General Lee. "Al Qaeda" is the rebel army from Saudi Arabia. This is a Saudi civil war. Does "Al Qaeda" have their moles, sympathizers, etc within the Saudi, uh, extended family? Why, yes they do. So of course you're right that "Al Qaeda" is connected to elements of the "Saudi" megafamily. But at least some of that is just protection money, because on the other hand, "Al Qaeda" are the sworn enemies of the "corrupt, worldly" Saudi leadership. Why do you think they wanted our troops (who were protecting that Saudi leadership) out of there?
The Saudis are bad and "Al Qaeda" is worse. I don't really want anyone to "win" that civil war but I certainly don't want "Al Qaeda" to win it and take over Araby. The worst thing we could have done would have been to say "well in response to this, let's decapitate the Saudi government". We may as well shoot ourselves in the foot. The fact that Arabia supplies such a large fraction of oil is, indeed, a huge factor here.
A better approach would have been to fight against "Al Qaeda" overtly, and blunt their immediate power and sanctuaries in Afghanistan, while at the same time quietly taking steps to back away from the Saudis. But of course we couldn't even start to do that with Hussein in power in Iraq, because we needed our military in Arabia to "contain" him. So all things considered, after destroying "Al Qaeda"'s home bases, we would have had to oust Hussein, then remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, then get the oil flowing from Iraq so we're no longer reliant on the warped Saudis.....
Hey wait a minute, this all sounds suspiciously like what we ARE doing, doesn't it? Stay tuned.
To: leadpenny
Begala: Clinton scum!
To: Tumbleweed_Connection; Mrs Zip; BOBWADE
This clown is a Paul Oneill (sp?} wannabe. He was dumped by the Bush administration and is bitter. Check his Klintoon background. Plus, he was a laughing stock of the RR admin. No credibility.
The main (I should say ONLY) reason for this clymer to come out now is to boost his book and give 60 minutes an antiBush moment for the week.
125
posted on
03/19/2004 5:00:25 PM PST
by
zip
To: roses of sharon
I was surprised to see more than a few guys angerly say, "let's go to Afganastan", and "lets get Saddam", stuff like that. There were way more than a few. I was directly across the river and there was not a single word of dissent to be heard. Many were silent, but all who said anything, were out for blood. Too many of those same people today need reminding of what is going on, and what is at stake.
126
posted on
03/19/2004 5:01:23 PM PST
by
StriperSniper
(Manuel Miranda - Whistleblower)
To: DEFCON 1
That is just what I thought after reading that and that he has a book for sale and 60 min. just gave him free advertisingExactly my thoughts.
127
posted on
03/19/2004 5:02:33 PM PST
by
zip
To: mass55th
I wonder what other holdovers are going to trash W just before the election. Shoulda done a better job of cleaning house when he got there.
128
posted on
03/19/2004 5:02:59 PM PST
by
Aria
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Seems that Rumsfeld had info on Iraqi ties to AQ well before the 9/11 attacks.
129
posted on
03/19/2004 5:03:21 PM PST
by
thoughtomator
("When I use a word," Humpty F. Kerry said, in rather a scornful tone...)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Bob Woodward covered all this over a year ago in his book "Bush at War". Iraq was put on the target list about 4 hours after the attacks. Bush told Woodward that he realized that this was going to be war, and that it would extend to multiple targets. Their (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Powell, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs) big issue was who to hit back first. No surprises here, other than Clark trying to sell a book and 60 minutes attacking the President.
130
posted on
03/19/2004 5:03:28 PM PST
by
bootyist-monk
(5, 4, 3, 2, 1! Thunderbirds are go!)
To: optik_b
Why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, Osama is a Saudi and the funding for the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists was coming out of Saudi Arabia?You are close to the strategic reason for Iraq. We need both a foothold and a source of oil before confronting Saudi Arabia. with the proper shift in the balance of power thru control of Iraq, we can manipulate Saudi Arabia.
To: leadpenny
Everyone knew Saddam had terrorist training camps and was paying suicide bombers. Someone needs to remind everyone.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
bttt
133
posted on
03/19/2004 5:08:02 PM PST
by
hattend
To: Rutles4Ever
What the -- this is what angers me about the White House -- not only do they have Mary Matalin running around (Hello -- she's MARRIED to Carville!), they absolutely failed to vet guys like O'Neil and Clarke before putting them into important positions. Grrrrr.... Give someone enough rope and this is what happens
I have been saying since day one that President Bush needs to clean out State and DOJ or face backstabbing as a daily occurrence.I guess I should have added "and other klintoon political appointees". It always comes back to haunt you.
134
posted on
03/19/2004 5:08:52 PM PST
by
zip
To: StriperSniper
Yes, and too many in the US know nothing about the first Gulf war, (at a gathering last week I was told that we LOST the first Gulf war, and Bush was avenging his father!)
This woman was educated and in her mid-30's. Sad, she knew nothing of Saddam's surrender, the UN's insistance that we not go to Baghdad, and and history of the Middle East and the Islamic cults free reign there for the last 25 years.
After laughing my ass off, I calmly gave her a history lesson.
With our elite liberal media, we have ALOT of work to do.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 "
Hasn't this been shown to be false. The whole article is moot.
136
posted on
03/19/2004 5:12:32 PM PST
by
lawdude
(Liberalism: A failure every time it is tried!)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
This is not news to me. Not only that, but it doesn't disturb me in the least. Is it supposed to?
137
posted on
03/19/2004 5:17:58 PM PST
by
Paradox
(I really have no clue, I just like the sound of my typing.)
To: VRWC_minion
I'll bet there is world-wide human intell recruitment going on in Iraq & Afganistan right now, which jumps us ahead of the 5 years they said it would take after 9/11. We should be able to hear if a cultist is planning WMD strike now.
(And a small hope I have), I am praying that the Iraqi children in Iraq and Afganastan will remember the kindness of our soldiers, and someday trust the US, and not grow up wanting to kill us.
Or at least have the knowledge to question their elders when they hear hateful, violent and suicidal speeches.
To: cwb
" Did we even know that AQ was responsible the day after 9/11?"
Chris Matthews is still not sure. This is what he said last night :
" Al Queda was behind 9/11-apparently."
To: lawdude
Obviously the media doesn't feel the need to cover their asse's by explaining that not only was it a year later that Bush took office but changes don't get made immediately. Instead Bush is blamed for Clinton's problems once again.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 181-199 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson